PREMIER NOTLEY - FRAUD
ANATOMY OF A JUDICIAL SCAM as abetted by AB Premier Rachel Notley
BY: Roger Callow aka 'outlaw' employeescasecanada.ca 2019 PREMIER NOTLEY-FRAUD sub-heading
1) I am sure that Premier Notley has forgotten her cupidity in the Employee's Case dating from 2016 to early 2017. In brief, she is guilty of the very charge of hypocrisy to this litigant as she accuses the Federal Government in the treatment of herself. Following are revelations which are currently duplicated in Edmonton Queen's Bench Courts in 2019 now on the basis of (civil) fraud and receiving the same contumely. A B.C. Chief Justice has been added to that charge due to the direct failure of B.C. A.G. David Edy to act against Hinckson cj. (SEE web: 2018 Hinckson-fraud)
a) Originating Application - Plaintiff's factum of JUNE 21 2016 - 3 pages
b) Letter to Edmonton Registry (Susan Logan) SEPTEMBER 28-2016 - 1 page requesting revisions which were made.
c) Statement of Claim - AB Resubmission JANUARY 2017 - 2 pages
d) Letter to Edmonton Registry - JANUARY 11-2017 Plaintiff seeking file number. No response.
MARCH 05-2017 WHY HAVE I NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THIS FILING? cc Premier Notley
Nothing further transpired from either the court or Premier Notley.
cc 12 pages plus this one to Premier Notley
e) Notice of Civil Fraud - Plaintiff's factum of FEBRUARY 4-2019 (SEE web: ALBERTA FRAUD...)
f) CORRESPONDENCE #2 of February 4-2019 with copy to Edmonton Courts - 2 pages
g) Letter to WVST/WVTA of February 11- 2019 with copy to Moe/Notley/PMO - 2 pages
h) Letter of February 16-2019 to Premiers Moe/Notley - 1 page
i) CORRESPONDENCE #3 Of February 18-2019 to Notley cc Ed. Courts & PMO - 2 pages
j) Letter to Premier Notley from Plaintiff of February 27-2019 cc Ed. Courts - 1 page
k) Phone call from 'Carla' of Edm. Registry March 11 requesting inclusion of a 'Statement of Claim' to be completed by the end of the day otherwise the filed material would be returned. I complied with a 4 page document (revised March 12-2019) SEE ADDENDUM at end of this web site in which all materials plus fee are being returned.
ADDENDUM: The current appeal is for Special Counsel experienced in constitutional matters and the charge of fraud which includes a judge along with providing disclosure which underlies all three topics. In the event that a justice is 'dragged off traffic court for the purpose', the one hour teleconferencing will be devoted solely to disclosure and will be over in 5 minutes if the Defendants do not put in an appearance which seems to characterize their recent actions in other venues.
September 28, 2016
Susan Logan - Manager
Court of Queen's Bench
1A Sir W.Churchill Square
Edmonton, AB T5J 0R2
1) I have received my returned factums plus fee from the court for revision.
2) As I did not hear back from you in a fax dated September 11-2016 regarding these proposed revisions which I have made, I trust that the returned copies plus fee by Registered Mail have met the needs of the courts so that now a docket number may be assigned.
3) In the event of further Registry challenges, please consult first and directly with Premier Ratchel Notley whom is being kept fully apprised of developments in this legal case.
Thank-you for your co-operation
e-mail: the firstname.lastname@example.org
cc Premier R. Notley / P.M. Trudeau
c) STATEMENT OF CLAIM - AB Resubmission (January, 2017)
1) Anatomy of a government conspiracy. First invoke imposed legislation. Second appoint a highly partisan adjudicator or arbitrator and ignore any court oversight proceedings on the grounds that the imposed legislation is final and binding. The process may be used against such employees as former senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher, Roger Callow, laid off under the imposed BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) in June of 1985 or it can be used against provinces such as SK with the imposed carbon tax or against the nation in terms of privatizing such as Ontario Hydro or the Airports and Harbour facilities. In brief, it is dictatorship and what commenced in 1985 in B.C. in one lay-off case is now running rampant across the land due to the failure of Canada's courts to deal effectively with the Employee's Case.
2) Hence the constitutional question raised here regarding the relationship between the government and the courts is the single most important question in the operation of Canadian democracy today.
3) The failure of over 50 judges in myriad courts across the land including four failed attempts to gain a hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada in an unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid, robs the Canadian court structure of any credibility it possesses as an institution.
4) Extending that story and it is not too difficult to see that the moribund courts no longer have a purpose in our society except in matters of fraud. That this plaintiff has spent over 30 years in his unsuccessful search for disclosure to prove fraud states legions about the backroom operation of our justice system.
Application of imposed legislation in the Employees Case (Canada)
5) In an eleven day highly partisan arbitration favouring the Employer, the Union rebuttal was reduced to a half hour stating that B.C.'s BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) dealing with teacher lay-off for economic reasons was 'in addition to' the School Act and did not displace any part of it; a position the courts supported.
6) Hence this constitutional question follows: What is the status of court oversight in imposed legislation where that legislation does not state that it is displacing any part of statute law?
7) The Employer maintains that as the arbitration is final and binding, the courts which quashed this arbitration had no basis in law.
8) Be that as it may, even BILL 35 allowed for compensation which has not been addressed largely due to the bloody mindedness of the courts of law.
9) To date, this Plaintiff has been unsuccessful in obtaining disclosure which most certainly would illustrate fraud on the part of the conspirators of which the Employer is a central figure.
10) One attempt to get this question of national importance was obviated by the Ratchel Notley government accounting for this re-submission.
ACTION CALLED FOR
11) For the Court to order the Respondent Employer to produce disclosure; namely, the minute notes of the Board meetings in June of 1985 where BILL 35 and the Callow matter were discussed extensively. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin whom quashed the arbitration ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable had called for those memo notes only to return them later 'because she did not use them'. It is submitted here that she covered up a mammoth government conspiracy and all subsequent court hearings 'covered up the cover-up' to a degree and extent where Canada is bereft of a credible justice system.
From that disclosure, this court is better able to define the constitutional question as it applies to the Employee's Case.
TO: Court of Queen's Bench FROM: Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff
Edmonton, AB 1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
fax: 780-422-9742 tel/fax: 613-521-1739
On December 27-2016, I sent a 22 page Action c/w Statement of Claim by fax at the above fax number seeking a docket number so that I could pay the court fee, preferably by Mastercard although a bank draft can be arranged if necessary.
Please advise as to the status of this filing.
March 05-2017 WHY HAVE I NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THIS FILING?
cc Premier Notley
f) CORRESPONDENCE #2 - Feb. 04-2019
TO: Premier Notley / Opp. politicians; Ric McIver / Brian Jean / Jason Kenney /
Edmonton Journal / Calgary Herald cc SCofC Hon. A. Karakatsanis / RCMP
FROM: 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System guilty of systematic judicial malfeasance; a 30 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid. (Roger Callow)
Surely the plight of the unemployed in AB deserve proper judicial treatment in AB courts of law which they are not receiving if the Employee's Case is any example.
What are the above named functionaries prepared to do to publicize a matter of national importance as employees across Canada are negatively impacted by the silence of the authorities in this legal matter?
cc NEWSLETTER CORRUPTOCRACY OCTOBER 01-2016
' J'Accuse' (Émile Zola - The Dreyfus Case 1898)
TO: Premier Notley cc Edmonton Courts
FROM: Roger Callow employeescasecanada.ca t/f: 613-521-1739
1) Included with this 20 page factum to the Edmonton Courts plus court fee is a request to you as Premier to appoint 'special counsel' for reasons enunciated therein due to the highly unusual circumstances of this unresolved legal case.
2) To avoid 'toing and froing' of documents between the court and myself, the court is asked to arrange with me by telephone as to what measures they wish me to take in order to make this factum court read(do not merely return factum)
3) All non-B.C. courts to date drop the jurisdiction question when they realize that such action forces them to concede that this labour case remains unresolved with no compensation having been paid for 34 years (now includes pension rights). Further, through the legal process known as 'referencing'; the court may turn a legal matter to another province defining, of course, how that province could conduct itself on the matter. It is a question of basic justice.
4) The action is now one of civil fraud in which there is no time limitation. It also eliminates the court's role in diminishing this legal case to one of a 'personal matter' in which the plaintiff is merely being 'frivolous and vexatious on matters already decided' without specifying which matters and how they have been settled.
5) The Defendants will be notified once a file number has been assigned. It is to be noted that they did not put in an appearance in B.C. before Chief Justice Hinckson in 2018 under similar circumstances. In law, under these circumstances, the Plaintiff's case must be accepted 'as fact'; namely, that a conspiracy exists between the Defendants and unknown others to deprive this plaintiff of his rightful compensation in a labour matter dating back 34 years. The default payment is for $20 million which includes the Defendant's interest plus judges accused of malfeasance. It does not include individual law firms which might think of coming after me after any settlement for fees. On that note, I have never received an invoice for fees allotted to Defendant Counsel with the West Vancouver School Trustees not answering the question as to whether they paid them. The right wing tabloid, The North Shore News, refuses to investigate.
6) One unintended consequence of this case is the eradication of School Boards which, as Premier, you earlier stated that you are committed to protect. For example, Nova Scotia, unwilling to see any provincial School Board sued for $20 million due to a whacko School Board such as the West Vancouver Trustees, eliminated them after my constitutional challenge there.
Yours truly, Roger Callow (Plaintiff)
h) Letter to Premiers Moe & Notley
TO: Premiers Moe and Notley via fax: SK: 306-787-0885 / AB: 780-427-1349
FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019 / Edmonton - in revision
1285 Cahill Drive E #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7 t./f. 613-521-1739 e-mail: email@example.com
1) The national phase for publication of this 34 year unresolved B.C. labour case in which senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, was laid off in June of 1985, the sole teacher laid off under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35, was finalized by the end of 1918 by me. No compensation has been paid.
2) The international phase will be completed by the end of February. Following from a draft copy to be published on March 01-2019, are two salient sections applicable to the above two court sessions:
(3) Would public revelation of this case lead to the demise of the Liberal Party in the October Federal election? Coming on top of the former Minister of Justice caper with A.G. Jody Raybould-Wilson; most assuredly. The Tories have to decide. Either publicize the Employee's Case now or in the event of election success, face the entire gamut of lies from the Employee's Case on the selfsame day that they take their oath of Office. Lose the election without this revelation and they lose...everything....
(4) The failure of 'Tory' Saskatchewan Premier 'Hayseed' Moe, to call for Special Counsel in the Saskatoon version of this case where SK is fighting for its life against the imposed Carbon Tax within the context of the Employee's Case looming large with its imposed BILL 35 as a game changer, was thrown away by him. In this scenario, the federal Liberals need a knock-out punch in SK to maximize their election message in October. In this regard, two decades ago, columnist Dave Brown claimed that the legal fraternity is the country's 'strongest union'. In brief, a fifth column has mounted a weak case in SK as the judiciary 'hang together'. Exposing this perfidy would require a Premier to appoint Special Counsel to the Employee's Case. Is Alberta Premier Notley up to the challenge considering the apparent failure of Moe?
3) The Edmonton Court plaintiff factum is currently being revised (Insert FORM 10) in order to be more compliant with Registrar requirements. Hopefully, we can avoid the type of 'running a court within a court' which I have experienced a number of times including the Saskatoon Registry.
Yours truly, Roger Callow
TO: Premier Notley by fax: 780-427-1349 2 pages
FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff employeescasecanada.ca
t/f:613-521-1739 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
cc Registrar Court of Queen's Bench / Law Courts Building
1A Sir Winston Churchill Square / Edmonton, AB T5J OR2
t: 780-422-2437 f: 780-422-9742 sent by fax
cc PMO with reference to A.G. Lametti sent by fax
1) I am in receipt of a returned Action which I attempted to file plus filing fee with the above listed court on Friday, February 15-2019 with the enclosed signed note from clerk 'Shelagr'. It reads:
-Please note - All forms are in improper format, including Examples
-Complete, forms or go to create forms & resubmit
2) The basic problem is with the outdated forms whether on the Internet or the (same ones) provided by this clerk. I have sought to have legal printers Durham & Dye update and standardize all civil forms for Canada; a request no doubt sitting in someone's wastebasket.
These dated forms, for example, do not include the role of teleconferencing which I have been using successfuly for many years now across Canada. I request that inclusion in this Edmonton phase of my unresolved B.C. Labour Case wherein as a senior teacher I was laid off under the imposed BILL 35 (1985). No compensation has ever been paid.
3) I have dealt with many Registries and the best answer that I have had is the one window clerk whom told me: 'Think of these forms as a suggestion' which I do seeking the advice of experienced clerks to make the forms court ready. For example in the above, the clerk should never have returned this file without the oversight of the Registrar. I had the exact same problem in Saskatoon (see internet) before a file number was assigned.
4) The clerk here has divided my factum into three sections with inclusive blank forms:
a) Addition of Form 7 Rule 3.8 to my Form 49 which are appended to my factum pp1-3
b) Addition of Form 10 Rule 3.25 (Statement of Claim) which is appended to my factum clerly marked STATEMENT OF CLAIM although the rule is note stated. Clearly this request is redundant but if the addition of the wording quoting Form 10 alongside STATEMENT OF CLAIM on p.16 makes the factum court ready, I can oblige.
c) Addition of Form 49 Rule 13.19 (Affidavit) illustrates how anachronistic are these forms as they demand a sworn oath in the court and do not make allowance for any distance for a petitioner. This appears to be nothing more than a 'billable time' exercise to enrich the coffers of local lawyers and hence is completely unnecessary. My signed sworn affidavit has sufficed in many other courts in Canada. Why not Alberta? This Section includes my entire Argument from pp.04-15 including a signed AFFIDAVIT by this plaintiff attesting to an 8-point AFFIDAVIT (FACTS) on pp 04-05. While recognizing the case loads of judge force an economy of presentation; nonetheless, I have been led to believe that many judges - and I can attest to that experience many times over - read no further than the opening claim. Unfortunately, that approach explains why some judges find themselves included in my Fraud Actions for malfeasance, which is the case here in Edmonton. pp.05-08 details the legal settlement of my issue by Ottawa lawyer, Paul Conlin approximately 20 years ago. That claim is still valid today if the Defendants do not wish to settle out of court for $20 million. To date there is no suggestion that they will make an appearance consistent with recent absences. As such, the court is bound to accept my assertions as fact; namely, that the two Defendants conspired in a 'sweetheart deal' abetted by the courts of law to deprive this plaintiff of his career including compensation rights. That now includes pension rights for 12 years as the Employer failed to acknowledge my retirement. In effect, I am still employed by them awaiting 'deferred salary'. pp 09-10 Two contemporary newspaper articles from September 1986 dealing with the apparent intransigence of the Employer in face of Union and Court re-instatement requests. pp 11-15 contains the crisis mode of this case and is instrumental should the presiding Justice be Special Counsel with the added burden of deciding on the judicial malfeasance of B.C. Chief Justice Hinckson (SEE web; 2018 HINCKSON cj-FRAUD sub-heading, Without that appointment which neither the court nor the Office of Premier Notley has informed me, the slated one hour hearing will be devoted to disclosure.
Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada Appeal
(This Appeal denied in June/04 - explains why the Canadian Justice System imploded)
This preamble makes an unusual request regarding habeas corpus....
5) Presumably, the Court held on to a second copy of the factum compliant with obtaining a file number. At that time, I will return the fee cheque to the court and notify the Defendants.
6) The matter of Special Counsel should be established with Premier Notley immediately plus any other irregularities which may pop up.
Yours truly, Roger Callow (signed) Plaintiff
TO: 1) Premier Notley via fax: 780-427-1349 1 page
2) Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta - Edmonton
tel: 1-855-738-4747 fax: 780-422-9742 sent by fax
FROM: Roger Callow t/f: 613-521-1739 (Ottawa) e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com
1) Presumably the revisions that I have made to a civil charge comply with the Registry demands.
2) If I do not hear from either the government or court by telephone today or tomorrow, I will re-mail the $250 fee cheque. Do not consider returning this cheque without discussing the matter first with me over the telephone.
Yours truly, Roger Callow
ADDENDUM March 12 - Received a second telephone call from the Edmonton Registry rejecting the 4-page March 12 or 13(revised) Statement of Claim. They are returning the 4 page 'Statement of Claims' with specific changes to be made along with the forms and fee by 'snail mail'.