GANG OF 40 - feb.2020 (2 pages)
(Large law related organizations in Ottawa)
BY: CallowRoger (twitter) email@example.com web: employeescasecanada.ca Sub-head.
Adelman & Baum Algonquin College Assoc. of First Nations Barnes Sammon
(f.613-237-8146) (727-4723) (241-5808) (235-7578)
Beament Green Bell Baker Bird McCuaig Russell Blake Cassells et al
(241-8555) (237-1413) (238-5955) (788-2247)
Borden Ladner et al Burke Robertson Cdn. Indust. Relations Carleton University law
(230-8842) (235-4430) (947-5407) Board (520-4467)
Cooligan Ryan CUPE Doucette McBride Edelson & Assoc.
(238-3501) (237-5508) (233-8868) (237-0071)
Fraser Milne et al --Kronik Stroud Gowling Lafleur et al Hamilton Appotive
(783-9690) (237-2920) (563-9869) (238-4085)
Hicks, Morley et al Heenan Blaike Johnson & Buchan Kelly Howard, et al
(234-0418) (236-9632) (230-6423) (233-4553)
Kimmel Victor et al LaBarge Weinstein Lang Michener Low Murchison
(238-8949) (599-0018) (231-3191) (236-7942)
Macera & Jarzyna Marusyk Miller et al McCarthy Tetrault Nelligan O'Brien et al
(235-2508) (563-7671) (563-9386) (238-2098)
Ogilvy Renault Osler, Hoskins et al City of Ottawa(legal) Ottawa Police
(230-5459) (235-2867) (560-1383) (760-8127)
Shields & Hunt Stikeman Elliott Ottawa University Law Vincent Dagenais
(230-1664) (230-8877) (562-5124) (241-2599)
TO: GANG OF 40 (Internet Sub-title) PRE-HEARING (SEE BELOW POST-HEARING)
DEATH OF THE 'INDIVIDUAL' AND WITH IT THE 1982 CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF TODAY'S MANDAMUS TRIAL IN 19-SC-155235 AT 8:30 A.M. FEB. 27-2020 1 page
BY: ROGER CALLOW victim of an 'unauthorized' movement 'sideways' from regular court to the highly questionable mandamus court where the only outcome is to be a judge's non challengeable Decision.
TO: GANG OF 40 POST-HEARING
1) For those who are attuned to bottom-line language, the Canadian Justice System has collapsed and we are no longer a nation of laws except for courts now committed to only powerful interests. That applies to the individual with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) being quashed as exemplified by the Employee's Case; group interests such as striking Ontario Teachers faced with 'our way or the highway' logic of the Doug Ford government; or the Indigenous people protesting across the country where court orders are 'pieces of paper'. The only recourse is to hit the streets but, please, no violence to people. 2004 PLACARDS:
a) STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE b) A PARADOX: THE LAW IS BROKE YET PLENTY FIXED AS IT IS
2) In December 2019, both myself and Towngate Family Medicine filed our papers in which I sought disclosure of the rest of my medical file while Towngate (where no Doctor was named) claimed that their oversight was limited to a lease agreement and therefore sought to undermine my appeal by having everything dismissed which happened on Feb. 27 under the most unusual of circumstances. In January, Towngate supported a mandamus court hearing scheduled for Feb. 27 which is not what happened on that date. For example, we both had a witness list (mine being Ottawa Police Chief P. Sloly whom did not even have the courtesy to inform me that he would not attend (slap in the face of the justice system = City Councillors should call for his resignation). The mandamus rule stated NO WITNESSES creating a major challenge to the court to define.
3) I was blindsided by the presiding justice (pj) whom I later called on to recuse herself for failing to notify me that the case had already been moved sideways once into a mandamus court with pj moving it once again into a 'settlement conference'. 'There is no such thing as a mandamus court', she sniffed which would be news to a Small Claims registry clerk who earlier claimed there was. They can't both be right. The Towngate lawyer made yet another leap to the 'settlement conference' in what I label sucking and blowing and sucking again. His witness suddenly was declared his client. Either way, I wanted her to define both the Towngate perspective of 'leasehold' and the Doctor's Partnership Agreement for which I had asked material from her prior to this meeting. Guess what? She wasn't there which didn't bother pj
in disposing of the case depriving me of the sought after disclosure of my remaining medical record which belongs to me not the doctor. Sloly refuses repeatedly to pick up that folder on my behalf. Hence the pj was not only wrong, she was wrong-headed making any Report she writes to be redundant. Pj's actions firmly established the courts inclusion with the that of the conspirators. She was in deep denial on other measures as well.
4) While not expecting this type of stunt; nonetheless, I expected some judicial stupidity and came prepared with an action against the witness which I filed immediately after court and delivered it to the clinic on the same day.
JUSTICE MACLEOD ELIMINATES DISCLOSURE FROM JUSTICE SYSTEM; A MAJOR MOVE WHICH REDUCES THE LAW TO ANARCHY AND A PLAYTHING OF THE INFLUENTIAL (a must read by all Canadians
5) A second alarming stupidity came in the mail on Feb. 27 from Mr. Justice C. MacLeod dated Feb. 20-2020 dismissing my $10 million claim against Dr. Jahagirdar for fraud. One excerpt: reads:(6) Here the plaintiff is concerned about the suspension of his driver's license when his physician apparently reported a medical concern to the Ministry of Transportation. (whitewash interpretation). He also makes allegations (a matter of fact) that his sons filed a committal action and engaged in a conspiracy. He seeks disclosure of communications and correspondence. (my underlining RC). He makes these assertions but they do not take the form of an identifiable legal claim. ( Of course not; that is the whole purpose of disclosure which MacLeod would deny). In simplest terms, a statement of claim must identify the remedy sought ($10 million for conspiracy to conduct fraud with unknown others) and the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction ( without disclosure, an a priori argument without basis). Both of these are lacking (as is MacLeod's logic).
6) The dismissal without a hearing for being frivolous and vexatious, a popular catch-phrase by the courts which wish at times to dismiss anything embarrassing to themselves is bolstered in MacLeod's account by saying cases exist in which no hearing need be called for the purpose of the above which firmly places the Justice System in the hands of the powerful and influential overseen by their overlords. No longer is the Canadian Justice System to be an equalizer of interests. That is a radical departure by MacLeod.
7) So why didn't Doug Ford with a major labour issue dependent on disclosure filed for 1-1/2 years without a court date take MacLeod's route in disposing of the case rather than turning the Justice System upside down? ANSWER: Because if a hearing is held, and only one litigant turns up; his or her assertions must be accepted as fact which is a major game changer in a case. MacLeod has resolved Ford's problem but at the expense of destroying Canadian Justice in its entirety making it a plaything of the rich and powerful. Canada is a nation no longer. Now that MacLeod has broken the legal ice forever with his 'Final Solution'; perhaps Doug Ford feels free to go down this legal rabbit bolt hole.
POST IN STAFFROOM - make message go viral on the internet
TO: GANG OF 40 (Internet Sub-title) PRE-HEARING
DEATH OF THE 'INDIVIDUAL' AND WITH IT THE 1982 CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF TODAY'S MANDAMUS TRIAL IN
19-SC-155235 AT 8:30 A.M. FEB. 27-2020 1 page
BY: ROGER CALLOW victim of an 'unauthorized' movement 'sideways' from regular court to the highly questionable mandamus court where the only outcome is to be a judge's non challengeable Decision.
1) What the father (former P.M. Pierre Trudeau) would create for individual rights with the Bill of Rights 1982, the son, P.M. Justin Trudeau would rent asunder in today's mandamus court.
2) The documentary production of the mandamus form which is not listed in the normal court rules is a mish mash. NO WITNESSES it proclaims and yet the Towngate lawyer had both himself and myself fill out a witness list taken from regular court procedure forms.
3) As plaintiff, I have a right to know the case against me and yet the center piece, Dr. Jahagirdar (Dr. J.)who insists on withholding her complete medical file from me making it impossible for me to acquire a new doctor, will not attend.(I dismissed her on November 01-2020 and have launched an action against her for fraud with unknown others but includes Franco Alulio - Deputy Minister of Transport-Medical where a second action on February 24-2020 was laid for making key alterations to the driver suspension form affecting this plaintiff).
4) As the Towngate lawyer specifically stated that he would not call Dr. J. as a witness and she ignored my attempts to do the same for my side (hostile witness), I have called on the court -considering that there is no appeal process - to set a second mandamus hearing in which she would be ordered to attend and explain her position. That is the essence of my appeal which must be answered by the presiding Justice considering that there is no appeal to her Decision.
5) My only witness was to be Ottawa Police Chief P, Sloly back-stopped by Mayor Watson whom refuses to even acknowledge my written request to attend leading to my own request in turn for the City Councillors to replace him for not being a police chief for all the people.
6) Nor has CEO Dr. Jack Kitts produced a Report on the illicit 9-day incarceration in the Emergency Ward of this victim after I had passed all my physical tests before 3 doctors on Boxing Day. That information was vital for my defense and explains why I am calling for the immediate resignation of Dr. Kitts and the Board of Governors on pain of donors withholding their 2020 hospital donations. An action also exists against the Hospital on this level.
7) The absolute nature of a mandamus court is symbolic of the end to the judiciary in Canada; at least in Ontario although considering the elements concerned, it is the final coffin nail in the Canadian Justice System and hence, our nation. The U.S., under these circumstances has every right to sanction Canada such as insisting that all legal disputes, whether diplomatic or commercial, be argued in future only in U.S. Courts. The Psychiatric Association and Physicians College-ethics are both AWOL on this most important file = institutional collapse.
8) As this is a pre-newsletter sent out just before the 8:30 A.M. hearing, keep tuned to my website employeescasecanada.ca RECENT 7feb. for a post summary.
POST IN STAFFROOM - make message go viral on internet
POSSIBLY MY LAST TESTIMONIAL
...as I may not be alive by Feb.27; the date of the mandamus court in 19-SC-155235
BY: Roger Callow 'The Last of the Good Guys'.He was an ethical man. employeescasecanada.ca
filed on web: GANG OF 40 (2 pages)
I do not even need to be there as the outcome is pre-ordained making presiding Justice Rosalind Conway either infamous or famous as this court is to be the symbol of all that Canada has become. Two scenarios are posited for Conway, the symbol of Justice Canada for all time,: A) infamy B) famous
1) Conway will be requested to state whether her appointment to the bench was as a federal or provincial judge for possible challenges to her actions.
2) In this scenario, she will not call for disclosure as that would necessitate a second meeting with the presence of Towngate Family Medicine's Dr. Anik Jahagirdar (Dr. J.) to explain why she refuses to provide me with my full medical file which is a legal right on my part.
3)The above case is built on that disclosure and for Conway to dismiss this enquiry without first knowing which key grounds for that dismissal, namely; the hidden part of Dr. J's actions robbing me of my driver's license in perpetuity without appeal with the connivance of the ON Transport Division-Medical, places an end to all justice which symbolizes what Canada has become. From that there is no recovery.
4) U.S. interests are surprisingly absent from publicizing one of Doug Ford's (ON Premier) 'Acts of Commission' similar to Nazi Germany which would have devastating repercussions in any 'car culture'. That silence can now be exploited by any nefarious source. China, for example, can now focus publicly on Canada's hypocrisy and their own cowardice as a 'paper tiger' for not dealing expeditiously with B.C. Chief Justice Hinckson (see web for his name under 2018
'fraud') for delaying the deportation of Huawei's Meng. That delay has been used to turn Canadians at large against China and Huawei of which anathema is now world-wide.
5) The above non-action has little effect by Conway unless she can twist her conclusion into barring this plaintiff from all Ontario courts; a stretch of the imagination but the authorities are desperate.
6) Such a ban would require future individual challenges to three extant actions laid by me all dependant on the same disclosure : a) Dr. J. b) The Ottawa General Hospital c) Towngate legal Counsel, Anthony Bissonnette.
7) This approach is heavily dependent on the continued national media boycott of this story which could be threatened by exposure from individual striking Ontario teachers or by the indigenous peoples both fighting against the autocratic institutions with their approach of 'either our way or the highway' common to many institutions. The internet could be a threat.
8) The terms of the mandamus court are a mish-mash and will also be challenged by me.
9) To go this route and call for disclosure in effect kicks over 50 judges beneath the bus whom have collectively argued that I have been merely frivolous and vexatious asking for a conclusion to my 35 year labour dispute which, as a former West Vancouver high school teacher laid off for economic reasons under the B.C. imposed BILL 35 (1985), has never been resolved by the court so that no compensation has been paid. You have exhausted all remedy under the law opined my lawyer in 2004 thus explaining how the Justice System imploded; corpse to follow, which it does on Feb. 27. Myriad courts have sought to keep quiet that the Employer in this case does not recognize court oversight even though they lost cases on this point in 1986. That failure is compounded by the media failure to expose the Employer's perfidy which is now reflected in the imposed carbon taxes which places an end to not only the courts but Parliament in its entirety...easier to go 'over' seems to be the spirit here unless Conway steps up to the bat for the entire country. That would make her legendary.
10) In this scenario, Dr. J. would be ordered to appear in a second hearing called for the purpose and explain her position. For example, does a letter dated October 15-2019 even exist in which she claims she called for the suspension of my driver's license? I have caught her out in other respects in her prevarication and this whole mandamus court is making itself a co-conspirator in that regard by not challenging her with this hidden medical information in my file kept from me. The Ministry of Transport-Medical could not have acted as they did with my license suspension without her approval. Surely she should welcome the opportunity to tell her story although apparently not, as she refused to appear as my witness after Mann lawyers said that they would not call her.
11) As I submit the Decision has been already written, the enquiry should be over in 5 minutes. Indeed there is no need for anyone to be there but my one witness, Police Chief Sloly, to explain why he has failed to collect the remainder of my medical file from Dr. J. which is my property. In short, there appears to be two laws here; one for influential people such as medical doctors and a second for the rest of the population.
Yours truly, Roger Callow 'Last of the Good Guys'
cc court file for Justice Rosalind Conway 19-SC-155235
Ottawa Police Chief P. Sloly / selected City Councillors
U.S. Embassy (Canada)
web: GANG OF 40
Any individual whom is prepared to make this issue go viral on the internet
The future, if I have one? Off to NB in the throes of an election where I have waiting an action against B.C. legal firm, Harris & Co. (long-time Employer representative) and 3 judges from a botched Saskatoon hearing in 2019. One of those judges is part of a civil class action in AB in which the taxpayers are expected to bail out these judicial crooks. Premier Kenney & the media are strangely quiet on this judicial debacle without equal.
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE EXISTENCE OF A MANDAMUS COURT
FEB 17-2020 2 pages
BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff 19-SC-155235 v. Towngate Family Medicine Defendant
self - represented t.613-521-1739 rep. Mann Lawyers f. 613-722-7677
rcallow770 @ gmail.com
cc. all sent by fax: SCC court / Mann lawyers / GANG OF 40 (see web)
1) On February 14-2020, I received from Mann lawyers a two page Superior Court of Justice
Notice of Settlement ostensibly from the Small Claims Court signed by clerk, Tina Larose dated Dec 16.2019 2:25PM Civil Division No. 0006 p.1 & 2. On page 2 Mann lawyers appear to have received a copy which this court mailed only to them on Dec. 16-2019 as the named recipient.
2) No clerk that I have ever known would approve a form without the full addresses of the parties concerned and proof that the said documents had been delivered but Larose obviously marches to the tune of a different drummer. Considering the many letters which I have sent or included copies to the Small Claims Court and Mann lawyers, both had to know of my objections but neither replied until the Mann notification on Feb. 14-2020.
3) The internet civil rules do not recognize the very existence of a mandamus court hence the 14 day pre-submission rule belongs to the regular court. Both litigants in the above case filed their action and response in December before the mention of any mandamus court hence the question remains: which individual authorized this bastardized 'Mandatory Settlement Conference' and why was I not immediately informed? ' Surely clerk Larose is not alone here.
4) While the case is to be heard at 161 Elgin Street, the opening court time of 8:30 A.M. is not suited to my needs as I was not consulted. Please change it to after 10:00 A.M. Notify me immediately as to this part of the request. The exceptionally early time suggests a need by someone to cover-up. Is the court establishment at large privy to the existence of a mandamus court taking place on the premises? I think not but I will inform the GANG OF 40 (see web)
5) My case depends heavily on a Report by the Ottawa General Hospital regarding circumstances surrounding my illicit 9-day incarceration in the mental ward in which Dr. Kitts has been procrastinating bringing on a multi-million dollar case against the hospital. To hold me to the 14-day pre-filing of such material is preposterous under the circumstances but if the court prefers to continue under these circumstances, they should postpone the hearing for at least one month. In brief the non-delivery by the Hospital and late delivery by Mann lawyers would preclude me from a basic right; namely to have that material which is vital to my case. Disclosure is also at stake considering Dr. Jahagirdar whom also has a multi-million dollar action against her, refuses to provide me with all my medical file; which is my property, not hers. She refuses to attend this court. The presence of Ottawa Police Chief, P. Sloly in the event that he does not reclaim my file from Dr. J., is also vital to my case as he is listed as my sole witness. Either he appears or he doesn't.
6) Under the above terms, I object to the phrase '...If you attend...and are so inadequately prepared as to frustrate the purposes of the conference, the court may award costs against you' In brief, after being 'stitched up', I am to be held financially accountable for what is perceived as court culpability. The GANG OF 40 will be crowd-sourced in such an eventuality.
7) 'The settlement conference is not a trial, so DO NOT (capitals on form) bring witnesses with you.' Then can you tell me why Mann lawyers created a witness list and requested that I do the same? This point seems to be illogical in the court's statement and diametrically opposed to the position taken by both Mann lawyers and myself.
8) CAUTION TO DEFENDANT: Why not a caution to both litigants on this level of ordering a second settlement conference which will be necessary for me to get disclosure on the basis of a court order. This perverse phrase suggests that a mandamus court is obviously anti-justice.
9) A further note suggests that the mandamus court may procrastinate for two years before throwing an action out which is exactly what Mann lawyers would desire. But how does that serve justice? It doesn't, explaining why a mandamus court is a totalitarian instrument more akin to Doug Ford's 'Acts of Commission' and Nazi Germany in 1933. Extend that thinking and one can see how a gov't. may punitively apply driver's license suspensions without recourse to any oversight institutions thus negatively impacting almost everyone living in a 'car-culture'.
10) This mandamus court derived from Britain's 'Court of Star Chambers' would not disappoint the latter in its torturous bid to defeat justice in Canada. With the absence of any U.S. public exposure, any nefarious interest may now exploit Canada's hypocrisy in claiming to be a country of 'law and order'.
I remain, Roger Callow target 'Last of the Good Guys'
Why don't sharks eat lawyers? ans. professional courtesy. All of which explains why lawyers do not sue other lawyers. As a profession, the lawyers have become downright scurrilous due to no challenges to obvious misfeasance as seen here but I digress. I am not so squeamish as I have two multi-million dollar suits against Dr. J. of Towngate Family Medicine (withholding my medical file) and Ottawa General Hospital (9-day illicit imprisonment in the mental ward) hence it is of little consequence not to pursue an action against Mann Lawyers if a) they do not immediately provide me with the Doctor's Agreement and anything else which shows that Towngate Corporate structure is not involved directly with the operation of the clinic or, b) alternatively, drop their representation of Towngate. The charge would be 'perverting the course of justice in a significant manner'. Time is very short for them to choose considering the Feb. 27 mandamus court meeting. I have enough to go on now against Mann lawyers with the mandamus court merely being 'the icing on the cake'.
CANADA - DEATH OF A NATION
BY: Roger Callow employeescasecanada.ca twitter: CallowRoger firstname.lastname@example.org
Filed Under Sub-heading: GANG OF 40 (Ottawa legal entities)
1) To be sure, the CEO's of the above outfits are trying to keep these missives away from their employees. Good luck with that one.
2) I have made much of the death of the Justice System in 2004 with the failure to bring in a judgment under ultimate remedy in an unresolved labour issue where no compensation was ever paid. In brief, the judge picked up the legal ball and went home before the game was played out. "You have exhausted all remedy under the law" opined my lawyer of the day.
3) I claimed the above loss was to be followed by the 'corpse' of the Judicial System as symbolized by the secretive mandamus court to be held on February 27. My only witness is to be Ottawa Police Chief P. Sloly (as backed by Mayor Watson). He has a choice: to either seize the remainder of my medical file (which belongs to the patient and not the Doctor) without which I cannot get a new doctor, or turn up at the mandamus trial and account for improper police actions in this case which he has failed to do calling for his replacement by me with select city counselors.
4) In fact, the Canadian legal system died in 1985 with my senior teacher lay-off for economic reasons under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 (think imposed carbon tax) used only against this teacher (for whistleblowing) in what was a sweetheart deal between the Union and Employer, the West Vancouver School Board. I changed lawyer when Arbitrator Louis Lindholm (died shortly thereafter) altered 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs with myself as the necessary 17th. He ignored the testimony of Asst. Supt. Bill May, responsible for staffing, stating under oath that there was no need to lay off any staff in June of 1985.
5) So why did Lindholm, when I changed lawyer and appealed the matter to court where his Decision was quashed with him being ruled patently unreasonable act in the fashion which he did? Due to his belief and one maintained by the Employer in every court case since that time (over 50 judges) that the court has no oversight for imposed legislation. All the courts have disposed of my challenges on this score right across Canada as the plaintiff being merely frivolous and vexatious which even finds its way into the current Gowling defense of Dr. Jahagirdar in my $10 million claim for damages.
6) Premiers have been stung on this level of imposed gov't. legislation which runs an end game around Parliament and the courts and is the future of gov't in Canada. 'Slow Moe' got caught in SK with 'Latter Day Hippy, Pallister' of MB believing he can beg his way out of the imposed carbon tax. Hicks of N.B. doesn't fool around with this corrupt action; he dropped his objections. Ontario, which also lost, had already closed its coal mines explaining why our electricity costs are so high but that did not satisfy the Feds which own the Justice System; they want their 20% fees to run the gov't. and enrich the wealthy top 1%.
7) In law, disclosure is at the heart of our system which has become a dead letter as it is being denied in many cases for frivolous reasons; this one against Dr. J represented by Gowlings being an example.
8) The disclosure which I am unable to get is NOT the one approved by the School Board regarding my lay-off in a special meeting in June of 1985 which, it turns out, was supported by only two of the five trustees - Chairperson Margot Furk and her successor, Mike Smith. They were not called to the stand at the arbitration by neither the Employer nor Union (which correctly convinced the arbitrator that those two forces would not appeal) to commit perjury regarding lay-off numbers. They got 'to walk' as it were.
9) No, the real crime was a second meeting held by Board counsel Stuart Clyne QC in mid-July after it was clear that I was contesting my lay-off. (The Union tried to talk me into a buy-out after declaring publicly that BILL 35 was the 'battle of all teachers'.)
10) Then Justice Mary Southin made a mistake. She called for all minutes regarding my lay-off including the mid-July Clyne redesigned new lay-off notice to replace the June one which would be an 'out and out fraud'. While Southin 'sniffed' in court that not all Board members attended that session, she returned these documents to the Union (not to me, the plaintiff) and the Board 'because she did not use them' thus concealing with that action, a full scale fraud. The Employer has been able to capitalize on her duplicity with succeeding courts 'covering up the cover-up'. While she re-ordered a new arbitration - which the Board refused on grounds noted above - she placed all her eggs in the one basket that a buy-out would ensue. As an Appeal Court judge in 2003, rather than recusing herself, she refused me that vital disclosure. In brief, the Employer has successfully blackmailed the courts to the tune of over 50 judges which still goes on today. For example, Doug Ford is sitting on CV18000 76950 0000 in which he has not assigned a court date for 1-1/2 years now. Since the ON Employer's Counsel (Hicks, Morley et al) walked off on them in 2014, the Employer cannot get legal counsel in ON explaining why Ford has 'damned the torpedoes' leading to, among other things, the permanent suspension of a driver's license without any viable appeal which hits at all 'car cultures'. President Trump and The New York Times, for example are strangely quiet on this threat to all car cultures as many people cannot perform their job without a car. Rural residents are left stranded. This is the story boycotted by the media (Postmedia/CBC/Epoch Times) on a national basis. They are having an obvious problem keeping a lid on the myriad failures of our institutions with the legal one being the main target. In the words of former Citizen columnist, Dave Brown, two decades ago, the Judiciary is Canada's strongest Union. ...and, as this tome metaphorically asserts, they have been getting away with murder; murder of the justice system.
11) The web site details the cases across Canada with Canada now being FUBAR; there is no hope for our nation for failing 'to stand on guard for thee'. Our veterans must be rolling over in their graves. The label Death of a Nation has been fulfilled with the upcoming mandamus court merely being 'the icing on the cake': PLACARD: BEHIND EVERY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LIES A MORAL COLLAPSE.
Respectfully submitted, Roger Callow 'Last of the Good Guys')
1) As a nation, Canada is FUBAR. The secret mandamus court (an offshoot of the British 'Court of Star Chambers' torture institution where the decision was in before the 'examination') has no place in a country claiming to have 'law and order' such as Canada.
2) Indeed, as this type of court has no appeal process; it should be noted that all Appeal Courts would lose their existence and hence lead to widespread legal unemployment if permitted to run rampant. Doug Ford, Ontario's Premier with his 'Acts of Commission' reminiscent of Nazi Germany would promulgate such odious measures.
3) The mere suggestion that Canada is holding such a court in Ontario, considering the 35 year background of the unresolved Employees Case makes a mockery of anything approximating 'law and order' in Canada. Reference to the Gang of 40 is that I have created an organization to witness what is in essence, Canada's death rattle. I have invited columnists Mark Bonokoski (Sun media) and Christie Blatchford (National Post) to witness this 'Last Hurrah'.
4) There are many perspectives which could apply here. Intellectually, I am not alone as all great literature espouses my thinking; socially, I am a Canadian pariah shunned by legal organizations such as the above which refuse to give me any representation. Examples from 1776 at a time when leaders were capable of expressing ideas 'above the level of a sound bite' are: c) John Adams ...Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
d) Thomas Paine ...A Democracy is the vilest form of Government there is.
5) Another perspective is that what the father, former P.M. Pierre Trudeau would create (with the BILL RIGHTS OF 1982 which is consistent with the U.N. protections for the individual) has been rent asunder by the son, Justin Trudeau as P.M: PLACARD: CANADIANS DO NOT DESERVE A DEMOCRACY. In the words of 'city guru' Jane Jacobs: A society decays when its institutions have gone bad. That application can apply to all Canadian institutions as evidenced by any newspaper story. I have chronicled the demise of the Canadian legal institution.
6) I suspect that this mandamus court scheduled for February 27 which I have asked to attend will, due to the usual judicial chicanery, find a way to go ahead without me. I will request the location and time plus judge's name from the court on Feb. 17 so that there is no 'running a court within a court' or, in other words, putting the word 'kangaroo' into a mandamus court; now that's a new dimension on the word 'kafkaesque'. I will ask for a one month postponement should the court not reply in a timely manner.
7) There is no need for a mandamus court as 19-SC-155235 filed by me was for disclosure and it matters little to me as to whether Towngate Family Medicine or one of its doctors, Dr. Jahagirdar (Dr. J.), provides me with my complete medical record in which it is submitted here that she conspired with the Transport Ministry and un-named family members (although ex-sons, Chris and Greg loom large in that respect in seeking my assets). The General Hospital permitted themselves to be used for the political purposes of these conspirators from whom I have requested a Report to be made available at this mandamus meeting. I dropped Dr. J. as of November 01 for breaching doctor-patient privilege. She still conducted herself after that time as my medical practitioner. The College of Physicians and Surgeons - Ethics Division refused to suspend her medical license.
I have a perfect driving record and have never been directed for psychiatric treatment.
8) Dr. J. will not attend this court on her own wishes so no-one can attest to my cognitive state. Indeed, at my annual physical examination in August with Dr. J., no concern was noted. Hence the whole matter of jurisdiction can be settled in 15 minutes with Mann lawyers using a limited number of case laws to make their case which I will not oppose as my focus is on disclosure from Dr. J. and the Transport Ministry. In the event that Mann lawyers present the usual obligatory 500 word 'Book of Authorities' and travelling salesmen who sell their services for the purpose of testifying, I will ask the court to assign those costs to the Defendant. Otherwise, should I be dunned for those costs, I will crowd fund the Gang of 40. Perhaps they would like to organize an ad hoc committee now on all matters related to this case.
9) How Doug Ford expects to obtain a blanket barring of this plaintiff from any Ontario court from this mandamus court defies the imagination; but other than the Gang of 40 which is being forced to listen; who cares what he does? Certainly not the media which has ghosted this national story.
10) Japan has a national debt worse than Greece but one never hears about the former as the debt is held internally by garnishing such as pension funds. Canada, in that regard is more like Greece where the debt is held externally, as Canada's existence is heavily dependent on U.S. good will. For example the deprivation of my driver's license in all perpetuity negatively affects all car-cultures; particularly the U.S. The 'night and the fog' of Hitlerite Germany where one is seized from his or her abode and incarcerated in a mental institution is anathema to all modern societies (other than Canada considering my treatment in which the Ottawa General Hospital is tarnished forever.)
11) I will update this account as information becomes available so stay tuned to RECENT 7 feb for details.
cc select Ottawa City Councillors / P.M. Trudeau / U.S. interests
DRAFT OF PLAINTIFF ARGUMENT
BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff email@example.com web employeescasecanada.ca GANG OF 40
REFERENCE: 19-SC-155235 (Ottawa Small Debts Court) Callow v Towngate Family Medicine
(no Doctor named although a $10 million action has been registered in Superior Court
CV20 82659 against Dr. A. Jahagirdar (Dr.J.) along with a commercial lien to produce the remainder of my medical file without which I may obtain a new Doctor. I dismissed her on November 01-2019 for breaching doctor-patient confidentiality which she continued to do even after her dismissal. 19-SC-155235 was filed as a means of getting disclosure of the withheld portion of my medical file which implicates the Ministry of Transport-Medical. She refuses to attend this mandamus trial hence limiting the Defendant legal counsel to the very narrow argument that Towngate is limited to only a lease agreement with the operation of the clinic. That should take 15 minutes of Mann lawyer time quoting a few case studies (no travelling experts or 500 word 'Book of Authorities' please). I have no interest in this 'diversionary' tactic as with the entire holding of the mandamus court, as it is clear that I am after disclosure whether it is produced by the Clinic or Dr. Jahagirdar. Ottawa Police Chief Chief P. Sloly backstopped by Mayor Watson refuses to collect this file on my behalf (a medical file belongs to the patient) prompting my appeal to a select group of City Councillors to replace Sloly. A copy of this letter is provided him to either acquire my file or consider this letter as an official request to attend the mandamus court to answer specific questions outlined further along in this draft.
Mandamus Court Scheduled in early January by an unknown interest implying court interference. The finger points to the Law Society of Ontario under the influence of Doug Ford.
Both parties to 19-SC-155235 filed their arguments without the need for a mandamus court which Towngate readily acquiesced to later. I was never informed and yet I am told that both participants must agree to dissolving this court. Logic tells us that if both must agree to dissolving the mandamus court then both must agree to holding it in the first place. I was never asked. That is the first question to the court; namely, the legitimacy of holding this secretive mandamus court where only a judge's Decision predominates without Appeal processes.
1) The legitimacy of the existence of this mandamus court is called into question as noted above. No judge of any stature would serve on a mandamus court. Under the above conditions, I am not sure whether 'judges of any other persuasion' would serve on this particular mandamus court as it is being affixed with a commercial lien against the presiding justice should he not call for disclosure.
2) As the question of disclosure is central to the plaintiff's filing of 19-SC-155235; this court is requested to either order that disclosure or alternatively, if it does not feel competent to do so, to order this matter back to the regular court where the legal structure permits of such revelations. That is the nature of the commercial lien against the presiding justice. If cognitive capabilities of the plaintiff are to be at question disclosure must now include the General Hospital Report. In brief, it is a maxim that a litigant be permitted to know the case against him. For this reason, I require his or her name, original appointment to the bench information - federal or provincial - as it affects judicial oversight. If he or she is not a member of the Ottawa Court system, the location of any other origin. I include a commercial lien form to the court copy for the purpose here to be filled in with the name of the presiding Justice.
3) The Defense cannot 'suck and blow' at the same time. If their argument as outlined in their December Defense is limited to the jurisdiction of Towngate as merely a leaseholder of the clinic, then all else such as my cognitive state of mind is 'off the table'. Nor can they represent the interests of the staff which is part of the Doctor's Partnership as they assert.
4) In the event that a cognitive factor is introduced in order to seek a Decision derailing any cases filed by this plaintiff in Ontario (Doug Ford refuses to give a hearing date for 1-1/2 years in a separate labour issue for CV 18000 76950 naming two Ontario judges from 2014 for malfeasance which was never acknowledged by the oversight bodies let alone examined) the court is barred from doing so without a legitimate Decision consistent with natural justice. I do not ask the court for a definition of how that aspect regarding the judges should be handled by the court; I merely draw their attention to that matter.
5) As Dr. J. is not appearing, the only other body to attest to my cognitive state of mind would be the Ottawa Hospital where I have asked chair, Katherine Cotton, to prepare a Report of alleged mental abuse by the hospital including a nine day incarceration after I had passed a bevy of tests including an MRI on Boxing Day. The police broke into my Apartment on that Day based on an Order filed by 'ex-sons' Chris and Greg which, among other things, I am asking Sloly - unsuccessfully so far - to investigate on the basis of which authority the court or the two sons were acting. If that over-due Report (copy of this draft is sent to the hospital for the purpose) is not readily available from the hospital, this draft should be considered as an official request to postpone the mandamus court for one month with an eye to returning this matter to regular court as that report on my cognitive state and subsequent 'illicit' detention would be central to my case. The hospital should expect sanctions in the event that no such Report is produced.
6) If Police Chief Sloly acquires the remainder of my medical file, then there is no need to call him as a witness which I officially do here for which he is receiving a copy of this letter. Nor is there any reason to pursue 19-SC-155235 as that is essentially what it is about; namely, which information was before Dr. J. on Oct. 15-2019 which prompted her to request the suspension of my driver's license? Questions to be answered by him:
a) As older son had not seen his father for a few months, it was with some surprise to find a police officer at my door one night in November whom, in conjunction with a 911 operator, appeared to be 'set up' by Chris for nefarious purposes. Chris wanted to know 'if I was all right?' a bogus claim if there ever was one. The ensuing Police Report was not supplied to me at my request although I had requested that Sloly investigate. Chris is a licensed gun collector and is familiar with a number of Ottawa police officers who are known to party at his house on Anderson Road. Nor did Sloly investigate a break-in of my apartment by Chris while I was incarcerated at the hospital. I never heard back from Sloly on any of these concerns explaining why I have addressed my concerns to selected City Councilors considering that Mayor Watson appears to be backstopping Sloly. Will the lack of due diligence on LRT2 by City Councilors be repeated here in another major issue?
b) A second and far more serious transgression, this time by both sons, was with a pre-arranged meeting before Justice of the Peace, C. Logue on Dec. 19-2019 (last court date of the year) of which I had not been given notice. It led to General Hospital involvement when the latter should never have been referenced in the first place. On December 26, two Ottawa police officers, Wiseman and Greacher, broke into my Apartment with the Dec. 19 Order which stated that I was to be taken to a physician (cursory one hour examination) leaving emergency room practitioners at the General Hospital very puzzled as to why I was there. No doubt they expected the police - who disappeared - to return me to my home after successfully passing all the tests. The key that the police used to enter my apartment must have been supplied by Chris as my estranged wife returned hers to me. Again, I raise the question as to whether these two policemen were personal friends of Chris? I got no answers from Sloly on any of the above transgressions.
7) A copy of this draft is being supplied to:
a) the court (please e-mail responses for the sake of a written record: firstname.lastname@example.org;) plus the commercial lien copy to be completed for the presiding mandamus judge.
b) Ottawa Police Chief P. Sloly
c) Ottawa General Hospital c/o Board chair, Katherine Cotton
d) Our U.S. cousins are being kept notified as their interests are directly affected. They should invoke sanctions against the 'Acts of Commission' by Doug Ford reminiscent of Hitlerite Germany and where U.S. interests are negatively impacted to a marked degree.
e) I have also included a copy to Mark Bonokoski (Sun media) and Christie Blatchford (National Post) to attend as observers for which I include a copy of this draft.
f) This letter is filed on my website employeescasecanada.ca GANG OF 40 a compendium of legal based organizations in Ottawa which I have charged as a repository for what is turning out to be the final chapter in Canadian nationhood. Canada is now officially a Third World Country.
g) no copy is being supplied to P.M. Justin Trudeau as that would be a waste of paper and my time. No political party nor Association is notified as they have already 'bombed out'.
Roger Callow This copy is signed as the above becomes the de facto oral argument should the court proceed without my presence. The court services should provide this copy plus the enclosed commercial lien to be filled out by the presiding justice.
cc Ottawa Police Chief Sloly / select Ottawa councillors / Court Services 19-SC-155235 /
Ottawa Hospital Board - Chair Kathleen Cotton / Bonokoski-Blatchford / U.S. sources
GANG OF 40
RECENT 7 feb. employeescasecanada.ca
FEB 07-2020 A) Canada and Canadians are sick puppies. It is as though we suffer a collective intangible coronavirus (from bats ergo we have 'bats in our belfry'). For example the Gang of 40 as written on my website applies to the legal fraternity; it could just as easily also apply to the medical or any other association. In short, the Mandamus Court coming up on Feb. 27 is merely a focus point as Canada is at - may I invent this one? - a Stage 5 medical condition and do not know it; my own medical situation being at point. While being of reasonably good health, it is dangerous for a 78 year old to go without a medical doctor (nor lawyer) which I cannot get because Towngate Clinic's Dr. Jahagirdar refuses to provide me with all of my medical file. And similar to those diseases which jump the human/animal genome, I cannot get Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly to seize what belongs to me. That is why I have called on select city councilors to replace him.
TO: Ontario Superior Court of Justice FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff
Registry 1285 Cahill Dr. #2001
161 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
Ottawa ON K2P 2K1 t.613-521-1739
t. 613-239-1274 email@example.com
REFERENCE: CV20 82659 web: employeescasecanada.ca
1) A rather punctilious and confusing letter from 'garbled' signature, Court Service Representative dated January 31,2020 and received Feb. 7-2020 is acknowledged.
2) It is clear that this letter was written without the knowledge of 'garbled signature' that the above case was filed at the court counter and a photocopy of the registered document was mailed to Dr. A. Jahagirdar of Towngate Family Medicine. Hence it is complete.
3) Under the above circumstances, your letter is at best redundant.
Yours truly, Roger Callow Plaintiff encl.
A) RETURN OF DOCUMENTS FORM signed by 'garbled' signature.
B) Return of 14F, 14A, 16B with the addition of the file number CV20 82659
ANALYSIS (February 08-2020)
1) At first, I believed that the Court Services confused 13-SC-155235 Callow v. Towngate Family Medicine (no doctor named) laid and responded to in December with CV20 82659 Callow v. Dr. Jahagirdar (Dr. J.) filed on January 29 and awaiting a response.
2) On further thinking, 'garbled signature' is possibly the presiding Justice for the mandamus court on Feb. 27 for 13-SC-155235 and is concerned about his jurisdiction...as he should be as that is my first question. Who called for this iniquitous court? Not the litigants although Mann lawyers leaped on the opportunity to mount a case for which they expect me to be dunned for all costs. In such an eventuality, I will crowd-source the GANG OF 40 (SEE web Sub-heading).
3) Further, I have laid a commercial lien against the presiding Justice for Feb. 27 in the event that he or she does not call for disclosure which was my original purpose in laying the charge. Also, to the disclosure from Dr. J. and the Transport Ministry-Medical, I have added disclosure from the Ottawa General Hospital for locking me down for 9 days in an illicit manner after I successfully completed a medical (including an MRI) before 3 Doctors on Boxing Day. The choice to the presiding Justice is clear; to either order disclosure from the three entities listed above or revert this matter to the general court where the necessary powers exist.