MANDAMUS COURT feb.27-2020 19-SC-155235 FEBRUARY 27-2020

 

PLAINTIFF'S ORAL CASE (should I be 'hijacked' from attending)

1) The presiding Justice is asked to give a written comment as to the propriety of an inopportune action by the Defendant lawyer on February 20-2020 regarding questionable police action. With the Boxing Day incident referred to below, I was provided with the court Order signed by my two 'ex-sons'; the police on Feb. 20 did not leave any paperwork at my door raising the question as to whom sanctioned this raid on a spurious 'wellness' charge?

 

Feb. 20-2020

TO: Ottawa Police Chief P. Sloly              FROM: Roger Callow

PERSONAL                                                             1285 Cahill Dr. #2001

474 Elgin St. Ottawa K2P 2E6                               Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

e-mail: property@ottawapolice.ca                      t: 613-521-1739

                                                                              e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

Enclosure: Mayor Jim Watson by e-mail: jim.watson@cityhall.ca

copy to CCC75 condo

 

INCIDENT: At 9:35 P.M. two policemen called up from the foyer to be admitted for unknown reasons hence I told them that I would have my neighbor as a witness but would not unlock my door (she's older and should not be placed in such a position). Later the night superintendent who would not give her name arrived at my request and established my concerns in the presence of my neighbor after the police departed.

DETAILS:

1) This action appears to be a repetition of the Boxing Day seizure of myself on an Order by my two sons (after my estate) and, rather than taking me for a cursory check to a physician as per the form; the police unloaded me at the Ottawa Emergency unit where I passed a battery of tests before over 3 doctors including an MRI. I have repeatedly requested those medical results from Dr. Kitts and currently have a legal action against the hospital for an illicit nine-day following detention as the hospital attempted to 'whitewash' the affair. I have called for the Hospital Report to be available for a mandamus trial Feb. 27 at which Chief Sloly is to be my only witness to attest to this debacle along with other police abuses instigated by my sons.

2) This time, the 'wellness check' was instigated by legal counsel, Anthony Bissonnette, for Towngate Family Medicine based on legal e-mails sent to him regarding an action laid against him for 'the perversion of justice' in Ottawa Superior Court on Feb. 19. He was no doubt aware of the earlier seizure and is attempting to capitalize on the Boxing Day Incident by, it is alleged here, using the police in a similar most inappropriate way. I asked the two officers through the door if Sloly was aware of their visit but was cut off with two questions which I answered as follows; no, I am not a threat to others nor am I a threat to myself. They departed. The 911 operator contacted by me was 'ineffective'.

3) Whether Sloly is directly involved in tonight's caper is secondary. It is his direct failure to investigate police harassment which I have had to endure because some people considered to be important are granted undue privileges with the police which do not extend to the general population. None of this would be happening if he retrieved the rest of my medical report from Towngate's Dr. Jahagirdar which is my property but which she refuses to divulge.

 

Yours truly,  Roger Callow  cc select city councillors

 

2) While there can be no questioning of the judicial Decision explaining why this offshoot of the 'Court of Star Chambers' in Britain where it originates is considered diametrically opposed to proper judicial procedures where oversight powers apply; nonetheless, the presiding Justice may be held personally responsible for her actions. To that end, I require information as to whether she received her call to the bar originally as a federal or provincial judge as different oversight bodies are concerned.

 

3) The following questions regarding the holding of a mandamus court are of particular concern and each matter should be addressed in writing individually by the presiding justice:

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE EXISTENCE OF A MANDAMUS COURT

February 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

       web: employeescasecanada.ca

       cc. all sent by fax: SCC court / Mann lawyers / GANG OF 40 (see web)

MESSAGE:

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'

 

ADDENDUM

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'.

 

4) If the court intends to hear Dr. V.; Towngate's only listed witness on corporate responsibilities; I submit that a second mandamus court must be held so that I may be provided with such as the 'Partner's Agreement' plus other information pertinent to the over-all claim. That would also provide the court the opportunity to request disclosure on the three levels I have requested along with ordering Dr. J. to attend court to explain her actions. In that regard, the court should order the Towngate lawyer to provide the full names of staff as they are, according to Dr. J., complicit in dealings with me. To date, he refuses to comply on this level.

 

5) In conclusion, for the court to merely drop the case without addressing how my interests as plaintiff are to be served, leaves the Justice System in Canada in tatters as 'all cases lead to the Employee's Case' in much the same spirit as 'all roads lead to Rome'.

 

6) Copious other material is available to the court on request such as the 3-page complaint on December 14-2019 sent to the Law Society regarding Mann lawyer's alleged perfidy.

 

Yours truly,  Roger Callow