OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.01-2015
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS)
JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future - just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case. The current case in Federal Court (T-2360-14) alleges fraud on behalf of the Respondent Employer and Union plus the court processes over the past 30 years. It would appear that the Respondents misrepresented themselves to this petitioner as to the their authority.
QUOTE: 'It is not necessary to hope in order to undertake, it is not necessary to succeed in order to persevere.' 16th century William the Silent
TO GOVERNOR GENERAL DAVID JOHNSTON IN COUNCIL
1) Forgive me for foregoing the honorifics as this horror story about the Canadian government and court structures is replete with 'honourable' being attached to figures whom are anything but honourable.
2) There is no ducking out for you from the following issue as respective governments and courts in Canada have 'ducked out' in their entirety leaving a mere shell of a democratic country where the individual no longer has any standing (presuming of course, that he or she ever did in Canada).
3) It is ironical that the courts are reluctant to authorize secret spy missions condoning extra-legal actions under BILL C-51 when it is shown that 30 years of systematical judicial abuse in the employeescasecanada.com reflects the exposure of a level of cover-up with judicial and government malfeasance never before encountered in the Canadian judiciary.
4) We have oversight bodies because we do not trust to the bureaucracies of such as the courts and government. In the case of the courts, such as the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), there is not even acknowledgment of charges of fraudulent processes as it relates to the above case and judicial irregularities in B.C., Ontario and the Federal Court by this plaintiff. The CJC is an amalgam of Chief Justices from whose offices the charges would originate. As to government, the Governor General (GG) is the oversight body.
5) In #13-59060 (Ontario Superior Court April 23-2014 Colin McKinnon judgment; Ottawa Citizen Apr.28 p.1 article in which the Citizen refused my right of rebuttal) McKinnon j. and I agreed that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) was the only place suited to hear my accusations of fraud against the original conspirators as well as the subsequent judicial processes although the 'frivolous and vexatious' label that he would attach to this respondent was not conducive to getting a SCofC hearing.
6) T-2360-14 was filed in Federal Court detailing in a 267 page submission a detailed description of the fraud on the part of the two entities labeled above. A Vancouver Prothonotary 'jumped the gun' by declaring that submission as being 'frivolous and vexatious' based on the highly specious McKinnon action which along with other irregularities on his part and a subsequent hearing on the matter before a Justice Scott (he merely wrote 'notes' which the Appeal court would not accept as an Order), were forwarded to the CJC. The Federal case is under appeal as it was clear in the submission that this appellant was seeking to make use of the Federal Court's mediation process before an Ottawa judge where all litigants were in agreement to a written procedure (due to distance).
7) The central requirement of T-2360-14 was for the 'secret memo notes' of Justice Southin for which I made a subpoena regarding meetings held in 1985 by the Employer, the West Vancouver School Board and the Union. In quashing the arbitration favouring the School Board ruling the government appointed arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable' in that process; she succeeded, one and at the same time, in hiding School Board perjury and leaving this laid-off senior teacher in what has become a 30 year state of limbo where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. In that process, the 'secret memo notes' of all meetings held with regards to this appellant's lay-off earlier requested by her were returned 'because she did not use them'.
8) The courts have balked at calling up that evidence which, it is submitted here, would reveal a conspiracy of unequaled proportions in Canadian jurisprudence. That charge would include the SCofC on two occasions in 1999 (B. McLachlin plus chief Justice A. Lamers rejecting the bid; and in 2004 when B. McLachlin was Chief Justice). Does the Union indeed represent all my interests as some B.C. Courts would claim or do the conditions of the imposed BILL 35 (operant date July 1-1985; lay-off letter June 28-1985) apply? SEE enclosed letter from the Employer dated February 7,1996. Indeed, is this BILL 35 ultra vires? SEE 'Constitutional Question' form also included. Bill 35 was used only against this teacher and then withdrawn before this matter was resolved. Failure of the SCofC to hear this matter led to the demise of the credibility of the Canadian Justice System.
9) Should there be a proper hearing (over 8 separate courts and over 30 judges to date) with no requested material from the Employer and Union be forthcoming; then my submission must apply.
10) In that submission, I have claimed to be the target of a 'sweetheart deal' in which two former local Union leaders teaching in West Vancouver Secondary School approached the Superintendent to dismiss this writer for whistleblowing against the principal on a matter of fraud under the provisions of BILL 35 which would not entail Union expenditure should there be any legal challenge by me. (Administrators were Union members until separated in 1988 by legislation).The central Union, the BCTF, rejected the representation aspect as this case would raise the question as to why anyone would hold Union membership if the authorities could skate around a client in this fashion. The point here is that their representation is not under the collective bargaining rules as the Employer asserts hence the various courts were wrong to expel me from the justice system as they did on numerous occasions. If the SCofC had heard this case, that dichotomy would of necessity have been explored.
11) The various shenanigans conducted by the many courts are summarized on my web site and not the scope of this article.
12) As matters now stand, you are the embodiment of the failure of the Canadian government and court processes in this matter which goes to the very heart of whether an individual has any standing left in Canadian democracy.
ACTION CALLED FOR: For the Governor General to invoke his powers under the terms of the 'Governor General in Council' (or equivalent) to order that this case currently before the Federal Court be elevated directly to a hearing before the SCofC. In this appeal, I do not want another 'application to be heard' as I have had a bellyfull of SCofC Registrar Roger Bilodeau's evasiveness in a number of applications although, to be fair, obfuscation would appear to be the order of the day from all Appeal Court Registries encountered.
cc Gang of Four (Harper/Mulcair/Trudeau/May)
SCofC C. Gascon
encl. From T-2360-14: a)Feb. 7,1996 letter from Employer claiming collective bargaining rules do not apply to this case...are they correct or are the courts wrong? b) Constitutional question...is BILL 35 ultra vires in that current demonstrated ability is undefined in the Act or in general in law = legislation null and void (even though BILL 35 was withdrawn before this sole-laid case was finalized).
A) JUDICIAL COUNCILS
(1) B.C. Judicial Council JAN. 07-2015 no response (turned over to CJC)
(2) ON Judicial Council Oct. 21 - Scott j. a Federal appointee: fwd.CJC
(3) Canadian Judicial Council - no response for some time now______________
(4) Upper Canadian Law Society JAN.07-2015 no response
B) ON APPEAL COURT - OSGOODE HALL
(1) DT-12-1872 & #13-59060 (linked for 'extension of time') JAN.07-2015 no response
(2) #14-61592 JAN.07-2015 no response
Other Comments: Oct. 21-2014 - incl. ON JC 2 page letter
Jan.23 - 2015: Failure of CJC to act exacerbating issue which now includes B.C. Courts & Federal Court
*APRIL 01-2015-STILL NO RESPONSE ON ANY LEVEL TO THE ABOVE ACCUSATIONS
APRIL 13 - Senator Duffy Trial
1) In political trials such as the current Duffy criminal trial being heard in Ottawa, (as well as in the Employee's Case); the answer is in before the judge enters the courtroom.
2) Duffy will walk. The deal that I submit has been cast here is that Defence Counsel Donald Bayne agreed not to have a jury trial nor call the P.M. onto the stand in exchange for an acquittal.
3) The only bone of contention is the so-called matter of bribery which will go the way of the robocall story in that Wright for the government was not charged for bribing Duffy. With a joint charge, the RCMP could have used both ends against the middle...and that would never do....
4) What originally happened? Someone -probably the boss- got royally pissed off with Duffy and phoned RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulsen to 'do the necessary' which in policeman language meant smearing as many charges as possible hoping that at least one would stick.
5) The media did their little bit with their usual 'first the punishment, then the crime' but have been back-pedaling recently as they smell a rat.
6) Christie Blanchford for Postmedia News covers legal matters in Canada and is already bored to tears in an issue which escapes much public response. Being in Ottawa, does that mean she will contact me on the Employee's Case despite the blacklisting of this lead legal case in Canada? She, like all other media personnel, are too busy looking over their shoulders in saving their careers which means listening closely to their editors (Paul Godfrey for Postmedia and Andrew Potter for the Ottawa Citizen).
7) The Duffy issue is a no-brainer. Find him guilty and that opens a whole can of worms with other Senators which the court is not about to do. As to oversight, Tory Senate House leader, Marjorie LeBreton (takes lessons from the praying mantis genre) was in that position. PLACARD: SENATOR MARJORIE LEBRETON, NOT DUFFY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON TRIAL. As it is, this 'red queen' voted along with the other Tory faithful to ax 3 Tory Senators.
8) The losers? RCMP's Bob Paulsen and a number of media types.
9) Will the Duffy Case make any difference with the voters? Not at all. For that matter, the media are losing their reading audience. Statistics show that the Tories are guaranteed 30% of voter support / the NDP 20% / the Liberals 'around 30%.
With that record, the Tories will not get a majority which is tantamount to being ousted. The '905 vote' (around Toronto) will once again be the swing area. Voters in this area voted Tory in the last election to keep NDP's Jack Layton from becoming Prime Minister. This time that vote will go Liberal to once again keep the NDP from assuming office. The Tories should have selected a new leader when they had the chance.
10) For my part? PLACARD: BE ETHICAL/DON'T VOTE (besides, it only encourages them) M.P.'s don't actually do anything in modern day Parliament; that is the task of the 300 strong PMO consisting of political hacks from the Party in power. M.P.'s are merely there to raise money and vote 'ready, aye ready' to the Party's dictums.
So the only real change is for 300 new un-elected PMO to displace 300 old un-elected PMO. P.S. You are NOT going to read that in the media as the removal of the topic of politics relegates them to reporting on automobile accidents.