Quebec Judicial Council
ATTN: Elizabeth Corte-President
1200, route de l"Eglise, 6 étage
Quebec,Qc. GF1V 4M1
Roger Callow plaintiff #550-1700-8208-157 (Gatineau, Qc)
The enclosed Newsletter dated AUGUST 01-2015 is self-explanatory in terms of the Quebec Judicial Council and the above case.
cc NEWSLETTER ENCLOSURES
Que. Premier Couillard
Quebec Judicial Council
Governor General of Canada
SCofC Hon Russell Brown
BLOC/PARTI QUEBECOIS now that the Couillard Government is compromised by the Que. courts. Will those parties divulge to Quebec citizens how the courts have compromised their province (and, for that matter, all of Canada)?
OPEN LETTER TO GOV.GEN. (CANADA)– AUG.01-2015
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS and PMO)
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 9 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. #550-17008208-157 currently extant in Gatineau, Quebec, will see if the French Canadian courts suffer from this 'English disease'. Premier P. Couillard is being kept fully informed as to court progress as well as, now, the Quebec RCMP.
TO: L'honorable Dominique Goulet /Court supérieure du Quebec/Palais de justice de Gatineau/Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4C1
FROM: Roger Callow 208-2220 Halifax Drive/Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7
REFERENCE: file: 550-17-008208-157 Your letter of June 30-2015 re Hearing on June 08-2015 before Justice Therrien.
Court Question: Can a party be declared quarrelsome (or vexatious) and prohibited from instituting proceedings in Quebec based substantially on proceedings taken in another province?
Response of this plaintiff:
1) A much better question to be asked in this matter: 'May a litigant in an unresolved legal case seek redress in another province if he is expelled from an originating province 'for reasons best known to a judge' (Cullen j. Creed-B.C.)? By including this question, your perspective would have been vastly expanded.
2) These central questions were never put to the Defendant by Justice Therrien.
CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM 'UBERED'
(Bureaucratic attack from unexpected source)
1) The conspirators representing the Employer's Case in Quebec realized after the case was heard on June 8-2015, that their case was woefully inept. What to do?
2) Why, with a little back room machinations, they could arrange a second 'kick at the can' or, in common legal parlance, 'run a court within a court'.
a) The key to Laval, de Billy's perfidy was that he requested that additional information - in terms of a minor technicality with little or no effect on the case - be considered by the court. It is one thing for the presiding Justice to request additional information; quite another for one of the litigants asking, in effect, to re-open the case.
b) Act II consisted of a second judge raising a 'false flag' in order for de Billy to marshal a full scale rebuttal which goes well beyond the question asked.
c) The case studies now included do not appear to pass the 'litmus test'; namely, are they about litigants seeking to use Quebec courts when the genesis of the case is outside Quebec? Secondly, do they deal with an unresolved legal matter (there must be remedy under the law)? I expect not, but that did not stop one Ontario judge latching onto an insignificant case study to defeat this writer.
d) In short, de Billy has managed to 'Uber' the Justice System in a method no doubt to be copied throughout Canada...the Justice System be damned.
3) The above scenario has its drawback. The frivolous and vexatious charge requires a past history which I have used to include copious materials alleging fraud (Federal Court #T-2360-14) which now makes for an ideal Appeal in Quebec as a means of returning to the Supreme Court of Canada (for a third time).
4) My original request in Quebec was limited to acquiring the 'secret memo notes' from B.C. Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) regarding secret meetings held by West Vancouver School Trustees regarding my illicit teacher lay-off in 1985 under the auspices of the neophyte imposed BILL 35. No compensation has been paid. Those notes would form the essence of my case alleging fraud in Federal Court.
5) By failing to provide those memo notes, French Canadian Courts join the English Canadian Courts in cover-up; the so-called 'English disease' although should my perspective in 2) above hold; then the English Canadian Courts are outdone by the perfidy of the French Canadian Court system.
6) As Premier P. Couillard is provided with all materials in this precedent-setting case, the outcome here is a direct reflection on his government. In short, is he being considered as an idiot by Quebec's judiciary? If so, the entire province is victimized.
cc Que. Premier Couillard
Quebec Judicial Council
Governor General of Canada
SCofC Hon Russell Brown
BLOC & PARTI QUEBECOIS: Will they notify Quebecers of the legal imbroglio which the Couillard government finds itself (which is a legal threat to all Canadians as well)?
TO: Ottawa Sun columnist Alan Shanoff
1) What's the difference between the lack of medical operation videos where thousands die every year due to medical malpractice and the legal fraternity which has copious records to deal with judicial malfeasance as reflected in the employeescasecanada.com? ANSWER: The former you may report on (article Ottawa Sun Aug. 2-15); the latter you are prohibited from reporting on by your editors.
2) As you point out, no one dies as a result of judicial malpractice in contrast to medical malpractice which is all the more insidious on that account. Medicine does not die due to individual deaths but a Justice System - due to precedent law - may expire as has happened in Canada where we have been reduced to Third World status as one result of the above 30 year unresolved labour case dealing with a teacher lay-off where no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights). 9 separate courts and over 30 judges including two inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada have left this litigant in a permanent state of limbo. As a 'standing case' on this basis, the Employee's Case is - to the best of my knowledge - the only case which can challenge the very essence of the credibility of the Canadian Justice System.
3) The interesting part of this case is that such judicial abuses are widespread but, until now, not challenged. Think of the Senator Duffy Case which reflected Senatorial behavior since 1867 but has never been challenged in a court of law until the present.
4) ELECTION PLACARD: employeescasecanada.com IS the election issue / CREDIBILITY OF COURTS & ANTI-EMPLOYEE MEDIA ON THE LINE
5) Consider the following: If a patient dies due to medical malpractice; the casualty and his family suffer. If the media let it be known that an Employer may break the collective bargaining rules and drop salary on dismissal, every employer will follow that procedure and there would be no Union movement.
6) Salary provisions in the above case exist apart from any judicial findings but try to find any Justice to concede that point. Stop your 'frivolous' behavior, I am told.
7) As to records; what good are they (such as legal transcripts) when the authorities just turn a blind eye. The media merely report judgments and work back with 20-20 hindsight as to what the legal arguments must have been.
8) In bottom line language, the above case and the election - assuming that this issue remains buried - marks the end of the 'individual' in Canadian society with the social internet taking over from the bureaucratic anti-employee media and the corrupt courts.
The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System
Assuming Qc Justice Dominique Goulet jcw is acting properly with his interference in Gatineau Court's #550-1700-8208-157 (H.D. June 08-2015) - and the assertion to the Qc Judicial Council is that he isn't - he has asked the wrong question which should have referred to my reason for being in a Qc. Court in a case with its genesis in B.C. under the headings of natural justice and inherent jurisdiction: I would have responded accordingly:
1) natural justice: In common parlance, a judge may not pick up the 'judicial ball' and go home without first making a court finding so that a litigant(s) is not left in limbo. (Without that court finding; my compensation -including pension rights- is held up...for 30 years and counting.) The oft-quoted Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawick) is germaine here: 'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.' That is what is happening here.
2) inherent jurisdiction: A trickier proposition as all provinces are understandably reluctant to deal with matters having their genesis elsewhere. The point here is that the 'Cullen Creed' (July 23-2013) expelled me from the B.C. Justice System for 'reasons best known to the judge' as Deputy Justice A. Cullen acted on his own recognizance; did not take legal argument; and did not quote specific laws. Without including the all-important 'may only proceed with permission of a judge, Cullen j. radically changed a basic tenet of law in this unresolved legal matter. The following excerpt from the Charter would have been my response which now appears to be slated for an Appeal Court hearing if I have second-guessed the courtroom judge, Therrien j. correctly. Unfortunately, he didn't ask any questions on June 8-2015 reflective of a pre-ordained judgment based on 'air' as the Employer appeared bent on throwing their case for unknown reasons thus prompting Goulet's j. interference providing them with a 'second kick at the can'. Running a court within a court is a judicial no-no.
CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS 1982 (excerpts)
One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. The Charter, however, granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter only applies to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity
Section 15: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal
Interpretation and enforcement
The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter.
With the Charter's supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism
In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of Charter rights...
This is tied to the generous interpretation of rights, as the purpose of the Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers.
Most importantly, from a lawyer's perspective, is the fact that the principle of stare decisis does not apply to tribunals. In other words, a tribunal adjudicator could legally make a decision that differs from a past decision, on the same subject and issues, delivered by the highest court in the land. Because a tribunal is not bound by legal precedent, established by itself or by a reviewing court, a tribunal is not a court even though it performs an important adjudicative function and contributes to the development of law like a court would do.
Although stare decisis does not apply to tribunals, their adjudicators will likely nonetheless find a prior court decision on a similar subject to be highly persuasive and will likely follow the courts in order to ensure consistency in the law and to prevent the embarrassment of having their decisions overturned by the courts. The same is true for past decisions of the tribunal.
Among the federal tribunals, there is a small group of tribunals whose decisions must be appealed directly to the Federal Court of Appeal rather than to the Federal Court Trial Division. These so-called "super tribunals" are listed in Subsection 28(1) of the Federal Court Act (R.S.C. 1985, Chapter F-7) and some examples include the National Energy Board, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Competition Tribunal, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (i.e. federal labour board), the Copyright Board, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC").
The superior courts from the provinces and territories are courts of inherent jurisdiction, which means that the jurisdiction of the superior courts is more than just what is conferred by statute. Following the principles of English common law, because the superior courts derive their authority from the Constitution, they can hear any matter unless there is a federal or provincial statute that says otherwise or that gives exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The doctrine of inherent jurisdiction gives superior courts greater freedom than statutory courts to be flexible and creative in the delivering of legal remedies and relief.
OPEN LETTER TO GOV.GEN. (CANADA)– AUG.09-2015
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS and PMO)
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 9 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 their authority. #550-17008208-157 currently extant in Gatineau, Quebec, will see if the French Canadian courts suffer from this 'English disease'. Premier P. Couillard is being kept fully informed as to court progress as well as, now, the Quebec RCMP.
1) This series of newsletters has always started at the 'head of the snake' in the Employee's Case. The assertion is that this writer was the victim of a government conspiracy where the B.C. government was hi-jacked (imposed BILL 35 in 1985 used only against this personage before it was withdrawn in typical 'banana-republic justice') and the judiciary was co-opted (gerrymandered government arbitrator who was later ruled patently unreasonable when the arbitration favouring the employer was quashed leaving this targeted laid-off senior teacher in limbo). No compensation (including pension rights) has been paid which flies in the face of collective bargaining rules. No judge - and there have been over 30 of them - has seen fit to return me to salary which should have been continuous during litigation. In brief, 30 years of back salary with interest appropriately compounded is owed this writer apart from any judicial findings. The courts would rather fall on their swords - and they have done that in rather spectacular legalistic fashion - than to ever admit that they are guilty of the biggest cover-up in Canadian judicial history. Canada has been reduced to Third World status as one consequence for without a viable justice system, there can be no democracy.
2) So this time let's start at the 'tail of the snake' and ask why no oversight body, Parliament (gang of 4 - Harper/Mulcair/Trudeau/May) and the anti-employee media maintain an eerie silence on this, the biggest challenge to the efficacy of Canadian democracy. Suppose this issue were given publicity. (Keep in mind that due to the internet and mail-outs, the politicians, legal fraternity, professional teachers of Canada, and anti-employee media, are all cognizant of this issue but remain non-responsive at much cost to the legitimate operation of the Judiciary. In short, like China, Canada has courts of law but no Justice.)
3) What the public at large would learn is that an Employer may run roughshod over the collective bargaining process by refusing salary continuance while a matter is before the court. Not only is the law in general called into disrepute but the Union movement is greatly weakened under these circumstances by sanctioning the 'sweetheart deal'. Further, with this precedent, no Employer can be expected to provide salary continuance or, for that matter, any compensation considering the court's support for the Employer at the expense of the employee as shown by the precedent set in the Employee's Case. The employer in this case can conceivably blast the courts for their cupidity in leaving them with this mammoth settlement bill due to judicial malfeasance. Also, those 'secret' School Board meeting notes requested in Quebec would, it is submitted here, reveal a conspiracy set up between Superintendent Ed Carlin and local WVTA personnel to support a BILL 35 application to protect Principal John Williams against a fraud charge made by me to the Ministry in Victoria. If it can be shown that every BCTF Union President from 1985 to the present was involved in lying to the membership at large on this account, the demise of the BCTF is not an impossibility which would greatly improve the stature of the West Vancouver School Trustees among other Trustees. Hence, a rather ambivalent court appearance in Qc with 'madness to their method.'
4) The judicial lies told in this case could fill a book and should any law text omit reference to this key case; then any reader should see fit to condemn the entire Canadian legal profession.
5) PLACARDS: A) The employee's case (canada).com IS THE Issue in this fall's election
B) WHY PASS LAWS WHEN JUDGES DON'T FOLLOW THEM? DON'T VOTE
cc BLOC & Parti Quebecois now that the government of Pierre Couillard has been exposed by Quebec court machinations. Will they stand up for Quebecers (and the rest of Canada) by publicizing this national as well as now a major Quebec issue?
Governor General / Couillard Gov't. / RCMP
AUGUST 18-2015 - Response to Ottawa Sun's columnist, Sue-ann Levy whom, in back to back articles, bashes ON teachers and their union:
1) I still stand behind my assertion to you that writers who do not second-guess the message from an oftentimes simplistic editor, do not get published.
2) You're on a roll...adding to yesterday's column bashing teachers, you now include their union which has joined the ABC movement (anything but Conservatives) with its strategic voting. Should the Tories not win a majority government - and current polls indicate as much - it will be largely due to these grass route movements.
3) If the Tories had taken my earlier protest placards seriously: 1) TORIES / SAVE PARTY/ DUMP HARPER 2) ONLY JASON KENNEY CAN WIN A TORY MAJORITY, then there is little doubt in my mind that the Tories would have been re-elected. To be sure, if Dalton McGuinty had not stepped down as Liberal Leader in Ontario, the Liberals would not have been in power today under Elizabeth Wynne.
4) The vote pattern for 2015, I submit, will follow the vote pattern for 2011; namely, the 905 vote around Toronto deserted to the Tories to keep the NDP out. This time that vote will desert to the Liberals in order to keep the NDP out.
5) The Duffy Case is destroying Harper personally, not so much with his obdurate stance in public, rather it is his own lies to the Party faithful implying that his executive were not part of the cover-up.
6) As to your editor's simplistic conclusion that if Wright said he didn't do it, then he didn't do it; I suggest a better alternative. Wright was not charged with bribery by RCMP's Bob Paulson because he could have been expected to claim as a means of protecting his own rear end - whether true or not is immaterial - that he did indeed inform the P.M. Question is, now that Wright is on record, will RCMP Paulson lay a bribery charge against him?
7) Your editor's position on Wright's honesty reminds me of this story: Teacher: 'Who tore down the walls of Jericho?' Johnny: 'Please teacher, not me.' Later the teacher encountered Johnny's mother at the mall and related the story to which the mother replied, 'Well, if he said he didn't do it, he didn't do it.' The mother in turn told the story later that night to the father who stated, 'Tell them that if it doesn't cost too much, we'll pay for it.'
8) Seeing as how you think me 'too funny', let me leave you with this limerick:
Hey diddle, diddle, Harper and his fiddle
Wright jumped over the moon
The public laughed to see such sport
While 'good to go' Duffy ran off with the spoon!
'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'
August 19, 2015
TO: RCMP File: 2015-1020025
Line Forgues, S/Sgt.
Executive Assistant to the Commanding Officer, C Division
4225 Dorchester Blvd.
Westmount, Quebec H3Z 1V5
cc Governor General of Canada / 'Incoming' Federal Justice Minister / SCofC Hon. T. Cromwell
FROM: Roger Callow
208-2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7
1) I am well aware of your bottom line message that 'The RCMP has no jurisdiction regarding civil issues' just as I am sure that you are well aware that accusations of civil fraud (Federal Court of Canada T-2360-14) invariably include an element of criminal fraud.
2) The judicial obfuscation of this issue now extant across Canada and now in the hands of the Governor General - the de facto government during this hiatus of the federal election - has been complicated by oversight bodies (including Parliament which explains my enclosure to the 'incoming' Minister of Justice in light of the continuing failure of the past Parliament to acknowledge this case) weaker than the bureaucracies they would oversee.
3) Are the RCMP to be included in the above evaluation? In short, have they been called off by un-named sources?
4) The narrow request to the RCMP is to acquire the 'missing memo notes' of B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Mary Southin in 1986 whom returned the record of meetings held by the Defendant School Board
(includes meetings with government officials over BILL 35 only ever used against this laid-off senior teacher for economic reasons) and members from the local Union, because 'she did not use them'.
5) Those memo notes hold the genesis of the fraud charge in Federal Court against both the original perpetrators and the ensuing court processes which is currently being frustrated by the many courts attached to this case. In brief, Canada now functions as a Third World Country.
6) The above explains my approach in Quebec (550-1700-8208-157 H.D. June-2015 Gatineau Court) to focus solely on acquiring those notes which the Employer has steadfastly refused to provide as well as the courts equally steadfastly refuse to request that those memo notes be produced. The above hearing has been compromised and now has been referred to the oversight bodies.
7) I know from the quashed arbitration in 1985 where the arbitrator was labeled 'patently unreasonable' that I was the target of a conspiracy involving the B.C. government, the Employer School Board, and the local Union which has been extended in terms of cover-up to included the entire Justice System over the ensuing years.
8) My current bid to the Governor General is for a direct approach to the Supreme Court of Canada (two earlier submissions in 1999 and 2004 were rejected), the only court capable of handling all issues in this legal debacle which has taxed the Justice System to death in the lower courts.
9) I submit that no credible law firm in Quebec would touch this case without seeing those memo notes and why I submit a visit from the Quebec RCMP to the law offices of Lavery, de Billy is in order. I have also earlier included the addresses of the Employer and Union of Legal Counsel in Vancouver, B.C. also known to have copies of these documents.
10) For the RCMP not to investigate at this time is tantamount to declaring that Canada's national police force is part of the cover-up and, as such, has permitted themselves to become politicized in this matter. That is an indictment of colossal proportions.
I PRINT THIS ARTICLE TO SHOW THAT THE SITUATION IN QUEBEC IS IDENTICAL ACROSS CANADA WITH THE OVERSIGHT BODIES PRIMARILY GEARED TO KEEPING 'ERRANT' JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN LINE AND NOT TO DEAL WITH UNREPRESENTED COMPLAINTS AS IS THE CASE WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S CASE. OF COURSE I USE LEGAL ADVICE BUT EVERYTHING GOES UNDER MY OWN NAME. FURTHER, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EMPLOYEE'S CASE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE BELOW AS I HAVE A STANDING CASE (A REQUIREMENT TO CHALLENGE A SYSTEM, MUCH LIKE THE SENATOR DUFFY CASE) IN THAT AN UNRESOLVED LEGAL MATTER HAS LEFT ME IN A PERMANENT STATE OF LIMBO WHERE NO COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID IN A LABOUR MATTER. THE JUSTICE SYSTEM CANNOT STAND UP TO MY CHARGE OF SYSTEMATIC JUDICIAL ABUSE LEAVING CANADA WITH A THIRD WORLD STATUS...BUT THEY SURE KEEP TRYING....
Former Quebec legal star stakes reputation on mysterious, ‘fraudulent’ insurance case
· COMMENT 3 years ago
As a Quebecker - I stand behind Mr. Choquette all the way! The Quebec 'request' saying "...Mr. Choquette’s “unjustified attack against several judges and lawyers” undermines public respect for the judicial system. " is a clear demonstration with just how out of touch with the reality of Quebeckers "opinions" of its judicial system today. In my humble opinion - Quebeckers haven't had 'respect' for the province's 'Mickey Mouse' ' judicial system' - since Mr. Choquette left his post. Bravo, Bravo Mr. Choquette for defending the truth with honor: something that has been much too absent - for much too long in la belle province.
As Premier Robert Bourassa’s justice minister, Mr. Choquette was confronted with the FLQ kidnappings of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and provincial Labour Minister Pierre Laporte, who was murdered. William Tetley, a cabinet colleague at the time, would later describe Mr. Choquette as “an unsung hero of the October Crisis,” saluting his firm and decisive action. Mr. Choquette is credited with modernizing the Quebec justice system through the introduction of legal aid, small claims court, the Youth Protection Act and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
MONTREAL — It was just three years ago that Jérôme Choquette was hailed by his peers in the legal profession for his “exceptional contribution to the cause of justice.” The head of the Montreal Bar Association awarded the former Quebec justice minister the organization’s highest honour, the Médaille du Barreau. Mr. Choquette, he said, was “one of the greatest justice ministers Quebec has known.”
On Monday, Mr. Choquette was back before the bar in completely different circumstances. Still practising law at age 84, Mr. Choquette is now fighting an attempt to have him disbarred for failing to support the authority of the courts. “I am innocent,” he declared to the three-person discipline committee hearing his case, before the hearing was adjourned to give him time to find a lawyer for his defence.
The disciplinary case before the Quebec Bar Association was prompted by an action Mr. Choquette filed in Superior Court last June seeking to nullify the Fournier and Wagner rulings.
The two judges, Mr. Choquette alleged in his 105-page motion, had met at a Montreal steakhouse with lawyers representing one of the insurance firms and conspired to determine the Ahmads’ claims were fraudulent. He alleged that prominent lawyers at Stikeman Elliott, including former federal justice minister Marc Lalonde and former vice-president of the International Olympic Committee Richard Pound, took part in the plot. Evidence had been hidden and tampered with, he added. A rejection by the Canadian Judicial Council of his 2010 complaint against the two judges was evidence of an “objective cover-up,” he said.
On March 8, the Bar Association’s syndicate filed a formal complaint against Mr. Choquette, accompanied by a request for temporary disbarment. The request said Mr. Choquette’s “unjustified attack against several judges and lawyers” undermines public respect for the judicial system. It said his behaviour has compromised the protection of the public and that he “persists in continuing his crusade against the judges and lawyers involved in the files.”
OPEN LETTER TO GOV.GEN. (CANADA)– AUG.23-2015
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS and PMO)
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 9 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. #550-17008208-157 currently extant in Gatineau, Quebec, will see if the French Canadian courts suffer from this 'English disease'. Premier P. Couillard is being kept fully informed as to court progress as well as, now, the Quebec RCMP. Sask. QBG 1902/15 has, as its focus, the ultra vires nature of BILL 35 as 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in the Act or in law in general hence anything flowing from it is 'null and void'.
DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE
1) Let me explain it all one more time. This time we will include Machiavelli whom just got off the carefully scripted Senator Duffy 'performance' where the gullible media is not watching the judge closely enough.
2) The West Vancouver School Board Employer is quite prepared to return employment to this senior teacher laid off in 1985 with 30 years of compounded back salary with interest as a claim existing outside of judicial findings.
3) You read the above correctly as it would be the courts which would be pilloried for stalling a finding on this case; not the Employer. Of course the taxpayer picks up this tab in any event.
4) The courts, in turn, are terrified of such a charge under the above conditions which would gain widespread publicity, as it should. They would rather see the Justice System implode, which has already happened, reducing Canada to Third World status. That's why the conspirators have called on the media editors to pressure their writers into a boycott which is undermining the credibility of all Canadian media outlets to such an extent and degree, that this case marks the ascension of the internet over the public media as well as the demise of the 'individual' in Canadian society in this fall's election. It can't get any worse than that.
5) What the Employer is not about to do, is provide the 'secret missing memo notes' from B.C. Superior Court Justice Mary Southin who demanded all Employer meeting notes from June of 1985 which she later returned 'because she did not use them'. Nor are the courts prepared to order such disclosure. It's a stalemate in which this targeted employee is to suffer the consequences. That's why I have called in the RCMP.
6) Those meeting notes, I maintain, would show collusion between the School Board and members from the local teacher's Union as well as figures from the B.C. government in a government conspiracy without equal in the annals of Canadian history...and that would never do....
7) Further, no ethical principal in B.C. will now write a negative Professional Report on a teacher nor will any teacher give evidence in what must be a widely perceived notion of B.C. kangaroo court justice. The School Board, therefore, desperately wants an end to this 30 year legal saga without suffering the consequences. PLACARD: STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE
8) The courts also want an end to this saga without suffering any consequences for reasons noted above.
9) The Board, for their part, mount incredibly weak cases in order to lose. By restricting themselves - as they have done in Federal Court and a Quebec court (the Couillard Government is badly exposed on this level due to court machinations in Gatineau) - to a 'frivolous and vexatious' argument - they forgo any other legal argument making their case incapable of being appealed by them if they do not succeed on this level.
10) The courts, in turn, are desperate in their bid to make a 'legal silk purse out of the Employer's sow's ears of an incredibly weak legal case' and failing colossally in that bid as they have collectively taken down the entire credibility of the Canadian Justice System. Rather than accept my interpretation of the law as they must in absence of any counter-argument, the court creates their own answer; a judicial no-no.
11) In that judicial takedown, the oversight bodies (Canadian Judicial Council - SCofC's B. McLachlin President- and Parliament) have shown themselves to be weaker than the bureaucracies they would claim to oversee.
12) Hence my claim is that the Employee's Case IS THE Election Issue in this Fall's Federal Election on October 19-2015.
PLACARD: JUST NOT READY /GANG OF4 / (HARPER/MULCAIR/ TRUDEAU/MAY) DON'T VOTE
13) Enter the Governor General whom has been invited to put an end to the bleeding of the lower court systems by directing this matter directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, the only body which can deal with all facets of this case.
14) In the hiatus of the election call, Governor General David Johnston is the sole authority running Canada. Should he not act, he will be a disgrace to himself, his position and to the country in general. That's an indictment without equal.
15) Inclusions from this case are also addressed to the 'Incoming Federal Justice Minister' whom will have no oversight protection from Parliament to deal with this case in the event of the Governor General's failure to act.
16) In the case recently laid (QBG 1902/15) in Premier Brad Wall's Saskatchewan focusing on the ultra vires nature of the imposed BILL 35 only ever used against this target before it was withdrawn in this unresolved labour case, I have begged Chief Justice Martel Popescul - as I have unsuccessfully done with every other chief judge dealing with this case - to appoint an 'A-level' Judge. Lord knows, I am long overdue for one. If my claim is substantiated, everything flowing from that BILL 35 is null and void.
17) If Machiavelli were to have the last word here, I submit it would read something like this: To be sure it may be truly said that Canada and Canadians are well and truly f---ed.
cc GOVERNOR GENERAL DAVID JOHNSTON / SCOFC Hon. A. KARAKATSANIS
QC Premier P.Couillard/BLOC/Parti Quebecois
SK Premier B. Wall / Regina Chief Justice M. Popescul
Canadian Judicial Council / RCMP
'Incoming' Federal Minister of Justice
TO: Lavery, De Billy FROM: Roger Callow
Ste 4000 208-2220 Halifax Drive
1 Place Ville Marie Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W5
Montreal, Quebec H3B 4M4 Tel:/Fax: 613-521-1739
Fax: 514-871-8977 Defendant Plaintiff
ATTN: Vidrascu/Warin esq.
REFERENCE: #550-17-008208-157 H.D. JUNE 8-2015
QUESTION requiring an immediate faxed answer as to whether or not De Billy still represents this B.C. Employer? If there is no immediate response, I will assume that the Quebec firm of Lavery, De Billy has dropped representation of the B.C. Employer in this case.
1) This query follows on the fact that the Employer's Ontario representative, Hicks, Morley et al LLP whom was instrumental in effecting the highly specious McKinnon j. 'frivolous and vexatious' award (#13-59060) on which De Billy based 95% of their argument in Quebec; has dropped representation of the Employer in this case.
2) An altered September 15, 2014 Addendum to the original April 23-2014 Decision was never seen by this Plaintiff and was spilled onto the desk of a second judge, Scott j. (#14-61592 H.D. September 23-2014) who grabbed it with alacrity despite my protestations. Hicks, Morley had filed no 'Notice of Appearance' for that trial.
3) The matter was referred to the oversight bodies.
4) As no Decision was reached by Scott j.; the Appeal Court of Ontario would not entertain my Appeal. SEE letter to the Regional Senior Judge (East Region) dated August 16-2015 to that effect which is included here.
5) The court process in Quebec has also been problematical and referred to the oversight bodies for 'running a court within a court'.
6) The court processes were re-opened by a second judge on a bid entered by de Billy on a small technical point.
7) What began as a simple request for court document evidence from 1986 in B.C. by the plaintiff which the Employer steadfastly refuses to reveal has now mushroomed into a full challenge on all case details as one consequence of this re-opened case.
8) The original essence of the de Billy case was to call for Motion to Dismiss and to Prohibit Plaintiff from instituting Legal Proceedings in the Province of Quebec...except with the prior authorization of the Chief Justice. (my underlining) The MacKinnon j. Decision also includes that caveat which is conspicuous by its absence from the 'Cullen Creed' which expelled this plaintiff from the B.C. Courts for reasons best known to the judge forcing the targeted employee to seek justice outside B.C.
9) The significance of the restricting order is to force the targeted litigant with asking for permission to first attend court and in making a prima facie case which is not a problem for me fulfilling these two conditions.
10) Hence the entire case outside of B.C. as to jurisdiction centers on the legal tenets of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice; two themes which are avoided by the Employer, and more importantly, by the courts which I have accused as acting as an agent for the Employer.
11) For example, both the Ontario Court of McKinnon j. and Quebec Court of Therrien j. (decision pending) would only entertain arguments related to the false flag by the Employer relating to the topic of 'frivolous and vexatious' actions by this plaintiff based on a most incomplete record.
12) Contrary to the Employer's assertion that this matter is res judicata in that this plaintiff is merely re-arguing matters already settled in B.C.; nothing has been settled other than this litigant in B.C. is solely represented by the Union (sweetheart deal) in an unresolved labour matter in that province. The assertion by the court in 1995 that this matter was a Collective Bargaining situation where the targeted employee had no status was vehemently opposed by the Employer asserting that BILL 35 conditions apply; not the collective bargaining process.
13) In fact, there has been no judicial finding as to the legitimacy of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 for economic reasons. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid according to either the collective bargaining rules or contract rules in general.
14) The (many) courts acted as agent for the Employer in this case permitting them to acquire through the back door with court co-operation what they could not gain through the front door. A compromised arbitration which was quashed by the court ruling, as it did, the gerrymandered government arbitrator to be patently unreasonable left this plaintiff in limbo; a limbo exacerbated by over 9 separate court systems and over 30 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada). Canada has been reduced to Third World status as a consequence. It's a slow death for the Canadian Judiciary as it suffers the ignominy of being charged with anarchy which I do accordingly (systematic judicial abuse).
15) The court theme would appear to be...'If we don't hang together, we will all be hanged separately'. The current action in Saskatchewan seeks to acquire the services of an 'A' level judge to reverse the trend of an apparent pattern of Chief Justices appointing other than 'A' level judges to this case. More on this point later
16) In the hiatus of the Federal Election Call, the Governor General has been called to exercise his authority as the de facto government and forward this matter directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, the only court capable of handling all issues in this long drawn out matter.
17) Failure of the Governor General to act before the Federal election on October 19-2015 places an end not only to democratic Canada with the extinction of the individual in Canadian society but also the extinction of Canadian media credibility.
In such an eventuality, the 'incoming' Justice Minister will be operating in a vacuum in this case.
cc Governor General D. Johnston / 'Incoming' Justice Minister
SCofC Hon. R. Brown
QUEBEC: D. Goulet j. / Premier Couillard / BLOC / Parti Quebecois / RCMP
SASKATCHEWAN: Chief Justice Popescul / Premier Wall / Regina Leader-Post
August 16-2015 - page 4 inclusion to Aug. 26-2015 letter to Lavery,de Billy esq. QC counsel for the Employer
TO: Regional Senior Judge (East Region)
ATTN: Hon. James McNamara
161 Elgin Street. 2nd Floor,
Ottawa, ON K2P 2K1
FROM: Roger Callow - Plaintiff #14-61592 Ottawa Superior Court
H.D. May 15-2014 R. Scott j.
208-2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7
1) As the plaintiff, I have never received a judgment on the above case hence when I went to appeal Scott j.'s decision, the Appeal Court rejected my submission.
2) If a belated submission was entered, I expect the necessary sanctions to be allotted by you.
3) The matter and nature of Scott j.'s actions on May 15-2015 along with a second judge, Colin MacKinnon (#13-59060 H.D. April 10-2014) were forwarded to the Canadian Judicial Council (B.McLachlin President whom never replies) as both the above judges were originally Federal Court appointees.
4) The Employer's Ottawa legal counsel, Hicks, Morley et al LLP, was also cited to the appropriate oversight body for their transgressions. They have since departed representing the Employer.
5) Should a judgment for #14-61592 be extant, would you have the courtesy to forward same to the above address? Thank-you.
cc Gov.Gen./SCofC Hon. T. Cromwell/'Incoming' Minister of Justice