JUMP TO HOME PAGE

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: C:\Users\Roger\Desktop\FTP\2011_11_27\New folder\Dragon.IMG_0002.jpg

…with apologies to Wiley

OPEN LETTER TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN – DEC 01-2011  p.1 of 4

FROM: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com

THEME: ‘The durn fools have done gone and shot themselves – not in the foot – but in a broadside to the head!’

REFERENCES: web; FEDERAL COURT II  /  NOVEMBER 20-2011

 

QUOTES: 1)‘To me, the right of an employee to tell their side of the story is the ultimate expression of workplace justice’

D. Boulet Business Mngr. IBEW Local 2228 – O.C. Nov.21 A8 letter to editor

2) The government interprets silence as consent’ M. Hart Carleton Univ. Law

3) ‘If one knows the majority of the population is invariably wrong about anything, how can one accept a political system that assumes it’s always right? Sister Beneath the Sheet  Gillian Linscott

4) ‘Judges always want to see cases settled, especially these big complicated mothers where its easy for them to make mistakes and their mistakes make the newspapers.’ Undue Influence  Shelby Yastrow 

5) ‘You may question my judgment and you may not like my legal decisions, but if you make any comments critical of my or my court’s integrity, you’d better be prepared to back ‘em up or you’ll pay dearly.’ Ibid

 

     Dear Readers;   In this 25 plus year saga of a government conspiracy in which the B.C. government was hi-jacked (BILL 35) and the judiciary co-opted (gerrymandered govt. arbitrator and over 30 judges including 3 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada), to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between employer (West Vancouver School Board) and B.C. Teachers Union; this rinky dink matter of a teacher lay-off has metastasized into a horror story for Canadians. The matter remains unresolved with no compensation paid (includes pension rights) to the plaintiff contrary to the collective bargaining rules. The B.C. Labour Board’s (BCLB B117/2002) sanctioned the ‘sweetheart deal at the request of the Union (to avoid liability) thus putting an end to the Union movement in Canada in that regard.

 

     In effect, the Old Boys Club took the equivalent of a B52 to bomb a mosquito and missed. Currently that B52 is flaming out in a downhill spiral and is about to take out, as it will, Parliament and all it stands for. It get can’t get any worse than that. All this and not a peep out of the Canadian media! And yet the Employee`s case wings on.

 

     In many ways there is nothing new in the court shenanigans seen here as the courts have always functioned on a sub rosa basis. The difference here lies in that the court has been exposed for a first – and, incidentally, the last – time so that systematic judicial culpability in the Employee`s Case is now a part of the judicial record…and that will never do. As matters now stand, any judge acting on his own volition – or, more significantly, any court clerk – may pervert the whole course of justice if the Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie Order (see NOV.20-p.4) is permitted to stand. One bogus decision under appeal by the Federal Court (Vancouver Prothonotary Roger Lafreniére Decision) in T-1386-11 would do just that in a bid to protect the career of one judge at the expense of the future of the entire judicial system. 14 large Ottawa firms (see NOV.20-p.4 for list) have been asked to work pro bono on a matter reflecting negatively on the entire legal fraternity if Lafreniére`s Decision stands. 34 million Canadians are owed as much from the rank and file of lawyers to accept this challenge. (see NOV.20-p.3 for `10 deadly crimes`; a brief history)

 

     The crux of the miscarriage of justice which the B.C. Attorney General (defending MacKenzie as opposed to suspending her) refuses to address; a position also ignored by Lafreniére in his bogus Decision (see FEDERAL COURT II for an annotated account), is seen in this comment below (see DECEMBER 01-pp2-4 of a letter to Chief Justice L. Finch of the B.C. Supreme Court in response to a Deputy Registrar`s letter attempting, one and at the same time, to scuttle the challenge to MacKenzie (as a means of keeping this affair off the judicial records) but keeping her order to excommunicate this petitioner from any court access:

A) Justice MacKenzie may have had good reasons to do as she did. But without a hearing and without any definition in her `un-numbered` order,  these actions must be declared ultra vires as the only person who can respond is MacKenzie herself and she will not be taking the stand. The course of justice is perverted if her action stands without explanation. Depending solely on procedural excuses as Penner (defense counsel) and Lafreniére would have it, just will not do.

B) Perhaps of a more egregious action is that of the un-named court clerk whom, for reasons best known to himself, returned duly filed legal material to the courier. Think of the bedlam should that extra-legal action become commonplace. Organized crime will have a field day.  If it should be that litigants may be treated in this fashion, then I submit a very careful statement must be given as to why any litigant is to be deprived of ‘due process’. MacKenzie,  I submit, did not do that. Herein lay my appeal to the Chief Justice of the B.C. Appeal Court in September. I argued that such as the above action must either be accepted or denied by a Chief Justice. There was no response from Judge Finch. At this juncture, Parliament may see fit to suspend him along with A.W. MacKenzie. That is why his response here is significant. (see Letter to Chief Justice Finch DEC. 01-pp2-4)

 

PAGES 2-4

 

November 25, 2011

 

TO: Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Lance G. Finch       FROM: Roger Callow – plaintiff in CA038538

       B.C. Court of Appeal                                        208-2240 Halifax Drive    

       400-800 Hornby Street                                              Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7

       Vancouver, B.C.            V6Z 2E1                                             FAX: 613-521-1739

 

MESSAGE:

 

1) Acknowledgment of letter from Maria Littlejohn, Deputy Register signed by ‘Diane’ is given as this legal matter continues to descend into the basement as people giving the orders are conspicuous by their absence.  Its a sorry affair and explains why this letter is addressed to Judge Finch for a complete response within 10 days. Parliament has already been notified of major problems with the Vancouver court scene in this regard in which this writer has set a deadline of Dec. 10-2011 for Parliament  to take action if that body is to retain its credibility.

 

2) The Littlejohn letter is headed:

 RE: CALLOW, ROGER (A)

                                                            vs

                                                        THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEE(sic) OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 45

                                                         Court of Appeal File Number CA038538 (filed 28Oct10)

 

…This letter is to advise you that pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Court of Appeal this matter has been placed on the inactive appeal list….

 

3) The Subject of the Appeal under CA038538, of which the Vancouver court scene would be well aware, is stated as follows:

APPELLANT’S  FACTUM

OPENING STATEMENT

This is an appeal from an order of Associate Chief Justice A.W. MacKenzie dated October 1, 2010, which set aside the Appellant’s Notice of Civil Claim.

The ground for Appeal is Justice A.W. MacKenzie made the order without notice to the Appellant, without a hearing, and without giving reasons. There was also appearance of bias in Justice A.W. MacKenzie’s decision making. The Appellant’s right to procedural fairness was violated.

This court is asked to set aside Justice A.W. MacKenzie’s order and reinstitute the Appellant’s action.

 

4) While not knowing for a certainty for this faux pas to which Judge Finch will surely respond, the court is desperate to see the charge dropped against  B.C. Supreme Court Justice A.W. MacKenzie whose action did not list a docket number and is one of the key questions associated with the accusations that she usurped the law. Identifying CA038538 with S106159 is noted which indeed did list the Employer and the Union (conspicuous by its absence) from the above defined action; although I see copies of Littlejohn`s letter was mailed to both the Employer and Union. However, the above form makes no reference to

S106159 which she quashed and hence this application is invalid.  Should CA038538 be quashed, then MacKenzie’s Decision to quash S106159 stands without a challenge. That is not justice, or rather, it has become the state of affairs in Canada due to this case. Some would label such action as kangaroo court justice in that the judiciary would appear to bury the evidence in this case as opposed to examining it.

 

PAGE 3

 

5) Apparently the above letter follows on the appeal of FEDERAL COURT (VANCOUVER) Prothonotary , Roger Lafreniére, who also – similar to A.W. MacKenzie – `usurped`  the law by writing a `pre-mature` decision which was not within his authority to do so according to the rules of the Federal Court. That decision favouring MacKenzie is under appeal (See www.employeescasecanada.com FEDERAL COURT II for an annotated version of his report.)

 

6) The Littlejohn letter includes this statement : `You may apply to a judge in chambers pursuant to Section 25(5) to have the matter removed from the inactive list.`

 

     An excerpt from Federal Court`s Lafreniére and my response best illustrates the difficulty here:

 

…Upon Mr. Callow filing a Notice of Appeal (CA038538), both the School District and the WVTA (Union) appealed for an order requiring Mr. Callow to post security for costs. On December 20, Mr. Justice Kenneth C. MacKenzie of the BCCA granted two Orders requiring Mr. Callow to post costs in the appeal in the total amount of $10,000. Mr. Callow paid the amount into court pursuant to the Order of Mr. Justice MacKenzie. (a) however within a few days, he requested the return of the funds. Mr. Callow was advised by the Deputy Registrar (Maria Littlejohn) on June 2-2011 that for an order to have the monies paid out of Court, he would have to either submit a consent order endorsed by council for the Respondents to the appeal, or obtain an order of the Court. Mr. Callow did not take any steps to have the monies paid out and instead commenced the present proceeding in the Federal Court. (b)

 

(a) The assumption here by the surety court and the respondents was that the appeal of the action of Justice A.W. MacKenzie would proceed; an action foiled by an un-named Vancouver court clerk canceling court  documents on his own whim forcing the plaintiff outside the law with no legal recourse on any matter before the court.

 

(b) Mr. Lafreniére makes copious reference to the Deputy Registrar’s letter in complete ignorance of the letter filed by the Plaintiff in this matter on the point best labeled as ‘judicial theft’.

 

7) Indeed, it is this very ignorance of key issues which underline this 25 year legal fiasco before over 30 judges wherein only jurisdictional matters are discussed apart from the fact that the plaintiff still remains without a judgment and hence, without compensation (includes pension), which is his under the law. ‘No legal answer’ has become ‘a legal answer’ in a country which prides itself with such legal truisms as ‘there can be no process without judgement. Until now. ‘Not proven’ is now the de facto law in Canada negatively affecting 34 million Canadians…and not a peep out of the media. That’s why Parliament now has no choice but to act.

 

8) As to the Federal Court Appeal, perhaps the proper course to appeal Justice A.W. MacKenzie et al   actions would be to the B.C. Attorney General. Unfortunately, the B.C. Government was the source of this government conspiracy in 1985. The fact that the Attorney General`s Department is leading the defence of MacKenzie – as opposed to suspending her until the matter of CA038538 is resolved – points to the wisdom of this plaintiff`s approach to seek justice outside of British Columbia although that approach is fraught with difficulties as well if Lafreniére`s fatuous action is any indication.

 

9) A copy of this account is provided to MacKenzie`s government lawyer, Jonathan Penner, to respond to these two questions, as there is no purpose in holding a hearing in Ottawa without an unequivocal response to these  questions:

 

PAGE 4

 

A) Justice MacKenzie may have had good reasons to do as she did. But without a hearing and without any definition in her `un-numbered` order,  these actions must be declared ultra vires as the only person who can respond is MacKenzie herself and she will not be taking the stand. The course of justice is perverted if her action stands without explanation. Depending solely on procedural excuses as Penner and Lafreniére would have it, just will not do.

B) Perhaps of a more egregious action is that of the un-named court clerk whom, for reasons best known to himself, returned duly filed legal material to the courier. Think of the bedlam should that extra-legal action become commonplace. Organized crime will have a field day.  If it should be that litigants may be treated in this fashion, then I submit a very careful statement must be given as to why any litigant is to be deprived of ‘due process’. MacKenzie,  I submit, did not do that. Herein lay my appeal to the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court in September. I argued that such as the above action must either be accepted or denied by a Chief Justice. There was no response from Judge Finch. At this juncture, Parliament may see fit to suspend him along with A.W. MacKenzie. That is why his response here is significant.

 

10) One question which arises here is why Justice A.W. MacKenzie acted as she did considering that all matters she would curtail were the subject of S106159? While not knowing, one such ramification  by this derailment of S106159 was that the possibility of a normal challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada was truncated. It should be noted here that there had already been two unheard challenges to this body (“universality of union” and “ultimate remedy”). The B.C. Court could be only too painfully aware of what a third challenge would mean. As it was, this plaintiff made an ‘extra-ordinary’ appeal to 9 SCofC judges. There was no response hence the laying of my action in Federal Court.

 

     In conclusion, do I expect any intelligent response to my actions? No I do not, which is why I give the Prime Minister and Parliament until December 10-2011 to take public action. As such, Littlejohn’s letter is little more than an act of desperation, I submit, to avoid any discussion of the culpable actions of various judges. At this point there is no way of knowing whether the court is acting in defiance of the wishes of the Prime Minister or, alternatively, in accordance with his wishes. That is why it is incumbent on the Prime Minister to make his position clear before December 10-2011.

 

     To be sure, the above authorities would not be getting away with these perceived stunts if it were not for a Canadian media which is other than what it should be.

 

Yours truly

 

 

‘The Outlawed Canadian’

 

cc P.M. & Parliament

     Federal Court File T-1386-11

     J. Penner esq.

     G. Litherland/B. Laughton esq.

     media

 

addendum  ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’

                      Justice Estey  (St. Anne Nackawic)

 

OPEN LETTER TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN – DEC 05-2011  pp.5-7

FROM: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com

                                                                                                         …with apologies to Wiley

 

THEME: ‘…and the answer was always a mishmash of rationalizations for avoiding the courtroom: this trial would be too expensive or take too long. This judge is not the right judge for our case; he’s a “plaintiff judge”, or he’s a friend of the other guy, or he’s not smart enough, or I think he was reached. Take the settlement on the “bird in the hand” theory.

     And there was the unpredictability of the litigation. “I know what the law is,” many litigators have told their clients, “but I don’t know if the judge knows.”

     And the economics. Lawyers’ time is expensive, and they now spend more of it than ever before on any given case because of pretrial maneuvering and broader discovery rules. Litigation has become a war in which paper is used instead of bullets and bombs, and every sheet of it has to be researched, drafted,edited, challenged, and then responded to by still other papers. It takes years to sort it all out and get on with the business of trying the case. The sad reality is that many people simply cannot afford to litigate, or they are forced to do so without adequate representation or preparation. Undue Influence  Shelby Yastrow

 

ARMAGEDDON – PART 1

Note: As the following are all allegations; such terms as alleged, I submit, the plaintiff, etc. are supplanted by the simple pronoun “I”

1) Previous material on the above web site outlines a 25 year government conspiracy in which the courts were co-opted to sanction a sweetheart deal between Employer and Union.

2) No compensation which includes pension due to this writer has been paid as per collective bargaining rules in this unresolved legal case before over 30 judges largely due to systematic judicial abuse which has changed the role of Canadian courts in a fundamental way. That is the scope of this issue.

3) 10 deadly crimes (SEE web NOVEMBER 20-2011 p. 3) provides a brief history of the above abuses. Below follows an analysis of this judicial cupidity culminating in the destruction of court room justice in Canada.

4) In 1986, Justice Mary Southin (retired 2004) quashed an arbitration favouring the West Vancouver School District ruling, as she did, that the government-appointed arbitrator had been ‘patently unreasonable’. This move, among other things, was meant to conceal perjury on the part of School Board witnesses.

5) When the School District did not return employment, as recommended by Southin, she ordered the matter back to arbitration before the same arbitrator without giving him any further instructions. The point is that the arbitrator could deliver exactly the same report with this difference; the Union would block any return to court. The arbitrator died leaving behind a ‘frustrated’ situation. In law, respondents are not to be faulted for such glitches in the law.

6) As Southin did not continue salary for me, there was no compunction for the School Board to do anything. In short, I was to be the target of a squeeze play and accept whatever final payment the Board would offer.

7) The School Board was willing to settle with the Union as their involvement in the case would end. The Union refused to sign a binding agreement without my signature as they could be sued for what would amount to 85% of the claim.

8) Realizing the Union was in a bind, the B.C. Labour Board (Laura Parkinson Decision B117/2002) threw caution to the wind and the collective bargaining agreement down the toilet by releasing the Union from their obligations to sign anything leaving my claims in limbo. Hence, due to precedent law from this case, a Union now controls all such things including client compensation (which includes pension). The Union Movement has been effectively castrated by this disastrous ruling which was defended all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada (‘universality of Unions’)

9) Many other judicial actions were launched including a second appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (‘ultimate remedy’) under which no collective bargaining client may go without remedy.

10) The SC of C is sometimes known as the burial ground for issues as they may refuse to hear an issue which was the above case in both appeals leaving the litigants with a lower court decision. The unconscionable point to be made here is that the Employee’s Case differed from all other cases in that no earlier decision exists hence ‘no legal answer’ has become a ‘legal answer’ in Canada. The adage ‘there can be no process without judgment’ no longer has any meaning in Canada as well. It’s  an egregious step without equal in our legal system.

11) I was never able to get into a court of law to argue the merits of my case in a 25 year period due to legal chicanery positing ridiculous judicial excuses.

12) Realizing that I was being blocked primarily by the Union, the only one the court would recognize to represent my interests in court, as they could be expected to foot the now $6 million settlement fee, I tried a new approach which would effectively place the Employer on the line; namely by filing an action S106159 requesting interim compensation (25 years back salary plus interest appropriately compounded and to remain on salary until the Employer and Union settled the matter). These ‘deferred savings’ belonged to me despite legal outcomes and , as such, any court could have assigned them to me although none did.

13) Panic arose among the conspirators. The Vancouver Court scene could hardly be expected to see yet another appeal to the SC of C; an unprecedented situation in any event in Canada. Enter Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, Anne W. MacKenzie, who, without stating her authority, quoting relevant laws, holding a hearing with the respective litigants, and for reasons best known to herself , dropped S106159 from the docket and banned me – again for reasons best known to herself – from any court access in this issue. I filed CA038538 to contest this high handed action which threatens the whole future of Canadian Jurisprudence only to be met by an un-named Vancouver Court clerk who refused legal documents filed in that regard. As MacKenzie blocked all judicial routes for me, I wrote an ‘extra-judicial appeal’ to 9 Supreme Court judges (SEE web). There was no response.

14) Regrettably, the politicians and media failed to publish this key issue during the last Federal Election. Equally regrettably, the Professional Teachers of Canada failed to promote this central issue on behalf of all 34 million Canadians

15) I decided to try my luck at the Federal Court in Ottawa (T-1386-11) although it should be noted that this court has branches across Canada including Vancouver. In a move paralleling MacKenzie’s nefarious action, Vancouver Prothonotary, Roger Lafreniére jumped the gun by holding a private hearing without my knowledge nor without the filing of the legal books in Ottawa where the hearing was slated to be heard. That Order against my claim was appealed by me. Of interest in his disingenuous account is that he made no reference to MacKenzie’s actions deferring, as he did, to precedential law of a most dubious nature to dispose of my claims.

 

ARMAGEDDON  PART 2

1) Historically, such as the disengenuous dealings seen in the Employee’s Case have been the de facto operation of the Justice System albeit on a sub rosa basis so that the pristine condition of the written judicial record remains unimpaired.

That is the key difference with the Employee’s Case where the toxic action of Justice A.W MacKenzie is now a matter of record with the Federal Court. The Justice System can no longer be the same under these circumstances.

2) The Vancouver courts, in typical ‘leopard rubbing out its spots’ manner, is seeking to ‘disappear’ the charge against MacKenzie (CA038538) by delisting this case. If I object, I must appeal to a court and all courts in Vancouver are closed to me due to this order…go figure. SEE DECEMBER-2011 pp2-4 for letter to Chief Justice Lynch on this point.

3) As noted above, governments and courts have traditionally operated sub rosa as well as ‘above board’ in legal matters although the Employee’s Case marks the first – and incidentally the last – time that this stunt may be pulled. A few historical examples are germane here:

A) When Lord Durham freed the prisoners of the 1837 Rebellion and sent the ringleaders into exile, there was an uproar for this seeming ‘reward for treason’ (Upper Canadian rebel leaders were hanged) so the British Government used a disengenuous action of firing Lord Durham ‘for exceeding his powers’…but kept his decision.

B) Fast forward to 1929 and the infamous ‘Persons Case’ where the Canadian courts decided that, for purpose of Senate positions, women were ineligible because they were ‘non-persons’ according to the court’s interpretation of the BNA Act of 1867 (Confederation). That was the end of the story as far as Canada was concerned. At that time, however, appeals could be made to the British Court who were not prepared to scuttle their own judiciary ‘for the sake of the ruddy colonies’ and the decision was overturned . The ladies now have a monument on Parliament Hill thanks to the actions of the British with no thanks to Canada. The SC of C was declared the final court of appeal in Canada in 1949.

C) The B.C. Attorney General’s direct participation in the action filed by me in usurping the Justice System- a position augmented by an un-named Vancouver court clerk - heralds a new direction for the authorities. To retain nefarious decisions such as that of Justice A.W. MacKenzie only to drop them later off the judicial radar so that no evidence is left on the Judicial Record is unconscionable (‘banana republic law’). The Appeal to The Federal Court – which it is trying to duck  out as well - has documented evidence so that the MacKenzie Order is forever enshrined in Canadian Jurisprudence. MacKenzie abandoned her role as an independent party and became an agent for two respondents at the expense of a third. 21st Century Canada can never be the same if  this toxic Decision is permitted to stand. Bedlam  will prevail should the judges and court clerks be able to interfere at will by  ‘running a court within a court’.

 

ARMAGEDDON  PART 3

1) The following excerpt from case material illustrates why the MacKenzie Order cannot stand because it must not stand

A) Justice MacKenzie may have had good reasons to do as she did. But without a hearing and without any definition in her `un-numbered` order,  these actions must be declared ultra vires as the only person who can respond is MacKenzie herself and she will not be taking the stand. The course of justice is perverted if her action stands without explanation. Depending solely on procedural excuses as Penner (defense counsel) and Lafreniére (Federal  Court Prothonotary) would have it, just will not do.

B) Perhaps of a more egregious action is that of the un-named court clerk whom, for reasons best known to himself, returned duly filed legal material to the courier. Think of the bedlam should that extra-legal action become commonplace. Organized crime will have a field day.  If it should be that litigants may be treated in this fashion, then I submit a very careful statement must be given as to why any litigant is to be deprived of ‘due process’. MacKenzie,  I submit, did not do that. Herein lay my appeal to the Chief Justice of the B.C. Appeal Court in September. I argued that such as the above action must either be accepted or denied by a Chief Justice. There was no response from Judge Finch. At this juncture, Parliament may see fit to suspend him along with A.W. MacKenzie. That is why his response here is significant. (see Letter to Chief Justice Finch DEC. 01-pp2-4)

 

2) text of MacKenzie Decision: (no court number)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Between:                                                      Roger Callow                                                           Plaintiff

and     The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 and West Vancouver Teachers Association

                                                                                                                                                Defendants

ORDER

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE (ANNE) MacKenzie    Friday, the 1st day of October 2010

 

THIS COURT, on its own motion, and without a hearing, at Vancouver, British Columbia on Friday, October 1,2010 ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT:

 

1. The Notice of Civil Claim herein is a nullity and is set aside.

 

2. Roger Callow shall not, except with prior leave of the Court, initiate any proceedings in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Vancouver File Nos. S08723, S075775, S022978, A950147, or pertaining to or connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendents in this action or arising from or related to that subject matter.

 

3. Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity.

 

4. The Defendents in this matter will not be obliged to respond to any process that is filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry.

 

                                                            By the court             (signed) A. MacKenzie (plus District Registrar) 

OPEN LETTER TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN – DEC 10-2011  p.8

FROM: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com

 

 

Description: C:\Users\Roger\Pictures\coalition 002.jpg

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. PRESIDENT, BARACK OBAMA

Dear Prez;

1) It’s been a while since last I wrote to you as I have been up to my ears writing factums which explains the numbering system here. It’s got so bad that I even enumerate my shopping lists!

2) The canary in the Canadian Nationhood Mine has expired. It is time to send in the marines, if only to protect  the interests of foreign investors. Keep open that U.S. Constitutional option which permits Canada to become a state as many Canadians wish to live in a country where the Justice System is intact.

3) As of the above date, Parliament foregoes its obligation to speak out on the most egregious judicial action ever encountered in a democratic nation. A public stand could have put an end to the most perfidious judicial action in Canada’s history.

4) In The Rick Mercer Report, TV’s Mercer stated the obvious; Canada is run by a ‘President’ and a group of 23 year olds operating out of the Prime Minister’s Office…so scrap it.

5) He could have extended his prohibition to the Parliamentary media. It’s been a long standing joke that, due to cut-backs, investigative reporters look out their window to see if anything is happening in the parking lot. The other day, this media group sat up to the sound of military planes booming overhead and looked out their window  ‘and what did they see? ’ Troops with bands playing before the ‘President’ honouring Libyan veterans (no Afghan veterans present) on the front lawn of Parliament.

6) Parliament taking a public stand by Dec. 10 would have undermined the perfidy of the Employee’s Case Canada 25 year judicial scam…and that would never do. Harper has his cronies on The Federal Court which is currently taxed with this challenge while the 3 Opposition Parties are in the back pockets of the Union Leaders. I don’t know what the hell is the excuse for Green Party’s lone B.C. representative, Elizabeth May…because she is a lawyer? It seems bureaucracies only speak to other bureaucracies and no-one speaks for individuals these days.

7) One example from history reflects the current judicial stunt here. The Opium Wars in China in the 1840’s was settled in a peace settlement which made no mention of the trade in opium. Call it ‘white man’s law’. I’m sure you are familiar how similar ‘white man’s law’ enslaved the native Hawaians.

8) The trick here is to ‘disappear’ the case from the judicial record which can only work with the co-operation (silence) of the politicians and media. I have challenged REX MURPHY – he of the polysyllabic freethinking word - of the National Post and CBC (AT ISSUE) to break the ice on this media boycott. The media can’t have it both ways; namely to complain about government secrecy on the one hand  while, on the other hand, sit on a major national story negatively affecting 34 million Canadians.

9) 99% of people try to stay out of a court of law while this 1% plaintiff cannot get into one as the court decreed that only the Union could represent my compensation (includes pension) interests. In short, today in Canada, an employer may obviate their financial responsibilities by hiding a dismissal behind a lay-off with this threat to an employee: ‘If you do not sign for a $1 settlement, we will make sure that you do not collect your pension.’

10) As to the current judicial scam… In 2010, the courts, fed up with the embarrassment this case was creating, decided to ‘disappear’ the case by ‘disappearing’ the plaintiff. Neophyte B.C. Associate Chief Justice (SUPREME COURT), Anne MacKenzie, for reasons best known to herself, wrote an Order dropping the last case (S106159) from the docket and banned this plaintiff to any future court access. Her Order was designed to disappear into a ‘Black Hole’ along with this plaintiff. CA038538 laid by this plaintiff to contest that action was stopped at the castle door by a clerk further impeding this plaintiff. Under the aegis of B.C. Chief Justice Lance Finch (APPEAL COURTof SUPREME COURT), CA038538 was delisted for unknown reasons.

11) In response, this plaintiff laid a charge on this level at the FEDERAL COURT of CANADA. ‘Hold onto the legal books’, I was told, ‘until a hearing is called before a judge in Ottawa’. A Vancouver Prothonotary jumped the gun and wrote a report condemning the Action without any mention of MacKenzie’s perfidy; a position supported on appeal.

12) To cut a long story short, Prez, if organized crime and corporate cheats latch onto this stunt in the U.S., it will be bedlam.

13) This Canadian is NOT a coward; 34 million Canadians have yet to prove themselves. The ‘Occupy’ movement may be the answer.

14) If the Old Boys Club were to assign a Nobel Prize for what I have unwittingly achieved for them – control over the Unions, Courts, Government, Media in Canada – then Canada sinks from its First  World status to that of Third leaving Canada to being exploited by greedy capitalists. Moody’s should be informed. Canada’s legacy is ANTI-JUDGE DAY (every July 1-Canada’s Birthday)

15) There’s a Pulitzer Prize in this story for the U.S. Reporter who breaks it.