OPEN LETTER TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN – FEB.05/2012
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com
QUOTES: 1) How do the little people fare in a war between big powers? In answer, the Swahili proverb says, “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” The Book of Secrets M.G. Vassanji
2) ‘If we can’t trust our government, whom can we trust?...you’re in danger from the mentality that allows self-interest to thrive among those in power’ Masquerade Gayle Lynds
OPEN LETTER TO RT. HON. S. HARPER P.M.
1) I consider myself apolitical. For example, in December of 2010, I joined Tory supporters on the Hill proclaiming ‘no coalition’ of the opponent parties as the incumbent Governor General had called a 5 week ‘time-out’ period contrary to constitutional strictures. In inveigling an interview wearing my placards on the TV camera, I was doing fine until the interviewer asked me which side I was on. ‘Neither’, I replied, ‘Rather, I’m on the side of the bulk of 34 million Canadians who would like to see Parliament back to work by Xmas.’ He wrinkled up his nose…just one more interview on the cutting room floor. Now if only that had been a 5 week bus strike….
2) My impolite observation is that you lack imagination and are a cultural boor as symbolized in your action of ‘pushing your wife out the front door to attend cultural events while you slip out the back door to your hockey game’. You’re no orator like Obama but at least you did not have your nose stuck in your paper at Davos. Defending capitalism in that speech is beginning to sound anachronistic as even such countries as Japan which have had deflation for 2 decades is looking for a new model.
3) As to policies:
a) in general, many countries including Canada are seeking to reconcile their national debt by offloading central government debt onto the provinces, municipalities and individual taxpayers hence these national debt figures are highly misleading.
b) Tory supporters seem to be those who myoptically view their detractors with misgivings for failing to reduce everything to a financial bottom line. The biggest contradiction here is the creation of 30 ‘useless’ new backbencher seats while at the same time laying off environmentalists.
c) The long term future to pensions is defunct as spelled out by too few workers and too many retirees living long lives. The ppp program for all pensioners (including MP’s) is the way for any possible future.
d) Like Australia, visas should be issued to visitors with U.S. citizens to be exempted as a means of reigning in immigration scandals.
e) While being adamant against illicit drug use, I think ‘puffdaddy’ Bob Rae is correct in claiming the war on drugs is lost which is why I support the court’s sanction of ‘needle sites’.
f) The ‘get tough on crime’ program is counter-productive. The Justice System has too many ways to get around anything that they do not want to do…I can vouch for that. Canceling the agricultural component of rehabilitation was unwise. Spend the money on incarceration. For low risk offenders, create one-cell per prisoner prisons with 24/7 privilege of walking a set track with permission of the guards. As a handful of miscreants account for over half the crimes, place them on permanent parole. If they abuse their privileges, return them to prison without going through expensive court procedures.
QUOTE: ‘… if every other police force in America really cared about stopping crime, they would take all the money they poured into prisons and the courts and homeland security and spend every nickel on protecting children from the bastards who preyed on them…pretty much guarantee the investment would pay off in saved lives.’ Fractured Karin Slaughter
g) Bonus pay is proving to be a disaster. It should be eliminated.
h) Governments like contracting out as a form of kickbacks
4) The above policies may be examined if a country has an infrastructure which Canada threatens to lose by Feb. 29 as it sinks to Third World status. With the Justice System in a state of collapse, there are many ramifications for Canada.
a) The ‘West Vancouver School Board formula’ in which an employer may obviate their financial obligations under the collective bargaining rules (including pension obligations) by hiding a dismissal behind a lay-off resolves the problem of paying pensions.
b) Without a viable Justice System, eliminate Parliament in its entirety and have the population at large elect the Prime Minster. It’s a win-win situation for the taxpayers as the real only change is that the political parties would function on their own dime. Besides, why pass laws which judges are not going to follow?
c) Eliminate judges in their entirety and have judicial clerks hand down legal decisions from which there is no appeal. Think of the boodles of money to save plus the fact that there would be no further erosion of justice under the current judicial regime.
d) No-one will challenge the P.M. under these circumstances such as the Tory Helena Geurgis suit against you. Former B.C. Premier WAC Bennett lost a slander case to a government worker for disparaging him in a private discussion. Arrangements with ‘co-operative’ judges (I can name more than a few) is the way to go now in Canada.
e) To really save money, considering the failure of the legal profession to stand up for themselves and all Canadians by defending the Employee’s Case in the recent Federal Court hearings, eliminate the legions of lawyers attached to Indian Affairs. There would be no difference to the plight of our native people. Sub-contracting legal work to India where ‘joe work’ could be done by Indian firms specializing in Canadian law would lead to immense savings for the taxpayers.
Infrastructure is the key and that key lies in your hands as it relates to how you handle the Employee’s Case (Canada). Surely this matter will be your heritage as Prime Minister no matter your action/inaction on this matter. Failure on your part can only leave it for a future 21st century Prime Minister to redeem Canada from its Third World status. Foreign investors will demand as much. Greece, move over.
That first step, whatever it may be, must be taken by you as Prime Minister by February 29-2012 if Canada is to avoid Third World status and become the laughing stock of the democracies.
And of course this whole 27 year debacle would never have survived without the co-operation of the anti-employee Canadian media which also has a shelf life of February 29-2012.
TO: Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Lance G. Finch
B.C. Court of Appeal
400-800 Hornby Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2E1
SENT BY FAX ONLY 604-660-2420
FROM: Roger Callow - plaintiff in CA038538
QUOTE: ‘…The very proposal, to get around a moral objection with an administrative expedient, is symptomatic of moral idiocy….’O.C. columnist
REFERENCE: November 17 – 2011 letter from Deputy Registrar Maria Littlejohn signed by ‘Diane’ and my 3-page rebuttal to you of November 25 – 2011. (No response hence this second request).
ACTION REQUESTED: To reverse the procedures seeking to delist CA038538 ‘…This is to advise you that pursuant to Section25(1) of the Court of Appeal (B.C.) this matter has been placed on the inactive list….’
(Littlejohn letter was written knowing that MacKenzie’s Order barred this plaintiff from any court access.)
1) Because of the seriousness of your inaction on one of the most egregious judicial actions in Canadian jurisprudence, a copy of this letter is being sent to the incumbent Prime Minister who has a February 29/12 deadline to take action on this issue.
2) Should you not re-instate CA038538 by February 20-2012, this writer submits that the Prime Minister has no choice other than to take steps to have you removed from office. In the absence of either action, the Prime Minister has no choice other than to resign. Canada and its welfare is more important than one person even if that person is the Prime Minister. MacKenzie’s ‘creed’ must not be permitted to stand if justice is to be served.
3) APPELLANT’S FACTUM (CA038538) 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. (S106159) The ground for Appeal is Justice A.W. MacKenzie made the Order without notice to the Appellant, without a hearing, and without giving reasons…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. ‘…whose action did not list a docket number and is one of the key questions associated with the accusation that she usurped the law….’ (NB to avoid the ‘judicial record’ RWC)
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…’
6. (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.’ (NB A $10,000 surety was paid by the plaintiff to ensure the holding of CA038538)
(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’ (surety)’
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:
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.(February 14 – still no response=2nd request)
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.’
addendum ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’
Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic)
ADDENDUM: to the Rt. Hon. S. Harper PM of Canada:
1) At this time you have done nothing to retrieve Canada’s First World stance in human rights as reflected in a court sanctioned ‘outlawing’ of one Canadian citizen…so stop preaching to other countries on this topic.
2) For the above reason, two submissions were made to:
a) The Supreme Court of Canada in which two clerks repeated the error of the B.C. Courts in usurping the law to block judicial evaluation. Specifically, these clerks misquoted the rules of the SCofC and, in this instance, improperly gave a judicial finding thus keeping this case off the judicial record. (SEE web FEBRUARY 1-2012)
b) The Human Rights Commission ATTN: Deputy Minister Myles J. Kirvan requesting action (SEE web FEBRUARY 1-2012) Second Request Feb. 13-2012.
TO: The Prime Minister of Canada
ATTN: Rt. Hon. S. Harper
FROM: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian ‘
REFERENCE: Letter dated Feb.01-2012 to Deputy Minister Myles J. Kirvan (Human Rights Commission)
QUOTE: : ‘…The very proposal, to get around a moral objection with an administrative expedient, is symptomatic of moral idiocy….’O.C. columnist David Warren
1) Acknowledgment is made of a telephone response from Department of Justice clerk, Carole Walton on February 17, 2012 in reference to the above letter.
2) As a first step, I requested a contact fax number as all written correspondence must be acknowleged in writing. All court clerks in the past have responded in the positive except for Ms. Walton who refused repeatedly (three requests) to supply such information without first making a discussion of the letter which this writer refused.
3) The impression left here is that Kirvan told her something along these lines: ‘I don’t care how you do it, but blow off this guy.’
4) Under these conditions, the Prime Minister would be quite within his rights under a ‘fragile economy’ by dismissing Kirvan as it would appear that Ms. Walton is running his Department and at a much lower cost.
As regards the Feb. 01-2012 letter and why it was addressed to someone in authority-or someone purportedly in authority:
A) The central philosophical question raised in this letter was ‘What to do with a tyrannical king’ or, in this case, a tyrannical judge’. who appears to have exceeded her authority and the law in such fashion that the rule of law in Canada no longer has any meaning.
B) That challenge in A) decries any mandate in terms of any one bureaucracy. A proper response from Kirvan would be to note under which conditions his particular bureaucracy may act. He may choose to recommend other such bureaucracies for reference in this matter but he should be specific as to which challenges would best be faced elsewhere.
C) Asking any court to sit in judgment of B.C. Associate Anne MacKenzie’s ‘unilateral’ action is a tall order as denoted by two `illicit` hearings at the Federal Court where no mention is made of her unexplained actions including the barring of this plaintiff from any access to the Justice System; a situation further exacerbated by the Supreme Court of Canada where 9 Judges knowingly hid behind letters from two court clerks misquoting the SCofC Rules in order to dispense with a proper hearing of this Appeal.
D) While I do not ask the Human Rights Commission to directly evaluate MacKenzie`s action, I do believe they may address the issue as quoted in the Feb. 1-2012 as an employment issue. The pertinent sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act were quoted. In short, by paying out interim compensation which belongs to this plaintiff despite legal outcomes, the plaintiff is in a position to bargain directly with the employer for a final resolution of this 27 year unresolved legal case in which no propiety as to the lay-off has been established nor has any compensation (includes pension rights) been paid. Under the circumstances, this is not an option as there is no other reasonable recourse available to the plaintiff.
E) The collective bargaining rules remain in tatters and Canada sinks to Third World status until this `matter of contract` is resolved. The incumbent Prime Minister has until Feb. 29-2012 to act. After that date, this matter will await a future 21st century Prime Minister to dig Canada out of its Third World status.
cc Deputy Minister Kirvan ATTN: Carole Walton