JUMP TO HOME PAGE

FEBRUARY 2013

 

QUOTES:  Ontario Teachers, is this you?

1)‘The only thing required for evil to triumph, is for good ‘persons’ to do nothing.

Lord Acton

2) ‘ …The rise of the Nazis was made possible because the elite of German society worked with them, but also, above all else, because most in Germany at least tolerated this rise’, said German Chancellor Angelo Merkel. ...Human rights do not assert themselves on their own. Freedom does not emerge on its own and democracy does not succeed on its own,’ she said. ‘No, a dynamic society…needs people who have regard and respect for one another, who take responsibility for themselves and others, where people take courageous and open decisions and who are prepared to accept criticism and opposition….’ Ibid

 

WHY ONTARIO TEACHERS BATTLING BILL 115 SHOULD SUPPORT ‘THE EMPLOYEE’S CASE’

 

1) Let’s assume the best case scenario for ON public teachers; namely, that the Liberal government rescinds BILL 115 and renews the collective bargaining process. Then what? Other than making some union leaders look good, not much has been achieved.

 

2) The lesson for the government is to compartmentalize further the process of reducing teacher’s rights/privileges. They had succeeded with the Catholic and French Boards but failed with the public board teachers in the case of BILL 115.

 

3) This compartmentalization could be done in myriad ways. For example, the Upper Canada School District filed a complaint with the ON Labour Board requesting that the Union desist from pressuring teachers not to volunteer their after school contributions to extra-curricular activities. Sounds reasonable but consider the following which was enacted in BILL 35 in British Columbia in 1985 with the lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow for reasons of declining enrolment (NB there wasn’t any.)

 

4) The point above is not to target the volunteering teacher; rather, it is to target a teacher accused of undue intimidation – possibly a union representative – and suspend them for the rest of the year and, if possible, replace them in September. For example, the West Vancouver School Board under BILL 35, hid a dismissal for whistleblowing under a lay-off for economic reasons…and then proceeded to fix the arbitration with a lot of help from the government, employer and union.

 

5) From there, it is a mere step to obtaining what the `right to work gang` have as their prime goal; the elimination of seniority in teaching as a means of replacing one senior teacher with two neophytes for the same cost. Hudak and Company will look like the `kid with the sticky fingers if he can pull that one off`. Who gives a damn about unemployed senior teachers? Certainly not B.C. Teachers where this scheme is likely to be pulled off if it does not first happen in Ontario.

 

6) The point here is that B.C. Teachers did not fight and are still not fighting because their Union leaders participated in a ‘sweetheart deal’ undermining their credibility. The 2005 wildcat strike was heavily punished by the courts as the B.C.  government continues its steamroller over its teachers.

 

7) Readers of this blog are well aware of how badly the Judicial Order has been compromised by this case to such an extent and degree that Canada is now  ‘a failed state’…’media publication to follow’.

 

8) The Ontario courts have also committed themselves to this B.C. government conspiracy with the Maranger Decision (#12-54944 Ottawa Superior Court Nov.01-2012) now under appeal (#DC-12-1872) in Ottawa Divisional Court. SEE web for details.

 

9) The central point to be made here is that management have always known the perfidy of the B.C. Teachers Union as now have all B.C. teachers. Similarly, management know that the Union leaders are restraining Ontario teachers from giving public support to a legal action in Ontario which goes well beyond teachers, unions, and other interests as 34 million Canadians now have a vested interest in defeating the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ (SEE web) if any court decision is to have any meaning.

 

10) So, Ontario teachers, get your support signs to me (SEE web) and join the battle on behalf of all Canadians. Leave the legalities to me as I do not request financial support in this battle. Do everything possible to encourage all B.C. School Districts to be placed ‘into dispute’ until employment is returned to senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, with all terms of the contract to apply.

 

11) To be sure, many ethical judges would more than appreciate your efforts in supporting the Employee’s Case(Canada) as judicial leadership is the problem.

 

12) The flip side of the equation, of course, is what are the ramifications for Ontario teachers at large for doing nothing?

 

cc SCofC Hon. R. Wagner

     Christie Blatchford – Postmedia News

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – FEB.06-2013

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’  SEE web for full factum

       evolution                         humpty        

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA VII – BEYOND ALL REASON (or how Canada became ‘a  failed state’) – re-submitted Feb.05-2013

 

A) “Res ipsa loquitur’ is Latin. It means ‘the thing speaks for itself’… In malpractice lawsuits, prosecuting attorneys who successfully argue res… are guaranteed a significant payday. You see, our court of law is based upon the premise that we’re innocent until proven guilty. Res… turns that premise on its head. It says, because something happened and normally that something shouldn’t have happened, you, the accused, are guilty of causing it to happen. Therefore you are guilty of malpractice…That’s the given, just like the attorney can argue that the patient entered the operating room for a toe operation and left with one leg missing….”

 A Heartbeat Away Michael Palmer

 

B) As the senior West Vancouver teacher concerned, I was ‘laid off’ for reasons of declining enrolment (there wasn’t any)in June of 1985 by a Superintendent’s letter which did not have the School Board authorization which he claimed. The court quashing the rigged arbitration said as much. Over 20 judges including the SCofC on a number of occasions have never had a hearing to reveal that falsehood. No other teachers were laid off that year but a myopic media bought into the propaganda of ‘why lay off a junior teacher when a less satisfactory senior teacher was available for the purpose?’ (SEE web: REDNECK MEDIA)

 It is this systematic judicial cover-up which has reduced Canada to ‘failed state’ status.

 

PREAMBLE FOR RESUBMISSION SCofC VII – FEBRUARY 05-2013

In order to seek a judicial finalization of this 28 year unresolved labour matter in which no compensation has been paid in defiance of  the collective bargaining rules, this plaintiff is revising ‘ACTION REQUIRED’ (be returned to employment) as a means of putting a judicial end to what has to be the most tortuous civil action in Canadian Jurisprudence.

 

1) In decades to come, a historian in reviewing this 28 year unresolved labour matter before over 30 judges, must wonder why a ‘school-yard’ battle which should have taken 15 minutes to resolve, has taken Canada’s judiciary 28 years and still has not accomplished anything, much to the detriment of the legal system for 34 million Canadians.

 

9) Included also in this account is an exerpt from the original hearing in 1995 before B.C. Justice Spencer. Contradictorily,  one and at the same time,  he warned that `…(he) was not to be made the victim of abuse of authority…’ while he did just that.

 

10) In short, if Justice Spencer did not see fit to change the `should` return employment to this plaintiff to `must` return employment as recommended earlier by the courts, then he should have returned the matter to further arbitration, again, as so ordered earlier by the court.

 

11) The above request from the plaintiff was due to the fact that the Employer did not display any intention of returning to arbitration. Why should they when no judge was prepared to order this plaintiff back on salary?  (This plaintiff should never have been curtailed from salary in the first place until a resolution was found.)

 

12) In brief, what the Employer could not achieve through the front door with a quashed arbitration in which the arbitrator had been ruled `patently unreasonable`, they were able to obtain through the back door with the cupidity of the courts starting with Justice Spencer and continuing through to the present day.

 

LIES GROW BIGGER, NOT SMALLER OVER TIME

 

February 07-2013

                                 

TO: Supreme Court of Canada                                      FROM: Roger Callow

           ATTN: Roger Bilodeau Q.C. Registrar

        FAX: 613-996-9138  SENT BY FAX ONLY

 

MESSAGE:

1) As I did not have a response from you in my letter of January 26-2013 regarding the re-submission of materials to the SCofC, the seventh application was initiated on Feb. 05-2013 at the SCofC in Ottawa.

 

2) Do not return these documents once again without giving other than a superficial examination of them.  In that endeavour, please consider the following points.

 

3) Underlying SCofC Actions three through seven is the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which bars this plaintiff from a court of law; at least in Vancouver with regards to resolving an unresolved labour matter over which even the courts at one time had ordered further litigation.

 

4) The first question to the SCofC is to which courts of law does this ‘ultra vires’ legislation apply? The Vancouver courts have used this legislation in an a priori fashion by rejecting an appeal to the MacKenzie Creed by an administrative action (CA038538).

 

5) The Federal Court was willing to hear an appeal on the MacKenzie Creed (T-1386-11) but was not attended by the employer (as per the Creed dictum) so that it fell to the B.C. Attorney General to defend the action in two illicit hearings where legal counsel were not present. The administration of the SCofC refused to accept an appeal as they would only recognize a specific Appeal level of the Federal Court. (Reread SCofC Section 40 on this point.)

 

6) The central point here regarding the MacKenzie Creed is that the Federal Court did not condone that Creed as being applicable in that venue.

 

7) Nor did a hearing in Ontario Superior Court sanction the MacKenzie Creed as being applicable in a hearing held November 01-2012 ( Maranger Decision #12-54944 now under appeal DC-#12-1872) hence a valid appeal not affected by the strictures of the Creed.

 

8) The first question before the SCofC beyond the validity of such action, is to which courts – if any – is this un-numbered action to apply? Presumably, if all courts quoted the MacKenzie Creed, no further legal action is available to this plaintiff in a Canadian court of law; a first in Canada. Would the SCofC duck out of a question which arguably holds the entire future of Canadian Jurisprudence in its hands?

 

9) As to court rules which have been used to hamstring this case, I note that of the five systems that I am familiar with: 1) Vancouver Courts  2) B.C. Labour Board  3) Federal Court of Canada  4) Supreme Court of Canada  5) Ontario Superior Court; that they all have their own set of rules which require either a legal specialist or a persistant litigant to wade through them.

 

10) Indeed, one clerk said that we do not see too many non-legal people here adding that the rules are more in the nature of a ‘sample’. The point is that some required forms are demanded while other applicable forms are ignored.

 

11) The problem that I have with the SCofC clerks is the interpretation of Section 40 and I suggest that you study it carefully before sending the books back again; your earlier letters on the point notwithstanding.

 

12) As to the registry clerks reaction to my point of seeking a final court judgment in Vancouver with this most recent re-submission; I asked the question; “How may I do that when I am barred from Vancouver courts?” They don’t know which is exactly my point. This matter requires a judicial as opposed to administrative decision.

 

13) Even should the customary three SCofC judges reject this legal matter (for a third time), at least the population of Canada will have proof positive that the MacKenzie Creed, which I submit perverts the entire course of justice, is the de facto law of Canada. Some people would call that anarchy. At least, don’t leave final matters in the hands of a clerk signing herself,‘Suzy’.

What I don’t need is a punctilious interpretation of the rules. What I do need is a valid judicial finding. Letting judges hide behind ‘the skirts of their employees’ is not the way to go.

 

14) At any rate, I can get on with this matter apart from Canada’s judiciary. But can Canadians at large? Today Tory Minister Vic Toews denies a Court Order; tomorrow, 34 million Canadians can be expected to deny Court Orders under these circumstances.

 

15) I understand according to the SCofC rules that under some conditions the Registrar in conjunction with a judge, may give a judicial ruling. That would suffice here (please supply the name of any such judge) although I would like to see the customary 3 judges review this matter regarding my point that this Creed is the most pernicious judgment ever invoked. ‘Running a court within a court’ is an apt expression for the action of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie. This Creed cannot stand because it must not stand.

 

Yours truly,

 

cc SCofC Hon. R. Wagner on behalf of all judges

     Christie Blatchford – postmedia news – on behalf of all Canadian media

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – FEB.24-2013 – 2 pages

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’  in search of a ‘pulitzer prize’ winning international author.

 

QUOTES:In the Pursuit of Happiness…as the source of American unhappiness

 

1)’… “Stuff” really is not what brings happiness,” Richard Branson (Virgin Co. billionaire in giving half his fortune to charity aka W. Buffet appeal). “Family, friends, good health and the satisfaction that comes from making a positive difference are what really matters”….’

2) ‘…You say you want me to be happy? Fine! How? When? For how long? We all have happy moments, and these depend, I suppose, on our tastes and inclinations. Emily Dickinson made much of her happiness out of the careful observation of small daily events: a bird on a winter branch, the colour of a morning sky. The Marquis de Sade was otherwise stimulated. Isn’t it largely a matter of this disposition I referred to? Whether, in general, we feel hopeful or despairing, confident or faint-hearted? Look at you! Off you went to New York and made a success of yourself! You were confident and hopeful because it is in your nature to be that way. I would have perished in a week down there. Does that make you a happy person? I don’t know, but I would guess that you may be inclined to be happier or more optimistic than I am. But in my own way, I am happy enough…’

Clara Callan (Giller Prize) Richard B. Wright

3)A man does what he must – in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures – and that is the basis of all human morality.’  former president John F. Kennedy

4)Obese Children in America have the arteries of forty-five-year-old smokers. This, despite all the money and technology in the world being thrown at us. Perhaps because of all the money and technology in the world being thrown at us. Consumption  Kevin Patterson

5)So help me, some people are so stupid that it is amazing that they live so long. The one law that is missing is the unstated ‘law of stupidity’ which underlies almost every legal case.’ streetwise philosopher

 

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

 

Immediately after your speech on the state of the Union, I wrote;

I don’t want to rain on the Obama ‘State of the Union’ boy scout parade which was directed to mainstream America, but the elephant in the U.S. room is the failure to recognize in your list of heroes the whistleblower such as the young miss in the Enron story in which a former U.S. V.P. cited ‘executive privilege’ to withhold material on his role in that debacle. (P.S. Now that Cheney is no longer V.P., will Obama order him to turn over those records?). ‘They have a right to vote’ may have a place in ‘suppressed vote’ U.S. while my placard for the last two Canadian Federal elections read: ‘BE ETHICAL / DON’T VOTE’  &  ‘DON’T VOTE / IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THEM’. Members of Parliament are only there to collect donations and to vote according to the whims of the Prime Minister’s Office. More on this matter later.

 

Whatever one may call your speech, it was not ‘A state of the Union’ speech consistent with what one would expect of a second term U.S. President. Consider this difference between us:

 

1) I am a former school-teacher; you are a lawyer. I suspect your perception of schools approximates the right-wing Fraser Institute which proudly troops out its individual test results for all Canadian schools annually. These tests are conducted at great cost financially and morally. France and Ireland, for example limit themselves to spot checks. Some teachers won’t teach a ‘testing year’ such as Grade 6 as too much time is allotted to test preparation plus the ‘teacher bashing’ repercussions. The assumption is that failure is attributed to the testing year teacher when a pre-test in math, for example, would show that  failure for a student probably belonged to an earlier grade.

2) Lawyers are whiners. Oh yes, granted it is over ‘fine points of law’ where ‘why ask one word where 50 billable time words’ will do; but whiners nonetheless. The buck usually stops with some wacky judgment which, in describing such as the SS Titanic Disaster, would have no mention of an iceberg. The legal fraternity (with their chums in the insurance business) are like those amoeba which suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere bringing on another ice-age.  Even Shakespeare would ‘kill all the lawyers’. I was relieved when they gave the legal fraternity a rest in the selection of Canadian Prime Ministers only to now ask for a reprieve from stodgy economists. But then ‘Uncle Joe’ (Stalin) was a former school teacher as was Lyndon Johnston…you just can’t win….

3) America is no longer great. How can she be when her wide spread desires for illicit drug use create abominable social consequences in Third World world producing and trafficking countries. The war against drugs has been lost which, in the case of the U.S., has meant jailing the black culprit and letting the white culprit go free. Perhaps amphetamine use will displace the heroin, cocaine and marijuana use some day thus ending abuses from those areas but is not really an over-all solution. In Canada’s case, the government is practicing failed policies on drug control from the U.S., apparently in a bid to capitalize on the anger of voters, usually rural. Organized crime consider the 15% seizure rate the price of doing business. Indeed, such activity keeps the price up. While being adamant against illicit drug use (I liked President Reagan’s ‘Don’t Do Drugs’ message), I haven’t seen any comparable action from your government.  The underlying hedonistic desire to do what one wants is still present in this evil trade. Leading by example has gone by the board as opposed to ‘compartmentalizing’ as a means to justify our actions- e.g. parents who use drugs-which seems to be the order of the day. A hedonistic approach to resolving such difficulties is not an answer; rather, it is the problem.

4) The economy. How about this perspective. I knew a female teacher whom, in 1967, was the first single female teacher to be granted a mortgage; 50% of her salary while men could get 100%. Real Estate prices were based on a single man’s salary at that time. By 1980, skyrocketing prices of homes required two salaries forcing the working mother. Those are jobs which could be held by our unemployed youth. (Canada has the second highest youth unemployment rate of an OECD country after Spain.) In short, there was no gain for the family unit nor the country at large. How many Americans realize that much of their debt is owed to those who ran the home caper of selling  houses to economically depressed people?

5) Education (actually, schooling) is the only system which succeeds in its failure. What, Grade 12 and honest and hard working doesn’t cut it any longer? Then let’s add 2 years of college. Still ‘no’? Why four years of University is available. Plus an M.S. (more of the same) or Phd. (piled higher and deeper). So our graduate is now a `Walmart Greeter`; so what? Quitcher bellyaching. The’ two years experience’ label merely means that employers are robbing each other of their employees. There is no need for more workers; unless of course, working mothers could afford to stay at home.

6) Security. What percentage of people break into houses? 2%? What fraction of the population has locks on its doors? 100%. The sad fact of the matter is that there is no defense against  well organized terrorist groups which even now are organizing on American soil. Timothy McVeigh showed us that much.

7) Don’t count on the media any longer for help as their e-talk and gotcha approach of pack journalism has government and corporations refusing to talk to them. Like Organized Crime, 15% loss to ‘gotcha’ prevails.

8) What to do? Find good leaders to control the bureaucracies which never succeed at anything other than to protect their rear ends. Until that is accomplished, the entire western world is going nowhere fast. Even here, success is limited as such as unscrupulous financiers run around government roadblocks by dealing out of such laundering capitals as Dubai. Mere ‘chop and run’ has a devastating effect on people and while it may improve the financial bottom line of corporations, it is not a tool easily available to governments. Where are these unemployed people to go? Cutting the U.S. military expenditure faces just that dilemma.

9) In the Employee’s Case, the corruption of the Canadian judiciary bureaucracy is being exposed on a level and to a degree never seen before. Lady MacBeth’s line ‘What needs we fear it, when none can call us to account’ is an apt description here. You chose not to warn U.S. Investors about the danger of dealing with Canadian courts in that regard although the U.S. legal system is nothing to brag about. Ask novelist John Grisham.

10) The long and the short of it, Mr. President, is that you may ‘turn a nice phrase’ but those phrases don’t cut it any longer. Divest yourself of your legal robe and rethink  America and where it is going. While my piece here may read like a smorgasboard, so ran your speech which was a ‘not so veiled’ condemnation of the ‘Old white guys Party’ which is out to get your ass – the government not withstanding.

 

‘The Outlawed Canadian’