JUMP TO HOME PAGE

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– FEB.01-2015

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN  and  U.S. NEWS)

JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future - just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case. The current case in Federal Court (T-2360-14) alleges fraud on behalf of the Respondent Employer and Union plus the court processes over the past 30 years. It would appear that the Respondents misrepresented themselves to this petitioner as to their authority.

 

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE LAY-OFF OF SENIOR WEST VANCOUVER  TEACHER, ROGER CALLOW, ON JUNE 28,1985; THE ONLY TEACHER AGAINST WHICH THE NEOPHYTE IMPOSED BILL 35 (EFFECTIVE JULY 01-1985) WAS USED AGAINST HIM BEFORE IT WAS WITHDRAWN WHILE THIS CASE WAS UNRESOLVED IN THE 1990'S. THIS CASE WAS DECLARED 'THE BATTLE OF ALL TEACHERS' BY THE UNION WHEN IN FACT IT WAS ONLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE ONE TEACHER NAMED ABOVE

 

AN ASSERTION BY THE TEACHER

1) In law, an assertion stands if it is not rebutted which explains why effort after effort is launched by the courts to avoid any revelation of the following story.

2) The unsubstantiated story here which it is submitted would be revealed by the 'secret memo notes' of School Trustees and the Union which B.C. Supreme Court, Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) requested, and then returned  'because she did not use them' in 1987 would reveal a judicial scam without equal in which the B.C. government was hi-jacked (BILL 35); the judiciary was co-opted (government appointed arbitrator whom was later ruled 'patently unreasonable' by Southin j. when she quashed the arbitration thus quashing perjury on the part of some Board officials as well as leaving this teacher in a state of limbo (for 30 years now and still counting)). No compensation has been paid.

3) BILL 35 was the brain-child of B.C. Education Deputy Minister, Jim Carter, a former principal of West Vancouver Secondary and no stranger to controversy in the dismissal of a senior teacher in 1978 at that school. It was his colleague and a former teacher under Carter, John Williams, who succeeded him in the post at the school. It was Williams that falsified his Professional Report on Callow in Callow's first year at West Vancouver Secondary having transferred after 16 years from a neighboring school. Two former West Vancouver Union presidents at this school, Jim Crook and Ron MacQueen  were colleagues of  Williams and set into motion the lay-off provisions provided to them by BILL 35 which was speciously used as it was limited to dealing solely with economic problems of declining enrolment (there wasn't any in 1985; indeed new teachers were being hired).

4) These former WVTA Presidents approached the Superintendent, Ed Carlin (eliminated one year later and never served in B.C. public education again.) explaining how a success for me at arbitration would bring into sharp focus the fraudulency of Williams' actions. Considering that Administrators were members of the Union in 1985 (separated by legislation in 1988); both the Union and School Board would be severely embarrassed under those circumstances. Hence, this 'messenger' had to be shot.

5) The key to this legal scam was the imposed nature of BILL 35 which mandated lay-offs to be made under BILL 35 conditions and not under the Collective Bargaining code. This is the lie that the conspirators would have concealed and have done so to date at the expense of seeing the Justice System of Canada go into 'free fall'. (Jan Ghomeshi is a variation on this type of scam as the CBC hoped to circumnavigate Union intervention by failing to state a reason; the catalyst which would produce a lay-off under the collective bargaining rules. Hence representation by the Union is 'gratuitous' and limited to only a lawyer-client status.)

6) There was much conflict among the School Trustees as reflected by the fact that only 2 (the chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith) of the 5 voted for this action although Southin j. claimed that 'Nowhere did the Trustees approve the lay-off of a teacher under BILL 35'. This action, without showing the vote count, was marked carried in arbitration implying fraud as it applied to the Superintendent's lay-off letter quoting that authority.

7) The Board acquiesced to the local Union request as long as the District was not placed 'in dispute' ( a grey listing affecting future hires). Further, should the Union have placed the District in dispute; that would have implied that the Collective Bargaining rules applied therefore committing another fraud.

8) Hence no school trustee could be permitted to take the stand to perjure themselves as to lay-off numbers. Neither the Board's legal representative, Stuart Clyne Q.C. (also involved in the 1978 lay-off mentioned above), the government-appointed  arbitrator, Louis Lindholm (d. 1987), nor the Union lawyer, Allan Black (he refused my request on this level) would place the trustees on the stand.

9) Initially, the parent union, the BCTF, were unaware of this scam, and when they learned of it, decided to contest this matter as a rejection of an employer playing an end-game around the Union would rob the Union Movement of any influence with its clients. (Parallels here to the Ghomeshi case) They went along with the pretence that the Collective Bargaining Rules applied. However, the correspondence between their staff lawyer, David Yorke, and the lawyer representing the Union, Bruce Laughton, is at the root of the accusation of fraud against the Union.

10) In 1995, I returned to court solely against the Employer stating that, as the Employer had apparently abandoned the court Order to re-engage in litigation, then the proper course was to change Justice Southin's 'should' to 'must' return employment by the Board to this teacher. In obviating that request, Spencer j. introduced for the first time that this was an action under the Collective Bargaining Rules (neither the Board nor myself argued for that point) in which the only two whom could resolve this matter were the Union and the Board.

11) Representations by me to the B.C. Labour Board - which the Employer strenuously rejected in a letter as the claim was that the Board had no such authority under  BILL  35 - were never heard under a Section 12 complaint  made by me.

12) Nor did the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) hear this matter in 1997 on the 'universality of Unions'. (A. Lamers- Chief Justice/B. McLachlin-incumbent Chief Justice plus one other rejected a hearing) where the perfidy of the entire B.C. judicial scene would have been exposed.

13) There were more hearings launched by me culminating in a second SCofC bid in 2004 again refused under the 'ultimate remedy' provisions of labour legislation. Conspiracy of the judicial process was made for a first time in the Preamble. Canada sank to Third World status forcing me into a permanent state of limbo.

14) Hearings launched since that time by me have focused on 'interim payment'; moneys owed to me apart from judicial findings. In brief, I should never have been released from salary until a resolution was found. No judge saw fit to place me back on salary otherwise we would not be here today. Approximately (now)30 years of salary with interest appropriately compounded is requested.

15) Two draconian actions by B.C. Supreme Court judges whom, on their own recognizance and in not giving reasons, expelled me from the B.C. Justice System forcing me into Ontario and Federal Court under the provisions of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'. The first was labeled the 'McKenzie Creed' of October 2010 while the second was the 'Cullen Creed' of 2013. Their aim was to undermine any discussion of this issue in B.C. courts relating to my illicit lay-off and to forestall yet another appeal to the SCofC.

16) Machinations in four hearings held in Ontario's Courts have  led to a collapse of the Ontario Justice System with the oversight authorities  going silent. SEE current web site employeescasecanada.com for details. In one hearing, launched by the Employer, a request was made to discuss all issues permitting of an opening of the entire case.

17) Machinations at the Federal Court level under the current T-2360-14 are similarly 'going south'. In order to ditch a hearing, documents are repeatedly returned 'because they do not conform to the rules'; a fairly standard approach of the courts when they desperately wish to beg off a case such as the Employee's Case.

18) Recently, the Federal Court added to that rejection 'for reasons of content' without being specific which places them in the same category as the two B.C. Creeds. That's anarchy making 'judge-made rule' the order of the day where there is no longer any 'rule of law'.

19) More on the above legal caper in February as I attempt to get a definition of 'content' from the Federal Court.

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– FEB.07-2015

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN  and  U.S. NEWS)

JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future - just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case. The current case in Federal Court (T-2360-14) alleges fraud on behalf of the Respondent Employer and Union plus the court processes over the past 30 years. It would appear that the Respondents misrepresented themselves to this petitioner as to their authority.

QUOTES:

1) 'What needs we fear it, for who can call us to account?' Lady MacBeth (N.B. With the failure of the judicial oversight bodies and Parliament plus professional teachers of Canada in the  Employee' Case, all that is left is the anti-employee media and, in that latter regard, the editors have been stitched up by the Old Boys Club)

2) '...We're losing our way as a society, Edward Snowden said from exile in Russia. "If we don't stand up, if we don't say what we think those rights should be, and if we don't protect them, we will very soon find out that we do not have them.' Snowden video downplays his own story  Ottawa Citizen (N.B. Canada is currently in a state of disarray due to the Employee's Case.)

3) 'A historic Supreme Court of Canada ruling that affirms workers' right to strike opens the door for 17 federal unions to launch a similar constitutional challenge of the Conservative government's changes to labour laws in the public service..."The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining; it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me to be the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction," Justice Rosalie Abella wrote for the majority in the 5-2 ruling. Ottawa Citizen Jan. 31-2015 A1

a) Unions have been gutted in the U.S. due to 'right to work legislation' emulated by the Tories. (read John Grisham's Gray Mountain) For example, one U.S. continental bus company relocated from the U.S. to Mexico and operate sub-standard buses in the U.S. at Mexican salaries.

b) The Tories created new entities to resolve their own problems and then proceeded to interfere in at least one case e.g. the strike by Air Canada pilots which was broken with a government 'return to work Order' due to the national economic ramifications of the issue.

c) The above SCofC arrangements are between two major forces; that of the Companies and the Unions concerned. But what does one do in the event of a 'sweetheart deal' between a Company and a Union? Most dismissals have a behind the scene arrangement with the two forces unknown to the dismissal victim. The targeted employee must then depend on the veracity of the  courts which, in the Employee's Case, proved to be part of the problem as opposed to being part of the solution. The Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions in this case covered up the perfidy of both the original conspirators and subsequent court processes. 'Due process' and 'habeas corpus' no longer have any meaning in Canada hence it is so much rhetoric to declare a level playing field for companies and unions without including the individuals directly affected; which is Snowden's point above.

 

MESSAGE:

1) Readers of this blog are familiar with the many transgressions in this 30 year unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been applied. A combination of Court and Registry inflictions across 4 court systems has been used to stifle court action to get a judicial answer in the Employee's Case; the recently laid action in Federal Court (T-2360-14) being no exception.

2) Once again, the Federal Court letter of January 21-2015 signed by Registry Officer, Emily Price, supported by Justice Martineau, would return documents which I filed alleging fraud on the part of the original conspirators as well as the court processes in 4 separate courts including the Federal Court.

3) The wording of the above rejection is interesting as the usual 'not according to form' has an appendage 'as well as content without being specific. That's anarchy and a letter detailing my objections was sent to Chief Justice Paul Crampton and Prime Minister Stephen Harper on that accord. The Respondents have introduced some of my blog material to bolster their claims of 'frivolous and vexatious'. Surely I may rebut their claims by including all my blog material.

4) These supporting documents to the original claim will be re-submitted with minor adjustment to the rules and, should they be returned once again, I call on P.M. Harper to replace Chief Justice Crampton (a Harper appointment in 2009 whom ignored an earlier version of this case) on pain of stepping down himself for his 'law and order' government will be in tatters. (Harper's Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, is of no account in this issue.)

5) The Registry rejection of these documents makes no sense as the judge assigned to conduct the interim written decision (all litigants agreed to a written assessment without hearing) should be quite capable of determining which information is relevant. Further he or she is in a position to order my documents and I so make the request here should these documents be rejected once again.

6) As the Employer and Union have chosen to join ranks and not respond to my detailed allegations of fraud over 30 years, the task of the assigned judge is to evaluate my materials.

7) The Respondents would appear to rest their case solely on the grounds that the most serious charge ever made in Canadian Jurisprudence, namely, fraud on both the part of the Respondent organizations including their current legal representatives and the courts, is to be dismissed as being 'frivolous and vexatious'. Their case is set forth by the Union which was based entirely on highly specious events in Ontario in which they were not involved. The Employer, which was involved, merely rubber-stamped the Union case. In that regard, the Union would limit themselves to quoting Ontario Superior Court Justice, Colin McKinnon, whose decision is currently under Appeal. McKinnon's intervention in a subsequent hearing before another judge were labeled 'fraudulent' by this writer. I am awaiting a determination by the Canadian Judicial Council. The Employer lost his Ottawa connection with Hicks, Morley et al which was also cited for 'highly irregular' activity to the authorities. Again, I await a decision. It should also be noted that a complete rebuttal was given to McKinnon j.'s Order in that second hearing which is conspicuous by its absence from the Union's account.

8) As long as the conspirators can depend on the boycott of the anti-employee media on this issue of national importance, no doubt their thinking is best expressed by the Lady MacBeth quote above.

9) A new element introduced in this court is whether or not the Union does, indeed, have the necessary authority to represent me under the Collective Bargaining rules. The Employer has argued in the negative claiming the conditions of BILL 35 (since recalled before this single laid case was resolved) apply apart from the Collective Bargaining rules; an interesting point and a central one to the Jian Ghomeshi case (CBC employee dismissed with no reason given.) This is the particular perfidy of the Supreme Court of Canada's failure to hear this case on two occasions in 1997 and 2004...third time lucky?...not if the lower courts thwart a third trip to the SCofC or so the thinking of the authorities would seem to be ....

10) No doubt of particular concern to the authorities is reference in DOCUMENT 4 to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlining how the courts have systematically abused this litigant by denying him his rights to present a case. That is inexcusable and not in keeping with the word or spirit of the law. Presumably, I may revert to an oral hearing where I dump these (now) 5 DOCUMENTS on the desk of the presiding judge but that would appear unnecessary if Chief Justice Paul Crampton takes those steps which would ensure that the hearing judge is provided with these DOCUMENTS now relabeled  MOTION RECORD 1,2,3,4,5. It is noted here that one such Reply (truncated version of #3 has already been accepted by the Federal Court).

 

...Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive....

 

cc  Hon. P. Crampton Chief Justice-Federal Court

Rt. Hon. S. Harper P.M.

R. Abella  SCofC

media