JUMP TO HOME PAGE

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– JULY.01-2014

(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’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. ...The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears. 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.

 

QUOTE:

'It's amazing how lies grow. You start with a small one that seems easy to cover, then you get boxed in and tell another one. Then another. People believe you at first, and they act upon your lies, and you catch yourself wishing you'd simply told the truth. The Client  John Grisham

 

The following Response plus Huguette letter is to be appended to the following two actions.

A) It is an addendum to the re-submission of #DT-12-1872 on June 30-2014: (3 copies)

B) to an earlier re-submitted Appeal of #13-59060 - Ottawa (unchanged as all changes are to be made in a forthcoming REPLY 25A rebuttal to Employer including the following letter - notification to Employer and Union). (3 copies) This document is currently at Osgoode Hall

C) This letter also appears on www.employeescasecanada.com as a newsletter JULY 01-2014

 

June 30, 2014

 

TO: Huguette Thomson - Registrar - Court of Appeal for Ontario

       Tel: (416)327-5020   Fax: (416) 327-5032

 

FROM: Roger Callow web: www.employeescasecanada.com

             Tel/fax: (613) 521-1739

 

MESSAGE:

1) Acknowledgement of your definitive letter of June 23,2014 is made. It sure beats Registry letters from other Registry courts invariably signed with a single name (e.g. Sue, Anthony) sometimes based on a 'misconstrued' telephone call and even acting in the capacity of a judge.

2) While my concerns here are focused on the Appeal Court of Ontario; I will be referencing other court systems in order to make my assertion that such as the conspirators in this 29 year unresolved legal case (no compensation having been paid which includes pension rights) have ready access behind the scenes with the judiciaries and registries in the Canadian Justice System. I am sure this is the first time that such an observation has been made in Canadian jurisprudence as permitted by the unique circumstances of this case ranging over 8 court systems: B.C., Federal Court, Supreme Court of Canada (where this is headed for a third time), and currently Ontario.

3) The biggest disconnect is between the judges and their respective Registries; a 'grey zone' open to abuse.

4) As to Registries; one clerk expressed it best when he stated: 'We don't see many non-lawyers here.' (is that the purpose?) Most clerks try to hint at requirements as you have done in your letter. One difference, however, was an Appeal Court approach in Federal Court with documents replete with rule quotation only to be orally told by a judge that I did not have a key document. 'Which one?',I asked. 'See a lawyer' was the reply. 'He wants to know too,' was my rejoinder. The Federal Court Chief Justice failed to investigate. (A particular problem with Chief Justice Lance Finch of the B.C. Appeal Court whom never replies, and, unlike other courts, keeps my fee money. Mind you, this B.C. Appeal Court - where I do not have any status - permitted Employer and Union interests to 'rob' (against my protests) a (spurious) surety bond I was forced to pay B.C. Courts to see the progression of my case in a court which never happened due to judicial cupidity.)

5) If the treatment that I received in Federal Court by vastly underpaid judges is any example, I can see why the Supreme Court of Canada rejects nominations from this level. Two secret hearings for which I was not notified included Justice Mosley bestowing Rule 51 in my absence on the case. I make the point here to show what a mishmash is the matter between Judge-Registry relationships.

6) The Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) is no slouch in this misalliance as I have done battle with Registrar Roger Bilodeau on a number of occasions. Section #40 does NOT include appeals from 3 Appeal Court judges which appears to be an ad hoc addition by that registry.

7) Further, rule changes meant to clarify situations can be used to obstruct justice. For example SCofC Rule 25C in which judges having a conflict of interest has been repealed. 'I've never seen a 25C' opined one clerk. Justice B. McLachlin sat with then Chief Justice Antonio Lamers (d) in the first hearing rejected by the court and was Chief Justice when this matter was rejected under the 'ultimate remedy' of the collective bargaining process in 2004 making a nullity of collective bargaining rules. Of course a third appeal would prove embarrassing to the SCofC and no doubt explains lower courts falling on their swords to obviate such an appeal. The price to date is to sacrifice 'due process' without which no justice system may function.

8) As to specifics; your statement: 'Your Affidavit of Service must be sworn/affirmed and commissioned' requires clarification. I have dealt with a number of court systems with slight variations on this theme. As I do not use the newly introduced electronic filing, my remarks are confined to snail mail. In short, where I do not deliver materials in person, I send materials by mail requiring a signature which is acceptable to all court systems. In this regard, I enclose a copy of the postal tracking number as a receipt to the courts. If the Appeal Court of Ontario functions on a different level, a copy of this letter is enclosed to Premier Kathleen Wynne (not to A.G. Meilleur as she ducked out of this issue earlier and Wynne saw fit to re-appoint her) to deal with this matter of a punctilious court impeding the course of justice.

9) A grey zone appears to lie in the fact that Registries deal with the superficial forms of a case which do not always fit the circumstances. This is one such case. There is - and never has been in the lower courts - any Appeal Book and Compendium as I merely quote one well known aphorism, namely ,that of Justice Estey in St. Anne Nacawick; 'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.' What can be more fundamental than being left in a permanent state of limbo thereby obviating a number of basic legal concepts  (i.e. habeas corpus, due process, there can be no process without judgment, there must be 'ultimate remedy' under the collective bargaining procedure).

10) My rejection of Case Law in general is based on the following reasons:

a) Anyone reading Justice C. McKinnon's judgment (published as a page 1 article April 28  in the Ottawa Citizen without accepting my rebuttal) could not help but notice the gross distortion between that judgment and the transcript evidence. Unfortunately, Case Law prints the former and ignores the latter.

b) Where the Employer has included such case studies; I responded accordingly. As a generalization, none of these cases either in principal or fact come anywhere close to dealing with an unresolved legal case where no compensation has been paid contrary to collective bargaining rules. Certainly there is no reference to the accusation I made in the SCofC Appeal in 2004 regarding a 'conspiracy of process' to be added to the original conspiracy regarding my illicit lay-off as a senior teacher in West Vancouver, B.C. in 1985. The closest phrase bandied about by the Employer in this regard repeated ad nauseum by the courts is this phrase: 'Mr. Callow is merely attempting to re-litigate matters already decided by the courts' without being specific as to which matters are being re-litigated and what was the outcome? When questioned on this point, Justice McKinnon claimed that the SCofC had already ruled on three occasions (I count two but that is beside the point although it is a reflection of McKinnon j. having been primed by someone not directly attached to this case) with regard to this point (mistakenly) equating a rejection to hear a case with a judgment in that case. I was still left in limbo with an unresolved case as, due to the unusual circumstances here, there was no lower court decision to fall back on as is the case (to the best of my knowledge) with all other rejections.

c) Almost all case studies include the antithesis of a point set forth as I note in my replies which are continually ignored by the court. Further, when Justice Robert Maranger #12-54944 (Justice of the highly controversial 'Diab' deportation Order supported on Appeal; much the same as my sequencing through the Ottawa courts) brightly announced in this short one-hour hearing in which the final Order was delivered by fax within 3 hours of the hearing

=pre-written Order.) "Ah, the Halton Police case"  without further comment which was the only case that he referred to in his judgment implying that discussion had taken place which the transcript would show was not the case.

d) Regrettably, Case Law does not show what the judge omitted to handle explaining many appeals. For example, Maranger j. failed to deal with the 'MacKenzie Creed' which dealt with why I had appealed to an Ontario court. Justice McKinnon in #13-59060 (H.D. April 10-2014) similarly ignored the 'Cullen Creed' explaining again why I had appealed to an Ontario court.  The Appeal of the Maranger Decision was solely on the 'MacKenzie Creed' in which the Divisional Court came up with this preposterous concept - which was not based on legal precedence nor discussed at the hearing - that judges may not over-rule judges in another province. That's how 'corrupt opinion' becomes law much to the detriment of the entire judicial system. This basic failure of the Justice System to address the 'unseen' draws into very serious question the whole value of Case Law.

11) The perversions outlined above are well known to the legal fraternity across Canada; the Employee's Case(Canada) merely being the worst example. Currently there is no-one in Parliament, the oversight body, capable of handling this matter although 'diaper-obsessed' - if we are to believe media accounts - Justice Minister Peter MacKay was asked to appoint a Department Official to 'walk' this matter through the Ontario Court of Appeal to the SCofC; the only body capable of handling all issues as the Employer now requests from #13-59060. There has been no reply so a copy of this letter goes to the PMO (As to the media challenge of inviting the Prime Minister to review constitutional law this summer; I submit he not bother as this case explains all others. Indeed, the parsing of constitutional law in the media currently or in the past bears little resemblance to the circumstances of the matters before the court but that is another story.)  In the absence of the Federal Justice Minister, I request that Premier Wynne personally now take on the role of shepherding this matter through the Ontario Court of Appeal.

12) Of course the above litany of events is beyond Registrar Thomson's ken as revealed by this comment: 'your materials...are furthermore difficult to understand in terms of their purpose.'  She would appear to be hyperventilating trying to second-guess matters more appropriately relegated to judges. Perhaps those are her orders; one can't say. Is she 'expediting' or 'obfuscating'?; a problem that I repeatedly run into with other Registrars at the Appeal Court level.

13) As to contesting DT-12-1872 (H.D.Nov. 4, 2012) , I did file within the time limit only to have the forms returned as not being consistent with the rules. A 'Rule Book' was included. I note here the use of the word 'in general' to apply to these rules as rule making is not a fine science as one registry completely ignores a rule which is insisted on by another Registry. (Indeed, in 1986 in B.C. while awaiting a court hearing, I sat in on preliminary hearings in which the judge rejected about half the submissions from lawyers for not dotting the 'i's' and crossing the 't's'. Some lawyers wrinkled up their nose on departure while others were happy as clams to bill their clients extra. I was caught up in one such caper over a will probate in having to pay for a second court appearance and only getting a vague explanation from the lawyer as to why. In the words of Charles Dickens: 'It is the business of the courts to make business for itself'.) The submission was reviewed and re-submitted without change which is the case here as all changes will be made in an accompanying REPLY 25A, a copy of which is being provided to the Employer and Union. Apparently, the earlier re-submission was misplaced by the court (although it appears as though the litigant is always the one at fault) and I have to file for an 'extension of time' as per your letter. This is a dangerous action for me on the grounds that it is too easy for a judge not to grant an extension. Delay is always a problem with government as they always demand a strict adherence to their timely rules and then proceed to procrastinate. For example, for two years, I applied to the B.C. Teachers Pension Fund to transfer paid-up pension fees to Ontario as per regulations. There was no reply to repeated requests. After two years of appeals, the Pension people wrote that they had misplaced the records so that I would have to make a new appeal which I did although I had to wait another 2 years for the transaction to be effected; all part of the pressure to get me to sign a final settlement with the Employer which didn't happen. The specific point here is that by re-issuing my claim, I could not accuse the Pension Board for delay. Regrettably, this type of nonsense permeates all our non-accountable bureaucracies. One letter to the editor (Ottawa Citizen) expressed this opinion thus: '...For far too long, authorities, including justices, have failed to ensure accountability....'.That indictment negatively colours Canadian democracy in a most significant way. The consequent confusion is best expressed by this editorial comment in the Ottawa Sun: 'We scratch our heads at some of the decisions our courts make'.

14) While Registrar Thomson may be most proficient at the rules of the Registry, she is not a judge and if she is not able to expedite these two cases through to the bench, then Premier Wynne should step in. While I have not had much success with Chief Justices in general (for it is their office which assigns these B-list justices) and with Harper appointments in general including the Chief Justice for the Federal Court, Paul Crampton; nonetheless, I am including a copy of this letter to Harper's newly appointed Chief Justice for Ontario, Hon. George R. Strathy.

15) It may be galling to the Ontario Court of Appeal to realize that they are to be a mere stepping stone to a Third Appeal to the SCofC (they appear to be proud of their 3% Appeal Rate which may not be something at all of which to be proud); but - as I asked Justice McKinnon in court; how do I get this issue there now that the Employer wants all issues discussed particularly when the B.C. courts on numerous occasions have blocked that access?

He had no answer. Only the SCofC has that power and competency to discuss all issues. The last thing that I need is a 'pissing war' with a Registrar in that endeavor.

 

ADDENDUM

In accordance with the suggestions that '...the materials you have submitted for filing do not fit the criteria required by the Rules of Civil Procedure....' ; I offer the following explanation. In order to keep the format and dating sequence, I have superimposed materials on extant material leading to an understandable confusion according to a strict interpretation of the rules. In order to retain a consistent factum; I offer the following additions as per Thomson's letter which, it is conceded, are still not according to a strict application of the rules and I ask the court's forbearance on that level.

A) Rule 37.02(1) A judge has jurisdiction to hear any motion in a proceeding...specifically...to extend a time prescribed by court rules....to appeal a Divisional Court Order due to complications of re-submissions. SEE letter above plus included Thomson letter

B) Rule 37.12.1 To be in writing with no need for litigants to be present.

C) Rule 37.14(1) (c) This request is affected by an order of a Registrar.

D) Rule 61.03.1(1) Permission for leave of the court to hear this Motion without an oral hearing is made.

E) Rule 61.03.1(2) Factum plus supporting evidence. No Book of Authorities to be entered. SEE TAB 1 Booklet for compliance with 61.03.1(4)

F) Cost of $127 for filing of re-submission of DC-12-1872 Notice of Motion is included as bank draft.

 

Yours truly

 

 

Roger Callow

208-2220 Halifax Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7

 

cc Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer (by fax) and Union(BCTF for WVTA by fax)

ON Premier K. Wynne

Hon. George R. Strathy- Chief Justice Osgoode Hall

Hon. R. Wagner SCofC

PMO

You Be The Judge www.employeescasecanada.com

 1) This targeted employee whom labels himself the 'Outlawed Canadian' was the subject of a page 1 article in the Ottawa Citizen on April 28-2014. That article quoted at length a judgment made by Ottawa Superior Court Justice C. McKinnon which would form the basis of Case Law in this labour matter including his inflammatory statement that the Respondent was using the Justice System like one big smorgasbord. The sole media response without elaboration, which would not be included in Case Law on this case, was that this Respondent was going to appeal this 'wacky judgment' to the Canadian Council of Judges, (which he did). Under these circumstances, how valid is Case Law?

2) The focus of this article is on McKinnon's court although the case has as its genesis an unresolved lay-off in British Columbia in 1985 where no compensation has been paid. Can you have process without judgment under the law? Also, what about related judicial concepts of due process and 'ultimate remedy' under the collective bargaining process; both concepts of which were presented but not discussed by Justice McKinnon.

3)  Nor did Justice McKinnon make reference to the 'Cullen Creed'; an Order by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Alastair Cullen in July of 2013 whom, on his own recognizance barred  this employee from any access to the B.C. Justice System for 'reasons best known to himself' as no laws were quoted, no argument taken, nor was any hearing held. By ignoring this action, which explains my appearance in an Ontario courtroom, has Justice McKinnon given tacit recognition to a most pernicious ultra vires action which could serve as a sanction in law for a most dangerous precedent? In other words, is this how corrupt opinion or action becomes law?

4) In the action set before Justice McKinnon #13-59060 by Hicks, Morley et al for the B.C. Employer as Plaintiff, a request was made to discuss all issues regarding my lay-off (in 5 minutes) and conclude that the Employer owes no compensation to this employee under the contract. Justice McKinnon did not condemn the Employer as plaintiff for making this request for a decision based on events in another province. He was, however, quite vocal in criticizing this Respondent for a similar legal action yet to be heard. Was this fair judicial comment under the circumstances? May an employer escape their financial obligations by hiding a dismissal behind a lay-off which encompasses a different set of laws?

5) May a judge 'cowboy' a judicial decision so that he second-guesses a future court action yet to be heard without being privy to the details? This was the source of the complaint to the Judicial Council of Judges as Justice McKinnon canceled out that main event (#13-58607) laid by this plaintiff before #13-59060. In short, may the justice system permit two cases to be held in tandem?

6) May an employer deny accepting a notice of retirement from an employee thus suspending access by an employee to the company pension scheme? That happened 8 years ago where the pension scheme is currently filed in Ontario where the employee has resided for the past 25 years. The court ignored that question.

7) Of  course this case has seen many courtrooms across Canada and just as many Registries which seek to hamstring any Appeal as is currently the case in Ontario Appeal Court. Over the judges there is the power of appeal. Over the Registrar, there is no power of appeal. Is this justice or merely an aberration in the Canadian Justice System?

8) Justice McKinnon and myself as the Respondent appeared to agree that the only court that could handle 'all issues' on a request made by Hicks, Morley et al was the Supreme Court of Canada but how does one get it there without going through the hoops of the lower courts which through their registries and aberrant judicial decisions block that route up to the Supreme Court of Canada? Justice McKinnon had no answer.

9) The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this matter on two previous occasions  and is the source of this debacle was construed by Justice McKinnon as a final answer to this case while I argued a rejection to hear a case is not the same as delivering a judgment. For any other case, the litigants are left with a lower court decision; not so under the unique conditions of the Employee's Case  where no lower court decision exists. Can 'no legal answer become a legal answer'? May a litigant be consigned to permanent limbo by the court? McKinnon's response is in the affirmative to both questions.

10) Hence the McKinnon Order is conspicuous by what it doesn't say although the transcript would show that these questions were raised (and ignored) by the court. Should a separate Case Law be established based on the transcripts of the litigants, not only in Ontario but across Canada?

 

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– JULY.14-2014

(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’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. ...The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears. 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.

...not yet but that is not due to the judges not trying. RWC

 

1) The claim made by this litigant is that the 29 year unresolved labour matter known as the employeescasecanada.com  where no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights) has reduced Canada, first to Third World status when the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) refused to hear a second appeal in 2004 leaving this litigant in a permanent state of limbo; and second, the last four years to 2014 when the Canadian Justice System has been smashed beyond recall by judicial actions to retain a cover-up of that first debacle.

2) The key with the 2004 debacle is that an allegation was made by me in the Preamble to the SCofC that apart from the original government conspiracy in 1985 to deprive this senior teacher in West Vancouver of his career through a faulty lay-off (as decreed by the court in quashing the arbitration); a conspiracy of process since that time involving the courts directly was made. Herein lies my claim to systematic judicial abuse; a devastating charge against any bureaucracy; especially the judicial one which is to balance the powers of society mainly by protecting the weaker power against excesses of a more powerful force. That's known as justice apart from the rule of law although the two are meant to be conjoined for an efficacious judiciary; something no longer extant in democratic Canada.

3) Accounts by this petitioner to date quote chapter and verse as to the observed failures of over 30 judges across 8 courts to provide a judicial finding without which compensation may  flow. In this charge, the assertion is not so much that what is described is not happening on a daily basis in our courts of law; rather, that the perfidy here of common practice in our courts on a daily basis has been exposed for a first time. The key to that story is how the courts enforce my permanent state of limbo contrary to basic legal concepts.

4) To approach this issue from the 'other end of the snake', consider the following story. Justice Systems are designed at heart to maintain stability in society with, the assertion made here, the notions of justice and rule of law being a long distant second. In the biography entitled In the Land of the Blind the One-eyed Man is King, the story-teller is a judge in tribal Africa being asked to adjudicate claims between two individuals representing two different clans. He does. Dead silence. Then the loser finally throws down his head-dress and laughs uproariously. That's when the trial ends but how did it begin? The judge knows that neither of the two clans wish to go to war with each other which would be the case if the judge's decision was not accepted. Hence the judge had to size up the two contenders to see which one was more compliable. That's how he arrived at his decision.

5) Canadian Judges intuit this notion of stability and therefore tend to side with the big guy as he is the one who has the wealth to challenge a decision and judges do not like to have their decisions appealed which explains why they are forever 'inviting' clients to 'settle out of court'.

Close to 90% of civil matters are concluded this way. In order to appear legitimate in the above process, sometimes a completely undeserving victim is victorious and this success is duly reported in the media. Much like a casino, you must have some winners in order to keep the system operational. In the words of novelist Charles Dickens; 'It is the business of the courts to make business for itself'.

6) So why don't the court resolve the Employee's Case so that the necessary compensation may be paid? To do that they would of necessity have to hold a hearing in which all issues were discussed and that would never do for if the secret memos Justice Southin hid in 1986  from her judgment were revealed disclosing the original government conspiracy; bedlam would result.  Southin further noted that there was no causal connection between the 'enumerated factors' and the selection of myself for lay-off. In short, that is the essence of the judicial process...'this crime'...'this perpetrator?' The lay-off figures are still there showing that 16 teachers were hired and no teachers were laid off. The arbitrator had altered the 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs with myself to be the 17th. He did not expect an appeal to this 'sweetheart deal' between Union and Employer where the Union was declared to recognize all interests of the employee - a new precedent.

7) In 1995, I returned to B.C. Court before Justice Spencer requesting that I be returned to employment with all terms of the collective agreement to apply due to the apparent abandonment of this case by the employer contrary to earlier orders from the court. Spencer did nothing; neither returning employment nor ordering a renewal of arbitration. He failed to ask the Employer the vital question for the court; namely, had they indeed abandoned this case, for if they had, the court had to act under the law.

8) Many hearings were obviated by the judiciary since that time, sometimes by the judges and sometimes by the Registries for so-called 'rule-observance' over which there is no appeal.

9) Many times I requested the Employer to state whether or not they had abandoned this matter by failing to pay any compensation. 'Under some circumstances' was the typical rejoinder which no judge would challenge as to specifics.

10) Fast forward to April 10-2014 in Ottawa Superior Court before Justice Colin McKinnon (#13-59060) in this B.C. case in which McKinnon repeated over and over ad nauseum; 'Mr. Callow, you might just as well be in Texas or California than to be in an Ottawa courtroom with this B.C. case.' The transcript would show that it was the Employer who launched this case with the request that all issues be considered in this B.C. case (in less than 5 minutes) declaring that the Employer had no fiduciary obligations to this employee. The question arises, of course, as to why the good judge did not direct this question to the Employer who he awarded costs  as opposed to awarding 'maintenance'  against the Employer for this legal tomfoolery. Other actions by Justice McKinnon were referred to the Canadian Judicial Council calling for his suspension from the bench.

11) Judges may slant opinions unfairly by ignoring key questions set to them. For example, the explanation for these Ontario court appearances (3 to date) was due in the third instance to the 'Cullen Creed' in which B.C. Associate Chief Justice Alistair Cullen, on his own recognizance, without taking legal argument or quoting specific laws, and for reasons best known to himself, barred me from B.C. courts in July of 2013 on any basis. That is totalitarianism. Logically, the SCofC is the only body capable of handling such a challenge, but - as I noted to Justice McKinnon - how do I get it there when the SCofC is very sticky about appeals being only from the Appeal Court level of a province? He had no answer.

12) Currently, I must traverse the Ontario Appeal Court process as a necessary 'speed bump' to make a Third challenge to the SCofC which would, of course, be profoundly embarrassing to them considering their earlier failure.

13) As a generalization, the media protects our bureaucracies although their patience has been stretched recently as far as politicians are concerned. To impugn the Canadian Justice System for systematic judicial abuse is beyond any mandate they ever perceived and yet 35 million Canadians are negatively affected by media failure to inform them of this matter. Typical is the Ottawa Citizen (April 28-2014 page 1) story in which they regurgitate McKinnon's judgment refusing to accept my 'Right of Reply'. In short, Editor Andrew Potter with his 'pack journalism' approach is warning off any serious reporting on this issue by other Canadian media.

14) The above explains why judgment is invariably made before the judges walk into the court room; the rest merely being a means of justifying a 'legal billable time' exercise. Call it Justice by Osmosis if you will. This is the first time that a Justice System has been caught acting 'aforethought'. Hence, here is the source of a pulitzer prize for the international source capable of revealing a scam of unimaginable proportions in a magazine article. Is the Canadian Justice System capable of withstanding such a challenge? There are many in the Court System, Parliament, and the Canadian Media which would believe otherwise...Democratic Canada is too weak.