JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

JUNE  2012

 

 

JUNE 01-2012        pulitzer prize potential

 

TO: Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Lance G. Finch            FROM:  Roger Callow (The Outlawed

                                           B.C. Court of Appeal                                                 Canadian)–plaintiff in S102159 & CA038538

                                        400-800 Hornby Street                                                208-2220 Halifax Drive

       Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2E1                                           Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7

                                                                           

(SEE web MAY 01-2012 for precursor)        www.employeescasecanada.com  JUNE 01-2012

QUOTES:     

1) `…but consider what is our reaction when we hear about a lying, cheating, corrupt judge. Yes, we are repulsed, but we nevertheless still maintain that justice is the underpinning of our democracy, that truth is a most desirable virtue. Rabbi R. Bulka

2) `Truth has divine properties, and the ability to see it is a gift that`s given, not acquired.`A Calculated Risk   Katherine Neville

3) ‘But as a dog grips his bone, I am dedicated to Truth. Truth in the end, and naught but Truth. Fabrizio’s Return   Mark Frutkin

4) ‘Everybody counts or nobody counts. It just takes one. It always starts with one. The Drop   Michael Connelly

5) ‘If a government cannot face the challenge of war, it ends.’  The Paris Vendetta   Steve Berry

6) ‘In the battle between good and evil; there are no bystanders’  EPOCH NEWS

7) ‘So he went down fighting? He was not able to fight, but he did not give an inch. The Confession   John Grisham

 

TOPIC: How Canada’s Judiciary reduced Canada to Third World status over a 28 year unresolved rinky dink labour case through systematic judicial abuse. No compensation (includes pension) has been paid.

 

MAY 01-2012 EXCERPTS:              

1) An oft quoted legal phrase is that of Justice Estey (St. Anne-Nackawic):

‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’ It is primarily a warning to judges not to permit legalities to usurp the true course of justice.

2) The above might be summarized as not ‘running a court within a court’ or, in the context of the Employee’s Case (EC), being party to a conspiracy involving the B.C. Government, the judiciary, an employer (West Vancouver School Board, a union (B.C. Teachers) to deprive senior teacher, Roger Callow of his livelihood in an illicit lay-off in June of 1985.

4) After over 30 judges including 3 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada : a) `universality of Unions`  b) `ultimate remedy`c)`usurped judicial authority`; the legality of this lay-off has not been tested in law so that no compensation has flowed.

6) Currently, this plaintiff is barred from any court to resolve this matter due to an unsolicited prohibitive un-numbered Order in 2010 by neophyte Associate Chief Justice (B.C. Supreme Court) Anne MacKenzie who, on her own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting relevant laws, dropped S106159 (Van. Registry) from the docket and, again, for reasons best known to herself, banned this plaintiff from all access to the courts to resolve this matter. (SEE web for details). To bar any individual from a court of law flies in the face of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

7) In an ‘illicit hearing’ without the presence of legal counsel for either party, Vancouver Federal Court prothonotary, Roger Lefrenieré, (T1386-11) wrote a disingenuous defense of MacKenzie’s action without any definition of what her action entailed. (SEE web for that account and my rebuttal). No mention of perhaps an even more egregious action is made in his account where the CA038538 legal books contesting her trangression of authority were returned by an un-named court official for reasons best known to himself thus supplanting a judicial decision with an administrative one.

8) As there is no appeal to actions of a court administrator, a letter was sent to Chief Justice Lance Finch (B.C. Supreme Appeal Court) to approve or deny this action. There was no response.

10) In a matter of `judicial theft`, ìt should be noted that a specious `surety of costs` for $10,000 paid by this plaintiff to guarantee the hearing of CA038538 will not be returned due to the fact that this party can not make any claim in a court of law.

15) The law may not be an ass but over 30 judges have managed to make it into a reasonable facsimile thereof which, due to precedent law, impairs the actions of all judges in Canada; the very thing against which Estey warned.

23) Anti-Judge Day (every July 1 – Canada`s Birthday) should be picked up by such organizations as the `Occupy Now` group. Get your placards and slogans (SEE web). Do not accept judicial awards (and return those already assigned). Do not ask judges to speak at public events. Shun their social causes.

N)…In short, law in Canada has no meaning until Justice Anne MacKenzie’s action is examined. She should be suspended until that answer is in.

 

CURRENT TEXT:

1) While the Lafrenieré Decision exhonerated Justice MacKenzie under very dubious considerations (what the heck, a win is a win in the context of the Judicial Record); such is not the case for  Chief Justice Lance Finch, as the second question before Lafrenieré outlined in 7) and 8) above was not addressed. Nor is 10)

2) In essence, what the courts have acknowledged in their wisdom is the right of administrative decisions to supplant judicial decisions against which a litigant has no defense.

3) That exposure reduces Canada and its legal system to Third World status.

4) Hence added to the suspension of Justice MacKenzie should be that of Chief Justice Finch until this entire matter is straightened out. Indeed, poetic justice would have Finch dip into his personal pocket to return the purloined $10,000 to this litigator. At any rate, I would like him to return those funds directly to me considering that it was his folly which permitted this egregious act in the first place for which he has not been judicially exhonerated.

 

May 22-2012

 

TO: jbagnall@ottawacitizen.com  business columnist

 

FROM: ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ (Roger Callow) FAX: 613-521-1739

 

MESSAGE: I doubt whether many follow your story on the Nortel trial and those that do are saying, “that’s the way everyone does things in the corporate world”. At any rate, the Justice System is not going to collapse no matter the outcome of this legal action.

 

     Not so with the www.employeescasecanada.com which, as I write, has seen the implosion of the Canadian Justice System; a national story unreported in the media due to a boycott.

 

     Unasked ‘obvious questions’ are typical of court-room scams although I cannot spot the explanation in the Nortel case.

 

     In the Employee’s Case, I received a letter from the Superintendent of Schools (West Vancouver, B.C.) on June 26-1985 quoting School Board authority to lay me off under BILL 35 conditions (BILL 35 became law on July 1-1985 and was only ever used against this personage and then withdrawn in the 1990`s before this legal matter had been resolved). The School Board meeting notes of June 26 made no mention of the lay-off of any teacher. Indeed, they created 16 new positions. The government-appointed arbitrator converted those 16 hires into 16 lay-offs and added my own as a necessary 17th lay-off knowing full well that I was the only lay-off victim. He was ruled `patently unreasonable`by the ensuing court hearing  which quashed his findings leaving me with no judgment hence freezing my compensation claims (including pension). Despite over 30 judges and 3 trips to the Supreme Court of Canada; 1) universality of unions 2) ultimate remedy 3) usurped justice, the propriety of this lay-off goes unchallenged and no compensation has been assigned.

 

     In testimony, the Superintendent claimed that lay-offs were such a detailed topic that the Assistant Superintendent was assigned the task of providing the numbers and recommendations to the School Trustees for action (no trustee, incidentally, ever took the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers). In answer to the question – an answer conveniently absent from the arbitrator`s report – he declared that there was no need to lay off any teacher in West Vancouver in June of 1985. `Then where did the request come from?’ he was asked. ‘From the Superintendent.’ In her ensuing judgment condemning the arbitration recommending that the Board return employment to this plaintiff, she stated; ‘Nothing was adduced in evidence that the School Board intended to lay-off a teacher under BILL 35 conditions’.

 

     Obvious question: Why was the Superintendent not called back on the stand by either the arbitrator or the defense lawyer to account for that discrepancy? That’s when I realized that I was facing a sweetheart deal which involved the B.C. government and the judiciary.

 

     BILL 35 was declared by the Union in 1985 to be the battle of all teachers by the Union. Today, B.C. Teachers must wear a collective yellow stripe down their backsides in their failure to stand up for the collective bargaining rights of this target.

 

     The precedent set by this case has changed the employment fabric for all Canadians for, as matters now stand; an employer may obviate all compensation claims with this line to a lay-off target: ‘If you do not sign a quick-deed of $1 for all outstanding claims, you will not collect your pension.’ Collective bargaining and the future of pension programs on which the economy heavily depends, are dead.

 

QUOTES:

1) ‘Fresh inquiry wanted in Lockerbie bombing’ O.C. May 23-12 p.A10 ‘…Fine words are not enough. Action is required…If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect…rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgment, it is imperative that its government acts by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair.’ (probably incarcerated the wrong man). NB While the victims are dead here; the victims of specious Canadian lay-offs are to be an ongoing saga.

 

2)‘Those who respect the law and like sausages should not watch either being made.’Otto Bismark

 

3) Conway’s Law:In every organization there will be one person who knows what is going on. This person must be sacked.’

 

4) ‘It’s now virtually impossible to have any consequences against a politician or senior bureaucrat who’s done something wrong.’ David Hutton FAIR ( protection of whistleblowers)

 

5)’…every civilized society requires to functiona literate population, emancipated women, the rule of law, a free press and fair elections….Terry Glavin journalist (well I suppose 2 out of 5 is a ‘start’ for Canada RC)

 

6) ‘The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a loser because it continues to follow an outdated flawed system involving incompetent investigations despite repeated disapproval by the UN Human Rights Council.’ Letter to Editor (NB Human Rights ducked my issue. RC)

 

7)’…no matter how strong the denials by P.M. Stephen Harper or anyone else, anything said by any politician of any party at any level can no longer be trusted, from the smallest personal matters to potential national criminal acts.’ Letter to Editor

 

8) ‘…management blamed the federal government for failing to protect the industry from foreign competition; they blamed the steelworkers’ union for demanding high wages and imposing inefficient work regulations. They blamed everyone but themselves.’ TILL THE BUTCHERS CUT HIM DOWN Marcia Muller

 

9) ‘The instinct to find and punish a scapegoat is among the ugfliest features of human nature, and, as is the Weimar Republic, democracy gives this instinct full scope.’ David Warren O.C. columnist

 

10) ‘Inside every small problem is a big problem trying to get out.’

 

OPEN LETTER TO CONRAD BLACK

(a comparison)

1) You may recall your last missive to me; you may not, it doesn’t matter. You chastised me for my ‘bravado’ for not researching the fact that ‘Fast Eddy’ was not your first choice of legal representation at your Chicago trial. You made no response to the www.employeescasecanada.com which is immeasurably more significant (although not to you) to 34 million Canadians.

2) You can get press attention as reflected in your recent interview with CBC’s Peter Manbridge; this writer, ‘the Outlawed Canadian’ cannot due to a media boycott.

3) Your accusation that the U.S. criminal justice system is rotten to the core would find voice in such as the novelist Dean Koontz to me: ‘…Roger, and I thought the U.S. courts were a mess’. Canada probably eclipses the U.S. in that regard in that the 28 year unresolved Employee’s Case before over 30 judges and 3 unsuccessful trips to the Supreme Court of Canada reflects, as it does, systematic judicial abuse.

4) The unspoken court message is that no Canadian (British?) citizen is going to get away with what U.S. citizens are sent to jail for in the U.S. In Canada, the unspoken message is that whistleblowing employees will be denied no matter what their message.

5) You appeared to be targeted by your enemies who caught the ear of the U.S. Justice System; I was targeted by the B.C. government who usurped the legislature (BILL 35) and co-opted the judiciary (government-appointed arbitrator later labelled as ‘patently unreasonable’ by the court) for a single legal case.

6) I agree with you that violent individuals should be behind bars (75%?). I disagree that white collar criminals should escape incarceration. Many decades ago, a Moscow guide told us that they did not necessarily execute murderers whose crime affected a few people but they did execute black marketeers whose actions affected large numbers.

7) I agree with you that the Justice System in both countries attach a number of senseless charges with the unspoken message that something must stick. The charge of ‘racketeering’ against you was ludicrous; something rejected by the jury.

‘Obstruction of Justice’ for which you received most jail time, is another judicial tool badly abused as investigators set people up for the purpose. (The RICCO laws in the States by which the profits of crime may be confiscated is sometimes little more than judicial theft as criminals are pinpointed to obtain assets made available to the authorities…a little like the profiteering of the Chinese army.)

The film clip of you removing material from a Canadian office had no place in a Chicago courtroom as their jurisdiction does not extend beyond the U.S. unless Hollinger was registered in the states which it was. Radler realized that point and chose to plead guilty. (Ask Panama’s Noriega on that one as the U.S. floated down out of the sky planting 100 loyal Panamanian soldiers into an early grave in what must be the most expensive ‘arrest’ in modern history…makes one wish for James Bond and his final solutions…less blood). Nothing, however, sticks to the ‘outlawed Canadian’ because he is estopped from entering any B.C. court to resolve his legal problem.

8) You have lightened up on ‘libel chill’ since your incarceration as in the past I have little doubt NDP’s Mulchair would be targeted by referring to you as a ‘British criminal’. Technically, you are a British subject and an American felon raising questions as to your access to Canada (an old Jean Chretien stunt when you would not play ball with him on newspaper revelations on wrongdoing in Shawinigan). Mulchair is able to escape with his charge. The Canadian government is providing you with a year to clear up legal charges against you which, if I understand you, require a Republican government in Office. No government of any stripe will give me any access to the courts. That’s why we are now a Third World country.

9) The Justice Systems of both countries would appear to look through the big end of the telescope regarding business irregularities as the law is an ass trying to nail jello to the wall in this regard although the public is unsuccessfully crying out for retribution. The Nortel story is in court and, I believe, like your own story, unprovable in law which is not to say that you and Radler were not culpable. Keep in mind that the court does not say you are guilty; rather, that you have been found guilty which may or may  not be the truth. Due to a quashed arbitration, I have no standing which is why Canada has defied a basic truism in law; namely, that there can be no process without judgment. You got judgment in spades; I don’t exist hence the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will have to be rewritten.

10) As an individual I do not identify with you or your ilk as you appear to set personal fortune ahead of the welfare of your employees. You socialize in groups dedicated to their own self-importance which is why I questioned your religious conversion outlined in a newspaper article. The closest you came to an epiphany in my estimation was the over-joyed response of a fellow inmate to getting a school certification due to your teaching. On one occasion, I was brought up short by observing that welfare types very often always seemed to have money for cigarettes only to be told by a very good man working in retirement for the Salvation Army that this was oftentimes the only enjoyment these people got out of life. You for the ‘big people’; me for ‘the little people’. You would quote the ‘law’; I would quote ‘justice’.

11) Much more could be said, of course, but readers who have stuck this far deserve a break. I’ll leave you with this quote from Rabbi Reuven Bulka:

‘…A viable society is predicated on some basic foundations. Trust and honesty are probably chief among these principles. When these principles are undermined, they threaten to destroy authentic, meaningful interaction. This is true not only of society; it is likewise true of all relationships.

     For this alone, never mind other considerations, resorting to false pretence at any level is nothing short of contemptible. But it is the misrepresentation, the hypocrisy, that must be condemned. The faith system is the unwitting cover for the fraud, not the cause of it.’

 

…alas, the faith system of the Canadian Justice System is so intertwined with the fraud due to systematic judicial abuse in the Employee’s Case that it is now identified with the fraud…that’s why – due to precedent law - we are now a Third World country. RC

 

June 19-2012

 

TO: Teachers’ Pension Plan (Ontario)            

        ATTN: Jim Leech – President & CEO               

        5650 Yonge St.                                               

        Toronto, Ontario M2M 4H5

                           

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

 

MESSAGE: Acknowledgment of your letter of June (no date)-2012 is made in response to my earlier letter to you of May 30-2012.

 

1) Your ‘corporate’ response is poor balm for individual teachers contributing to a pension fund in Ontario.

2) It would seem that in this corporate world, bureaucracies speak only to other bureaucracies.

3) Even here there are problems. For example, many companies are underfunding their pension contributions with no-one to say ‘boo’. To be sure, in the current economic climate, the Ontario government would like to find a political formula to underfund the teachers’ pension fund.

4) The Unions with their notion of ‘solidarity forever’ recognize the importance of this truism;

‘If we do not hang together, we will be hanged separately’.

5) ‘…Therefore, we will not be party to any civil matter involving a plan member nor will we take an activist role in these types of personal disputes….’  No doubt that thinking pervades such as the Nortel Pension Plan and General Motors Pension Plan administrators. No doubt that attitude accounts for their current dilemmas.

6) While not defining the type of legal support being requested for future litigation, such bureaucratic support is important in ‘personal disputes’ which negatively affect all pension schemes and not only those of Ontario Teachers. Your letter lets down all pension funds in that respect. Teachers should run and not walk from the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund in that regard if they do not replace CEO Jim Leech.

7) The elephant in the room is the legions of newly graduating teachers without jobs permitting a smaller School District to be able to replace all their striking teachers.

8) The significance of the Employee’s Case(Canada) is that, currently, an employer may challenge a dismissed employee holding pension rights with this line: ‘If you do not sign a $1 quick deed settlement, you will not be able to collect your pension’.

9) A dismissed teacher one year from retirement is hardly likely to resist as waiting 27 years for a settlement as per the ‘Outlawed Canadian’ does not make economic sense.

10) Once an employer establishes 9) above; then action in succeeding years will be against younger teachers. I was 42 when I was ‘so-called’ laid off (never tested in law despite over 30 judges including 3 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada). No compensation has been paid.

11) Hence the above case is hardly ‘personal’ in its ramifications. As to ‘activism’; Hitler would have roamed unmolested over Europe if your attitude prevailed.

 

Yours in disappointment,

 

cc Ontario Secondary Teachers’ Federation President Ken Coran

cc             Elementary                                          Sam Hammond