JUMP TO HOME PAGE

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JUN-01-2013 

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)   

CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ in search of a pulitzer prize seeking columnist  N.B. JULY 01 ‘ANTI-JUDGE DAY’

 

THEME: CANADA: A FAILED STATE

    guilty

 

PEJORATIVE BACKGROUND: A government conspiracy in which the B.C. Government was hi-jacked (‘imposed’ BILL 35 in 1985 later withdrawn before the single case before it was resolved – banana republic law); the judiciary was co-opted (gerrymandered government arbitrator appointment who was later labeled ‘patently unreasonable’ when the outcome was quashed by the courts leaving this litigant in what now appears a permanent state of limbo (SCoC failure to deal with this issue in 2004 ‘You have exhausted all remedy under the law’ volunteered my legal advisor; a statement in defiance of such major laws as habeas corpus, ‘ultimate remedy’ -collective bargaining rules-  and the fact that ‘there can be no process without judgment’.)

 

QUOTES:

1) ‘ …The offensive comments attributed to Conservative MP Peter MacKay, calling the Department of Justice “the world’s worst law firm”, are an unwarranted attack on our 5,000 loyal and dedicated employees….

Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada ‘An injustice to Justice’ O.C. Letter to Editor March 18-2004

2) a)`…So you see, John, lawyers have much less respect for the law than the rest of us. It`s familiarity, you see, doing its little breeding job again….` b) `In halls of justice, all justice is in the halls` Bad News  Donald Westlake

3) So there were seven justices, and a few were even said to be quite bright, although legal scholarship has never been the primary qualification. No Show of Remorse  David Walker

4) ‘A culture is unsalvageable if stabilizing forces themselves become ruined and irrelevant. Dark Age Ahead

Jane Jacobs

5) ‘Politics trumped research which is the story behind far too many justice policies’ Dan Gardner  former O.C. columnist

6) …but one never knows what bureaucracies will do to keep from offending those who subsidize their existence.’ The Devil’s Punchbowl  Greg Isles

7) `….I learned that every single person who makes a stand makes a difference. How you live, what you believe, what you do – it all matters. Results are important too, but the critical factor, the most important thing, is making a stand….` The Assassin  Stephen Coonts

8) Ottawa Sun’s (editorial page) mission statement May 23-13: ‘…We believe that, in journalism, we should deal with issues as they arise and go where the story takes us, not where we’d like to go. And with that, we leave it to you to judge if we do the job. R. “codswallop” …if Justice Southin had used the word ‘must’in 1986 as opposed to ‘should’ return employment to this writer, the Canadian  Justice System would be intact today.

 

OPEN LETTER TO ETHICALLY CHALLENGED PRIME MINISTER

STEPHEN HARPER

1) ``He did not get into politics to defend the Senate.`` P.M. Harper on the Senator Duffy scandal

Did you really say that, Prime Minister, considering  the targets are your appointees?  PLACARD: HARPER MAKES BAD APPOINTMENTS. And to think I was critical of your mouthpiece, M.P. ‘Skippy’ for being a victim of a brain transplant gone horribly wrong!

 

2) No matter as Parliament has been taken out with the Justice System in the above legal case. It’s a complete and utter legal screw-up. There was a time when Parliament could have enacted the ‘peace, order and good government’ clause of the constitution to retain credibility. Now it is too late which explains the ‘Canada as a failed state label’.

 

3) Yet the Employee’s Case roles on in the courts and there is still action you may take against individual judges.

 

4) Currently there are 3 court actions and 5 Supreme Court of Canada  submissions all focusing on the MacKenzie Creed; an undocketed Order by B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Deputy, Anne MacKenzie, who – on her own recognizance, without taking argument or quoting pertinent rules or laws, - decided for reasons best known to herself  that litigant, former West Vancouver senior teacher Roger Callow ,was to be banned from court in the matter of his unresolved 28 year illicit lay-off. No compensation (including pension rights) has been paid. (In short, earlier accounts have described how the Employer is getting through the back door what they could not get through the front door by blackmailing the judiciary.)

 

5) The Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada would apparently add a codicil to Regulation 40 in which he demands a lower court hearing must be before three judges knowing full well that the Registries of the B.C. Supreme Court, the B.C. Appeal Court, the Federal Court and now, possibly the Divisional Court (DC-12-1872) in Ottawa do everything possible to thwart a possible SC of C hearing which I submit was the original intention of the MacKenzie Creed in the first place. In their bid to protect a pristine judicial record on which precedent law depends, every effort in  the legal bureaucracies has been exploited for this purpose. In short, they are running ‘a court within a court’ of systematical legal abuse with which no judicial system may survive. That skulduggery is to no avail. Here’s why.

 

6) The background story should be well known to you through former head honcho Tory M.P., John Reynolds, who was the reputed go-between as the local MPP between the B.C. Government and the West Vancouver School Board in 1985.

 

7) The unique feature of this case is that as the initial arbitration was quashed by the courts in 1986 with the government appointed arbitrator being labeled ‘patently unreasonable’; no lower court decision exists.

 

8) Hence the SCofC acted unconscionably and, I might add, illegally, by refusing to hear two actions brought before a preliminary judiciary hearing prompting my legal advisor in 2004 to make this amazing admission: ‘You have exhausted all remedy under the law.’ Events from that date as reflected in the MacKenzie Creed would support that untenable position. Besides sanctioning ‘the sweetheart deal’, in addition the court ducked the accusation of ‘a conspiracy of the grievance process’ in 2004 apart from the original conspiracy. Without a lower court decision to fall back on, I have been left in a permanent state of limbo which has been exacerbated by the MacKenzie Creed; an Order which cannot stand because it must not stand.

 

9) I have exhorted Ottawa Chief Justice Hackland to appoint his best judges to this case. Justice Maranger (Superior Court 12-54944) did not even mention the Mackenzie Creed although I challenged him on that level. The Appeal challenge is solely on that level and is uncontested (A similar Federal Court challenge from B.C. saw the B.C. Attorney General fill the void but the Ontario A.G. has decided to go AWOL).

 

10) The key legal notions at question with the MacKenzie Creed have far reaching ramifications for, as they stand, the ‘individual’no longer has a standing in court due to the precedent set by this iniquitous piece of law:

a) To which courts, if any, does this prohibition apply?

b) As the courts in their wisdom decided to join me at the hip with the Union, does this personal ban apply to Union representation of my interests? (I always believed that I had access to the courts but in this particular case, the courts decided otherwise.)

c) While there are fancy Latin terms for the purpose, am I able to have other legal counsel to present my case as ‘Roger Callow’ is both a personal and an entity before the law? In short, by being represented by legal counsel, a litigant acquiesces much of his personal standing before the court.

 

11) The questions above are central to our constitution for if an individual entity is denied in a court of law, then the constitution must be re-written from ‘any individual’ to ‘any individual entity’; a no small distinction in our society although it may appear to be quibbling with words. Precedent law from this case would suggest that all individuals could be denied access to our courts on their own recognizance for no apparent reason.

 

12) As a cabal of judges and registries have been accused of undermining this all important case determining the nature of Canadian anarchy, copies of letters on this matter are included to both SCof C, Registrar Roger Bilodeau and SCofC Judge, the Hon. R. Wagner. encl. to these two parties

 

13) The Employee’s Case has arguably wiped out the credibility of the Judiciary, Parliament, the Unions, and the media. Have I missed anyone? Anyone know? Anyone care?

 

14) As to the media, a retiring columnist mused whether or not any column ever made a difference. The columnist who breaks the boycott on the Employee’s Case promises to be the shot to be heard down 21st century Canada. The point here is whether such a Canadian columnist exists? Prattling on knowing that the prattling is the story conditions many columnists to such a degree that when they are called on to act in a significant way, they freeze up. encl. to Postmedia’s  Andrew Coyne as representative of the collective psche of columnists/reporters to act.

 

15) So what action can the Prime Minister take? First of all, immediately institute an I.Q. test for all judges to ensure that their I.Q.’s at least average 100; and not merely add up to that figure. If Canada is to die a judicial death due to this case; then the Prime Minister should act to dismiss all the judges as a cost saving measure and enfranchise the Registry bureaucracies where the back-room deals are being made in any event.

 

16) Dismissals of the following Chief Justices is a must in that regard: R. Bauman (B.C. Supreme Court); L. Finch (B.C. Appeal Court); B. McLachlin (SCof C); P. Crampton Federal Court of Canada and your appointee);

C. Hackman (Ontario Superior/Divisional Court-Ottawa) The alternative, of course, is to submit your own resignation.

 

17) It is not a pleasant thing to inform Canadians of their tyrannical government/courts without offering an alternative. While no-one would brag about U.S. Justice, their system is still intact. Canadians may very well wish to get a new judicial start by applying for U.S. statehood; a proviso which is already included in the U.S. constitution.

 

18) Adolf Hitler, if alive, would observe: ‘What?  All this and no jackboots in the street?  Amazing!’

 

‘The Outlawed Canadian’

 

Personal tip: If I were you, I would look out for a dissident group of Tories threatening to sit as independents and then, if you do not resign, crossing over to the Opposition.

Also, you can forget about crime in the streets until you clean up the mayhem behind the bench.

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JUN-03-2013 

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)   

CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ in search of a pulitzer prize seeking columnist

 

COMPARISON BETWEEN OTTAWA SUPT.(G) WRONGFUL DISMISSAL vs EMPLOYEE’S CASE (E)

 

REFERENCE: O.C. June 3-13 B1 ‘Judge dismisses lawsuit filed against gay jail guard and union’ Ex-deputy superintendent  (Grady) must pay $15,000.

 

1) G. The media portrayal of Grady since 2005 has been as a most unsavoury homophobic  bully boy.

     E.                                    Callow in 1985 was as an incompetent senior  teacher.

2) G. Grady was fired (for cause?...denied by employer which seems a specious manner of ducking out) ‘Wrongful dismissal’ rules applied.

     E. Callow was laid off c/w recall rights. Law of contract to apply (different laws than above). At one point, the Union was encouraging me to sue for ‘wrongful dismissal’ which, at best would give me two years salary without any chance of the return of employment. I declined.

3) G. target of ‘sweetheart deal’. The most dangerous accusation as Union legal representative represents both sides. Many labour lawyers refuse employee cases because of pressure from the Union to back one side or the other as opposed to remaining apart (lawyers want union accounts and are, therefore, susceptible to Union overtures). In this case, the Union appeared to support the employee over the supervisor. Grady has a decision although it is one he disagrees with.

    E. target of ‘sweetheart deal’ solidified by the B.C. Labour Board BCLB  B117/2002 which the Union used to abandon this unfinished legal issue. The Union further denied my right to pursue the case at my own expense joining up, as they did, with the Employer in court hearings. The Union backed the School Principal – also a member of the same union – at my personal expense (Union lawyer balked at calling School Trustees to the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers which showed 16 new positions being added, not subtracted as per the Arbitrator’s Report for which he was labeled ‘patently unreasonable’ when the arbitration was quashed leaving me in limbo with no decision (‘there can be no process without judgment’.)

4) G. Mr. Grady’s dispute with Mr. Ranger arises from the collective agreement,’ wrote (the judge). Based on the precedent set by the Employee’s Case, Grady must first have the permission of the Union to sue his co-worker. How absurd! Unless he could claim fraud, he was left to the vicissitudes of the judge. The big guys – in this case the Union – usually win due to judicial preference.

    E. The courts have tried to beg out of the Employee’s Case on the same grounds concluding that Callow is merely re-litigating matters already decided on. As to which matters, the employer/union/courts do not say. This res judicata excuse was addressed in the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada hearing pointing out that , for a first time, the plaintiff was alleging fraud in the grievance process. The SCofC failed to hear this matter although that is the one factor which permits a court to intervene over a labour board decision. Further it was clear that an apparent  fraud was present in the original arbitration.

5) G. Grady’s chance of pursuing action under the collective agreement is nil for the above reasons.

     E.  Callow’s                                            ditto                                                         .

Due to the death of the arbitrator (matter was ordered back to the same arbitrator after the Employer failed to return employment as recommended by the court) a ‘frustrated’ case was created (litigants not to suffer for legal glitches such as this). The court’s role of ‘inherent jurisdiction’ comes into play which the courts have repeatedly avoided leaving this case unresolved. Hence while I may have a battle with the Employer/Union, I have a full scale war with the judges.

6) G. Grady was denied access to the Grievance Board Hearings by the Union to defend himself for which a hearing is still pending. That Board labeled him a homophobic bully. This aspect is most frightening…so much for access to the Justice System.

     E. Callow did not take the stand as he had nothing to do with ‘lay-off numbers’ although the condemned arbitrator did  smear his teaching reputation in his report. Smartest thing I ever did was staying off the stand considering I was faced with a fixed hearing in a ‘sweetheart deal’. Another arbitrator could just as easily have found the principal concerned guilty of fraud requiring his dismissal.

7)  G. Grady received 18 months severance. By accepting this sum, he did his case irreparable harm as compensation (a key in the collective bargaining process) is seen to be paid in full.

      E. No compensation has been paid as the amount of compensation depends on the legality of the lay-off.

This compensation includes pension rights.

8) G. Grady is denied court access according to the laws of the land and the precedent set by the Employee’s Case.

     E. The one key difference between the two cases lies in the fact that an undocumented court  Order in 2010 (the McKenzie Creed) expels Callow (for reasons best known to the judge) from any court access in trying to finalize this case. That is a first for any legal system…and a last as Canada is now a failed state. It is the cover-up of that deleterious situation in 5 courts across Canada which has created our very own Watergate.

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JUN-07-2013

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)   

CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ in search of a pulitzer prize seeking columnist 

N.B. JULY 01 ‘ANTI-JUDGE DAY’

 

THEME: CANADA: A FAILED STATE

fox

SELECTION PROCESS AT THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

OPEN LETTER TO THE TWO COLLABORATORS ‘Jekyll and Hyde’

ATTN:  SCofC Judge R. Wagner  and   SCofC Registrar Roger Bilodeau

 

MESSAGE:

1) In the recent trial before Justice Maranger (#12-54944 Ottawa Superior Court Nov. 01-2012), I opined that the SCofC is the final court of Appeal to which he added; ‘Yes, it is’.

 

2) The trick here, however, is to get a civil issue before this august court. 3 SCofC judges vet all cases rejecting close to 85% of them with no reason given leaving the client with a lower court decision. They hear, for example, such apparently trite issues as the woman who was not served in French in a public place while ignoring, as in the Employee’s Case, an accusation in 2004 alleging conspiracy of the judicial process in this now 28 year unresolved labour case before over 30 judges in 5 courts where no compensation has been paid due to the fact that the propriety of this lay-off of senior West Vancouver, B.C. Teacher, Roger Callow, has never been tested in law.

 

3) As the original arbitration was quashed with the government arbitrator being ruled as ‘patently unreasonable’; this writer was left in limbo hence when the court refused to hear this matter in 2004 - unlike any other court case where a lower court decision is extant - they obviated the age-old legal aphorism that ‘there can be no process without judgment’…except, apparently in present day Canada.

 

4) The only justification for this legal position is that should this plaintiff find ‘the right legal counsel’ to ask ‘the right legal question’; then ‘of course’ the judiciary would handle the matter although in that endeavor it is recognized that the plaintiff may die in the process providing the court with a much welcomed relief. It’s a not uncommon scenario in controversial cases.

 

5) That all ended in October 2010, when Deputy Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, Anne MacKenzie, on her own recognizance, without taking legal argument or quoting specific laws, dropped S106059 from the court docket which requested interim salary leaving the courts, the Employer and Union to finalize this long continuously fought battle. This charge exists apart from any other legal finding as this plaintiff should never have been cut from salary in the first place until matters were resolved.

 

6) Panic had set in with the conspirators. If 25 years of back salary appropriately compounded with interest was paid, it would bring into sharp relief court chicanery in this matter of systematical judicial abuse. Further, if the matter were to reach the Supreme Court of Canada, it would bring into even sharper focus the failure of that body in 2004 to hear this matter…and that would never do.

 

7) The conflation of the two processes brings into account some very significant judicial questions.

 

8) In the first instance of the SCofC denying a hearing in 2004, Parliament had the opportunity to invoke the ‘peace, order, and good government’ clause of the constitution in order to correct judicial excesses which obviously the judiciary did not feel competent to handle. Parliament failed bringing the operation of that body into disrepute. That’s how Canada arguably became a Third World Country.

 

9) The second instance is even more intriquing as it brings into scope, as it does, the relation between the courts and the registries designed to serve those courts. The fiction is that the two act independently of each other. The key difference is that while one may appeal a judicial order, there is no appeal to an order from the Registry which can have the same effect as the court in ‘burying’ an issue; that is, keeping it from the judicial record on which precedent law depends.

 

10) It seems clear that the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ (see web  for details) was designed to disappear down the same black hole to which it consigned S106159. Bottom line? The judicial record would merely show that S106159 did not proceed, the implication being that the plaintiff withdrew it. I call this ‘running a court within a court’.

 

11) An even more spurious action, if it is possible to imagine one, was the judge’s action – again without giving any reason – of denying this plaintiff future access to the courts to resolve this outstanding legal matter which the courts had at one time ordered to be re-litigated when the Employer failed to return employment as recommended by the court.

 

12) The intervening years from 2010 have seen several court cases focusing on the MacKenzie Creed which have been detailed elsewhere on the website. Currently there have been 5 submissions to the SCofC blocked by the Registrar quibbling over an interpretation of Rule 40 regarding which cases are to be forwarded to the panel of 3 SCofC judges.

 

13) The point of this letter is to note the unholy alliance which has grown up between the registries of the B.C. Supreme Court, The B.C. Appeal Court, the Federal Court, Ontario (Ottawa) Superior/ Divisional Court and their apparent masters as reflected by Chief Justices from all courts refusing to intervene in what is clearly court obfuscation to deny this plaintiff his proper recognition before a court of law and not merely placed before ‘Suzie’ or ‘Marie’ (they are great for first names only) in the Register`s Office. In the case of the B.C. Supreme Court recently, a clerk refused to register a case citing the MacKenzie Creed. Someone had vetted all the documents in that case until they found an excuse to reject filing this case in which the fee had been paid. Registries are there to deal with external preparations and not to make legal decisions quite properly that of the court…until now, apparently.

 

14) Perhaps the most telling lie of the MacKenzie Creed is that it makes of a written collusion between judge and Registry to be observed in the conduct of the Employee`s Case. To deprive anyone from access to the laws of the country is a despicable action by any judge. To further give an order - which the Registrar should not have signed, incidentally, - to block any further material on this matter filed with the court is indefensible.

 

15) The key relationship between the courts and the Registry is ‘deniability’ not collusion. For example, If P.M. Harper were to announce with regards to the recent Senate Scandal and the concurrent dismissal of his Chief of Staff that not only did he have knowledge of an illegal payment made by the CofS, he ordered it, then all hell would break loose. Similarly, the courts must hear my appeal over the MacKenzie Creed irregularities if it is to retain its charter. The alternative would be for Parliament to dismiss all the judges and pass enabling legislation for the Judicial Registries to run the country. That’s how Canada is becoming ‘a failed state’.

 

16) The Devil’s advocate approach would argue as to why I would insist on no doubt a second rejection by the SCofC considering the first one in 2004? There’s a very good chance they are correct. The point here is that a duly invested court of law would be making the decision; not a registry clerk called Dianne or whomever. The Canadian people are owed as much. Secondly, the MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand if Canada is to have any credibility as a democratic nation.

 

17) This account is directed to the ‘two collaborators’; SCofC Judge Hon. R. Wagner and Registrar Roger Bilodeau who are the embodiment of the MacKenzie Creed. If these two between them wish to fall on their respective swords for the conspiracy by denying a judicial examination at great cost to the Justice System; so be it.

 

18) As to the anti-employee Canadian media and their demise, it would seem as if Post medias Andrew Coyne and his boss are too busy patting themselves on the back with a recent award from the Civil Liberties Association as opposed to informing Canadians of the most significant legal debacle in Canadian Jurisprudence. Any future legal text which omits this precent-setting legal story will be to the great detriment of the study of law in Canada.

 

19) So ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ collaborators; the choice is yours…will it be the courts of law or the back room for the finalization of the MacKenzie Creed?

 

cc Postmedia Columnist Andrew Coyne

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JUN-08-2013 

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)   

CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ in search of a pulitzer prize seeking columnist

 

‘SOMETHING HAS TO BE TERRIBLY, TERRIBLY WRONG WITH THE COURTS TO USE THE ‘NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE’ 

S. Harper 2004

 

QUOTES:

1) ‘The danger seemed unreal and remote at the moment, but that was the worst kind of danger: the kind you cannot or will not meet head-on. The kind that is amorphous at first, incorporeal, but which takes shape while you’re busy denying it exists and then hardens into a physical entity.’ Word of Honour   Nelson deMille

2) ‘…In Canada, ultimately, the Senate doesn’t matter. It’s small potatoes. The danger is a pattern of corruption. If the Senate’s follies become an expression of managerial competence – long the government’s proudest boast - and that cancer metastasizes in the body politic, that’s trouble for the Conservatives. That was the lesson of Watergate…. O.C. columnist Andrew Cohen

3) ‘…I call it the politico-legal-media complex. The PLM…And the PLM is powerful and stable, precisely because it unites so many institutions of society. Politicians need fears to control the population. Lawyers need dangers to litigate, and make money. The media need scare stories to capture an audience…’ State of Fear  Michael Crichton

 

OPEN LETTER TO SCofC JUDGE, HON. R. WAGNER

 

REFERENCE: May 30-13  two page letter from Supreme Court of Canada Registrar, Roger Bilodeau Q.C. to the ‘Outlawed Canadian’ with no enclosure to SCofC judge Hon. R. Wagner, the other half of the ‘Jekyll-Hyde’ duo. (although I am sure he has seen it.) I appended his letter with a one-liner: ‘You should be given an award for ‘spin’

 

MESSAGE:

1) While this letter is addressed to me, I ask the question as to who the target audience must be? Gullible judges?

2) If so, the message appears to be that the dinosaur of a Canadian Justice System is still intact. Besides, it has never fallen before hasn’t  it?

3) Missed in this analysis by Bilodeau is the fact that it has been hit by an astroid called the ‘McKenzie Creed’ (SEE web site for details).

4) The situation is analogous to the fact that in Canada – in contrast to all other Western nations – there is no policy with regards to ‘late stage abortion’ due to a colossal screwup between the Canadian Parliament and the Courts.

5) Similarly, it was the failure of the SCofC in 2004 to hear a 25 year unresolved labour matter where no compensation had been paid leaving this litigant in a permanent state of limbo contrary to the law that there can be ‘no process without judgment’. Since there was no lower court decision extant, this plaintiff became the ‘Outlawed Canadian’; the first Canadian to be so ostracized under the Constitution. That`s how Canada became a Third World Country.

6) The gullible P.M. and Parliament were caught napping and failed to rectify this matter by applying the `peace,order and good government` clause of the Constitution by which the Legislative Branch of government  remains superior to the Executive Branch. As to the media non-coverage…don`t even ask….

7) Enter the McKenzie Creed in 2010 which had two aims: one, to isolate this plaintiff from exercising his right of access to the Justice System while, one and at the same time, establishing an unholy relationship between the judges and the registries which, until the Creed, had their own jurisdictions. No longer.

8) This Creed bestowed powers onto the Registries which were not the right of a judge to do nor a Registry Officer to sign. For example, there is the power of appeal over the judges; there is no similar appeal over Registry actions. Hence, hiding a judicial decision behind a registry action regarding a specious quoting of the rules has been hardened into fact by the Creed. Even Parliament can be forestalled by this unholy alliance if the Creed is to survive. That is one reason why this despicable Creed cannot stand because it must not stand if Canada is to survive as a democracy.

9) As long as this Creed is permitted to survive, there is no law in Canada. That is called anarchy and explains why Canada currently functions as a failed state.

10) As to Registry manifestations, Bilodeau is ‘so’ helpful in offering to help me out…right out. Why, he will even arrange for legal counsel which is designed in his system to help ‘impecunious idiots’ who would dare to challenge the monolithic dinosaur of a Justice System. I believe I already had that kind of help at the original arbitration sanctioning a ‘sweetheart deal’ which was later quashed by the courts leaving me in limbo. I had to sit there watching the Union lawyer throw the case.`My legal adviser had the best answer after the 2004 SCofC failure to hear this case…`You have exhausted all remedy under the law`.

11) If I follow the drift of Bilodeau’s letter, I am badly in need of legal assistance as the ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’; namely that the Registries of four Appeal Courts have rejected my factums on the grounds that they do not conform to the rules. Bilodeau is no slouch in this direction either as he has rejected 5 approaches, each with a different label (SEE web site). The next SCofC challenge is going to be labelled ‘SCofC-Anarchy because, unknown to Bilodeau, the astroid has already hit.

12) Of interest in the above Registry rejections is that I have not had one factum rejected in a lower court due to a misunderstanding of the rules. But then I am always suddenly `non poopis mentis` at the Appeal Court level when there is a perceived threat of a possible  SCofC challenge.

13) Justice Estey`s line (St. Anne-Nackawic) is germane here: `What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.` He must have prophetically had the Employee`s Case (Canada) as his prime example.

 

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES to SCofC8 – ANARCHY

 

14) The tag team match of Bilodeau-Wagner decide once again to stymie an appeal by the Registry which has been blessed by the Creed. Canadian law will end not with a bang but a whimper as Parliament will be frozen out as well as this litigant.

15) The SCofC permits this matter to be adjudged by 3 judges (as per the first failed appeal on `the universality of unions` and the second failed appeal on `ultimate remedy`. Failure to permit this case to proceed will once again leave Parliament to act under the `peace, order and good government` label of the constitution…and that would never do as the grievance questioned the operation of the court in this 28 year caper. Will Harper and his compadres be caught napping for a second time?

16) The SCofC hears the case and expunges the Creed. The only possible answer under the circumstances. While the Creed is case sensitive; nonetheless, the fact of its existence is known in legal circles across Canada. In short, a pristine Judicial Record may be retained but only in a tarnished fashion as ‘running a court within a court’ has been seen to displace the notion of precedent law. Nothing can change that status.

17) The SCofC hears the case and does not expunge the Creed…too horrible to contemplate.

 

MORE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES

 

18) My buy-out price of $6 million must be looking pretty good to the conspirators who now run Canada in this vacuum. The defeat of the Union movement, one unintended consequence of my effort, is a fantastic plus for them as they have received at a fraction of the cost in time and money the demise of the unions. The ‘right to work’ gang must be ecstatic.

19) So, Mr. Wagner (your new appellation until this sorry story is completed), will you be beating a hasty retreat much like your predecessor, Louis Arbour, who ran from the SCofC court after a short sojourn of less than 18 months?

 

cc Andrew Coyne Postmedia Columnist – long on intellect; AWOL on reporting.

     PMO

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JUN-15-2013 

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)   

CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ in search of a pulitzer prize seeking columnist

 

QUOTES:

1) Legal Rights 7. ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2) aphorism: ‘It’s not what you don’t know what gets you into trouble, it’s the things you know for sure that ain’t so!’

3) ‘The law is blind only when it does not wish to see.’  The Potato Factory  Bryce Courtenay

4) ‘Our respect for the law should be stirred, not shaken.’ Iain Hunter Victoria Times Colonist (B.C.)

5) ‘We’ve made truth a relative thing these days, something to be shaped or else ignored and our standard operating procedure is to flout the facts and reject reality if it doesn’t suit our purpose’ Janice Kennedy O.C.

6) ‘There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work. Irving Kristol (Inside Out  Barry Eisler)

7) ‘It is a foolish body who holds an inquiry when it doesn’t already know the outcome. Even if it hasn’t decided in advance, it is careful to place people on the inquiry who have a dependable point of view. If you want a judgment against a cat then you would do well to place a majority of mice on the committee. Sylvia

Bryce Courtenay

OPEN LETTER TO JEKYLL AND HYDE

(Hon. R. Wagner – on behalf of all SCofC Judges &

SCof C Registrar Roger Bilodeau QC)

MESSAGE:

1) Oh dear, where should I start? Let’s leave off where Canada became a Third World Nation in 2004 with the failure of the SCofC to deal with an unresolved legal case with no precedent. ‘You have exhausted all remedy under the law’ was the preposterous statement of my legal adviser even if he was correct. The government failed to enact the ‘peace, order and good government’ clause of the Constitution to redress this legal imbalance leaving the government powerless before the executive branch.

2) So let’s begin with the McKenzie Creed in October of 2010, an undocumented Order from B.C. Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, Anne McKenzie, who unceremoniously dropped S106059 from the docket for reasons best known to herself (as the plaintiff, I had asked to be placed back on salary – 25 years worth – while the court and the only two the court would recognize in this labour matter; namely, the West Vancouver School Board Employer and the Teachers Union,  to sort out this unresolved matter earlier ordered back to litigation. Without that judgment, no compensation (includes pension rights) may flow.) As matters now stand, an employer may avoid all pecuniary expense by hiding a dismissal behind a lay-off with this comment: ‘If you do not accept a $1 settlement, you will not collect your pension’. McKenzie took no argument nor quoted any laws in her Order. SEE web for Creed

3) Of particular interest is the additional item in which she expels this litigant from (any?) court to remedy this matter, again, for reasons best known to herself. That action hits at the very fundamentals of the Canadian Justice System. It is the cover-up in examining that feature which has led Canada into becoming ‘a failed state’.

4) So why did the authorities throw caution to the wind and the legal system down the toilet?

5) Part of the answer lay in the laying of S106159 with its potential threat of becoming yet another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada which would focus undo attention on the failure of the SCofC to act in 2004; particularly on the accusation of a conspiracy of the judicial process apart from an alleged conspiracy in 1985 (sweetheart deal) in which the career of former senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, was forfeited.

6) This Creed was redundant in that due to an earlier ‘frivolous and vexatious’ label attached to this case by the court, permission of the court was required and indeed was sought to proceed. So why the overkill? And overkill it certainly was as this document has changed the Canadian legal system in a most fundamental way by impairing the very sensitive arrangement between judges and registry clerks.

7) What terrified the conspirators was the fact that Parliament was quite within its rights to invoke the ‘peace, order, and good government’ clause of the Constitution by which the Legislative Branch supercedes the Executive Branch of Government. I had asked the government to exercise those rights. While the P.M. and Parliament plus media were caught napping in 2004, such-it was felt-would not be the case by 2010. Because the Creed was case specific, it was expected to disappear down the same black hole as S106159 leaving the Judicial Record on which precedent law depends in its pristine condition. That was the plan. However, the fact of the existence of this Creed is known in legal offices right across Canada. Canada can never be the same. With the Creed, the courts will never have to fear being over-ruled by Parliament again due to the sanctioning of the unholy alliance between the judges and their Registries.

8) Similar to Watergate, it didn`t work as planned with the Judiciary as seen from 5 different courts indulging in a level and degree of cover-up due to systematic judicial abuse never before witnessed in a legal system.

(i) CA308538 contesting the Creed in B.C. Appeal Court was rejected by an un-named registry clerk for `reasons best known to himself`. Chief Justice Lance Finch has never responded to irregularities on this basis and there is a second appeal (surety collection) extant which the court has not filed although the fee has been paid. I have called for his dismissal.

(ii) Perhaps the most egregious action on the Creed was that of the Federal Court  (T-1386)which held two illicit hearings for which I was not notified. The Appeal was stymied by a Judge (my guess is that the Registry refused to be involved) on vague technical grounds which frustrated a SCofC Appeal. Harper appointee, Chief Justice Paul Crampton, did not respond to queries on this level although those details are currently on file in a sole Creed challenge in Ottawa Divisional Court (DT-12-1872). The one liner from the Federal court was that I had not substantiated my claim against the Creed. Notice that this comment is conspicuous by its absence in not supporting  that Creed.

(iv) The last 5 (of 7 total appeals) to the SCofC Registry focus on a quibbling over Section 40 of the Rules which are used to obviate a hearing on the Creed to what is easily the most devastating action by a judge in Canadian Jurisprudence. There is no appeal over Registry actions.

(v) A challenge as it related primarily to back salary and pension rights filed in Ottawa Superior Court #12-54944 Nov. 1-2012 was a mish-mash under Justice Maranger and accounts for the (uncontested) appeal in Divisional Court DC-12-1872 in which the case has been perfected although I sense some stalling. I had requested that the matter go direct to judgement without filing a separate section of books quoting precedent law. For one thing, there isn’t any for ‘What to do with a tyrannical justice system’. Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) said it all in a well known quote: ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’ There can be no better example of that deplorable condition in Canadian Jurisprudence than the Employee’s Case (Canada). The tag-team couple of SCofC Wagner-Bilodeau for an unholy alliance of judges-Registry may indeed be signing off for the Justice System in what would become known down through the 21st century as the ‘Jekyll-Hyde legal caper’.

9) So what is so devastating about the Creed as far as the Canadian Judiciary is concerned? Just this. The Judges – over which there is the power of appeal – works in tandem with the Registries – over which there is no power of appeal. Hiding judicial decisions behind a registry clerk’s rationalization in the fashion that the Creed would do, is a denial of the separation of the powers of the judges from that of the Registries. That is why the Creed cannot stand because it must not stand. McKenzie had no right to bestow powers onto the Registry which were not hers to give.

10) A case in point is the B.C. Appeal Court returning my documents and fees in April 2013 with the clerk quoting (for a first time incidentally) the Creed. Somebody read through those documents and found the reference to the Creed and used that to deny a docket number. That was a judgment and not, I submit, the role of a registry clerk. I am still waiting for Chief Justice R. Bauman to ratify or reject that action.

11) Under these circumstances, if they are to hold, Parliament has no option other than to dismiss all the judges and empower the judicial bureaucracies apart from those judges with the necessary powers which would be properly limited in order that those powers not infringe on the rights of Parliament nor individual Canadian citizens. Until that is done, Canada exists in a state of anarchy.

12) What can be done?

(i) Buy me out for $6 million; one year’s salary for a CEO or a good hockey player. I have been going for 28 years. It’s a bargain!

(ii) Ethical Canadians should look into Canada applying for U.S. statehood as a means of re-calibrating our legal system. Further, with a population similar to California, think of the taxpayer savings if we were run by a governor and 2 elected senators. As this case has shown, Parliament is dysfunctional. The media are not much better as they no longer report the news; just the latest tabloid scandal.

(iii) President Obama is remiss in not warning U.S. investors of the risks in dealing with Canadian courts. Waiting for international investors to walk with their shoes from Canadian courts will be seen as too little, too late.

13) The topic of future 21st century Canada will not be so much the separation of one province, rather it will be the separation of the judiciary from all provinces…a fate worse than death for any nation.

 

cc Wagner/Bilodeau for SCofC

Andrew Coyne  Postmedia columnist

PMO

 

N.B. No response received to earlier petitions from these three MPP’s.

JUNE 17-2013 FIFTH REQUEST TO Hudak f.416-325-0998

/Horwath f.416- 325-2770

JUNE 10-2013 FOURTH REQUEST to ON Premier K. Wynne:

What can you do to break the logjam on this teacher legal matter in Ottawa?

R. Callow  by fax: 416-325-9875

JUNE 03-2013 – THIRD REQUEST

APRIL 8-2013 – SECOND REQUEST

 

March 18 - 2013

 

TO: Hon. C. Hackland – Ottawa Superior Court/Divisional Court  Chief Justice      

       161 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K2P 2K1

 

FROM: Roger Callow – Plaintiff  #12-54944 & #DC-12-1872 (Appeal)

          208-2220 Halifax Drive, Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7  FAX: 613-521-1739

 

APPEAL REFERENCE : Feb. 11-13 Ottawa court letter signifying matter listed for Appeal on completion of specified form which followed Feb. 13-13.

 

BACKGROUND: 28 year unresolved senior B.C. teacher lay-off (for economic reasons Under BILL 35) in which no compensation has flowed (includes pension rights) due to judicial cupidity. Collective Bargaining Rules are one casualty which has been capitalized on recently in Ontario where the government played an end game around their teachers on this basis.

 

MESSAGE:   SEE WEB FOR FULL ACCOUNT

1) Can you apprise me of whether the above has been set before 3 Appeal Court judges (apparently a Supreme Court ad hoc addition to Rule 40 for SCofC Appeals)? Please don’t insult our intelligence by limiting this matter to one Appeal judge to obviate a possible SCofC appeal.

 

2) As you know, I have kept you fully apprised as to developments in this unusual case along with the Ontario Attorney General and Premier Dalton McGuinty (since resigned). Rather than ensuring an open relationship on this issue, the Ontario government appears to have borrowed a leaf from the www.employeescasecanada.com  by running an end-game around the collective bargaining rules with Ontario Teachers with their ‘imposed’ legislation which is withdrawn after the legislation has taken effect (banana republic laws).

 

3) As no-one wished to challenge my appeal focusing solely on the MacKenzie Creed, I have requested that this matter proceed straight to judgment.

 

4) To be sure, the challenge to this Ontario Appeal Court in arguably the most significant civil action ever placed before a court of Canadian law ,is not to be envied. Either this court quashes this action which is clearly ultra vires or it doesn’t. There is no other course.

 

5) If the Appeal Court does not quash this creed for whatever reason, the entire credibility of the Justice System of Canada is sacrificed. There is no other answer. That is how Canada would become ‘a failed state’. In short, the creed sanctions judicial ‘running of a court within a court’. Therefore it must not be permitted to stand.

 

6) There are two particularly reprehensible aspects to this creed: a) Without a docket number, this action functions below the radar of the judicial registry. Arguably, what is happening here is seen happening in prosecutors offices where court action is curtailed by such as plea bargaining. The creed elevates that practice by making it an alternative prerogative of the court which is an entirely new approach in Canadian jurisprudence. In short, the judge becomes an agent of one of the litigants;  b) The creed futher gives powers to the Registry which this plaintiff submits she had no business doing (the source of the complaint to B.C. Chief Justice Lance Finch which went unacknowledged). By telling the defendant that they no longer had to respond to plaintiff actions for reasons best known to the judge (no laws quoted or argument taken) and ordering the Registry to reject any submissions the plaintiff may attempt to file in this unresolved case which the Justice System had at one time ordered back to litigation; the Judge gives a heightened role to the Registry – again without giving reasons - which it does not have in terms of its original mandate. Why have a Parliament with this kind of judge-made law?

 

11) Hence this plaintiff is left in limbo not knowing which court(s) this pernicious legislation applies to (if any) and in which court(s) it does not. It is not possible to get any answer under the circumstances in British Columbia. Hence Ontario holds the future of the Canadian Judiciary in its hands in the current appeal. (SEE web for details of MacKenzie Creed).

 

12) I blame President Obama in his failure to keep U.S. Investors apprised of the situation in Canadian courts as well as an anti-employee Canadian media for boycotting a story of significant  importance to all Canadians.

Yours truly,

 

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

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

 

June 20-2013

 

Letter to Editor  (Ottawa Sun)

 

TAKE NOTE

   Re: “Lack of notes gets Ottawa cop Constable Paul Heffler in hot water’ June 14.

   As the subject of your article, I would like to present some facts that you can verify, unlike some of the evidence presented by my supervisor who presented evidence at my hearing.

   I have 27 years of policing, 11 years with the OPP prior to the Ottawa Police. NO charge was stayed as the result of me not having notes. The court transcript and/or presiding Crown would substantiate this. I have a conviction rate of 99% over my 27 years of policing for impaired drivers, of which I have charged 100 and convicted hundreds.

   This “no notes” pertains to NO paper notes, not no electronic notes, which is a procedure recommended in the Kaufmann commission in 1998 and used by forward thinking police services currently. Ottawa Police officers engage in using electronic notes currently.

   The reason I was made the scapegoat for this cause is because I criticized the Ottawa Police administration by internal e-mail.

   These e-mails could be obtained by your paper, I’m sure, to see how I had the opinion that this administration has not supported its officers.

   I pleaded guilty to sending those e-mails and took my medicine for those. Ironically, I have become the perfect example of this treatment. I was charged, not for losing cases or being corrupt, or any other worthy purpose. I was charged as a vindictive act.

   I hope this provides some context.

 

Constable Paul Heffler

 

ed. Thanks for writing

 

ADDENDUM: Same script as the Employee’s Case other than the ramifications of my whistleblowing to the Department of Education in Victoria (their answer was BILL 35) in 1985 would have led to the firing of the supervising school principal for fraud…and that would never do. Far better to usurp the government and co-opt the judiciary in a 28 year unresolved legal case of systematic judicial abuse over which even a badly frightened Canadian media still won’t report. SEE web: Red Neck Media

 

June 20-2013

 

TO: ‘heirs of the McGuinty Government (Ontario)’  Premier McWynnety/ Opp Leader McHudaky /NDP Leader McHowarthy / Chief Justice (Ottawa) McHacklandy.

 

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

 

MESSAGE:

1) Reference is made to Ottawa Superior Court #12-54944 (November 01-2012) and its Appeal #DC12-1272 by this plaintiff to be heard the week of November 12-2013.

 

2) Due to the Defendant Employer’s lack of support, this matter was not able to be declared a ‘special case’ to be heard initially at the Divisional Court level.

 

3) The Appeal relates solely to the role of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which bars this plaintiff from courts due to ‘the whim of a B.C. judge’ in this unresolved 28 year labour legal case where no compensation has flowed.

 

4) No mention was made of this Creed in the Maranger Decision of which I specifically requested him to do. His background appears to be in criminal law with a limited knowledge of labour or constitutional law.

 

5) I pleaded with the government and court authorities – and do so once again – to appoint recognized judges with the appropriate credentials to handle the most significant civil case ever to cross a Canadian courtroom.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JUNE 23-2013 

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

 

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

humpty.jpg 002

 QUOTES:

1) Aphorism: To know and not to do, is not to know at all’.

2) ‘We design corporations and government structures so that “responsibility” and “accountability” are spread across a lateral plane so that there is no definitive trail of accountability. It nutures and stimulates the “book of excuses” and selfish greed.’  Rogue Warrior- Holy Terror  Richard Marcinko

3) Would you do something that you feel is wrong if someone in authority told you to do it? How far would you go if that person said it was okay? Would you say no, or obey? Don’t most people accept, and even like being told what to do? Film Review Compliance

4) ‘…Electoralist politics of the worst kind are guiding Canada’s political landscape and what is perhaps even most disturbing is that Canadians are not standing up to rein in such porous behaviour….’ Our political parties stand for nothing’ Robert Murray U.ofAlberta political scientist (OTTAWA SUN June 10-2013 p.15)

5) The price of freedom is eternal vigilence’ Thomas Jefferson

6) If we do not force the judge or magistrate to do his duty then we cannot complain that we are hard done by.’ Tommo & Hawk  Bryce Courtenay

7) It is a most basic procedural fairness: the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

 

MESSAGE:

1) No doubt readers think the ‘Employee’s Case’ is an isolated instance of judicial cupidity. It isn’t. It is merely the worst case example of systematic judicial abuse in Canadian legal history making Canada into an international embarrassment for all democracies.

 

2) For example,www.The-ETS-Scandal.com details corporate abuse on a high level involving both government and courts (similar to the Employee’s Case) illustrating how venal a government can become when challenged on – in this case – the procurement process for contracts. in this matter a $400 million IT contract was shifted from an Ottawa firm to a Montreal firm with the help of Tory M.P.’s including a failed Tory candidate who later sat as a judge on this case. Most people believe the ‘big boys’ can take care of themselves and ignore these trangressions. However this case did get Parliamentary and media coverage including CBC but not, it would appear, to much avail.

 

3) In contrast, the Employee’s Case is one person’s battle with government-court collusion without media coverage admidst  continually frustrated court responses to keep this case from a hearing which has changed the landscape of the Judiciary forever. Those details may be found in other JUNE-2013 newsletters on the web

 

4) The above pattern is not isolated. For example, the Mulroney government was sullied by the P.M. accepting largesse from a lobbyist now in a German prison. The Chretien government was accused of being even more crooked. Transferring the unfunded pension portion of Federal Employees by Finance Minister Paul Martin to pay down the National Debt was a crime of immense proportion. How he became a P.M. after Chretien boggles the imagination of this writer.

 

5) The Harper Government is witnessing the climax in the Employee`s Case. While I have no direct evidence, the ‘invisible hand’ running this matter behind the scenes may very well be former West Vancouver MPP and later head Federal MP close to P.M. Harper, John Reynolds; the reputed go-between of the Employer (West Vancouver School Board) and the Department of Education in Victoria where this scheme was hatched (BILL 35) in 1985. He was a former mining stock promoter who dropped his suit against the Vancouver Sun alleging ties to organized crime. He subsequently won re-election as an MPP and later as MP for the District and played a prominent part in Harper’s re-election. In 2008, he returned from Beijing where he had ‘business interests’ and sported a beaming personal photograph in the O.C. claiming the Olympics were good to go at a time that a world-wide social protest was hamstringing the carrying of the Olympic Torch. He was also associated with Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien’s criminal trial in which O’Brien was found not guilty for influence peddling. It may indeed be someone else directing affairs in this case but the point is that someone is co-ordinating behind the scenes the legal scam of the century in five different court systems in Canada. They appear able to just walk in the back door of the Justice System and hand out ‘marching orders’.

 

6) The point is that I cannot get a court to properly evaluate the ‘McKenzie Creed’ which joins the judges (whose decisions can be appealed) at the hip with the Registries (whose decisions may not be appealed) in such fashion that Justice is subverted by ‘running a court within a court’. Not only is the individual ruled out of the Justice System (‘The Outlawed Canadian’) but the template exists by which the Justice System may evade any oversight by Parliament. That’s why Canada is in a state of anarchy and has become ‘a failed state’.

 

7) The ramifications are significant and are being badly overlooked by the Union leaders. For example, the ‘right to work’ interests are very aware of this case including the teachers’ failure to react and view the professional teachers to be ‘ripe for the picking’ in undermining the entire union movement. The Union leaders are remiss in a mistaken belief of having to protect the ‘sweetheart deal’; which is anethema to the very concept of a union.

 

8) The 2005 wildcat strike by teachers in B.C. (the right of strike was removed from them) was harshly put down by the courts. The smashing of the collective bargaining process in Ontario for teachers is a devastating and logical extension of teachers viewed as wimps in their failure to support the Employee’s Case, which now encompasses all employees including union members.

 

9) The next target for Ontario is probably the public teachers pension which is a defined sytem where the government contributes 50%. How to change that? Take a leaf out of the junk bond entrepreneur who bought up the redwood leases in Southern California and clear cut the forest after converting the employee pension scheme to an annuity.  He then declared bankruptcy and disappeared with his profits. In B.C., the situation is slightly different in that the B.C. government controls the pension scheme entirely. It is likely that their 50% contribution has only ever been a ‘book entry’ and now that it is bereft of funds, the government will find some way of ditching it at teacher expense for re-elected Christy Clark owes teachers no favours.

 

10) Similar to the 1970’s when teacher grants to B.C. School Districts were averaged, so will follow teacher salaries pegged at one level thus eliminating the power of seniority for the teachers in both provinces.

 

11) That is why an individual or organization must always measure up to the challenge or go down in infamy. Better to be known for at least trying, which the professional teachers of Canada, regrettably, are shown to be behind the 8 ball and falling even faster by refusing to support my challenge to a cabal of corrupt  government-judiciary interests  now negatively affecting all Canadians. Creating a digital newspaper modelled on the Epoch Times is one possible solution. Giving visible support to the Employee’s Case (twitter etc.) is another.