JUMP TO HOME PAGE

ARMAGEDDON

 

QUOTE: ‘…Everybody conspires, nobody gets done. But if it’s cover-up time, God help us all….The Mission Song  John LeCarré

 

January 15 -2013

 

QUOTE: ‘…Everybody conspires, nobody gets done. But if it’s cover-up time, God help us all….

The Mission Song    John LeCarré

 

TO: Roger Bilodeau Q.C. Registrar SCofC                FROM: Roger Callow

       301 Wellington, Ottawa ON K1A 0J1              www.employeescasecanada.com

       FAX: 613-996-9138                                              FAX: 613-521-1739

 

MESSAGE:

 

1) Acknowledgement of your letter of January 03-13 is made although it does not add anything to the game of ‘mail tag’ in which we are indulging. You repeat your message of your November 28 letter without acknowledging that additional information was applied to the December 24-12 filing.

 

2) That additional information referred to a B.C.Appeal Court Supreme Court hearing on November 26-2012 under Justice Peter Leask in which he granted surety monies to the Employer and Union ‘under 5 minutes’ according to the Union. Surely this qualifies under Section 40 of the Supreme Court Rules.

 

3) Indeed, it is this very dispute over an interpretation of this rule which is at the heart of our dispute. Whether you are correct in your assessment is not the question. The point here is what right do you have to usurp the judicial function of the court? In brief, why have judges when the secretaries will make final judgments?

 

4) Enclosed is the entire letter addressed to SC of C Director, Nadia Loretti on February 12-2012. Particularly disturbing is point 2 relating to vetting mail marked Personal & Confidential to individual SCofC Judges. The fact that you returned 9 unopened letters implies that Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin must have approved such action. For this reason, this account is being sent to SCofC  Justice C. Wagner  as representative for all judges.

 

February  1, 2012

 

TO: Supreme Court of Canada                                       FROM: Roger Callow

        ATTN: Nadia Loretti  Director, Registry Branch   208-2220 Halifax Dr

        301 Wellington Street                                            Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7              

        Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1                                         fax: 613-521-1739                       

        sent by fax: 613-996-9138                   web: www.employeescasecanada.com

        

MESSAGE:

1) As your letter was received after the due date set by me for a Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) response, I have forwarded your letter of January 26, 2012 to the Prime Minister of Canada who now holds full responsibility for acting on this legal case...by February 29-2012 (the same deadline given to the anti-employee Canadian media)

 

2) Conspicuous by its absence is a copy of your letter to 9 SCofC judges although they have been notified by me of the cupidity going on under their noses. Indeed, did they even see the original letter?

 

3) As you state, you may only reiterate (actually, ‘overwrite’) the account of court clerk Ms.Alam, which continues to be an administrative as opposed to a legal answer. In that regard you do not quote Rule 40 as did the Alam letter, as it is clear that Rule 40 in its entirety contradicts both of your letters and explains why a duly registered member of the bar must sign any such assertion. Now it is too late to act in that regard.

 

4) In short, the Prime Minister would be quite within his rights to add more names to the list of dismissals including  9 SCofC judges if they take your letter ‘lying down’.

 

5) Further, and why a judicial answer properly structured is required, I was never in a position of having to appeal the ‘Justice MacKenzie creed’ to the courts as that order would deprive me of any court access to resolve an unresolved 27 year labour matter in which no compensation has been paid which runs contrary not only to the collective bargaining rules but also to contracts at large. In short, she usurped the law of the land with a personal decision.

 

6) The proper course to appeal the MacKenzie Creed , it might be argued, was to the B.C. Attorney General, the very body which is defending MacKenzie in court. Speak about a conflict of interest but then the B.C. government was the source of this scandal which is extant today.

 

7) By failing to hear this (Third) appeal to the SCofC, Canada reverts to Third World status. What point is there, for example, in Parliament discussing pensions when the defacto situation established by the West Vancouver School District who would escape all financial obligations under the law is this: If you don’t sign a $1 settlement with the employer, you will not get your pension’.

 

8) A further ramification of your letter appears to relate to the filing of Form 25C which invites petitioners to cite judicial conflicts. I cited (now) Chief Justice B. McLachlin. Perhaps this is the first time 25C has been filed hence one is left to imagine what that does to the ‘anointed’ judicial record. In retrospect, it appears that the 9 judges have circled the wagons to protect one judge’s interest at the expense of their own. At any rate, 34 million Canadians are not being well served by the SCofC in a matter which negatively affects them. The credibility of the entire Justice System is on the line.

 

Yours truly

 

Roger Callow   (‘The Outlawed Canadian’) 

cc 9 SCof C judges 

 

The letter of October 29-12 is included here in its entirety reflects the dispute between us over the interpretation of Section 40 which I claim should be judicially decided by the 3 judges usually appointed to evaluate these claims for submission and not the Registrar and his cohorts.

 

October 29-2012

TO: Supreme Court of Canada                 FROM: Roger Callow

       301 Wellington St.                             208-2220 Halifax Drive

       Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1                            Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7

       cc 9 SCofC judges                               www.employeescasecanada.com

Inclusions:

1) SCofC Administrative Letter January 11-2012 (signed) Micheline Alam-Registry Officer

2)                      ibid                        26                         Nadfia Loretti-Director, Registry Branch

3) Response to the above (cc 9 SCofC judges/Prime Minister)February 01-2012 (signed) Roger Callow

4) SCofC Administrative Letter October 24-2012 (signed) Mary McFadyen-Deputy Registrar

 

SECTION #40 SUPREME COURT ACT p.16

40. (1) Subject to subsection (3) (not applicable here-R.C.), an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any final or other judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (not applicable in the current appeal-R.C.) or of the highest court of final resort in a province, (applicable here –B.C. Appeal Court-R.C.), or a judge thereof (not applicable here-Administrative Decision-R.C.) in which judgment can be had in the particular case sought to be appealed, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that any question (my underline) involved therein is, by reason of its public importance (my underline) or the importance of any issue of law, or any law of mixed law and fact  (my underline) involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reason, of such a nature or significance (being barred from court for reasons best known to a judge who, on her own authority, without taking argument, without quoting pertinent laws, would arbitrarily ban this plaintiff from court is precedent-setting to say the least-R.C.) as to warrant decision by it  (accessing surety funds in which this defendant had no access to the courts to present a defense-R.C.) and leave to appeal that judgment is accordingly granted by the Supreme Court.

 

 

Argument

1) The February 01-2012 response letter says it all to the 9 SCofC Judges and P.M. At this point, it merely needs be pointed out that 9 Supreme Court of Canada Judges and the Prime Minister of Canada have shirked their duties by, in essence, hiding behind the skirt-tails of their secretaries.

2) The underlying terror in these letters appears to lie in keeping the third and fourth appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Judicial Record in which the SCofC is severely criticized.  Indeed, the Third Federal Court appeal and this Fourth B.C. Appeal Court action still qualify.

3) The additional feature of this fourth Appeal is the application of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ in a spurious surety claim. In essence, a litigant may approach a judge to disenfranchise an opponent and then proceed legally against that opponent in a court of law where the opponent has no standing. That is not law; that is anarchy.

4) Further, the weakness in the October 24-2012 letter appears to deflect this matter to opinions from the B.C. Court of Appeal Registry without naming any individual. I am sure that individual is not aware of the background of this case or, if so, is part of a conspiracy which I have repeatedly alleged against the B.C. Justice System. For my part, I never received any response from Chief Justice Lance Finch (B.C. Supreme Appeal Court) to any of these irregularities.

5) To be charitable, I submit that other than the above signatories are directing affairs at the SCofC in this matter and, considering the charge I make in #12-54944 (Ottawa Registry Nov. 01-2012 hearing date in Superior Court) regarding the payment of ‘interim compensation’ SEE November 01-2012 newsletter encl.)

 I wonder how many SCofC judges – if any – are privy to these exchanges?

6) I have no idea what can be done under these circumstances in the absence of press coverage.

 

Yours truly  (Roger Callow)

 

While not possessing The November 26 ‘surety’ hearing results which as of January 11-2013 had yet to be filed (and probably never will be); perhaps your clerk with access to the Vancouver Courts can obtain the necessary documents on my behalf considering I am estopped from any communication with the B.C. Courts.

Consider the following letter of December 24-12 which you returned on January 4-2013:

 

RESUBMISSION (Part VI) TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - DEC24-2012

 

REASONS FOR RESUBMISSION OF MATERIALS REJECTED BY THE SCofC ADMINISTRATION ON LAST THREE OCCASIONS:

 

PART 1 (Universality of Unions) & PART II (Ultimate Remedy)- COMPLETE  AND REJECTED FOR A HEARING BY THE SCofC 3-PANEL JUDGES (B. McLachlin on first panel and Chief Justice for all other challenges)

PART III – V ; REJECTED BY SCofC FOR REASONS OF RULE APPLICATION (All focus on ‘MacKenzie Creed’):

A) Part III – ‘Mackenzie Creed’ which prohibits court access to this plaintiff for ‘reasons best known to the judge’.

B) Part IV – SCofC ‘Strike 4 – baseball anyone?’

C) Part V  -  SCofC ‘Stage 5 cancer’

D) Part VI-   SCofC ‘Beyond all reasonable doubt’

E) Part VII (pending)- Currently being appealed (Ontario Superior Court’s Maranger(non)Decision Nov. 01-12

#12-54944)- SCofC ‘Beyond all reason’

 

SUPPORTING ARGUMENT:

 

1) Enclosed are hearing results from Vancouver in the payment of surety money to the Employer and Union held in Vancouver Appeals Court on November 26-2012 and entered here in order to comply with the punctilious rules of the SCofC. .  B.C. Appeal Court Justice, Peter Lowry, rubber-stamped, in less than 5 minutes, requests from the Union and Employer to collect surety monies from an account paid into by this plaintiff admidst a written protest to those two parties (due to MacKenzie Creed, I have no standing in a B.C. Court of law).  In brief, Canada has been reduced to a ‘failed state’ as a consequence of this ‘running a court within a court’.

 

 

2) As CA038538 challenging the ‘MacKenzie Creed’was blocked by an oral administrative reason by an un-named clerk without judicial standing, an appeal was made to Vancouver Chief Justice (Appeal Court) Lance Finch to adjudicate. He was also asked to be my proxy in the November 26 hearing. He has never responded.

 

3) As CA038538 was never held; how may the legal counsel make claim for their expenses? They assume that because the court canceled the hearing for reasons best known to itself, that the outcome would not only be favourable to them, but also that the judge would assign the amounts claimed accordingly.

 

4) In short, the above is nothing more than ‘judicial theft’ with the collusion of the court.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

 

5) As the Employer never returned to arbitration as so ordered by the court after the initial arbitration was quashed in 1986, and as this plaintiff was left in a perpetual state of limbo as a consequence where no compensation has been paid due to the failure of over 30 judges to order the Employer to either arbitrate or return this plaintiff to employment (as earlier recommended by Justice Southin in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration naming, in the process, the arbitrator to be ‘patently unreasonable’); then the only reasonable and legal answer (there can be no process without judgement) in this long drawn out judicial debacle is to return this plaintiff to employment with all terms of the contract to apply. This would constitute 28 years of back salary plus interest appropriately compounded as this amount belongs to this writer apart from judicial outcomes (he should never have been cut from salary before this matter was completed).

 

6) Other monies as this court sees fit to assign the plaintiff.

 

TO: Roger Bilodeau Q.C. Registrar SCofC                FROM: Roger Callow

       301 Wellington, Ottawa ON K1A 0J1              www.employeescasecanada.com

       FAX: 613-996-9138                           

 

REFERENCE: CA038538 (B.C. Appeal Court) & #12-54944 (Ottawa Superior Court Nov. 01-2012)

 

 

MESSAGE:

1) Acknowledgment of your punctilious letter of November 28-2012 is made which - while promising much- falls far short on delivery, as you no doubt realize. Returning individual envelopes to 9 Supreme Court Justices marked CONFIDENTIAL & PERSONAL appears to be a gratuitous act on your part. Following is background to explain this re-submission.

 

2) I submit that the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ is the most pernicious action taken by a judge in the history of Canadian judicial practice. In short, she has run a ‘court within a court’ and if her decision is to stand, it is the end of all law in Canada.

 

3) It is a national disgrace that the media boycott on this story negatively affecting Canada brings into question the efficacy not only of that bureacracy, but the very underpinnings of democracy as well.

 

4) In October of 2010 in this 28 year unresolved labour case from which no compensation has been paid, Associate Deputy Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie (MacKenzie Creed) of the B.C. Supreme Court on her own recognizance, without a hearing nor taking argument nor quoting applicable laws, dropped S106159 laid by this plaintiff to further the cause of resolving the initial 1985 lay-off matter, and in that process denied this writer from any access to the courts for reasons best known to herself: That Order without a docket number reads in part:

(3) Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity.

(4) The defendants in this matter will not be obliged to respond to any process that is filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry.

 

5) That Order was challenged by me under CA038538 only to have documents returned to the courier by an un-named court official who merely stated that the material was unnacceptable. As he did not have any legal standing to make this ‘a priori’ decision, an appeal – and there have been many such unanswered appeals – was made to Chief Justice (Appeal Court/B.C. Supreme Court) Lance Finch. There was no response leaving me in limbo with an unresolved legal case.

 

6) As the targeted individual, I must prove that, as the senior West Vancouver teacher concerned, I was not laid off by the Board of School Trustees in June of 1985 (for reasons of declining enrolment). To do that, I must have access to a court which has been denied to me by over 30 judges including 5 trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, I must prove a negative without any Canadian forum in which to discount that charge. Hence no compensation has flowed to date in a basic denial of collective bargaining rules making a mockery of the whole legal system.

 

7) We know details of this government conspiracy such as Justice Southin’s court decision which quashed the arbitration favouring the School District and labeling, as she did, the arbitrator as being ‘patently unreasonable’. When the School District did not return employment as recommended by the court, she ordered a new arbitration before the same arbitrator. The Employer and Union (sweetheart deal) never returned to arbitration leaving this personage in a permanent state of limbo.

 

8) Justice Spencer, in his decision in 1995, states the obvious but failed to take action, a position repeated by over 30 judges up to and including Justice Maranger more recently in November of 2012.

No. A950147 Vancouver Registry  June 2-1995 Hon. Justice Spencer  Motion Record TAB 2 (Respondent) p.8  Note 16   

     If, as I think, this law does not permit me to grant any of the relief which this petition seeks (be returned to employment due to the failure of the employer to return to arbitration as so ordered by the court. RWC), the petitioner appears to be left in legal limbo with his case half heard but incapable of completion… Without in any way addressing the merits of any complaint against the petitioner’s performance (as a whistleblower), I observe that even if he was unsatisfactory from the Board’s point of view, he was entitled to be dealt with according to law under the School Act and not to be made the victim of abuse of authority. Whether he was remains to be decided.(my underlining)

 

9) The Union position – the only one recognized by the court to act on my behalf – was that as I had refused the School Board offer to settle, then I get nothing (including pension). That egregious position is not unlike China where a developer seizes the land of a farmer for ‘peanuts’ knowing that the judge is in his back pocket should the matter go to court hence my PLACARD: STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE.

 

10) The conspirators panicked with the laying of S106159. The Supreme Court of Canada had already declined to hear this matter on two occasions; the first on ‘the universality of Unions’ (for example, may a Union’s failure to act deprive a client from pension?...apparently so) The second appeal was on ‘ultimate remedy’; the mainstay of the collective bargaining agreement. By failing to see that compensation is paid in whatever amount, the SCofC undermined not only the collective bargaining rules, but the whole notion of contract law. (That’s why the court is so insistent in claiming that I still have access to the justice system although that point is belied by the facts of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’.) A Third challenge would juxtapose the first two challenges in such fashion that the perfidy of the SCofC would be exposed…and that would never do….

 

 

11) Be that as it may, the MacKenzie Creed was challenged to the SCofC and I still believe – contrary to your letter – that the SCofC had the power to decide whether or not to hear this case. Your denial would appear more to be in the nature of protecting the Judicial Record than to any other single cause. In short, if the SCofC has no record of an appeal being made, then this challenge does not exist in this kafkaesque style of reasoning.

 

12) Two more SCofC challenges were made with additional materials focusing on the ‘MacKenzie Creed’; SCofC-Strike 4 (baseball anyone?) and SCofC- Stage 5 cancer which included elements of the Maranger appeal (He refused to even recognize the existence of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’.)

 

13) Currently, with the collection of surety costs in B.C. on November 26-2012 where I had no standing in court, SCofC-Stage 6 ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ has been re-launched with this letter. Should the Maranger Decision reach the SCofC, it will be labeled SCofC-Stage 7 ‘beyond all reason’.

 

14) Your account of your clerk, Ms. McFayden’s letter of October 24-2012 is conspicuous by its absence of my rebuttal to her found in Stage 5 material. Your duplicitous reasoning is reflective of someone not believing that anyone will check out your story or, if they choose to, so what?  Of course when Ms. McFayden contacted the administration of the B.C. court, they were able to properly tell her that the case had been dismissed for delay and never heard which is the truth. What isn’t the truth is that because I have no access to the court (remember, the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ does not exist on the Judicial Register), I was unable to appear in court to protest that illicit motion. That’s what I mean by ‘running a court within a court’. Also keep in mind, that it was the court that chose to drop the action noting that I must take the matter to court should I protest; no doubt a source of judicial humour.  Apparently, the court does not want on the books what the Employer’s legal counsel stated before Maranger as…’He charged the judge’.

 

15) I don’t deny your observations regarding the status of an appeal of the Maranger Decision through the court system. That appeal information was provided to the court as an addendum should they wish to role up all the SCofC challenges from #3 on into one case as they all have the MacKenzie Creed as a focal point.

 

16) Under the above circumstances, I submit that the administration of the SCofC is running a block for the judges and, I might add, not doing a very credible job of it as it usurps the course of justice in Canada.

 

17) You bring up the role of the Federal court in the rules. The following should be considered as an example of the extreme contumely visited on this personage by that court:

a) As I was ostracized from the Vancouver Courts, I turned to the Federal Court of Canada to test the validity of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’

b) Two illicit hearings were held without the knowledge of respective legal counsel. The first was an Order by Vancouver prothonotary, Roger Lefreniére who, by placing the onus on me, held that I had failed to demonstrate that  MacKenzie had acted improperly. No mention is made of her stated actions. It’s the judgment of a buffoon and if I had been present, I would have stated as much.

The second hearing was made by a judge – again, without the knowledge of legal counsel - who decided, in absence of any rule application, that rule 51 should apply to his ‘rubber-stamping’ of the Prothonotary’s decision. The SCofC refused the case because the Appeal Court of the Federal Court had not been approached which I commenced to do quoting a plethora of laws; but none apparently which suited the judge deciding to not permit the claim to proceed and without revealing which particular rule was missing. The appeal of that action to the newly installed Tory Chief Justice received no response.

c) On top of this debacle was the defense for MacKenzie being conducted directly by the Attorney General of B.C. (as opposed to suspending her).

 

18) One has to question why the Justice System of Canada would sacrifice its credibility for the sake of a rinky dink labour issue. The answer may be paralleled to that of the impeachment of former U.S. President Nixon; not for a third rate burglary but for cover-up. And that is what the Justice System is currently doing to hide their culpable role in a matter known as the Employee’s Case Canada.

 

19) This paradoxical situation may be expressed in this fashion: in short, the MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand and the Justice System of Canada cannot follow due process of defeating that proposition without imploding itself due to its own culpability. Evidence would show, I submit if a proper hearing were ever held on this matter, that the request to lay-off this senior teacher in June of 1985, originated with elements within the West Vancouver Teachers Association, the very organization charged with my legal defence. The court was effectively black-mailed into supporting a ‘sweetheart deal’ when Justice Mary Southin (who quashed the original arbitration favouring the School Board) returned secret Employer/Union memo notes- no doubt confirming the above observation - to the Employer and Union ‘because she did not use them’. Hence, due to systematical judicial cover-up before over 30 judges which exists to the present day, Canada was reduced to first, Third World status, and now to being that of a ‘failed state’.

 

20) So SCofC Registrar Bilodeau, you are attached to a conspiracy without equal and this matter can only turn out badly for all concerned. I’m bemused by your opinion that my actions are ‘premature’ after 28 years of systematic judicial abuse.

 

Yours truly,

 

(signed) Roger Callow

 

cc  SCofC  Hon. C. Wagner as representative of 9 SCofC judges

Office of the Prime Minister whom now has the necessary evidence to impose a trusteeship over the Vancouver courts

 

HOW THE LAW WORKS

 

B) Legal counsel for both sides introduce a plethora of laws applicable to their cases leaving the judge to set the priority of application. In short, all law is judge-made law. Problems abound – as has happened in the E.C.- when the reductionist argument of ‘frivolous and vexatious’ along with ‘no chance of success’ (you need a sense of humour to understand that one!) is used to obviate the applicable laws in their entirety. In the E.C., I have been deprived many times over in this 28 year unresolved legal matter for a judicial decision because my laments are ‘insignificant’.

 

C) Hiding a judicial answer behind an administrative answer is parallel to the boss who hides behind his secretary’s skirts. It is a low blow and characterizes the SC of C many times recently as it relates to a proper hearing of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which denies this litigant access to the courts for reasons best known to a judge not even assigned to the E.C. The last 3 appeals (#4 coming up) to the SCofC have been obviated by the administration as it takes every step to make sure that no judicial recognition is given to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ for mere recognition of its existence by the court is tantamount to having Canada officially declared ‘a failed state’…and that would never do…it’s a damnable charge….

 

7) In brief, the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ without a docket number does not exist in law which I submit  was the intention of the conspirators. The myriad ways in which the Justice System would cover-up any proper examination is sufficient to declare Canada as ‘a failed state’. This pernicious document which permits a judge to ‘run a court within a court’ is anethema to any justice system of a western democracy. All attempts to keep this Order off the judicial books are failing and Canada is the poorer for the sytematic injustice in this case which now negatively affects 34 million Canadians. In short, the MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand.

 

Yours truly,

 

‘The Outlawed Canadian’ …perhaps the first one in Canada; but surely not the last unless the Supreme Court of Canada addresses the single most important civil case in Canadian Judicial History now before it.

 

cc. SCofC  Hon. Justice C. Wagner on behalf of 9 SCofC judges (envelope marked ‘PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL)

 

      Christie Blatchford   Postmedia legal specialist

 

P.S. As to your repetitive advice to seek legal advice; it was given to me over a decade ago:

You have exhausted all remedy under the law” (in an unresolved legal labour case once ordered back to litigation and where no compensation has been paid in defiance of the laws of habeas corpus, ultimate remedy, and there can be no process without judgment. That’s why Canada is currently ‘a failed state’ and why Parliament is redundant. In short, we shot ourselves in our infrastructural foot…you have a pleasant day, too, R. Bilodeau Q.C.  ‘The Outlawed Canadian’.)