JUMP TO HOME PAGE  

 

SEPTEMBER-2012

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – SEPT 01/2012 p.1 of 5

 

                               (FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)  ‘Pulitzer Prize’ potential for international reporter ?

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (27 year unresolved legal case)

 

THEME: If the Higgs Boson posits our existence from nothingness; then the Canadian Justice System takes us back to nothing

 

SIGNIFICANCE: …similar to the Dreyfus Case, the conspiracy against a French military officer in 1890’s France which shattered the country and sent a chill through the European Jewish community. Page 3 of interest to Ontario teachers

QUOTES: 

1) ‘…And what I fear now is that we have reached the point where lawlessness becomes acceptable not only from the bottom up, but from the top down. This is where real tyranny emerges: where the man with power decides, if he doesn’t like a law, that he may simply override it…. ‘Lawlessness from the top down’ David Warren (former) O.C. columnist

June 23 B6   2) ‘…When the law of contradiction is suspended, the truth ceases to matter. We become lost on a sea of surreality. And when reality finally re-intrudes – for in nature the law of contradiction cannot be broken – the result is catastrophe….’ ‘A government with the power to do anything.’ Ibid July 4 A11 

2) ‘…This fact cannot be avoided: we Westerners currently may be analogized to upper-class Brits on the deck of the Titanic. April 12, 1912. ‘My, my, why is the great ship tilting a bit? Why, dear, it’s probably some minor malfunction that the handsome young men will soon fix. Meanwhile, may I have another apertif, steward?’  Dead Zero  Stephen Hunter

3) ‘It’s particularly sad when a world which should be an expression of the highest values…turns out to be a mass of foul play, falsehoods and demagoguery’  ( Italian soccer ‘fixes’ or Canadian Justice System ‘fixes’?)

4) ‘…It’s a serious matter when the government attacks our inalienable rights, whether by laws or executive action. It is still more serious when citizens, through cowardice or stupidity, relinquish their rights even when not required by law to do so. former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (on Duplessis gov’t.)

5) ‘But it had a trust, a sacred trust. The only way the Vatican (substitute ‘Canadian Judiciary’ – RC)would ever change would be if its monumental ignorance and stupidity were revealed. If there were ever a time to do this, it was now.

White Smoke  Andrew Greely

 

TO: The following Ottawa Law Companies & related legal interests for pro bono representation: NO RESPONSE (Sept. 2012) 

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP  f.613-230-8842      Carleton University Law        f.613-520-3690

CUPE                                      f.613-237-5508       Fraser Milgrain Casgrain LLP f.613-783-9690

Gowling Lafleur HenderonLLP f.613-563-9869  Heenan Blaikie LLP                  f.613-236-9632

Lang Michener LLP                f.613-231-3191     McCarthy Tetrault LLP           f.613-563-9386

Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP  f.613-238-2098     Ogilvy Renault LLP              f.613-230-5459

University of Ottawa Law     f.613-562-5124

5) Once again, the above parties are challenged to represent this filed case (#12-54944 – see web)  in a hearing in Ottawa which juxtaposes all those past illegalities from British Columbia to Ontario in such fashion that the entire Canadian  Justice System is imperiled to a degree and an extent hitherto unknown. SEPT 1 – no response

 

A) One more time, please…how has Canada sunk to Third World status due to systematic judicial abuse in the 27 year unresolved  Employee’s Case?  B) How the Canadian Justice System is about to be shattered in an Ottawa courtroom.

 

A) Sherlock Holmes’ answer: In the spring of 1985, elements within the West Vancouver Teachers Association (WVTA) approached Superintendent Ed Carlin with a request to lay off senior teacher, Roger Callow for whistleblowing as Principal John Williams, and the friend of former WVTA Presidents, Ron MacQueen, Jim Crook, and Peter Minshull, was about to lose his career due to fraud. The neophyte BILL 35, designed to lay off teachers due to economic reasons, became law on July 01-85 with Callow as its first and only victim laid off on June 26-85.)

     The Board of Trustees, equally worried about this proposition, held a meeting designed to facilitate this lay-off. However, only two of the five – President Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith, voted in favour of this lay-off. In arbitration – later quashed by the courts – the motion was shown in evidence without showing the voting pattern although it was marked ‘carried’, a fraudulent action I attribute to Stuart Clyne Q.C. whom the School Boards in B.C. were in the habit of appointing for such cases. (Clyne oversaw the dismissal of senior West Vancouver teacher, Ken Raison – see web – in 1978 under Principal Jim Carter, a friend of Williams and later Deputy Minister of Education in Victoria in 1985 under the passage of Bill 35. Again, Carlin was the Superintendent.)  So why was Carlin willing to perjure himself in arbitration as no trustee took the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers? In fact there were 16 new positions added which the arbitrator converted to ‘ 16 lay-offs’ adding Callow as the 17th. The government-appointed arbitrator, Louis Lindholm (d. 1987) labeled ‘patently unreasonable’ by Justice Mary Southin when she quashed the arbitration (to hide, I submit, School Board perjury) never believed his decision would be over-turned by a court challenge in this ‘sweetheart deal’. Carlin knew the figures for lay-off were not there but why worry when the matter was a ‘done thing’ under the government-appointed arbitrator. With the Union on side as well, there was no reason as to why Carlin had to fear an appeal.

     Unknown to Carlin, a second Plan B was arranged between the School Trustees and the B.C. Teachers Federation in which they decided to ‘trade snakes’; that is, the BCTF would sacrifice the teacher if the Trustees would sacrifice the Superintendent. (He was forced out one year later and never again served in the public field. He is still around.) But evidence as to the cupidity of the Superintendent had to be produced.  Clyne was wild about Union lawyer Allan Black (Clyne’s handball partner)  calling  Bill May, Assistant Superintendent to the stand to testify to the effect that, as the one responsible for staffing, he did not recommend the lay-off of a teacher in June of 1985. As to where the request came from? ‘The Superintendent’. Of course that testimony was conspicuous by its absence from the arbitrator’s Report as that was the end of the Board’s case right there…if there had been an honest arbitrator. Black refused to put the trustees on the stand; the same position also of Clyne. Nor was the arbitrator asking for trustee testimony.    

     The game changer lay in my change of legal Counsel from the Union-appointee to one who appealed the arbitrator’s decision supporting  the Board. Justice Southin called for all memos on this topic from the Employer and Union so that she was fully apprised as to what had transpired. She returned those memos as ‘she did not use them’ with this conclusion…’Nothing was adduced in evidence that the Board of School Trustees intended to lay off a teacher under Bill 35’; her way of black-balling the Superintendent and the Union by excusing the Trustees proper. Sending this matter back to arbitration before the same arbitrator was bad enough (without instructions to place trustees on the stand) but leaving this plaintiff under the control of the Union was unconscionable in the extreme under these circumstances. The proper course was to call for a judicial enquiry. (It still is but with the complicity of the anti-employee Canadian media in this case, the authorities figure that they have little to fear. As to the politicians…don’t even ask.)

    So what was set into effect was a 27 year systematical denial of any court hearing (before over 30 judges including  three inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. The case was to die ‘a natural death’ with my demise due to my presumed failure to find a ‘competent ‘ lawyer asking the so-called ‘pertinent’ question.

    

B) That all changed with the laying of S106159 in 2010 leaving it up to the court and the only two they would recognize in resolving this long outstanding case; namely, the employer and the union to act. My focus was in being placed back on salary until the matter was resolved as I should never have been taken off salary until a resolution had been found. That claim existed apart from any legal settlement. The problem for the authorities was to explain why 25 years of back salary plus interest was to be paid due to judicial cupidity. To be sure, no insurer would cover the School Board on this caper.

    Enter neophte B.C. Supreme Court Assistant Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie, who, on her own authority, without taking argument, without quoting any laws, and without explanation, dropped S106159 from the docket (although her own action was not numbered) and denied this plaintiff from any access to the court to resolve the matter of my lay-off.

     That action by MacKenzie is mind boggling in the extreme in that the legal questions of habeas corpus, the notion that there can be no process without judgment, and neutering the collective bargaining rules which demand the payment of compensation; all these major laws, become non-entities. That`s when Canada became a Third World country. The failure of the Canadian media and Parliament to take action accordingly left those two bureaucracies in ruins as democratic Canada is no more.

     CA038538 was laid by this writer contesting MacKenzie’s action only to be met by a greater miscarriage of justice with an un-named court officer returning the documents to the courier for unknown reasons. As one cannot contest an administrative decision, an appeal was made to Chief Justice Lance Finch to either accept or reject this administrative action. There was no response.

     The conspirators enlisted the Federal Court of Canada (see web) and, once again, the Supreme Court of Canada in a subsequently  problematical appeal. That’s when I officially became ‘The Outlawed Canadian’.

     Running out of courts to appeal to, an action (#12-54944 – July 13/2012 –see web) has been laid in Ottawa against only the Employer for interim compensation as requested in S106159. A denial on this level will smash the Canadian Justice System in its entirety. By rights, Chief Justice Charles Hackland should hear this case (I requested a senior judge as per the rules) rather than appointing a ‘Justice Sleazy’ to ‘do the necessary’. It turns on who walks through the door to the bench.  Indeed, this case could be heard at the appeal level by 3 judges. Keep tuned for details as the future of the credibility of the McGuinty government is at stake.

 

Ontario Teachers rattle the sabre with the McGuinty government – a number of stories:

 

1) In 1966, the WAC Bennett government in B.C. requested that the big Unions hold the line on salary increases. The teachers complied with a 6% increase. The electricians and the plumbers said ‘to hell with that noise’ and held out for 10%. The government response? …an average of 8%...we can live with that!

2) Air Canada employees held the line on salary increases a few years back to help the ailing company. With improved revenues, they wanted some return. What did they get? Federal government interference (Crown corporations are subject to collective bargaining rules) due to generalized ‘economic reasons’. Currently, a high ranking Tory was appointed to the Board of Air Canada. The McGuinty government would appear to ape the Federal government in their battle over teacher salaries by claiming that ‘economic considerations’ over-ride the collective agreement. That argument was used and dismissed handily by the court at  my initial arbitration  (rejection of BILL 35 on that point).

3) Expect ‘work to rule legislation’ in Ontario as the Legislature has disposed of the ‘collective agreement’.

4) There is more than just a few graduating teachers grousing about ‘no jobs’; a well known phenomena to universities. i.e. a few years ago, Ottawa capped their Supply Teachers at 3000 for 4200 employed teachers. So what is the catch? Somewhere in Canada, teachers in a School District will be fired for striking and replaced with unemployed teachers.

5) Due to the political nature of the Employee’s Case, the outcome of #12-54944 filed in Ottawa court, a loss by this plaintiff  will brand the McGuinty government as ‘anti-employee’ and one ‘willing to throw the Ontario Justice System under the bus’. This legal case is the lead civil case in Canadian jurisprudence as it threatens to displace the individual with bureaucratic control in all matters. OCCUPY NOW movement, where are you? (Recently in Sydney, Australia, I even saw a table in an outdoor mall (DEMOCRACY not MERITOCRACY) promoting this organization.

6) The B.C. Teachers were quite prepared to accept a tainted arbitrator in the Employee’s Case in 1985 but, ironically, balked at the government appointee on the B.C. Labour Board for a similar stunt against the 3-day wildcat strike in 2012. They want a court hearing where they have all their blackmailed friends from the E.C.

6) As matters now stand from the Employee’s Case; no employee should hold Union membership nor a pension plan.

7) ‘Bottom Line – it’s inexcusable for city administrators to tell their unionized workers on the one hand that the cupboard is bare and be happy with a one or two per cent pay hike, while on the other hand rewarding their top guns with increases of 76% over five years as Victoria (British Columbia) did with some. It’s also less than honest.’ Epoch News July 20-26/12

8) There is little doubt in this writer’s mind that the McGuinty government would capitalize on the cowardice of B.C. Teachers in replicating an attack against the collective bargaining rules of teachers in Ontario.

 

SEPTEMBER 04-2012

 

 

August 31-2012

 

TO: Bruce Laughton Q.C. (Union Lawyer) (2 pages)

 

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

        

REQUEST: To include the following in any hearing called by the employer and union for costs in action CA038538 which was never held due to court cupidity. Please report court findings to me.

 

MESSAGE:

 

1) Aknowledgment of your 9 page fax of August 29-2012 covering the legal costs incurred by the Employer and the Union is made.

 

2) By rights, the Employer the Union and myself have a legitimate claim for legal costs related to this failed action and if they were forthcoming from the personal pocket of Appeal Court of the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice, Lance Finch, then justice can be said to have been served.

 

3) As it is, due to a specious surety hearing launched by the joint efforts of the Employer and Union before Appeal Court’s K.C. MacKenzie, the monies are to be paid out of the $10,000 ‘blood money’ paid in good faith by this writer to ensure that CA038538 was indeed heard. ‘Specious’ because this plaintiff had always been current with his legal bills in this 27 year unresolved legal matter in which no compensation has been paid due to inactivity by the only two the court would recognize in resolving this matter; namely, the Employer and Union. Hence this plaintiff has been left in limbo which flies in the face of a number of major laws.

 

4) The conduct of the surety matter left much to be desired as it was clear that  this writer was  only to receive knowledge of the posted bond after the due date for payment. Through other sources, this plaintiff learned of the charge and paid in a timely manner.

 

5) Thus thwarted,  the conspirators who wished to block any challenge to one of the more egregious acts of a Justice in Canadian jurisprudence; namely, the prohibitive order by Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Supreme Court outlined in CA038538, in which she ruled, for reasons best known to herself,  that this writer was to be banned from all B.C. courts in this matter regarding his lay-off:

(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. 

 

6)  CA038538 was filed to challenge this most unorthodox and disingenuous judicial action only to be met by an un-named Vancouver court official who appeared to be acting a priori when he rolled up the court documents and returned them to the courier. Hiding a judicial decision behind an administrative action is one of the more cheap shots of the judiciary.

 

7) As a consequence, Chief Justice Lance Finch was asked to adjudicate this court officer’s action. He failed to respond.

 

8) Subsequent appeals to the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada were problematical and the action of the court clerk went unchallenged. At that point, I accused the Canadian judiciary of being guilty of systematic judicial abuse thus reducing Canada to Third World status.

 

9) Currently, a hearing is slated for November 1, 2012 in Ottawa, Ontario against only the Employer for limited compensation. All the elements of this 27 year unresolved case before over 30 judges including three inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada are juxtaposed into this single hearing. A defeat for this plaintiff is tantamount to smashing the Canadian Justice System in its entirety as this writer becomes the first official ‘Outlawed Canadian’. No Justice System may withstand that accusation; an accusation compounded by the lack of action by the politicians and the Canadian media. Canadian democracy will be no more.

 

 

10) Following is a brief pejorative history of this legal debacle:

 

(i) The West Vancouver Teachers Association (who have approved your current action to claim expenses from the surety) approached the Superintendant with a request to lay-off senior teacher, Roger Callow, under the new BILL 35 which became law on July 1,1985 (Callow laid off June 26, 1985). The fear was that an administrator would be fired for fraud due to written accusations Callow had earlier provided the Ministry in Victoria.

(ii) With the Arbitrator in his back pocket (he converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs with Callow as the necessary 17th), the Superintendant felt confident of success as the Union were not going to contest this lay-off. No school trustee was prepared to take the stand – nor were they called to – to attest to lay-off figures; the key of the arbitration which ruled against Callow, the only lay-off victim.

(iii) Callow played an end-game around the Union by changing lawyers and entering a court appeal which saw the arbitration being quashed with the arbitrator being labeled ‘patently unreasonable’. When the School Board did not return employment as recommended by the court, a renewed arbitration was re-ordered. That arbitration was never held as the Employer and Union were considered the only two bodies with legal recognition to define my welfare.

(iv) Unfortunately, Justice Southin, in condemning the arbitration, called for all memoes from the Employer and Union which, I submit, revealed the extent of this conspiracy. By returning them without comment, she placed the court in a position to be blackmailed; an arrangement which has held for the past 26 years.

(v) The laws of habeas corpus, ultimate remedy, no process without judgment, have been sacrificed to a level and degree hitherto unknown, I submit, in any legal system.

(vi) This letter is being forwarded to the Canadian Judicial Council although, judging from the effectiveness of other judicial oversight bodies, one can expect to be bemused by yet another legal body weaseling out of their responsibilities.

11) In the words of Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic)…’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) in mind.                                                           

 

Yours truly,

                                                                                     

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – SEPT 07-2012

 

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)  ‘Pulitzer Prize’ potential for international reporter ?

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

(27 year unresolved legal case) which has reduced Canada to Third World status

 

September 7-2012

 

TO: Chief Justice Lance Finch – B.C. Supreme Appeal Court

encl.

1) Two page letter from B. Laughton Q.C. for costs 9 incurred  by employer and union in the stalled hearing of CA038538 later dismissed as abandoned by the court on April 30-2012.

2)Sept. 4 letter to Laughton including the following points (see web for full account)

     2) By rights, the Employer the Union and myself have a legitimate claim for legal costs related to this failed action (CA038538)and if they were forthcoming from the personal pocket of Appeal Court of the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice, Lance Finch, then justice can be said to have been served.

     5) Thus thwarted,  the conspirators who wished to block any challenge to one of the more egregious acts of a Justice in Canadian jurisprudence; namely, the prohibitive order by Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Supreme Court outlined in CA038538, in which she ruled, for reasons best known to herself,  that this writer was to be banned from all B.C. courts in this matter regarding his lay-off:(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.

 

MESSAGE:

 

1) I earlier received notice that CA038538 was to be dismissed by the Vancouver Court  and should I wish to contest this feature, I must file by April 30-2012. Obviously this is what must pass for judicial humour as I wrote asking them how this could be done considering the fact that this writer is banned from all Vancouver courts? I did not hear back hence this ‘blood money’ belongs to the Vancouver court in a matter best labeled as `judicial theft`.

 

2) This reply to Laughton is being made through the offices of Chief Justice Finch. It would appear that the Employer/Union request is a ‘slam dunk’. That is, in order to justify a ‘specious’ security for costs under K.C. MacKenzie, The court can be expected to grant the necessary relief noting that ‘there is no presence’ of the accused. Hence the judicial record remains in pristine condition.

 

3) A combination of these actions by the B.C. Court with extensions to the B.C. Labour Board, the Federal Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada (3 challenges) in this unresolved labour matter has prompted the above claim regarding Third World status.

 

4) Currently an action has been filed against the Employer only to be heard in Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court on November 1 for interim compensation which belongs to this plaintiff despite legal outcomes. As such all the previous legal decisions which this writer claims as systematic injustice from the B.C. courts is juxtaposed into this hearing which threatens legal anarchy for Canada in the case of defeat.

 

5) Considering this grave concern outlined in 4), the McGuinty government of Ontario is being kept fully apprised of developments. In short, will the McGuinty government throw the Ontario Justice System `under the bus`. If so, every Canadian employer will obviate his fiduciary obligations by laying off employees (as opposed to dismissing them) with this line: ‘If you do not sign a $1 settlement fee, then you will not get your pension.’

 

6) So no,  I will not sign Laughton’s court Order which, among other things, claims to hold the necessary court authority to alot the balance of the surity to me. Finch made this mess, let him clean it up.

 

Yours truly,

 

cc B. Laughton / Chief Justice C. Hackman (Ottawa) / ackman HHOntario Premier McGuinty / Attorney General J. Gerritson

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – SEPT 09-2012

     (FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN) ‘Pulitzer Prize’ potential for international reporter?

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (27 year unresolved legal case) which has reduced Canada to Third World status.

                                          with apologies to Wiley

 

OPEN LETTER TO OTTAWA ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

 

QUOTE: ‘If you’re not militant, you’re going to get pummelled’ said Mark Leier, Labour Historian, with a historian’s eye for turning points in labour relations and law.’

 

1) The November 1 hearing solely against the Employer B.C. School District in an Ottawa courtroom for ‘interim compensation’ (25 years of back salary plus interest belonging to this plaintiff despite legal outcomes as I should never have been taken off salary before a resolution was found) is a harbinger of the current fate of the Ontario teachers challenge to the undermining of the collective bargaining process by the McGuinty government.

 

2) None of the three provincial parties spoke in support of protecting collective bargaining rights. Federally, Tory M.P. Pierre Pollievre is promoting a private member’s bill which is the logical next step to the destruction of the Union movement in Canada euphemistically known as ‘right to work’ legislation.

 

3) Hence the picture does not look good for the Ontario teachers as the matter is likely to be settled in court against a government, I submit, which would never obliterate the collective bargaining process without first checking on how the courts would play out.

 

4) No doubt the McGuinty government are patterning ‘the next logical step’ from B.C. Teacher failure in the Employee’s Case to replicate a similar procedure in Ontario.

     (i) In 1985, the B.C. Government passed BILL 35, an ‘ultra vires’ document designed to deal with the topic of  teacher lay-off. Hitherto, ‘last one on was first one off’.

     (iii) The BCTF publicly declared BILL 35 as ‘the battle of all teachers’ while, one and at the same time, were conspiring with the West Vancouver School Board to lay-off senior teacher, Roger Callow, the only teacher laid off under this iniquitous legislation which was withdrawn a decade later before the matter was resolved (banana republic legislation).

     (iv) The ‘fixed arbitration’ favouring the School District was quashed and the arbitrator ruled ‘patently unreasonable’ in an ensuing court challenge as a consequence of my changing from the Union lawyer.

     (v) When the School District refused to return employment as recommended by the court, this writer lost all acccess to the courts as they would only recognize the Union and Employer to finalize this case.

     (vi) While not excusing the conspirators, the next 25 years have been spent before over 30 ‘venal’ judges (including 3 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada) to get a conclusion from which compensation may flow. In bottom line language, a Canadian employer may forego his contractual obligations by laying-off an employee with this line: ‘If you do not sign a $1 settlement, you will not collect your pension’.

 

5) In the current Ottawa court case, the employer repeatedly refuses to present an argument which, normally speaking, leaves this plaintiff with a ‘slam dunk’ case. I say ‘normally’ because I doubt very much this approach would be used without checking beforehand behind the scenes. Hence it is immaterial as to the judge appointed to hear this case as it will be the office of Chief Justice Charles Hackland speaking.

 

6) The jurisdictional grounds to be quoted for the court ducking out is based on  Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie (B.C. Supreme Court 2010) who, on her own recognizance, without taking argument, without quoting pertinent laws, would bar this plaintiff from the Vancouver Courts in this unresolved matter where no decision exists (SEE web) (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

 

7) Hence a defeat for this plaintiff on this level will lead to the annihilation of the Canadian Justice System for this is the first application of the `MacKenzie Creed`. While this writer may officially be declared as the first ‘Outlawed Canadian’; to be sure, he won’t be the last. Democratic Canada is no more and July 1 – ANTI-JUDGE day – is the logical extension.

 

8) Ontario teachers are called on to give voice to this case boycotted by the media (Internet/OCCUPY NOW,etc.)

 

cc Chief Justice C.Hackman (Ottawa Superior Court ) Att. Gen. J. Gerretson / Premier D. McGuinty

 

September 11-2012

 

REFERENCE: Court of Appeal hearing on September 25-2012   2 P.M. to address the Respondents claim for costs in legal action CA038538 which was never held in court due to court cupidity and the failure of B.C. Appeal Court of the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Lance Finch to address the problem of ‘hiding a judicial decision behind an administrative action’.

 

TO: Bruce Laughton Q.C.– Respondent Union Lawyer (also represents Employer interests)

      

FROM: Roger Callow

        

MESSAGE:

 

1) Why the big rush to claim surety fee money from the $10,000 I was forced to pay if I was to see CA038538 proceed in court against one of the most egregious acts of a judge in Canadian jurisprudence. As noted above, that hearing was never held as I am currently barred from any access to a B.C. court in this matter by the ‘MacKenzie Creed`: (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. In contrast, is this statement from Justice Estey in this 27 year unresolved legal case: (St. Anne Nackawic)…’What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’  

 

2) For this reason, I referred this matter to Chief Justice Finch for adjudication under these most unusual circumstances. Your September date would appear to fly in the face of two letters (SEE web www.employeescasecanada.com SEPTEMBER-2012  A) AUGUST 31 – Letter to Laughton considering the specious nature of his appeal  B) SEPTEMBER 7 – Letter to Chief Justice Finch to adjudicate this unholy mess as I am not prepared to sign any missive from the respondents regarding costs for CA038538.

 

3) Logically, the respondents could be expected to wait until after the November 1-2012 hearing date before collecting costs from this `captive` B.C. account for which I have no legal representation rights.

 

4) Rightfully or wrongfully, I submit the need for haste is due to the horror that the respondents have of a hearing date for #12-54944 on November 1-2012 and are seeking to place an end to the B.C. surety in order to launch a parallel attack with another false surety claim against the Ontario Justice System. No doubt, Appeal Court ‘s Justice K.C. MacKenzie is willing to make himself available to the Ontario court for the purpose.

 

5) For the Court to continue on the basis you suggest is a travesty of justice and Chief Justice Lance Finch should not stand for it; particularly due to the fact that this plaintiff is barred from presenting a legal rebuttal.

 

6) The central challenge to Ottawa Chief Justice, Charles Hackland, is whether he will permit his courts to be the target of a diabolical scheme to undermine the course of justice in Ontario as I submit as has been the case in B.C. This is what I mean by ‘throwing the Ontario Justice System under the bus’.

                                                                                                                                                     Yours truly

 

cc Chief Justice L. Finch / Chief Justice C. Hackland / Ont. Att. Gen. J. Gerretsen / Premier McGuinty (Ontario)  

 

September 12-2012

 

TO: Canadian Judicial Council

       

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

        

ENCLOSURES:

A) Prohibition Order of Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court 2010 (hereafter referred to as the ‘MacKenzie Creed’).

B) Two letter excerpts from Bruce Laughton – August 29 and September 11-2012

C) Two excerpt replies from this writer to above – August 31 and September 11-2012

D) Form 25A filed for #12-54944 (Ottawa Registry) to be heard November 1 in Ottawa.

 

MESSAGE:

1) While the hearing slated for November 1 in Ottawa is solely against  the Employer, the ‘elephant in the room’ is the MacKenzie Creed which overlies the two aspects of this case:

     (i) this petitioner’s request for ‘interim compensation’ until the larger case is resolved which, due to the wisdom of the courts, lies solely in the hands of the Employer and Union who have done nothing in the past 25 years in this matter although the matter was remitted at one point back to arbirtration by the courts after the Employer failed to return employment to this senior teacher as recommended by the court. The MacKenzie Creed would block this plaintiff from any court appeal to accomplish a resolution to a labour matter where no compensation has been paid. Failure would lead arguably to the annihilation of the Canadian Judicial System in arguments enunciated elsewhere. SEE D) above for example.

     (ii) the Employer’s request to strike the petition without providing any argument as to the merits of ‘interim compensation’ as this petitioner invited them to do on more than one occasion. The MacKenzie Creed would be central to their platform.

 

2) The effect of Laughton’s legal letters to acquire costs for CA038538 is to move up this first application of the MacKenzie Creed to September 25 (SEE A Sept. 11 above) in a British Columbia court where I have no access as opposed to an Ottawa court where I do have access.

 

3) Pity the poor judge assigned to this hearing and why this letter to the Judicial Council is being written as such an appointee is going to be badly in need of direction:

(i) As the appropriate forms were not signed by me for this hearing, the judge must ask for my submissions on this matter.

(ii) Failure to do so in (i) raises the question as to how, for example, I may appeal his decision particularly as this writer is barred from making any legal argument in a Vancouver court room.

(iii) How, under the circumstances may this judge assign any costs considering that such costs follow on a judgment. As CA038538 was cancelled by the Vancouver Courts before it was held, none of the three parties to this case should be held liable for costs although the Employer and Union cannot resist this $10,000 honeypot surety paid by this petitioner in good faith in order that CA038538 would proceed.

(iv) Nor may the judge do nothing as it gives vent to the accusation that the MacKenzie Creed has placed this petitioner in permanent  limbo by, in effect, acting as a de facto agent for the Employer/Union.

 

4) In short, the MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand. It will be bedlam if judges acting on their own authority, without taking legal argument nor quoting pertinent laws, bar individuals from court for reasons best known to themselves.

 

5) Without a guideline to the above hearing from such as the Judicial Council, the Canadian Justice System will be annihilated just as could be the case in the November 1 hearing which, at this point, should be placed in abeyance until the September 25 hearing for costs is settled in Vancouver addressing the above questions without, as noted already for the reasons explained, my presence as my basic rights before the law have been denied by the iniquitous MacKenzie Creed.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

cc Laughton Q.C.

cc anti-employee media

 

Excerpt from CA038538 Appeal not heard by the court:

Tab 2 of the Appeal Book

(11) Justice A.W. MacKenzie did not give any reasons for the order

(12) The Appellant admits that he was ordered not to institute any proceedings against the Respondents without leave. However, the Appellant in his Notice of Civil Claim specifically asked the court for a “Permission…to institute this action”, which is equivalent to a request for leave to bring an action.

(13) Natural justice which guides decision making in our courts and in all courts of free and democratic societies is based on a fundamental principle, namely a right to a fair unbiased hearing with adequate notice and the opportunity to present evidence and argument.

(14) It is also true that a court must avoid appearance of bias. It does so by making a decision based on carefully balanced assessment of the evidence and arguments of the opposing parties. This was not done in this case, leaving, at the very least, the appearance of bias.

(15) The Appellant has been branded a vexatious litigant. It may well be that the Respondents and the court find him annoying. But consider his plight. His 17-year teaching career was decimated by the Respondent School Board in “laying him off” in 1985. The legality of the “lay-off” has never been judicially determined, but was certainly found to be questionable by Madame Justice Southin.

 

APPENDIX  A

The Justice Anne MacKenzie Order:

 

This court, on its own motion and without a hearing, at Vancouver, British Columbia on Friday, October 1,2010 Orders and Declares That:

1) The Notice of Civil Claim herein is a nullity and is set aside.

2) Roger Callow shall not, except with prior leave of the Court, initiate any proceedings in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Registry File Nos…., or pertaining to or connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendants in this action or arising from or related to that subject matter.

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.

 

A) Justice MacKenzie may have had good reasons to do as she did. But without a hearing and without any definition in her `un-numbered` order,  these actions must be declared ultra vires as the only person who can respond is MacKenzie herself and she will not be taking the stand. The course of justice is perverted if her action stands without explanation. Depending solely on procedural excuses as Penner (defense counsel) and Lafreniére would have it, just will not do.

B) Perhaps of a more egregious action is that of the un-named court clerk whom, for reasons best known to himself, returned duly filed legal material to the courier. Think of the bedlam should that extra-legal action become commonplace. Organized crime will have a field day.  If it should be that litigants may be treated in this fashion, then I submit a very careful statement must be given as to why any litigant is to be deprived of ‘due process’. MacKenzie,  I submit, did not do that. Herein lay my appeal to the Chief Justice of the B.C. Appeal Court in September. I argued that such as the above action must either be accepted or denied by a Chief Justice. There was no response from Judge Finch. At this juncture, Parliament may see fit to suspend him along with A.W. MacKenzie. That is why his response here is significant. (see Letter to Chief Justice Finch DEC. 01-pp2-4)

 

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – SEPT 16-2012

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN) ‘Pulitzer Prize’ potential for international reporter ?

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (27 year  unresolved legal case) which has reduced Canada to Third World status

 

MESSAGE:

1) At this juncture, the authorities are not worried about the upcoming November 1-2012 hearing date in an Ottawa courtroom (#12-54944); they are positively terrified. In short, they must find some way to obviate this hearing which is one in a long line of inconclusive court hearings in this long drawn out matter with this difference – the Justice System of Canada will in all likelihood be annihilated.

 

2) That is why Ontario teachers have a vested interest in publicizing the Employee’s Case case and in breaking the anti-employee media boycott on this lead civil case without any equal.

 

3) What the McGuinty government has done in its attempt to destroy the collective bargaining process for Ontario Teachers and hence destroy the Union movement in Canada is to borrow the template of BILL 35 from 1985 in British Columbia. In this caper, he depends on the Union leaders to do their part by standing up on their hind legs and railing against the government in order to justify their own existence. That is expected to be only temporary.

 

4) As both Bill 35 and the recent McGuinty action have shown; the first step is to hi-jack the government which has been effectively done in both cases.

 

5) The key to success or failure, however, lies in the court decision where McGuinty has to co-opt judicial co-operation as experienced in B.C. with the Employee’s Case. The mechanism of delay is integral to that success. For example, after a brief flury of public activity as per student unrest in Quebec and teacher activity in Ontario, Ontario teachers will be expected to go about their business, many of them forgetting the issue until – wham – a court decision comes from ‘out of nowhere’ exposing their vulnerability which had never really gone away.

 

6) Confused frustrated, and embarrassed,  the teachers will slink away much like the B.C. Teachers did with the Employee’s Case leaving the Union leaders to quietly clean up the detritus.

 

7) The Unions are not part of the ‘inner circle’ as evidenced by court action against the B.C. Teachers in their wildcat strike in 2005. Obviously court-sanctioned sweetheart deals did not give them carte blanche on other fixes.

 

8) SEE Sept. 7 letter to B.C. Teachers Union lawyer, Bruce Laughton, as he unsuccessfully attempted to get my signature to approve  the collection of legal fees from a ‘specious’ surety fee of $10,000 I paid into B.C. courts with a promise that he (not the judge, mind you…although B.C. judges do what they are told in this caper) would return the balance of the funds to me (considering that I am blocked from any B.C. Court due to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’).

 

9) The reason for this application by Laughton is to give legitimacy to that surety process in B.C., I submit, so that a second surety stunt may be pulled in Ontario. Not happening in the way Laughton would have it.

 

10) Hence the November 1-2012 hearing date is  most significant as a ‘dry run’ for what Ontario teachers can expect from the court. They need to publicize this November 1-2012 as well as get support from their reluctant Union leaders in that regard. The Office of Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland in Ottawa holds the key to this November 1 hearing as I keep him apprised of all events. (Also supplied to the McGuinty government who can no longer be trusted.)

 

11) The media has spotted the direction this issue is headed in by giving headline space to Federal Tory M.P. Pierre Pollievre’s Private Member’s Bill to introduce ‘right to work legislation’. Private Member’s Bills rarely come to a vote but the intention of management is clear. In short, will the defeat of the Ontario teachers with the McGuinty government be the start of a long slide to oblivion for the Unions? Based on past experience from the Employee’s Case, that answer is in the affirmative.

 

12) One of the main casualties of the demise of the Union movement is the Pension Plan. Due to the judicial excesses of the Employee’s Case to date, employers are now able to circumvent their financial obligations by hiding a dismissal behind a lay-off (different laws). In short, an employer may tell an employee…’If you do not sign a $1 quick deed settlement, you will not collect your pension’. Under these circumstances, no employee should hold Union membership nor contribute to a pension scheme.

 

13) OCCUPY NOW MOVEMENT …where are you now that Canada and Canadians need you most?

 

                 

 

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – SEPT 19-2012

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN) ‘Pulitzer Prize’ potential for international reporter ?

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (27 year  unresolved legal case) which has reduced Canada to Third World status through systematic court injustice; the final act of obliterating the Canadian Judiciary to be played out in a Vancouver Court over a rinky dink claim for ‘costs’ on Sept. 25

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

1) Hold your U.S.-Canadian border open for an influx of ethical Canadians wishing to live under an intact legal system; something about to be sacrificed in democratic Canada. In short what other countries would call anarchy; Canada would label as ‘due process of the law’ or, pejoratively ‘processed by the law’. Forget Quebec in that regard as any province may make application under the U.S. Constitution for statehood.

 

2) SEE web SEPTEMBER 12-2012 for a letter to the Judicial Council of Judges outlining why the above is so.

 

3) At source of this legal contention is the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ detailed in the September 12 letter: In short, what is being pitted here is the single most important challenge in Canadian jurisprudence:

(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.   vs

In the words of Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic)…’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) in mind.                                                   

4) The claim for costs in action CA038538 from a $10,000 surety paid by this plaintiff in all good faith in order to see this action against the ‘MacKenzie Creed’  proceed to court on September 25-12 should have been routine but is not: FROM THE SEPT.12 LETTER TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL;

3) Pity the poor judge assigned to this hearing and why this letter to the Judicial Council is being written as such an appointee is going to be badly in need of direction:

(i) As the appropriate forms were not signed by me for this hearing, the judge must ask for my submissions on this matter.

(ii) Failure to do so in (i) raises the question as to how, for example, I may appeal his decision particularly as this writer is barred from making any legal argument in a Vancouver court room.

(iii) How, under the circumstances may this judge assign any costs considering that such costs follow on a judgment. As CA038538 was cancelled by the Vancouver Courts before it was held, none of the three parties to this case should be held liable for costs although the Employer and Union cannot resist this $10,000 honeypot surety paid by this petitioner in good faith in order that CA038538 would proceed.

(iv) Nor may the judge do nothing as it gives vent to the accusation that the MacKenzie Creed has placed this petitioner in permanent  limbo by, in effect, acting as a de facto agent for the Employer/Union.

 

5) I have another take on why Canada recently declared Iran to be a terrorist state…as a prelude to declaring the ‘Outlawed Canadian’ to be a terrorist state whose cause will be far more detrimental to the welfare of the Old Boys Club in Canada…and that would never do.