JUMP TO HOME PAGE

THAT’S  ALL, FOLKS!  Bugs Bunny

Following is the Response to #13-59060 laid by the Employer, apparently as a means of usurping #13-58607 laid ealier by me to which the Employer has not responded with any meaningful argument. The only change is that the Employer replaces me as the plaintiff. It’s legal skulduggery of course and I intend to ask the court for ‘maintenance’. In ‘cop speak’, it’s called a ‘race to the telephone’ in domestic disputes.

 

Court File No. 13-59060

 

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (OTTAWA)

Between:

BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES (WEST VANCOUVER SD #45)

   Plaintiff

and

ROGER CALLOW

   Respondent

FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT

 

                                         INDEX                                                          Page(s)

PART  I                                   OVERVIEW                                                                                   1 - 9                                       

PART II                       a) APPENDIX  I – Plaintiff’s procrastination                                        10

                                    b) APPENDIX II – Rebuttal to DT-12-1872  Oct. 04-2013          11 - 14

                                    c) APPENDIX III – ‘MacKenzie Creed’                                                15 - 16

                                    d) APPENDIX IV – ‘Cullen Creed’                                             17 - 18

                                    e) APPENDIX V - 3 Newletters; October 06;13;20 – 2013        19 - 22

PART III                      ADDENDUM – Respondent’s Argument as the Plaintiff #13-58607

(August 22-2013) apparently usurped by the above case number

 #13-59060 where the plaintiff and respondent apparently exchange

 places. (INCLUDED ELSEWHERE ON THIS SITE)

 

 

                                                                                   

1) REPLY21A  TO APPLICATION FROM THE DEFENDANT #13-59060 DATED OCTOBER 11-2013 TO BE HEARD JANUARY 16, 2014 BEFORE A JUDGE IN OTTAWA SUPERIOR COURT. THIS NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CONFORMS WITH FORM 38A.

2) A COPY OF THE ABOVE IS ALSO INCLUDED AS A SECOND REPLY 21A ENTRY IN OTTAWA DIVISIONAL COURT #DT-12-1872 TO BE HEARD NOVEMBER 4, 2013 AS SOME ELEMENTS ARE COMMON TO BOTH CASES. A THIRD COPY IS INCLUDED AS A REPLY21A TO #13-58607 FILED AUGUST 22-2013 BY ME.

 

DEDICATION TO CANADA’S JUDGES

 

BLIND MEN AND AN ELEPHANT  J.G. Saxe – a dedication to Canada’s judges

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

Though all of them were blind

 

The First approached the Elephant

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

“God bless me! but the Elephant

Is very like a wall!”

And so it went; the second feeling the tusk claimed it was like a spear; a third grabbing the trunk made it out to be a snake; the fourth, in grabbing a leg believed it to be a tree and so on.

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

 

In legal parlance; Justice Estey in St. Anne-Nackawic expressed it thus: What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’.

 

THEME: The arguments presented in both actions by the Defendant is quintessential claptrap – ad hominem attacks on the plaintiff while ignoring his argument and presenting no evidence other than judicial rulings which fail to address the central argument: namely, is the plaintiff eligible for compensation regarding his apparently illicit lay-off from his teaching position in West Vancouver in June of 1985 and, if so, when will it be paid? That question was directed to the Superior Court under Justice Robert Maranger #12-54944 (Nov. 01-12) by me to be directed to the defendant due to the failure of the defendant in this regard. Maranger ignored this request and made no mention of it in his judgment. Despite over 30 judges and seven courts including the Supreme Court of Canada (2004 –‘ultimate remedy’– not heard) in this continuous litigation, the efficacy of the lay-off of former West Vancouver high school teacher, Roger Callow, has never been tested in law leaving the plaintiff in a perpetual state of limbo. No compensation has been paid which includes pension rights. Such laws as ‘habeas corpus’, ‘there can be no procedure without judgment’ and ‘ultimate remedy’ are casualties in this long drawn out legal battle characterized by systematic judicial abuse. For example, through innuendo, as opposed to reasoned arguments, the defendant has floated the ‘no chance of success’ caper in which one judge is persuaded to support this concept and other judges leap on the bandwagon of quoting that decision giving the appearance that many judges have carefully evaluated the term when in fact no judge has ever received a proper argument nor given a proper response. In short, this plaintiff might just as well be talking to the wall as far as the defendant and the judges assigned this case are concerned.

 

FOR BREVITY, THE PERSONAL PRONOUN FOR ‘THIS PLAINTIFF’ WILL BE USED. THE ‘DEFENDANT’ DEFINES THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES S.D. #45 (WEST VANCOUVER,B.C.)

 

REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION DATED OCTOBER 11-2013

APPLICATION

1. (a) Redundant claim.  I have never disputed that due to a ‘frivolous and vexatious’ assignment by some B.C. judge in the past that I must always seek leave of a judge to proceed. That charge does not bind the Defendant who has successfully made financial claims in a B.C. court where apparently I have no legal standing. As B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton has abrogated her responsibilities in this matter, the problem now falls into the lap of the Federal Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay as one consequence of her failure.

1. (b) Without an argument as to why this action should be discontinued, your claim for an extension of time should it be permitted to proceed is an abuse of process and I ask this court to award damages in the amount of $5,000 (the same amount I was dunned for from the lower court) for ‘maintenance’ (defined in law as ‘officious intermeddling in the litigation of others for an improper purpose). The court to be assigned this hearing can proceed on the same basis as the Maranger Decision without this ‘legal billable time nonsense’. Legal counsel for the Defendant has plenty of time to enunciate his arguments before the hearing on January 16, 2014, a date selected unitarily by him.

GROUNDS

2. (a) A rather ‘purple’ historical interpretation reminiscent of the saying that ’90,000 Frenchman can’t be wrong’. He would place all blame on the B.C. courts which certainly are not blameless. Indeed, due to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which is the current focus of DT-12-1872 and now, the Cullen Creed of July 23,2013 both from the same B.C. Supreme Court, which is the focus of the current Superior Court #13-58607 and which the Defendant would arguably waylay this action by superimposing his current #13-59060 no doubt hoping to find a compliant judge to rubber-stamp his request. In short, the attempt here is, I submit, to pervert the course of justice by the laying of #13-59060 which is why I claim ‘maintenance’. As to the Defendant’s claim of not having reasonable grounds, is not my rightful claim to compensation the focus of the collective bargaining rules? In short, compensation – in some amount - must be paid.

3. (b) It would appear that the Defendant’s arguments – or innuendo as I submit is the case here – is always reasonable while my arguments are vexatious. Even a first year law class would snicker at that one.

3. (c) ‘Bang on’ as I have been blocked from my legal rights to appear in a B.C. court. That’s one reason why I have to appeal to other courts under the powers of ‘inherent jurisdiction’ to be heard. The Federal Court of Canada and Ontario courts still hear my pleas, much to the chagrin of the Defendant.

3. (d) My interest did not focus on ‘sueing two B.C. judges’ per se but rather the actions taken by them which would rob me of my basic status before the courts. FCC Pronothotary Roger Lafrenieré in a secret hearing in 2011 #T-1386-11 portrayed this matter as a challenge to the status of a judge under the judicial review rules completely ignoring, as he did, the content of the judgment. FCC Justice Madam Gleason on August 13-2013 rejected the filing which later became  #13-58607 (Ontario Superior Court and the topic of this rebuttal) on the grounds that it did not conform with FCC rules as an ‘originating document’ and did not disclose ‘no reasonable cause of action’. I have called for her removal by the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, for incompetence. Even presuming her opinion was to apply, a duly invested court (not the kangaroo court of Lafrenieré) should have taken argument as the Ontario courts are now doing.

(f) Ideally speaking, I should be able to head directly to the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue but for their `Robert`s rules of Order`mentality in which SCofC Registrar, Roger Bilodeau, would reject the last four submissions demanding that three judges of an Appeal Court must first decide on an issue. The SCofC rules makes no mention as to the number of Appeal Court judges required. In short, the entire Canadian Judiciary is involved, I submit, in sidetracking an issue which has led to the collapse of Canadian Jurisprudence. The question is `why` which I will detail in the following historical background. The central point is that as I do not have a judicial opinion, no compensation may flow. Collective Bargaining rules and Company Pension schemes are one casualty of this case as now the precedent set may be enunciated accordingly: Employer: I am not dismissing you as an employee where I incur financial loss. Rather, I am laying you off, and if you do not sign a $1 quick settlement claim, you will not be able to collect your pension. That’s not law; it’s anarchy.

 

BACKGROUND – A PEJORATIVE ACCOUNT

1) ‘Nothing was adduced in evidence which showed that the Board of School Trustees School District #45 (West Vancouver, B.C.) ever intended to lay-off a teacher under the conditions of BILL 35’. Justice Mary Southin in 1986

2) Thus the Superintendant’s letter of June 26, 1985 quoting that authority under the conditions of BILL 35 (became law on July 01,1985) was fraudulently written. He was let out one year later and never served in the public education arena again.

3) By quashing the arbitration favouring the Employer, one effect was to erase this alleged perjury noted in 2)

4) Another effect of Southin’s Decision was to leave me in a permanent state of limbo when the School District failed to return employment to me as recommended by her. It is that feature which led to the implosion of the Canadian Justice System in 2004 when the Supreme Court of Canada failed to hear this case. All other such cases before the SCofC are left with lower court decisions; not so the Employee’s Case for the reason noted above.

5) No judge saw fit to re-instate me to salary as per contract terms while litigation continues which, in effect, robbed me from any leverage. Both the Union and Employer have connived, I submit, to keep me from my rightful compensation claims.

6) The Union, the only other one the cvourt would grant status to was in a ‘conflict of interest’ in that they represented both the administrator of whom I had accused of fraud vis a vis professional report writing on teachers in written material to the B.C. Ministry of Education  in March of 1985 and myself as the teacher concerned.

7) The reaction of the government to this apparent ‘whistleblowing’ was to pass BILL 35, the ‘battle of all teachers’ as proclaimed by the Union but, in fact, the battle of only one teacher as events illustrated.

8) The imposed (as compared with consentual  agreement with the Union) BILL 35 was, I submit, meant to be ultra vires as a means of persuading School Districts to arrange their own consentual agreements with their teachers regarding lay-off which the Union continued to do with all School Districts after the lay-off of myself. I don’t believe there was one teacher who was told that the effect of such action was to limit legal action to a ‘cozy’ little arbitration which was bestowed on me. (Ontario teachers under BILL 115 are similarly affected although I am sure none realize the significance of their acquiescence to imposed government legislation which places them in a consentual position.) BILL 35 was withdrawn by the government before this single case laid under it was resolved implying a government conspiracy of immense proportions.

9) All other School Districts were talked out of using BILL 35 by the Union except for West Vancouver; the ‘Roger Callow Act’ as one Union lawyer put it.

10) In 2004, I received School Board files under the ‘freedom of access’ rules. Conspicuous by its absence were the secret School Board memos which Justice Southin demanded (a copy of course would be in the Union hands but never shown to me). She returned these memos as she did not use them creating the conditions for blackmail for if there was ever a hearing in which it could be shown that Southin had been privy to this government conspiracy and did nothing, a crisis of unimagined devastation would be created.

11) Hence the succeeding years of litigation enacted by me consisted of the Defendants citing jurisdictional reasons as a means of styming my claims to compensation. The culpability of the judges in that regard in a matter of systematic injustice has led to the collapse of Canadian Jurisprudence. We are now a Third World Country for without a credible legal system, a developed country has nothing. I call that anarchy.

12) In October of 2010, Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie of B.C. Supreme Court, on her own recognizance in an undocumented Order, without taking argument or quoting law, blocked me from proceeding on S102956 for reasons best known to herself. She also blocked my access to court to contest her decision which is the sole topic of DT-12-1872 to be heard November 4-2013.

13) In July of 2013, Associate Chief Justice Cullen from the same court, on his own recognizance but with a docket number, without making reference to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’, appeared to make a redundant Order maintaining that I was not to be heard in B.C. Supreme Court on the issue which is now before Superior Court in Ottawa as #13-58607.

14) There is a significant difference between the MacKenzie Creed and the Cullen Creed which explains why I have rejected the former and accepted the latter. In order to keep the judiciary intact, MacKenzie stated that I may proceed only with a court order; the implication being that to date I had not found ‘the proper legal counsel to ask the appropriate question’ implying the fault for this unfinished case lay with me. The Cullen Creed which includes an accompanying letter (status?) makes it clear that I have no access to the court; an action  I have interpreted as meaning that the court has abandoned this case. As such, I accept his decision, wonky as it may be,  to claim that compensation – which exists apart from legalities – may proceed. Due to the exclusionary provisions of the Cullen Creed, I must seek indemnity elsewhere under the courts powers of ‘inherent jurisdiction’ as there is no where else to turn.

 

ACTION REQUIRED

15) In the event that this court would supplant #13-58607, then I request that the terms of that document be applied. In short, now that the B.C. court has unequivocably abandoned this 28 year unresolved issue, then compensation rights may be applied. Action #13-58607 is included here with a reply to the Defendant as an addendum.

16) At question here is what has been achieved by the Defendant filing a second action paralleling the first?    Is it a matter of wishful thinking by the Defendant that a Hackland minion will throw out the case? As such, I will object vehemently to the introduction at court with any new information filed with this ‘rabbit out of a hat’ approach. The Defendant has time now although APPENDIX I is reflective of his procrastination. The court should assign $5,000 to this plaintiff (same amount as I was dunned for the Maranger Decision) for maintenance for this Defendant dallying.

 

17) While the focus in both courts is on the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ and the ‘Cullen Creed’; nonetheless, the presence of the Defendant permits the court to pose this central question to him: ‘Is the Defendant obligated to pay compensation to this plaintiff? If so, how and when?’ The Defendant failed to answer that question when I put it to him in the Maranger Court #12-54944 . As a consequence, I futilely insisted that the court pose the question. In the event of an incomplete answer, the proper course for the court is to declare that the Defendant Employer has abandoned this 28 year issue. At all future hearings I will insist that the court must pose this question to the Defendant in the event of an unsuccessful petition by me.

 

ENCLOSURES

1) Supreme Court of Canada Hon. R. Wagner

2) Ontario Premier K. Wynne who has been taxed with dismissing the 3 Appeal Court judges should they fail to quash the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ on pain of resigning her own position. Opposition leaders, Susan Howarth and Tim  Hudak are challenged to speak publicly on this issue NOW on pain of resigning their own leadership positions.

3) Minister of Justice Hon. Peter MacKay is charged with removing Federal Court Justice, Madame Gleason for incompetence in denying a hearing now before the Ontario courts as a consequence. He has also inherited the B.C. court debacles from B.C. Attorney General, Suzanne Anton, who ducked her responsibilities in this matter. Inaction on his part exposes the Prime Minister.

4) Premier Christy Clark who must dispense with A.G. Anton on pain of resigning her own position as Premier

No copy is sent to the B.C. NDP Party.

5) Federal Opposition leaders, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair, are challenged to speak publicly on this issue NOW on pain of resigning their positions as party leaders. No copy is sent to Green Party’s Elizabeth May. A copy is sent to Edmonton Tory Independent Ralph Rathgeber

6) Sun Media columnists to report NOW on pain of sacrificing Canadian media credibility: e-mail: @ sun media: monte.solberg; simon.kent; john.robson; ezra.levant; anthony.fury; brian.lilley; lorne.gunter; michael. coren

 

THE  MACKENZIE  CREED

On October 10-2010, I wrote my legal advisor: (annotation-2013)

1) You no doubt were aware of the enclosed 2-page MacKenzie document (dated Oct. 01-10) included here and received by me on Oct. 8-2010. (NB As the respondents did not file an appearance; they must have been given prior notice of this action = collusion)

2) As there is no case number, I have asked MacKenzie to state whether or not (her) prohibitive action applies to an appeal of her own decision? It may be that you will have to telephone the B.C. Courts to see under which rules she is functioning. (NB There is no such rule for this arbitrary type of Order which was made ‘for reasons best known to herself’)

3) There would appear to be a basic contradiction in her order to the extent that she includes the phrase ‘except with prior leave of the Court’ and our action: RELIEF SOUGHT 3. Permission of the court to institute this action’.(NB There was no contradiction from the perspective that this bid was to block a Third Approach to the Supreme Court of Canada. Currently there are five rejections of my appeals over the MacKenzie Creed by the SCofC quibbling over Section 40 rules.)

Currently, there is an action solely on the MacKenzie Creed in Ontario’s Divisional Court (Appeal) DC-12-1872. Will 3 judges ‘ tried and true’ screw up on it? Based on past history; count on it. In short, Canada will become ‘a failed state’ with the consequence of the demise of Canadian democracy not with a bang but a whimper.

 

Below is the MacKenzie Creed. Can you spot the anomaly which horrified the authorities to such an extent that the B.C. Attorney General asked, in effect, the Federal Court of Canada to fall on its sword on behalf of this government conspiracy? (See answer at bottom of the following Creed.

Re: Callow v. the Board Of School Trustees S.D. #45

       Vancouver Registry No. S106159

Please find enclosed a copy of an order issued by Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie in the above noted proceeding on Oct.01,2010.

H.L. McBride  (Supreme Court Law Officer)

- o -

Supreme Court of B.C. Oct. 01-2010 Entered                                S106159          (Van. Registry)

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Between:                    Roger Callow         plaintiff

and`West Vancouver School Board` and `the Union` defendants

THIS COURT, on its own motion and without a hearing, at 

Vancouver, B.C. 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  B.C. Registry File Nos.

S087238, S075775, S022978, A950147, 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.

                                                                                              By the court        

       (garbled signature)

                                                                                              District Registrar

Answer to the question ‘anomaly’. In suborning the District Registrar, MacKenzie

elevated that body to that of one with judicial standing equivalent to a court of law which

 no doubt explains why an Appeal Court clerk believed he had the necessary authority to

reject an Appeal (CA038538) to that court without explanation. The failure of Appeal

Court Chief Justice Lance Finch to adjudicate this matter is why I called for the

dismissal of both judges to be arranged through the office of the Prime Minister as it is

 clear that MacKenzie usurped the law and nothing was done about it. That’s how

 Canada became a failed state: permitting a judge to run a court within a court. No

 justice system can survive under those circumstances.

-          0     -

 

CULLEN  CREED

 

 

Document received from Hon. Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen dated July 23-2013:

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Docket S106159 (Vancouver Registry)

Between:  Roger Callow (Plaintiff)

And: The Board of School Trustees of School District No.45 and West Vancouver Teachers Association (Defendants)

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE CULLEN    Tuesday, the 23rd of July, 2013

 

THIS COURT, on its own motion and without a hearing, at Vancouver, British Columbia on Tuesday, July, 23, 2013, ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT:

1. Roger Callow shall not initiate any proceedings or seek leave to initiate 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 Vancouver Registry File Nos. S08728, S075775, S022978, A950147, 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.

2. 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 to which the Defendants will not be obliged to respond.

BY THE COURT  (signed) AUSTEN CULLEN

 

RESPONSE OF THE PLAINTIFF:

1) How is the above Order different from the (undocumented) Order of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie dated October 1, 2010? There are key differences as outlined in CA038538 contesting her Order which the B.C. Registry rejected for reasons best known to itself.

2) Why is this Order and accompanying letter from a second Associate Chief Justice rather than from Chief Justice Robert Baumann of the B.C. Supreme Court?

3) Number 1. is much the same as the earlier order with this clear addition: …or arising from or related to that subject matter.’

4) It would appear in some disingenuous way or other that Cullen’s Order would seek to obliterate any recognition of the challenge to the  ‘MacKenzie Creed’ as seen in the Appeal Court (Supreme Court) of B.C., the Federal Court of Canada, The Superior Court of Ontario (Ottawa) currently under Appeal in the Divisional Court, and entries pending to the Supreme Court of Canada.

5) Justice Cullen, in the above regard, has not only perverted the course of justice in the B.C. Supreme Court, he has usurped the course of Justice in Canada as his Order well exceeds his authority.

6) CA038538 supplants the earlier Orders listed by Cullen and hence his Order is redundant in that regard.

7) How can Cullen expel this plaintiff from an incomplete judicial action which the courts at one time ordered back to further adjudication in line with the legal precept that ‘there can be no process without judgment’. The oft quoted Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic pinpoints this difficulty: ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’. That aberration is what Cullen would sanction in what I submit is ‘patently unreasonable’.  Of course his Order is structured so that no such appeal may be conducted.

8) What if, at some future date, the Union decides to pursue this case? In an accompanying letter, Cullen adds, ‘No further proceedings arising out of or pertaining to the 1985 termination of your employment with the West Vancouver School District will be permitted to be brought in this Court.

9) For unexplained reasons, Cullen would seek to finalize any future proceedings as the phrase ‘with permission of the court’ (MacKenzie Creed) has been eliminated without a proper hearing. My constitutional rights have been abrogated by this Cullen Order in this unresolved labour case where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

10) ‘Your prior application before Justice Smith for leave to commence a further proceeding was characterized as futile and vexatious and resulted in an order for special costs being made against you.’ Who wrote this? (The Employer?) Who is Justice Smith? Do you mean Justice Maranger of Ontario Superior Court #12-54944 Nov. 1-2012 whose Decision is under Appeal in

Divisional Court(Ottawa)? That Account was settled for the going rate of 1/6 the Employer’s request which was labeled as being exorbitant by Maranger. Including those facts, it needs no doubt to be noted, would undermine the salacious appeal of your line.

11) The notion that the onus is on this party to show that court actions have been ‘patently unreasonable’ through the judicial review process is exactly what CA08538 was all about but was denied filing by the Vancouver Supreme Court Registry. Why have judges under these circumstances to do anything?

12) ‘You must accept the finality of this outcome’. (Cullen) Does that mean the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay,must accept your statement?

13) Without media coverage, it would seem that the Judicial System of Canada is getting away with the hoax of the century much to the detriment of Canada and 34 million Canadians.

Yours truly,

 

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

 

cc B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton

     SCofC Hon. R. Wagner

     media

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – OCT.06-2013

(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 winning journalist

OPEN PLEA TO THE WEST VANCOUVER B.C. SCHOOL TRUSTEES

1) For 28 years we have been at loggerheads to resolve the matter of my illicit teacher lay-off in June of 1985 where no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights).

2) The problem has now become one of judicial cupidity in which no-one is the winner; not the West Vancouver School Board; certainly not this targeted employee; and, believe it or not, the judicial system at large. 35 million Canadians are the poorer for these court versions of a ‘Lac Megantic driverless train burning down the  track to judicial oblivion’.

3) The Employee’s Case is well known on the internet, professional teachers, legal counsel across Canada, & politicians.

4) Barring some extreme elements on some School Boards, most School Boards value having good rapport with their teachers. To them, the West Vancouver School Trustees must appear as a rogue School Board which is undermining all teachers trust of School Trustees everywhere by swindling a teacher out of his rightful compensation.

5) By and large, I am willing to bet that ethical judges would like to put a stop to rogue judges who would operate outside the law thereby impairing the credibility of the judicial system. B.C. Supreme Court’s ‘MacKenzie Creed’ (Oct. 01-2010) and the more recent ‘Cullen Creed’ (July 21-2013) – see web for details – are two cases in point. These judges operate on their own whim apart from legal sanction.

6) The West Vancouver Board did the right thing, I submit, by having nothing to do with the first challenge of the MacKenzie Creed to a specious Federal Court hearing T-1386-11 now creating a hornet`s nest for Justice Minister MacKay. Because B.C. A.G. Suzanne Anton ducked out, he has inherited the judicial mess from British Columbia as well.

7) So why is the Board getting involved with the Ottawa Divisional Court’s DC-12-1872 which is devoted solely to the MacKenzie Creed which the lower Superior Court  #12-54944 failed to even mention? The pecuniary interests of the Defendant are not affected as specifically set out as this case proper has only very tenuous connections with that Creed. 

8) Back off and let these three Appeal Court judges in this case (November 4-2013 hearing date) sort out their priorities apart from being bogged down in specific case interests.

9) Nobody benefits from these carte blanche judicial Orders. For example, the MacKenzie Creed is being used to deny me access to the courts. In a recent submission to Ottawa Superior Court #13-58607, I am willing to accept the even more draconian Cullen Order as a means of acquiring my compensation now that the B.C. court has abandoned this case. That is not to the benefit of the Board.

10) For my part, I will not contest any action you may take against the legality of the Cullen Creed. In exchange, I ask that you take no action against my questioning of the legality of the MacKenzie Creed.

11) No cross-appeal was filed by Hicks, Morley et al in the pre-hearing on October 4-2013 although I have a copy to which I entered a rebuttal which reads as an indictment of the Justice System in general (see web DIV.COURT-ARMAG..)

12) Should Hicks Morley file their cross appeal, I will ask the court to reject it as the 60 day rule for rebuttal was badly overstretched (Action filed Jan.23-2013). I submit that you would be wise in withdrawing from this action.

13) As matters currently stand, I am asking that Premier Wynne depose the three judges if they do not quash the MacKenzie Creed against which I have made a prima facie case. The alternative is for her to resign the premiership. The law is far too important to have it booted around by litigants, politicians, Registry clerks, and of course, some judges not to mention the ‘grey eminences’ behind the scenes.

 

cc Hicks, Morley / B.C. School Boards /Justice Minister P. MacKay/ON premier K.Wynne/SCofC Judge Hon. R. Wagner

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – OCT.13-2013 

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the clusterfuck case’. Canada’s Watergate- Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought.

 

        

QUOTES:

1) Aphorism: ‘If you keep going to hell; you will eventually get there.’

2) ‘It looks like a slam dunk, so everybody relaxes, gets sloppy….’ Hoax R.K. Tanenbaum

3) ‘Goddamn lawyers…pick any dozen of them and you won’t find a pair of balls in the bunch’ Turning Angel Greg Isles

4) ‘But sentiment is to love what ethics are to morality, or what legality is to justice, or justice to compassion – all degraded forms of a loftier ideal.’ Incident at Twenty Mile  Trevanian

5) ‘Those entrusted with public and non-public funds must adhere unswervingly to the appropriate financial regulations. Dishonesty or deception in the control and management of these funds is not a ‘victimless crime’ but shows a lack of integrity and moral courage which has a corrosive effect on operational effectiveness through the breakdown in trust.’  Values and Standards of the British Army. Paragraph 27

6) ‘It is a curious paradox that indecisive people are also rigid, because when they do manage to make a decision, they tend to cling to it desperately for fear of the pain of having to make another one. Ottawa Sun Letter to the Editor Oct.2-13

7) …there is a much more urgent need to subject judges at various levels to psychological and physical examinations. This would ensure that those who sit in judgment of Canadians and are interpreting Canadian law would be of sound mind and would stop the rash of incredibly wonderous decisions coming forward that influence Canadians’ lives….’ Ottawa Sun Letter to the Editor Oct. 3-13

8)’…Before Nixon flushed the image of the Oval Office down the loo with Watergate, people believed in the integrity, honesty and courage of elected officials….` O.C. Movie Reviewer Katherine Monk Oct. 4-13 F1

9) ‘…Power is very much a matter of perception, and most of the time it’s far better defined as influence, and it’s very situation-based. Who you gonna call? Eric Morse O.C. Oct. 10-2013 p. A11

 

 

ROLLING UP THE LEGAL CARPET BEHIND THE JUDGES

MESSAGE:

1) Quote 5) is used here as a metaphor for the dilemma facing Canada and 35 million Canadians as the consequence of a 28 year government conspiracy (inclusive of the courts) in a debacle without equal in Canadian Jurisprudence.

2) In quote 5, the reference is to tangible assets and it is usually the taxman with his extraordinary powers of investigation to trip up miscreants which explains why money laundering is the biggest single problem for organized crime (Dubai is built on this trade).

3) The Justice System of any country does not have any tangible assets and therefore is not subject to the taxman regarding its transgressions …until now with the www.employeescasecanada.com

4) The point to make here is that, based on the above case, the Justice System of Canada has more holes in it than a piece of swiss cheese. Courtroom skulduggery, it might be argued, is endemic to the system but is never revealed for what it is…until now as the above case has exposed the judiciary in a matter of systematic judicial abuse wherein the courts in this case are shown to desert their judiciary role and been reduced to a mere agent for, in this case, the employer.

5) As the plaintiff, I have become a de facto ‘taxman’ in that regard; probably the first one to ever be in a position to challenge a Justice System on this level. The anti-employee media would appear to lack the necessary imagination to deal with this challenge to date . As for the legal interests; don’t even ask.

6) In many ways the challenge above is greater than such as the financial collapse of 2008 as one is left dealing with a tangible which has human greed at its roots. The collapse of the Canadian Judiciary, in contrast, is an intangible in which the credibility of the Canadian Justice System has been sacrificed on which they function for without credibility, what are they as a body? Hence it’s reduced to being all about power. Such a challenge by the Employee’s Case undermines the very soul of a nation and it will no doubt take the rest of the 21st century for Canada to sort out its priorities. Stephen Harper is merely the first P.M. up to bat.

7) What I will be eventually requesting from the Supreme Court of Canada is an ex parte Order which would restore to this personage all status to any court in order to pursue the employer in this unresolved legal issue.

a) It is implied by the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ and other court actions that while they would deny me access to the courts, never have they said that a judicial finding is out of order in this 28 year unresolved legal case.

b) That position changed on July 23-2013 with B.C. Supreme Court’s ‘Cullen Doctrine’ (under appeal in Ottawa Superior Court #13-58607) which makes it clear that the Justice System has abandoned this case although it did not see fit to dispense compensation such as back salary which belongs to this plaintiff apart from judicial outcomes.

c) What I don’t need is SCofC Registrar, Roger Bilodeau with his ‘Robert’s Rules of Order approach’, quoting me chapter and verse as to why the SCofC can duck out once again.

d) Nor do I need a ‘Judge Gomery’ type of boondoggle enquiry with the public message that ‘if the last 28 years of doing nothing has worked so well for the conspirators, lets go for another 28 years’. Besides, I have had a bellyful of Canada’s judges – over 30 of them to date.

8) The justification for my action is unique and never found before in Canadian Jurisprudence. When the SCofC rejected hearing this case in 2004 under ‘ultimate remedy’; I was left in a state of permanent limbo prompting my legal advisor to volunteer this amazing opinion: “You have exhausted all remedy under the law”. In short, ‘no legal answer became a legal answer’ in Canada, an untenable position for any legal system. That’s how the Canadian Justice System imploded. (N.B. all other rejected SCofC cases have a lower court decision.)

9) Considering that more than 85% of SC of C civil cases are not heard with no reason given, it has become a great burial gound for issues. When one also considers that a similar percentage of ‘out of court’ lower court decisions are made (after which legal counsel collect their legal billable time fees), one can appreciate that the court scene has slipped into lassitude with judges almost ordering an outside settlement which has happened in the Employee’s Case. Oversight judicial bodies are no better.

10) That Appeal courts in B.C. The Federal Court, and more recently, Ontario’s Superior Court have persistently ducked these ‘Creeds’ barring this plaintiff from court is evidence of a scurrilous use of the courts for this purpose.

11) There is no option available to the SCofC but to grant me full status (if the Ottawa Divisional court begs off on November 4-2013 Professional teachers of Ontario…where are you?) as the same question will devolve to the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, to give a similar executive Order in face of the failure of the Justice System to take care of its own business.

12) Pitting the executive branch of government against the legislative in a western democracy almost always leads to a win for the legislative branch although if MacKay does nothing, Prime Minister Harper must remove him.

13) Of course with full status – something I always believed I have always had beneath the laws – would inevitably lead to litigation which could expose a government conspiracy the likes of which has never been seen in Canada before.

14) The alternative, of course, has more draconian consequences as 35 million Canadians would realize that they no longer have a viable Justice System.

15) The choice, therefore, is first the Supreme Court of Canada to act (assuming an ON Divisional Court debacle) as outlined above, and if they fail to provide me with the Order re-establishing my rights under law, then it becomes a government mission under Tory Justice Minister, Peter MacKay.

 

NB The above will form the proposed basis of the re-submission (4 times) of documents to the Supreme Court of Canada after November 4-2012

 

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

 

ADDENDUM: ‘SAVING PRIVATE CLARK’; B.C. Premier Christie Clark would seek to distance herself from the coming storm over the Employees Case by acting as a client forcing the West Vancouver School Board into ‘bankruptcy’; and to cover that action, demolishing all School Boards for their failure along with the teachers to stand up against a rogue School Board in West Vancouver. It creates horrendous problems for two court cases currently on file in Ontario as well as for Justice Minister Peter MacKay.

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – OCT.20-2013 

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the clusterfuck case’. Canada’s Watergate- Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought

 

 

e-mail to O.C. RELIGION EXPERTS

MESSAGE: Religion Experts, you have been tried and found wanting if my 28 year experience in an ongoing unresolved labour matter before 7 courts is any example. (TOPIC:  Has the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ become irrelevant?)  Oct. 19 E12

     As a regular reader and admirer of the erudite Religion experts; nonetheless, their recent contributions on the question of ‘innocence’ falls far short regarding the Canadian Judicial System as referenced by the employeescasecanada.com . In short, “What to do with a tyrannical judge(s) in a matter of systematic  judicial abuse…or, in the words of the great jurist, Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) ‘What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’.

    This 28 year kafkaesque labour matter before over 30 judges still goes unresolved (without judgment, no compensation – includes pension rights – may flow). ‘No legal answer is now a legal answer’ in Canada.

     Elements of this case may be found in Ontario’s imposed Bill 115 of the Education Act as well as the ‘three senators’ story where individuals have also been ‘left out on the line to dry’…and still the media blackout holds on my lead whistleblower civil story of the century where employees are now ‘non-persons’.

 

‘The Outlawed Canadian’

 

Justice Robert Maranger  Ottawa Superior Court #1254944 Nov.01-12 under appeal #DC12-1872 Nov.04-13

     The Employee’s Case is a political trial which is defined here as a court decision which, in ignoring open court submissions, gives the impression that the judgment was pre-written. This has happened many times in this case where judges have even read from slips of paper placed in their pockets.

     The key to such political cases lies in judge appointments; made in this case under the aegis of the Ottawa Chief Justice Charles Hackland.

     To broaden the perspective here, take a different case decided by Justice Maranger; namely, that of the Ottawa University professor accused by France who requested his extradition for an alleged terrorist action 20 years earlier. The case revolved around the matter of a 20 year old single signature of highly questionable validity according to handwriting experts in court testimony. Maranger’s Decision? To extradite the professor ‘because the laws wouldn’t permit otherwise’. Nonsense. He could have just as easily thrown the case out of court although to be sure, there was pressure from above for this extradition. For 3 years, this professor has worn an ankle bracelet and has not worked as the Justice System ‘pressures’ him to return to France to face the music. As one involved in a will challenge, I was told that 24 signatures (although 12 would do) at the time of the activity was required for authentication. (In short, unless a senior is signing his name every day, he has little recourse in law due to the problems of failing memory.)

    I shouldn’t have to reduce the Appeal solely to the ultra vires ‘MacKenzie Creed’ (see web) but Maranger ignored it completely. Lord knows who will be appointed to the 3-judge appeal court under Charles Hackland.