JUMP TO HOME PAGE

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – NOV.24-2013

(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.

A rinky dink labour case which has left the Canadian Justice System in tatters and apparently without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians.

 

PLACARD: STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE

 

QUOTE: And now, when one sees the extent to which governments and organizations can be led by this kind of coverup and lying on a massive scale, I think one can see how it happens and how they justify it to themselves…I think most things that are kept secret and shouldn’t be are there to conceal incompetence….’

An Officer and a Spy  Robert Harris

 

web heading:    ANATOMY OF A LEGAL SCAM

 

November 18-2013

TO: The Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D. #45)       

FROM: Roger Callow

       

REFERENCE: #13-59060 Ottawa Superior Court  Jan. 16-2014

 

To whom it may concern;

     a) As you know, I filed an action (#13-58607) contesting the ‘Cullen Creed’ (B.C. Supreme Court Order July23-2013 which denies me any access to the courts on the whim of a judge) in Ottawa Superior Court on August 22, 2013 to which you failed to respond. (I also note a 9 month delay in responding to Divisional Court’s DT-12-1872 heard on Nov. 04-13 but that was okay with the court who awarded you damages.) In

#13-58607, I was prepared to accept the abandoning of this 29 year issue by the court (Cullen Creed) as a means of collecting compensation. As a ban precludes use of B.C. Courts, I am seeking remediation in Ontario under the ‘inherent jurisdiction’ rules.

     b) You filed a subsequent Order #13-59060 through your Ottawa representatives, Hicks, Morley et al which, under normal circumstances, could be expected to be in the form of a reply to #13-58607. The only change would appear to make you the plaintiff rather than myself. Further, Hicks Morley arbitrarily selected January 16-2014 as a hearing date no doubt in a bid to supplant a date agreeable to both parties for the holding of #13-58607. Once again,It was my intention to seek your approval of holding this matter as a ‘Special Case’ which would go directly to the 3-judge Divisional Court as depriving a litigant from access to the courts ‘on the whim of a judge’ not associated with the case sets a very dangerous precedent. Special Case designation requires the support of both parties. If the Employer had acquiesced to my earlier request in this regard, we could have proceeded directly to Divisional Court # DT-12-1872 which, as you know, is now under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Superior Court in Ottawa (Maranger Decision #12-54944) has been exposed to needless ridicule as one consequence.

     c) I am now calling on Justice Minister Peter MacKay to remove Divisional Court judges, Pardu/McCartney / Hennessy from the bench for gross dereliction of duty in their failure to address the specifics of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’; the sole topic before them as Premier Wynne did not take this necessary action. Their claim – for reasons best known to themselves – that they have no power to over-rule a judge in another province (no laws or precedents quoted)is preposterous. Even the Federal Court of Canada – which I have asked Justice Minister Peter MacKay to investigate - didn’t stoop to that idiocy. I challenged him to ‘find me a court’ under these conditions of an unresolved labour matter where no compensation (includes pension rights) has flowed.

     d)Hindering a litigant from court access should not be lightly taken particularly in an unresolved legal action which is the case here. The sole argument of the Defendant  in #DT-12-1872 was to promote a charge of ‘frivolous and vexatious’ in order to get the Ontario courts to provide their own vexatious sanction as a means of denying this litigant from due process. That’s unconscionable. While not condemning the defendant in that regard – they can produce any argument they like in court – I do condemn those 3 judges which underlies my insistance that the Justice Minister – in league with the provincial authorities if necessary – remove these 3 personages from the bench for incompetence.

     e) It would appear that your gambit is to have the presiding  justice on January 16-2014 permit your #13-59060 to take precedence as a means of supplanting  #13-58607 laid prior to your Order.  I submit your action in this regard would be more properly laid as a Respondent to #13-58607. Indeed, your second action is such a gross violation of the rules that it can be said you have brought the conduct of justice into disrepute. You could never get away with such a stunt without the compliance of the Office of the Chief Justice which accounts for my inclusions here to Chief Justice C. Hackland, Premier K. Wynne, and Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay. A copy is also provided to SCofC Hon. R. Wagner so that he may view this pending legal perfidy. I am also enclosing a copy of this letter to the Judicial Council of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission in order that they may assign a ‘court watcher’  to what is possibly the single most important hearing in Canadian Jurisprudence. Briefly, may judges acting outside the law interfere with court procedures to the detriment of one or both litigants? This letter is being included under Rule 25A REPLY to any court recognizing #13-59060.

     f) Under the above circumstances, I am asking the court on January 16-2013 to quash your Order and assign $10,000 in ‘maintenance’ fees for abusing court procedures. If you do not respond within 10 days to my request to have #13-58607 held as aSpecial Case’ before 3 judges, I will unilaterally choose a court date in February, March or April for a court hearing in Superior Court

    g) Considering your past ‘non-performance’ on the central issues (Is the Employer bound to pay compensation to this plaintiff? If so, how and when?) which the courts refuse point blank to direct to you at my specific request, I am calling in outside comment from various interests listed in the enclosures.  As in the MacKenzie Creed, I note you do not give definitive arguments on the Cullen Creed either as to the nature of these astounding documents, preferring instead to hide behind that badly over-worked judicial phrase of a ‘vexatious’ litigant as a means of disposing of proper legal argument. No doubt your gambit here is to request, as the plaintiff in #13-59060 (and as the Respondent in #13-58607), for the court to quote the ‘frivolous and vexatious’ label assigned by the 3 judges mentioned above (currently under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada) as an a priori argument justifying the court’s refusal to hear any further argument; once again, burying the Cullen Creed in much the same fashion as the MacKenzie Creed. Condoning such action by the courts in this fashion amounts to anarchy.

     h) The central problem lies with Canada’s  Judiciary which buys into the Respondent’s arguments to such an extent and degree, that they should be considered as having abandoned their judicial role in order to act as an agent for the Respondent. That is why, due to this precedent-setting case, there is no longer any rule of law in Canada.

(i) The original arbitrator later ruled ‘patently unreasonable’ by Justice Mary Southin when she quashed the arbitration in 1986 certainly would qualify on this ‘agency’ accusation. By quashing the arbitration, Justice Southin of the B.C. Supreme Court was able to conceal School Board perjury as well as protect their legal Counsel, Stewart Clyne Q.C. from charges relating thereto. As outlined in other accounts, her action regarding ‘secret memos’ enabled the Employer and Union to blackmail the courts in a manner still extant today.

(ii) The court as agent was reinforced in 1995 when I appeared in a B.C. Supreme  Court hearing requesting that Southin’s should return employment should be converted to must return employment  to this litigant as it was clear that the Employer and Union were not prepared to return to litigation as earlier ordered in this ‘sweetheart deal’. Nor did they sign an outside agreement; their only other choice hence I was left in limbo. The judge ducked out claiming that only the original arbitrator could decide this matter and with his death, I was out of luck. Of course he was familiar with the laws of ‘frustration’ in which litigants are not to be held responsible for glitches in the law beyond their control.

(iii) Fast forward to 2004 and the Supreme Court of Canada’s failure to hear this matter under ‘ultimate remedy’ in which no collective bargaining client may go without a remedy which is also a basic consideration in contract law. It was further alleged for the first time, that the original conspiracy was complicated by a conspiracy of the legal process. The SCofC were not about to investigate their own role (including an earlier refusal to hear this matter under the ‘universality of Unions’). However, that failure created a unique situation in Canadian law where in any other rejection, a litigant is left with a lower court decision. In this case, there is no lower court decision hence I was left in a permanent state of limbo as ‘no legal answer became a legal answer’. That’s anarchy and explains my remark that the Canadian Justice System imploded with that SCofC inaction and all that it entailed.

(iv) The machinations of a MacKenzie Creed of October 2010 and the Cullen Creed of July 2013 are the last gasps of a smashed Canadian Justice System which will take the rest of the 21st century to unravel. Until that is done, Canada joins such as China where there may be courts, but there is ‘no rule of law’. When a judge can derail a duly filed action in such fashion that the deleted action is listed as ‘abandoned’ on the Judicial Record while the offending instigating action sinks into the proverbial black hole; all justice in any country is at an end. That is the state of affairs currently in Canada due to systematic nefarious judicial actions in this case.

(v) Justice Minister Peter MacKay has until Dec. 20-2013 to deal with these matters from the B.C. Courts, the Federal Court, and now, Ontario courts due to Premier Wynne’s inaction regarding the 3 judges mentioned above.

(vi) Two other Prime Minister hopefuls, Opposition leaders, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair have until the same date of December 20-2013 to make their position clear on this issue in a public manner.

(vi) The question, it needs be asked, is which employee will belong to a Union and contribute to a company pension program when the Employer can escape all fiduciary responsibility with The West Vancouver School Trustee’s Final Solution; namely, “We are laying you off – complete with recall rights if you like – but if you do not sign a $1 settlement for all considerations, you will not collect your pension.” That precedent changes the whole character of Canadian justice and the Justice System at large to such a degree and extent that democratic Canada is no more. “What needs we fear it, when none (Canadian media) can call us to account?” (Lady MacBeth)

 

Yours truly,

 

 (signed) ________________Roger Callow

 

cc Chief Justice (Ottawa) C. Hackland/ Justice Minister P. MacKay/ ON Premier K. Wynne

     Canadian Judicial Council of Judges / Canadian Human Rights Commission

     SCofC Hon. R. Wagner

     Opposition Leaders J. Trudeau / T. Mulcair

     media

 

N.B. The above account is included as a NOV.24-13 NEWSLETTER to the above enclosures.

The letter to the Defendant filed as a 25A REPLY to #13-59060 is done in proper legal format sans the Newsletter style heading