(Until a successive 21st Century P.M. to 'Ambassador' Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)

                           CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - JUNE 01 - 2017

JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case (Canada) employescasecanada.ca

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' due to systematic judicial malfeasance (32 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the imposed BILL 35) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 15 different court systems and over 50 judges. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights which are held up as further blackmail  for 10 years now). The current challenge is to this Employer precedent setting theme from the Employee's Case: 'If you do not accept what we offer in compensation for lay-off; you will get nothing at all' (The WV School Trustee's 'Final Solution'); a position supported by over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions and sanctioned by an indolent P. M. Trudeau)



A) 'You don't get on by being original. You don't get on by being bright. You don't get on by being strong. You get on by being a subtle crook.... Wolf Hall  Hilary Mantel

B) Trump's Commencement Speech at a Christian University (May 2017) "Remember this. Nothing worth doing ever, ever, ever, came easy. Following your convictions means you must be willing to face criticism from those who lack the same courage to do what is right, and they know what is right but they don't have the courage or the guts or the stamina to take it and do it...embrace being called an 'outsider' because it's the outsiders who change the world. The more that a broken system tells you that you are wrong, the more certain you must be that you must keep pushing ahead."




(By June 21 please, otherwise keep your silence forever - The above were given prior knowledge of this newsletter. There is no point for any of them to take the 'oath of office' unless they publicly commit themselves to resolving this case.)


1) Tory leader Andrew Scheer. N.B. previous leader Rona Ambrose 'tried and found wanting'


2) B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan  N.B. Federal NDP leader Tom Mulcair                      "


3) B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver N.B. Federal GP leader Elizabeth May     "


4) What cowardly Canada (includes scum bucket anti-employee media) and Canadians need is a 'Donald Trump' to ask pointed questions about a national debacle without equal in the annals of Canadian democracy which now hangs by a mere thread. PLACARDS:




5) Until government, courts, and media successfully resolve the Employee's Case, none of these entities have any substantial meaning. Foreign investors beware.


6) The sticking point in the Employee's Case is the West Vancouver School Trustees assertion that the imposed BILL 35 (1985) is final and binding and is, therefore, not subject to court overview. Presumably fraud is exempted making any such action 'null and void' but that comes down to disclosure which the courts have refused to order for the past 32 years. Indeed, the action in Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada 36883-2016 but not heard was focused solely on disclosure. The matter of fraud in that case rests with the executive powers of Trudeau. He has been MIA. Either Trudeau or the new government in B.C. may call in the RCMP to that end.


7) Even should the School Trustees be correct on their interpretation regarding lay-off, that condition does not extend to compensation. Money must exchange hands whether it is under BILL 35, the collective bargaining process, or some other form of contract regarding laid-off employees. What is the answer to that question from the new B.C. government? To be seen.


8) Courts everywhere in Canada on this issue, including the B.C. Labour Board whom my lawyer labeled patently unreasonable in failing to hold a Section 12 complaint in 1999, have been trashed to such a level and degree, that the 'individual' has no standing in Canadian law. That's anarchy.


9) Considering the silence of the politicians and anti-employee media to date, it would be an exception to the rule should one of the three politicians named above 'stood up and was counted'. Until that happens, Canadian law and justice has no credibility.



All across Canada, provinces are in a teacher lay-off position for the next few years:

a) ON - In order to garner votes next year, the Wynne government has poured money into education for the next few years i.e. postponed the problem. The NDP thunder was robbed with a promise to increase the minimum wage. Tories 'herding cats' under Tory's Brown.

b) NS - Liberals returned with a majority government on May 30-2017 hence one more year before teachers who publicly protested in Nov. 2016 against imposed  legislation may feel the hit next year. McNeil's ploy appears to claim fiscal responsibility while funding new initiatives... translation: will he provide new money to the Education field to divert attention from teacher lay-offs? As long as Halifax Superior Court judge, Suzanne Hood (458698 Apr. 6-2017) remains on the bench, no-one can trust to the courts in N.S.

c) BC - election has delayed any teacher lay-off reckoning in this province in the recent close election. Christy Clark is no doubt waiting to bribe a disgruntled NDP backbencher to cross the floor so that she can reclaim the government.

d) AB - mammoth financial problems leaves Premier Notley with no alternatives as she is expected to lose next year to a resurgent united Conservative Party. Teachers here are highly vulnerable.

e) SK - Brad Wall is taking the financial bull by the horns and is seeking short term pain for long term gain as his province is suffering economically. Teachers are vulnerable here particularly due to a disgraced judicial system. The 'Spirit River' school closure (Section #93 religious rights) in which the Roman Catholic School Board won a court victory is challenged by Wall who promises to overthrow the action. SK judiciary is a mess and matters of fraud were referred to the P.M. after the Supreme Court of Canada 36993-2016 failed to act.

f) QC - a dog's breakfast on any level. The Justice System, similar to SK, is badly compromised (SCofC 36883-2016) leaving, once again, matters of fraud in the hands of the P.M.. Hitting the streets by individuals would appear to be the only alternative for SK and QC.

g) PEI - another corrupt judiciary under their Premier whom also holds the Attorney General post as well.

h) MB - pending legal case under the new Tory premier, Brian Pallister, remains to be seen although the government is monitoring this case. Both Wall & Pallister object to the imposed carbon tax legislation from the federal government and hence have a vested interest in the constitutional aspect of court oversight powers of the Employee's Case.


Other provinces have not been tested (yet?) with the Employee's Case although the patterns seen above are no reason for individuals to have confidence in the Canadian Judiciary (includes Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions.) Major message? Better win it in 'one' as there are no effective oversight bodies in Canada.


June 04-2017


TO: Leonard Krog                                                                                                   FROM: Roger Callow

NDP Attorney General (B.C.)                                                                                            1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001

tel:  250-387-3655                                                                                                              Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

fax: 250-387-4680            sent by fax  12 pages (including this one)   


To whom it may concern:


1) No letter such as this should ever have to be written in which a 32 year unresolved senior teacher lay-off in 1985 of former West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, has been deprived of his compensation (includes pension rights) under Imposed BILL 35 (1985)due to judicial culpability reinforced by your Attorney General predecessor, Suzanne Anton, whom did nothing to resolve this case.


2) Due to being expelled from B.C. in 2013 (Cullen Creed) for reasons best known to a judge, as the targeted figure being forced into other venues I have witnessed the complete collapse of the Canadian judicial system on many levels as the courts seek to perpetuate this colossal B.C. government scam. As matters currently stand, I am still an employee of the West Vancouver School District albeit an unpaid one.


3) Included in this letter is material from one action being filed to ascertain the nature of court oversight regarding imposed legislation in this case (BILL 35 included here). Your B.C. Party leaders have been informed with a deadline of June 21 to publicize the most damaging legal case to Canadian judicial credibility ever experienced.


4) As the new NDP Attorney General, what are you prepared to do to ensure that B.C. residents at large are treated with respect by the justice system as reflected in your handling of this case?


Yours truly,  The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance.  (Roger Callow)



(Until a successive 21st Century P.M. to 'Ambassador' Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)


JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case (Canada) employescasecanada.ca

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' due to systematic judicial malfeasance (32 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the imposed BILL 35) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 15 different court systems and over 50 judges. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights which are held up as further blackmail  for 10 years now). The current challenge is to this Employer precedent setting theme from the Employee's Case: 'If you do not accept what we offer in compensation for lay-off; you will get nothing at all' (The WV School Trustee's 'Final Solution'); a position supported by over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions and sanctioned by an indolent P. M. Trudeau)

Why lay-off has become a mishmash legal term as a consequence of the Employees Case


1) Whatever was B.C. Deputy Minister Jim Carter (and former West Vancouver Secondary School principal before my time thinking when, in 1985, he arranged the imposed BILL 35 to rid himself of whistleblower senior WV Secondary teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985? Answer? That it was just business as usual in hi-jacking a government legislature and co-opting the judiciary (gerrymandered arbitrator appointment) to gain a desired end...but not the end he desired when I changed from the Union appointed lawyer and appealed to court where the arbitration favouring the School Board was quashed with the arbitrator ruled as being patently unreasonable for not showing a causal factor (this crime - this perp). He had converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs with Callow as the necessary 17th knowing full well that Callow was the only lay-off target.

2) Hence the next 32 years was spent in the Justice System seeking to bury their perfidy with over 50 judges and 15 court systems extending across Canada. The only thing to be buried was the Justice System in a matter of systematic judicial malfeasance. In brief, Canada has no credible justice system. In that context, the 'individual' has nowhere to turn looking for justice, a bleak outcome indeed for anyone dealing with Canadian courts.

3) This account seeks to explain the paradox as to why the West Vancouver School Trustee 'final solution' is, one and at the same time, the definitive precedent for lay-offs in Canada which never can be used. Here's why.

4) The focus here is on the 'Final Solution' by the West Vancouver School Trustees and their bid to escape all compensation which, to date, a compliant court system has granted at much expense to the over-all credibility of the Justice System. In short, the Canadian Justice System is no place for a laid off employee; even one represented by a Union.

5) In brief, to quote the Employee's Case as a precedent, there has to be indeed a precedent to quote; a paradox indeed as there is no recorded precedent.

6) First of all, legal counsel have to find evidence of the 'final solution' which does not exist. The Employer has consistently used the notion that the imposed BILL 35 has its own conditions and since it is 'final and binding'; no court or labour board overview is permitted. (Of course fraud is exempted which makes all such actions 'null and void' explaining why for 32 years, disclosure has been denied by the courts = anarchy for without habeas corpus, there is no law.) The snag is that BILL 35 does include its own mechanism for compensation but how may I acquire that provision without having recognition in a court of law?

7) While the Employer enunciated the above position in court before Justice Mary Southin in 1986 and at the Appeal Court as well as later in 1995 before Justice Spencer in an action I laid plus in 1997 before the Labour Board which refused to hear a Section 12 complaint; there is no reference to the Employer's position vis a vis 'imposed legislation' in any judicial order. As such, with no record of this imposed argument on the judicial record in this kafkaesque scenario, therefore, no precedent has been set. Nor has there been any settlement in the Employee's Case which is the fly in the ointment of this cataclysmic government conspiracy.

8) Hence the existence of a grey eminence, that shadowy backroom judicial fixture whom has ready access to the offices of the Chief Justices of the land telling them how to comport themselves in this case to avoid exposure. They aren't doing all that well in that regard as laid-off Canadian employees have a vested interest in being familiar with this case explaining my June 01-2017 (see web) advice to laid-off employees to protect themselves against a capricious justice system. The current question requires a little background of the Employee's Case (Canada)

9) In 2010, I went to B.C. court asking that salary continuance (from 1985) be maintained while the court with the employer plus union sort out this 'dog's breakfast'. That action produced the first of the external 'Creeds' the MacKenzie Creed, dropping the case from the court docket for 'reasons best known to the judge'. Continued litigation by me led to the ultimate court denial under the Cullen Creed in 2013, where I was forced in this unresolved court case into legal venues outside of B.C. and what a wild ride that has been.

10) To cut a long story short, as it has been dealt with elsewhere on my website, due to the failure of oversight bodies, two Supreme Court of Canada challenges 36883 - 2016 QC and 36993 - 2016 SK left alleged provisions of fraud by both the Employer counsel and the courts to fall into the hands of the executive power of the P.M. where they rest today.

11) The significance of the above proceedings lies in the 'error of omission' in that 'no answer became a legal answer'; a favourite ploy by the Justice System whenever it is in a tight spot as in this labour case where no compensation has been paid. That latter point is what trips up the conspirators.

12) The above 'error of omission' is not the case in Nova Scotia with 458698 (April 6 Suzanne Hood j.) as the Justice System has increased its perfidy with the 'crime of commission' which inextricably links the Canadian Justice System to this case in one of systematic judicial malfeasance from which there is no escape. On the surface, the removal of Justice Hood is necessitated before any NS court decision has any credibility. Keep in mind, both the Chief Justice and Premier S. McNeil were kept fully informed of these events.

13) To non-legal readers, it would be easy to miss the significance of Justice Hood's precipitous action which requires a little background from the SK case. To derail a case for an individual, a popular ploy is for the opposition to demand a retainer (surety) as a means to force an individual into dropping a case. The first time that the Employer pulled that stunt in B.C., my legal counsel wrote that I had always been timely with my legal payments. That support fell on deaf ears and I had to pay into court and still did not get 'due process'...'duly processed' is more like it. A similar ploy was pulled in SK in 2016 where the laws specifically warn against that kind of stunt but Justice Ottenbreit turned the laws upside down by declaring the matter a 'special case' in ordering a surety. Again I paid and was instead 'duly processed'. That material was in front of Justice Hood on April 6 in a special meeting preceding the main one for the same purpose. She did not grant a surety preferring, instead, to assign a similar amount in bogus 'legal fees' which she did not define, stating that until the sum was paid, the main event could not proceed. In both cases the Employer had asked for the court to deny any progression of the case for reasons best known to themselves. Nor did the Employer enter any information as to the constitutional question posed. In short, they were permitted to hide their 'imposed' argument by the perfidy of Justice Hood. Further, I had previously unsuccessfully called on the NS Law Society and the Courts to evaluate the obviously fraudulent 'Book of Authorities' of the Employer. That failure has diminished the credibility of evidence entered into our courts of law to '0'. When the Employer dropped the 'main event' after Hood's Order before its registered date without my knowledge and, certainly without my consent, I put in a bill for costs on the same level as Hood's specious fee. I never heard back from the oversight bodies on this transgression which includes Premier McNeil...and he got re-elected recently. It's a Houdini Act without equal and all Canada and all Canadians are the poorer for it.



 Next week; Conspiracy profiles (all much the same) Watergate, Trumpgate, and the Employee's Case.



(Until a successive 21st Century P.M. to 'Ambassador' Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)

                           CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - JUNE 17 - 2017

JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case (Canada) employescasecanada.ca

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' due to systematic judicial malfeasance (32 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the imposed BILL 35) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 15 different court systems and over 50 judges. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights which are held up as further blackmail  for 10 years now). The current challenge is to this Employer precedent setting theme from the Employee's Case: 'If you do not accept what we offer in compensation for lay-off; you will get nothing at all' (The WV School Trustee's 'Final Solution'); a position supported by over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions and sanctioned by an indolent P. M. Trudeau)


Conspiracies -all much the same: Watergate, Trumpgate,  Employee's Case


'It used to be that this nation's heroes said things like, "I regret that I have only one life to give to my country," or "We have just begun to fight," or "Give me liberty or give me death," or "Remember the Maine."  Nowadays all our heroes can come up with is, "I don't remember." Lighten Up, George  Art Buchwald


1) Nixon was not ousted from the U.S. Presidency on the basis of a third rate burglary 'gone wrong'. He was ousted for 'cover-up' of events surrounding that event. Key was the evidence of Re-election of the President's Committee's , John Deans, whom at the price of a prison sentence, was not going to fall on his sword for Nixon so he blabbed all with Nixon fumbling the White House tapes in the process under oath. He chose to resign before he could be impeached.

2) Trump did not cover-up anything although, it is submitted here, he sought to inveigle the efforts of FBI's Comey to act in that fashion on his behalf. That is his crime (lobbying). Trump's lawyer would depend on the 'error of omission' in that no order was actually given by Trump to quash an ongoing investigation and that Comey leaked confidential information (from an illicit meeting called by the President) which is so much codswallop considering how these things go but here is the point; the judiciary has in its DNA to automatically accept the versions of the boss.

3) So where is the weakness in Mr. Trump's case?

a) Trump instigated the meeting presumably for the discussion of FBI business such as budget and not for information regarding an investigation which could include the President. That could be considered 'interference with the course of justice'. My submission is that Comey was fired even before he walked into the dinner as Trump was merely looking for ways to frame him.

b) Trump compounded his felony by removing the other two present at the dinner (a matter of protection against this kind of lobbying) thus greatly diminishing his credibility.

c) Trump dismissed Comey for 'leaking' which the latter -similar to John Deans- did although Comey was not instrumental in any cover-up or illicit action to cover-up. In that respect, it was an illicit dismissal from an 'illicit' meeting in terms of the foregoing events apart from the 'leaking'.

4) Expected outcome if justice were to take its course? Mr. Trump to be removed from the presidency on the basis of his 'inability to do the job'. To be sure, the long knives are being sharpened. The 'obstruction of justice' charge now announced against Trump is a serious one for he can be found guilty without revealing 'what the Russians did' under the 100 year old Espionage Act.  Further, 'obstruction of justice' is whatever the judge decides it to be explaining why Trump is desperate to bury any enquiry. The well-orchestrated Sessions fiasco (all questions - no answers) was pre-planned with everyone knowing their parts but could be re-opened depending on Trump's answers under oath.

5) The real question is what information beginning with the Russians is going to filter its way through American politics. Maybe Wikileaks has the answer. Those answers are not going to be pretty for any U.S. interest. Therein lies the real ramifications of any possible cover-up. Mr. Trump could conceivably miss any broadside to his reputation depending on those revelations but it does not appear likely. Popularity wise, he is down to 1/3  public support and without pulling a 'rabbit out of the hat', he will continue to sink lower. Trump does not need an excuse to dismiss anyone although it could negatively affect his popularity - a mainstay argument against him if legalities should follow.

6) While not illicit, I had leapfrogged the Union which represented both teachers and administrators in 1985 by going directly to Jim Carter, Deputy Education Minister and former principal of West Vancouver Secondary, whom, in 1978, dismissed a senior teacher on charges of incompetence (SEE web: ORIGINS). I provided Carter with the fraudulent account of his successor, Principal John Williams, whom I had caught changing his professional report on this teacher from a positive to a negative. Carter's answer? the imposed BILL 35 which usurped the legislature with 'banana republic law' and co-opted the judiciary (gerrymandered arbitrator) to fire a 'whistleblower'.  32 years later, we are still awaiting the final act on that one.

7) Hence the errors of omission are glossed over but the errors of commission are not unless you are the Canadian judiciary in the Employee's Case where anything goes. No oversight body - and there have been many - has even acknowledged my many complaints against judicial conduct for 'obstruction of justice' due to the very open threat to the authorities in this case. (e.g. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and President of the oversight body Canadian Council of Judges, Beverley McLachlin (due for retirement in December),  which refuses to acknowledge my letters on significant  judicial perfidy is a key example.)

8) The Canadian Justice System over a 32 year period has sought to use the equivalent of a B52 Stratofortress to bomb a mosquito...and missed. You do not get to call yourself the 'Old Boys Club' by missing. The jury is still out on the Comey affair which is being conducted under the glare of the media; not so the Employee's Case  due to a boycott  by the anti-employee media. Pissing on the courts and media is not likely to win Mr. Trump, as it does, any friends. As far as those two entities are concerned, he is 'past his best before date' even if he had one in the first place.

9) In the Employee's Case, it is clear that the arbitrator later ruled patently unreasonable by the court was guilty of an error of commission. But what about the court under Justice Mary Southin returning materials i.e. School Board meeting notes from June 1985 to the litigants 'because she did not use them'? (No school trustee took the stand to attest to lay-off figures hence they cannot be accused of lying= error of omission) What message was being sent  to the same arbitrator to whom she re-ordered a re-hearing? That's why the Justice System since 1985 would rather fall on its sword than to ever produce that disclosure (the debacle in QC - SCofC 36883) was based solely on producing those notes. Hence the error of omission in its accumulative terms (based on ubering the cases across provincial boundaries) has become one of an error of commission on a level never seen before in any democracy. That's why international interests should give Canadian courts (and the anti-employee media plus politicians) a wide berth.

10) While the public at large probably don't  give a proverbial  'rat's ass' about this case (widely disseminated among Canada's teachers and legal fraternity); nonetheless, that all changes with every illicitly dismissed individual in future Canada whom will turn to the 'Bible' of all precedents, the unresolved Employee's Case. It will be an accumulative sort of thing such as those amoeba which over extended geological time managed to suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere bringing on an ice age. Currently, the Canadian Justice System is frozen in time as  it certainly can't go backwards nor, for that matter, move forward nor stand still. If that is not a living hell on earth, I don't know what is.

11) On those grounds, party if you wish on July 01, but don't call it Canada's birthday as we no longer deserve a birthday for failing to 'stand on guard for thee'. I have renamed it 'Anti-judge Day'.




1) The law and Justice is a Old Testament/New Testament kind of thing. The Old Testament, in the spirit of the Court of Star Chambers was forever zapping wrong doers with bolts of lightning as a means of making bad sinners good. The New Testament with its spirit of 'love thy fellow man' talked of rehabilitation of sinners. That is what we label 'justice'.

2) The heavy hand of the law or the written codes of conduct permeate both approaches.

3) Key to appreciating this aspect is what is not placed in writing. For example, thousands of lynchings in the Southern United States since the Civil War do not exist in law because there were '0' prosecutions. Obviously this fact of law is not justice.

4) Regrettably, omission of facts permeates court cases; a curse of modern jurisprudence considering that disclosure or habeas corpus forms the basis of our law. That is where the judges and court functions come in or should come in but are not as painfully illustrated by the 32 year unresolved Employee's Case (Canada) which has witnessed the demise of Canada's democracy as not only courts but political offices and the media have conspired to cover-up this most significant civil issue in Canadian jurisprudence. And that crime has been endorsed by over 50 judges including 4 inconsequential (not heard) trips to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC).

5) Further, the Employee's Case has revealed that oversight bodies - judicial and civilian - are moribund. Prime Minister Trudeau, for example, is sitting on allegations of major court fraud due to judicial cover-up. In short, executive powers available for this type of situation (peace, order and good government or the 'notwithstanding clause') remain dormant.

6) 90,000 Frenchmen cannot be wrong touted the World War I theme in defense of the 'Maginot line mentality' which was scuppered by enemy troops. The parallel in law in the Employee's Case is that over 50 judges cannot be wrong in failing to resolve the Employee's Case. The law also reads that repeated failure to succeed in court is to be considered 'frivolous and vexatious' and, as such, grounds for rejection of a litigant's case no matter how defined. That is the message of the Employer in the above case. In brief, the Employee's Case is very long in law as practiced by the Employer and Courts in this case and very short on Justice.

7) The noose that hangs both the Employer and the Courts is the argument set forth in 2004 in the SCofC under the terms of ultimate remedy; namely, there must be compensation in the matter of dismissed employees (other than for cause). The Employer argued that only the imposed BILL 35 could be referenced in that regard and therefore did not recognize court oversight (which quashed the aberrant arbitration). In 1995, the B.C. court ruled that only the Union could represent me (in this sweetheart deal) therefore limiting any appeal that I might have to the B.C. Labour Board which in turn refused a hearing, no doubt because the Employer would not recognize their authority either. In short, it's the proverbial dog's breakfast.

8) Whether it be under BILL 35, collective bargaining rules, or some other form of labour contract, compensation is owed to this writer in a legal matter where no compensation has been paid. Therein lies the colossal failure of the Canadian Justice System; namely, that they have failed to do the very job that they were hired to do. Cover-up, thy name is the Canadian Justice System. Even Dante reserved the lowest ring of Hell for those who refused to act when action was called for. Rest in Hell, Canada.



(Until a successive 21st Century P.M. to 'Ambassador' Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)  Tories A. Scheer and NDP are MIA in that regard


JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case (Canada) employescasecanada.ca

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' due to systematic judicial malfeasance (32 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the imposed BILL 35) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 15 different court systems and over 50 judges. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights which are held up as further blackmail  for 10 years now). The current challenge is to this Employer precedent setting theme from the Employee's Case: 'If you do not accept what we offer in compensation for lay-off; you will get nothing at all' (The WV School Trustee's 'Final Solution'); a position supported by over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions and sanctioned by an indolent P. M. Trudeau)


A) 'The truth will set you free but first it will piss you off.'

B) 'When they are all out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking.'

COURT DUALITY (or duplicity as the case may be)


1) Google's lawyers don't need me to tell them that they were 'sandbagged' by a B.C. judicial decision to permit a B.C. resident to sue Google in B.C. courts for 'loss of privacy'.  The proper course is for the litigant to sue in B.C. with the question of 'jurisdiction' to be raised at that enquiry. By holding a preliminary court limited to jurisdiction, the court rules out any appeal of the main issue on jurisdictional grounds should Google lose. Jurisdiction not being considered in any appeal is the whole intention of this Canadian court stunt as the litigant concerned has one step up in their case against Google. In brief, the litigant has been able to game the system to gain unfair advantage. This is the reason why I have called on President Trump to try all civil cases involving U.S.-Canadian relations in U.S. courts with the U.S. government guaranteeing payment (to be collected from Canada) in the event of a U.S. victory.

2) The grey eminence is behind the Google story as he is behind the Employee's Case. The intention above is to create a new 'legal billable time' industry in Canada whereby litigants accompanied by their personal injury 'you don't pay until we get paid' legal hacks whom will rip off 'those damned foreigners'. In brief, unwinnable cases in the U.S. or any honest venue will suddenly sprout feet in corrupt Canadian courts. I can vouch for that from personal experience over the past 32 years. U.S. Google should take a leaf out of the Canadian West Vancouver School Trustee playbook: just don't pay out no matter what Canadian courts say as big guy 'tails' may now wag 'Canadian judicial dogs'.

3) Examples of the duality in the Employee's Case  is found in such as SK (Supreme Court of Canada 26993 (2016) ) and in Nova Scotia 458698 Suzanne Hood j. April 6-2017. Using a specious 'surety' bid for a separate hearing before the scheduled main event, the Employer, the West Vancouver School District, was able to co-opt judicial support as a means of diverting the main hearing. (The web site provides those details.)

4) At root of these recent hearings including Quebec (SCofC 26993) was the highly fraudulent 'Book of Authorities' sworn to by the Employer's B.C. Counsel which the courts in SK & QC refused to analyze. That matter now rests with the executive powers of a dilettante Prime Minister whom to date is MIA.

5) The above situation was compounded in N.S. when the 'error of omission' was severely compromised by the 'error of commission' by Justice Suzanne Hood. The N.S. Barrister's Society along with Hood j. later failed to examine the Employer's  'Book of Authorities 'which did not stop Hood from acting. The details of those actions are not at question here; merely the fact that she took action without a proper investigation. Bottom line? A sworn affidavit no longer has any meaning in Canadian courts (as well as Nova Scotia) as 'anything goes in a Canadian court of law'. That is what is meant by the pejorative term 'to be hooded'. As for Premier McNeil whom was kept fully apprised of events...'Well, I was re-elected, wasn't I?')  Mr. Trump should take note of that turn of events in Canadian courts and advise U.S. interests accordingly.


QUOTE: C) 'Canada can do better than maintain a shy silence. Trudeau must insist on concrete action one way or another from France. In democratic countries, we don't hold people in jail indefinitely without trial or freedom... or do we?  Diab Case: Trudeau Must Speak  O.C. Editorial  June 24-2017 A10 (In civil cases, we hold  cases in 'jail' indefinitely as attested to by the 32 year unresolved Employee's Case. RC)

6) The grey eminence makes his appearance elsewhere such as in the Diab story. Diab, an Ottawa University professor was accused of  being involved in a 1980 Paris bomb plot. Canada, I submit, had no stomach for such a time-consuming controversial trial, so a scheme was hatched in which a  corrupt Canadian Ottawa court under Justice Robert Maranger (I speak of personal experience with this judge and his scumbucket court routine) would do the necessary and order a deportation under highly specious circumstances to corrupt French courts where the issue would disappear from the Canadian media...or so it was hoped. Didn't happen as evidenced by the editorial quoted in C) above. The duality here between corrupt Canadian and corrupt French courts here reeks of duplicity.

7) While we are dealing with duplicity; a common stunt pulled by the Authorities is to withdraw incriminating evidence. For example WV School Trustee Mike Smith in 1987 railed on in the media as to how the Board would spend any amount of money (including the $10,000 Appeal which they lost) to ensure that all teachers had 'current demonstrated ability'; a term from BILL 35 which had no definition in the Act or in law in general. His spiel was based on a negative Principal's 'kited' professional Report in which I was able to expose the principal's perfidy.  In a private meeting later with the Superintendent, he offered to withdraw the Report. I refused (for reasons not detailed here) which brought on my 'lay-off' for economic reasons = two kicks at the can for the authorities; only one for their victims. The fly in the ointment is that the Employee's Case is still unresolved. If the courts of law cannot finalize an issue; why have courts of law in the first place? That point appears to be beyond the pay scale of the politicians and media in this country...over to you, Mr. Trump...maybe Google lawyers may give you an assist.


More Incest

QUOTE: 'The trials are all about winning.' Sycamore Row  John Grisham (addendum: ...and it is the duty of the court to ensure a winner...else what is a Justice System for?....'Outlaw'

8) The Employee's Case is all about 'losing' i.e., this litigant has been consistently losing for 32 years in courts which refuse to recognize the issue; namely that no compensation has been paid to this laid-off senior teacher for economic reasons. In short, while the Employer is not losing, the entire Canadian Justice System was lost in 2004 when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this case (on a second of 4 SCofC bids) on the grounds of ultimate remedy. In short, a written Canadian contract is 'not worth the paper on which it is written'. There goes our infrastructure...so goes our government. While Canadians may grope foggily forward in the future, foreign entities can be expected to hedge their bets in a major way.

9) I am not one of those fools whom makes a claim to 'fighting on behalf of all Canadians to make sure this does not happen again'. On the first day of the Senator Duffy criminal trial for bribery (for which he was exonerated), I appeared at the side door of the court house with my placards (denigrating government and courts) much to the clicking of the photographers. The second day that I appeared with a different set of placards, I got the collective '1000 yard stare' although the Reuters photographer took advantage of the lull to ask me as to whether I was acting on the behalf of others. I responded in the negative; I was there for myself. The point here is that while no legal case has a greater bearing on the future of Canada than this one; it is up to 35 million Canadians to define themselves accordingly; not me. To date they are MIA.

10) Such political notable leaders as Justin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer, Thomas Mulcair, Elizabeth May are MIA on this file as well bringing into question why anyone would vote (various provincial premiers are also MIA in this conspiracy of silence).

11) The anti-employee media has also been conscripted and therefore corrupted as noted by their boycott on this case, in this the biggest challenge to government and court credibility. Columnists such as the outspoken Ezra Lavant (The Rebel AB) and the editor of the far right North Shore News are typical. The latter, refused to enquire at my request as to why the West Vancouver School Board would presumably pay the legal fees for lawyer fees in Ontario (Hicks, Morley et al) and Quebec (Lavery de Billy) assigned to me by the courts.

12) In keeping with the theme of duality and duplicity, there is a new re-examination of the conspiracy for which I am currently re-entering into B.C. courts on a bid of fraudulency; the first time that theme has been enunciated against the Employer (there is no time limit on 'fraud'). As matters stand, the employer is carrying a lot of baggage from courts across Canada since 2013 when I was expelled from B.C. for 'reasons best known to a judge' (NB and NL yet to be accessed) as they get ubered (external threat from an unexpected source).

13) When I changed lawyers in 1986 from the Union lawyer and appealed the arbitration favouring the Employer to court, Justice Mary Southin called for all memo notes from the Board which discussed at length in June of 1985, the imposed Bill 35 and the lay-off of this senior teacher. BILL 35 became operant on July 01-1985; my dismissal letter was dated from late June. I was to be cut from salary on November 04-1985 as the Superintendent presumed the arbitration would be over and in the favour of the Employer. Southin's failure to place me back on salary when she quashed the arbitration was called 'a stunt' by my legal counsel, Harry Rankin (d.) former Vancouver mayoral candidate, 'which she cannot get away with'. Well, she has 'got away with it', as attested to by the past 32 years of 'no salary' for if I had been returned to salary, we would not be here today. As matters now stand, I am technically an employee of the School Board, albeit an unpaid one owed millions of dollars. What Southin saw in those memo notes was what I witnessed at the arbitration; namely, that Board personnel committed perjury with their lawyer being guilty of fraud. By quashing the arbitration, she hoped to bury Employer perfidy but it was done at the expense of leaving this plaintiff in a judicial limbo which has lasted 32 years. Her recommendation that employment be returned (as opposed to an order to that effect permitted the Employer to blackmail the system for if it were ever known what she covered up, the Justice System would be more than badly embarrassed. In short, a buy-out was all that was possible under these circumstances but a skin-flint Board of School Trustees begged off forcing a grey eminence through the offices of the Chief Justices of the land clear across Canada including the Federal Court and the SCofC., to pervert the course of Justice to an extent and degree over the years from which the Justice System will never recover. Every time an employee is illicitly dismissed, this case will form the Bible of their response.

14) When the Employer failed to return to arbitration as ordered by Southin j. before the same arbitrator whom died shortly thereafter, creating  in law a 'frustrated' situation (legal term), I returned to court in 1995 charging abandonment by the Employer requesting the change of Southin's should  return employment to must return employment. B.C. Justice Spencer pulled a 'fast one' by declaring the matter a union matter in which only the Union could act on my behalf (union was not present) with the Employer arguing that the collective bargaining process and Union had no role in this case as BILL 35 conditions were paramount. The B.C. Labour Board, my only recourse and later the SCofC in 1997 (Chief Justice Lamers(d), Beverley McLachlin (the incumbent CJ retiring in December 2017) and A. Cory) refused to hear my petition under the universality of Unions which put an end to the credibility of Unions for the rank and file of Canadian employees due to this piece of judicial malfeasance.

15) For 32 years the Employer steadfastly refuses disclosure (basis of habeas corpus and therefore all precedent law , an aberrant action defended by over 50 judges = anarchy.

16) The Union purloined my copy of those June 1985 memo notes and is now the target of actions to claim what is rightfully mine. 32 years of B.C. Teacher Federation presidents are privy to that lie of which I have informed B.C. teachers. They do nothing (in 1985, I notified them by snail mail in this 'battle of all teachers' as proclaimed by the Union. By 1995, I became internet available = still no teacher reaction which stretches to the present day)

17) In summary, duplicity and duality are regrettably fairly common to the Justice System with oversight bodies being of no account in Canada. What is unique here is that, for a first time in any western democracy, there is the exposure of the systematic malfeasance of the  various court and government functionaries. In brief, I have been and still am the target of a government conspiracy without equal in which the government was hi-jacked (imposed BILL 35), and the Justice System co-opted (gerrymandered arbitrator appointment) to sanction a sweetheart deal between an Employer and a Union. That's why Canada does not deserve a birthday on July 01 which I have re-named 'Anti-judge Day' due to our failure 'to stand on guard for thee'. Party if you like, but shun the name Canada Day.