JUNE (10)-2018   COMPLETELY REVISED  JUNE 16-2018 as annotated


TO:  ON Attorney General c/o Premier D. Ford                   FROM: Roger Callow

Main Legislative Building                                                                             1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001

Queen's Park                                                                                                  Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Toronto, ON M7A 1A2                                                                                FAX: 613-521-1739

JUNE 16-2018 cc Ottawa Court Registry Re-submission

re 'Fraud' Claim                                                                                          e-mail: thecallows@gmail.com


REFERENCE:  Ottawa Superior Court duplicity (#13-59060 -2014) and current obfuscation growing out of this action leading to an ex parte action on a constitutional question SEE web under this heading: employeescasecanada.ca for details. Enclosed is a letter to the court in May 2018 marked Third Request to assign a file no. to ex parte constitutional question.


JUNE 16 ADDITION - RECEIVED On JUNE 14-2018 a form letter dated JUNE 08-2018 from N. Serdynska Customer Service Representative for the Ministry of the Attorney General (Court services) 161 Elgin St. Ottawa K2P 2K1 t.(613) 239-1054  f.(613)239-1075


1) I spoke earlier to 'Natalia' when she contacted me by telephone regarding the above file plus a second file relating to an Action charging fraud as it related to my unresolved senior teacher lay-off in B.C. under the imposed B.C. BILL 35 in June of 1985. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. JUNE 16: Only the second file was returned (June 14).


2) The ex parte 'Constitutional Question' filed earlier in April included a court fee of $220 which was not returned. This question was phrased in such a fashion as to not be inclusive of a final interpretation regarding the lay-off matter (that would be held outside of Ontario courts).


3) As I was being ignored by the court, I filed the fraud charge against the former Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees (S.D. #45) in May. The thrust of this charge is to obtain the necessary disclosure prior to the argument stage as that disclosure barred to me by over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada over a 33 year period would define any future proceedings. For this reason, I am returning this account with the requested $160 filing fee.


4) JUNE 16: Also included is the form returned by N. Serdyska which states, in part, the following: The attached document(s) are being returned to you, for the reason(s) indicated below:Other: (only box ticked) Please be advised that if it is you (sic) intention (is-sic) to proceed by motion in writing, please tick the appropriate box. Filing fee of $160 required per motion.  I have ticked the only box noted by Natalia with this addition: Due to the complexity of this matter, personal attendance at the court office before a judge is required. Time would be 60 minutes in which the Defendant could attend by telecommunications. Please note; at this stage there is no need for the usual 500 word Defendant 'billable-time' Response as my request is limited  to provide the necessary disclosure in order to further define the nature of the fraud. That disclosure consists of the meeting notes in June of 1985 between the Board and local Union representatives. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin in 1986 asked for this disclosure only to return the documents claiming that 'she did not use them'. It is submitted here that she covered up a massive fraud which would have led to the disbarment of the Trustee's legal counsel, Stuart Clyne, and the charge of fraud against Superintendant Ed Carlin.(N.B. The School Trustees did not take the stand to attest to lay-off figures and whether or not they sanctioned the lay-off of this plaintiff.) While conspicuous by its absence from the Arbitrator's Report - which Southin j. quashed ruling, in that process the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor - was the testimony of Assistant Deputy Superintendant Bill May, responsible for staffing, whom stated that he did not recommend the lay-off of any teacher in June of 1985 under the terms of contract or the new BILL 35 which became law July 01-1985 post-dating my lay-off letter by 5 days quoting BILL 35. He claimed that the request for Callow's lay-off came, not from the Trustees, but from Superintendent Ed Carlin. There was no notice of this lay-off in the June 26 Board meeting. The subsequent 33 years appears to be a systemic cover-up by the Canadian Justice System to deny this litigant any legitimate access to the courts to expose a massive government conspiracy created to deny me any redress for an apparently illicit lay-off. Bottom line?...the decimation of court credibility in Canada.


5) Hence the hearing is to be very short. Either the presiding Justice is going to order the necessary disclosure or not. It should be noticed here that there is an escalating factor which would not be apparent to a single presiding judge ignorant of other proceedings. As an analogy, the frog crouching down in the warming sauce pan is unaware that he is being cooked to death. That is the state, regrettably, of the Canadian Justice System today (this case has been in 8 out of 10 provinces plus Federal Court plus Supreme Court of Canada - 4 Applications). No-one can now approach a Canadian court with any equanimity.


(JUNE '10' material regarding both cases which essentially remains unchanged)

1) To begin at the 'tail of the snake', I now sign myself in this 33 year unresolved labour issue before over 50 judges where no compensation has been paid as The  Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systemic  judicial and government (imposed B.C. BILL 35 - 1985)  malfeasance. It cannot get any worse than that for any democratic country.


2) In the latter stages of this case, after I had been expelled from B.C. courts for 'reasons best known to a judge' (Cullen Creed), I had no choice other than to turn elsewhere for justice. The web site details those steps since July 2013 beginning with the Federal Court. Due to judicial obfuscation, I wound up in Ottawa Superior Court where the key action taken by Ottawa Justice Colin McKinnon (13-59060) led to a fraud perpetuated through courts in QC, SK, plus the Supreme Court of Canada. The web and this protest PLACARD epitomizes the effects of this subsequent judicial fraud heaped on judicial fraud: IMPEACH SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD WAGNER whom was directly involved in this fiasco.


3) The following account explains why your personal name will adorn these Placards with similar wording to the above should you choose to continue this massive conspiracy as the lead-off conspirator for the 21st Century.


4) 'Will the real Justice McKinnon please stand up?' ...and tell us which of the three decisions - none of them referencing the existence of the others - is the filed document for 13-59060? What is the status of the other two decisions?  The interesting thing to note is that this action was laid by the Board of West Vancouver School Trustees (WVST) as Plaintiff with myself as Defendant although any reading of McKinnon's Decisions would appear to show him inverting that order in which the bottom line is to attach blame to me for being 'frivolous and vexatious'.


5) The point here is that the thrust of the WVST argument is that under the imposed BILL 35, the courts and B.C. Labour Board have no jurisdiction. (The B.C. courts had seen fit in 1986 to quash the arbitration favouring the Board ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. )


6) That has always been the position of the Employer but nowhere does any court Decision, including that of McKinnon j. give recognition to that stand. One letter in 1996 from the WVST written to the B.C. Labour Board is the only piece of evidence regarding the Employer's main stance on file. This letter always appears in my factums labeled as 'The Hanging Letter' by me.


7) Be that as it may regarding the legitimacy of the lay-off which was clearly illicit from evidence presented at arbitration; the question of compensation still remains, as technically I am still an employee of the Board (they refused to recognize my retirement at age 65 in 2004)

awaiting 'deferred salary'. The current 'out of court' settlement offer is for $11 million (and climbing to 12 million on July 01-2018). The point here is that compensation is due to this senior laid-off teacher whether it be due to the collective bargaining process, the imposed BILL 35, or some other form of compensation under the general terms of contract.


8) Without excusing the original conspirators, the Employer appears only willing to pay if they have a court Order to that effect. Hence the blame on this level by both Parties may be registered against the Justice System of Canada. All those features have been pointed out many, many times by me in interminable court cases where the central issues are trivialized and ignored.


9) The question of jurisdiction raised by the WVST before Justice McKinnon in 2014 is essentially the same one that I raised earlier as a constitutional question  in Nova Scotia Courts and now, Ottawa Court.





10) To take those steps which will see a file number assigned to my constitutional question as well as this Application for fraud which could well supplant the former. ( I am withholding my fee as my bank records show $220 deleted from my account on April 16-2018 -  BofM PMO 018433381 but no file number has been issued JUNE 16-2018 A BANK ORDER FOR $160 FILING FEE IS INCLUDED HERE FOR THE FRAUD CHARGE. Please advise me of any further changes necessary in order to conform to court standards but if you choose to 'stick it to me', the matter goes to Premier Ford.


11) To immediately suspend Ottawa Superior Court Justice Colin McKinnon until a satisfactory answer is given to the 'tripartite' Decisions of 13-59060 in 2014. All of Canada awaits that action. All of Canada deserves better than the status quo. All eyes are now on you.


12) Please respond within 10 days, otherwise re-read 3)


Yours truly


Roger Callow



A) In considering the past court rejections of this case, one might ask the purpose of yet another court Appeal. Simply put, it is the new government of Premier Ford and his appointed Justice Minister which is on trial in place of the defeated Liberal Yasir Naqvi described by at least two columnists as being 'the worst Ontario A.G. ever'. I concur. Considering that Premier Ford is planning to do battle in the courts, it is most important for him to have credibility on his side. The constitutional question that I raise regarding court oversight of imposed Legislation i.e. carbon tax, should be right up his alley. As matters now stand with imposed legislation, the courts of law are to become largely redundant unless they possess oversight power of civil legislation. Don't, in so many words, let the WV School Trustee 'tail' wag the Canadian 'judicial dog'.


B) The following excerpt from another case (Elizabeth May) illustrates the problem with the A.G. The normal procedure is to mail back such as the form here from Natalia and when the revisions are made, to revise demands to include impossible requests. At that point, I notify the Premier. It is a question of the A.G. Department 'tail' wagging the government 'dog'. Normally, I would expect a punctilious rejection in the fraud case to have gone something like this from Natalia: My dear Mr. Callow, it is the business of the court to depend on fact and not supposition based on some future event such as the outcome of an election!  Hence the unspoken message I get from Natalia is that 'there is more than one way to skin a cat 'and Callow 'is asking for a skinning'. Elizabeth May as seen by the article below is able to get information on the A.G. My Ontario legal representative could not even get the filed response from Nova Scotia on one court case there. Is this what the electorate in Ontario voted for - corrupt legal dealings? I think not. (Ottawa South Liberal leader, John Fraser, and Joel Harden NDP replacement for former A.G. Yasir Naqvi, are you listening?)

Why we need a public inquiry for Hassan Diab...Shine a light on extradition, Green Party's  Elizabeth May  writes. Ottawa Citizen June 14 p.A9

(SEE web for full account)

 '...We also know that senior counsel at the federal Department of Justice worked to secure court delays and provide substantive support to France when its case was falling apart....The department even withheld exculpatory evidence from the defence and the extradition judge....'


C) Individual judges without access to other judgments in this case must wonder why I would persist in a matter rejected by over 50 judges. What they do not see is the escalating factor in this case.  President Trump would appear to be having similar problems with the Justice System in the U.S. due to the adversary nature of the legal systems in both countries (also parallel to management-union battles).


D) The above theme is illustrated with the election of a new government or leader of an institution such as the Supreme Court of Canada: PLACARD: IMPEACH SCofC CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD WAGNER whom was personally involved in the SCofC cover-up of Appeals over courts in QC and SK. I re-instituted my request to the Canadian Council of Judges that Ontario judges McKinnon j and Scott (originally Federal Court appointees) be investigated for fraud with his ascension to Chief Justice. Further, I am re-instituting my request in Ontario (4 PAGE LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 25-2014) to Premier Ford on that account to investigate the Hicks, Morley et al legal counsel who abetted that fraud as the oversight bodies concerned in both cases did not acknowledge my complaint. I will reserve a spot on my Placards for Doug Ford's A.G. similar to the above should I receive treatment akin to the Naqvi forces.


E) Of course Elizabeth May is seeking to blackmail the government into an outside settlement as do I. For May, the going rate under the 'terrorism bill' is $10 million. I hope she gets it. For me the tab is $12 million as I do not wish to be associated with alleged terrorists. As to the money, I don't need it as our needs are few and the family is able to care for itself.


F) My intention in the last regard is to acquire a file number for the fraud charge before notifying the Employer in case they wish to provide the necessary disclosure denied me for the past 33 years and save the court considerable embarrassment. If not, I will ask the court in a one hour hearing to order that disclosure on  the pain of paying the $20 million claim of the action in default.  In the QC version, also fraught with fraud, I not only requested disclosure; I asked whether the said documents had been destroyed. I received no answer. In the event that this disclosure is no longer extant, I ask the court to assign the full $20 million cost of the claim.  The third week in September would be an appropriate hearing time for the one hour hearing before a judge. No court date for the full proceeding should be set until the matter of disclosure is settled. In the interim, I will pursue the action on the constitutional question which Natalia was also handling although she has yet to return this material.


G) As no other request was made on Natalia's forms; no changes other than this letter are made in the re-submission. A money order for $160, as requested by her, is also included.


Yours truly, Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff



web site: employeescasecanada.ca  2018  ONTARIO COURT: JUNE-2018

cc media/ MPP's Fraser (Liberal) & Harden (NDP)






 Roger Callow

                                                                                                           self-represented Plaintiff


The Board of School Trustees (School District #45 West Vancouver)



Roger Callow 

1285 Cahill Drive West #2001

Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

tel/fax: 613-521-1739                                                      Plaintiff 


Board of School Trustees                                                  

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)                                  

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9 

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                       Defendant                           

SENT BY FAX  (5) pages)  




N.B. Also included is EXHIBIT B unchanged from many, many court hearings. Exhibit B to follow to WVST & Court by mail

Exhibit B consists of B.C.'s Justice Southin (1987) Decision which quashed the arbitration ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor; B.C. Appeal Court (January 1988) support of her decision; imposed BILL 35; Supreme Court of Canada (2004) on 'ultimate remedy' (not heard) in which Ontario legal counsel claimed that 'I had exhausted all remedy under the law' in this unresolved labour case where no compensation had been paid; 'The Hanging Letter' from the Employer (1996) to the B.C. Labour Board claiming that the imposed BILL 35 did not permit of court or any other oversight powers; The 'Cullen Creed' (2013) which expelled this litigant from B.C. courts for 'reasons best known to a judge' leading to legal action in 8 out of 10 provinces. Other material is included as well.


The focus of the challenge in Ontario regarding judicial malfeasance which has plagued this case in every venue revolves around a judgment made by Ottawa Superior Court's Colin McKinnon in April of 2014 (13-59060). This action was laid by the Employer as the plaintiff with myself being the defendant. The plaintiff sought  justification in claiming that they were not obliged to pay any compensation as BILL 35 was final without court or any other overviews such as the B.C. Labour Board being possible. While sitting on the other side of the question, I welcomed the Employer broaching this question.


     Enter McKinnon. j. who recently told a Moroccan criminal with a lengthy record that as he was sentencing him to many years in prison, the judge did not feel obliged to deal with the habeas corpus application for which the litigant had asked. My point here in telling this story is that if the previous A.G., Yasir Naqvi, had suspended McKinnon j. in 2014 as I requested, he would not have been sitting on the bench delivering  such a controversial action as the above.


     The actual grounds for my judicial complaint against McKinnon was, first, for creating three Decisions on 13-59060 which did not reference each other. It was further maintained by me that fraud was enveloped with a second (both federal government appointees) judge in September named Robert Scott in the same Ottawa Supreme  Court. As Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer was a facilitator in the fraud, I made a complaint to the Ontario Provincial oversight body concerned. There was no response from any oversight body hence I have re-instituted and notified the incoming Ford government of such action on the charge against Hicks, Morley, which had promptly dropped the case with the first complaint application  never billing me for their time. The Employer would not tell me if they have been paying the above firm and the Quebec firm of Lavery de Billy for their costs. Nor was the tabloid, the North Shore News interested in pursuing this question on behalf of the taxpaying West Vancouver citizenry.


     It could also be noted that currently a constitutional question has also been filed in Ontario as an ex parte Application and while the court cashed my cheque on April 13, no file number has been assigned or materials  returned. This question is essentially the same one raised by the Employer in 13-59060 although it is not case specific. The question can apply to any individual so affected or to any corporate entity which explains its importance to the incoming government of Doug Ford whom claims that he will be contesting the 'Cap & Trade' carbon emissions  which calls into focus judicial credibility for all interests involved.




1) I have broken the case into two parts; (which is usually the case for all courts on this issue); a one hour hearing before a judge sometime in the third week of September and, depending on the outcome, I may either turn the disclosure requested over to the RCMP for criminal charges to be laid (to date, they refuse to be involved in this case), or pursue the charge in a court of law with a lawyer.


2) In brief, the disclosure of the meeting notes which Justice Southin returned to the Employer in 1987 'because she did not use them' appear to be the first step in a colossal cover-up reinforced by over 50 judges, including such as McKinnon j., in order to thwart the cause of justice in this legal case.


3) The presiding judge in September is requested to insist, on pain of paying the full cost of the $20 million claim, that the Employer must produce these documents as they will define the entire nature of the fraud to be pursued.


4) Considering past judicial failures on this level, this request is no longer focused on the judges and the chief justices as to oversight bodies; rather, it is focused on Attorney Generals. In so many words, does the Ford government wish to be identified with the legal transgressions of the former government and its A.G., Yasir Naqvi?  Their credibility, in so many words, is at stake with everyone watching.




5) It is within your power to avoid seeing the courts of the Ford Government being embarrassed on the above account by volunteering  this all-important disclosure to this plaintiff.


6) If you plan to challenge the submission, I have invited you to withhold the usual 500 word billable time factum (in which only 5% gets used) and instead, provide a researched factum devoted solely to imposed legislation at this preliminary hearing. Indeed, you can include the material which McKinnon j. ignored in 13-59060.


7) I believe that anyone may see a pattern developing here. With a change of government, I re-invoke petitions to oversight bodies which to date go unacknowledged. In the case of a re-elected government in Nova Scotia, I turned to President Trump to invoke the Magnitsky Act (legal and moral turpitude) as Canada does not permit an internal application of this Act. Further, Trump is tied up in the trade wars with the notion of imposed legislation. Bottom line? Businesses on both sides of the border are foolish to invest under such unsettled legal matters.


8) Government change prophesized in Quebec and Alberta are also potential sources of legal action in this matter in future. B.C. had a wonderful opportunity under the Lieutenant Governor's Office to use provisions designed to deal with just such matters as problems with the Employee's Case. By ducking out, which is a negative reflection on the Horgan government, that body leaves B.C.'s inhabitants nowhere to turn for credible judicial action.


9) Of course 'buy-out' is an option as it is the law to place a financial figure on legal cases. As of July 01-2018, that figure stands at $12 million which could change at any time in the future. (The reason for the $12 million figure is because I do not wish to be part of the 'terrorism club' where a number of targets have collected $10 million each for their troubles.) Who knows, perhaps over 50 judges could dip in their pockets to cover the cost. Some would call that justice.


10) A word on using legal counsel, Harris & Co. While the School Board is directly accused of being involved in the fraud related to the accusation that they conspired to deprive me of my employment on a spurious basis, they are not directly involved in the charges that I have laid, at one time or another, against all legal firms hired by them nor the judgments received. If it weren't for Vancouver's Harris & Co. which handled cases in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, I doubt very much as to whether the Employer could attract another legal firm should Harris & Co. drop out. In such an eventuality, I would win by default. At any rate, expect resistance on my part paralleling that of Nova Scotia to the Barrister's Society should you use Harris & Co. in Ontario.(see 2 enclosures to that effect) In Ontario, that oversight reference means the A.G. appointed by Premier Ford.


11) While the anti -employee media have a national boycott on this labour case; I see a day coming where publicity will be the order of the day, perhaps in Ontario.


Yours truly,  Roger Callow (Plaintiff)



cc. web site: employeescasecanada.ca

      Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

      Premier Ford incoming government

      RCMP c/o Commissioner Brenda Lucki

      U.S. Embassy (Canada)



   N.B. Two letters to the Nova Scotia Barristers Society dated March 05 and March 19-2017 are included to the WVST and Premier Ford  


March 05-2017


Nova Scotia Barristers Society

Cogswell Tower

800-2000 Barrington Street

Halifax NS B3J 3K1

T: 902-422-1491 

F: 902-429-4869  1  page sent by fax 


REFERENCE: A) multi-page rebuttal to the West Vancouver, B.C. School Trustee Employer's Defendant Response dated February 08-2017. Under employescasecanada.ca REPLY TO NOVA SCOTIA 458698 is my REPLY (EXHIBIT A & B)  dated February 13-2017. 

B) February 21-2017 letter to the NS Judicial Review Body under the Chief Justice

N.B. Copies of these letters have been sent to Premier McNeil/ P.M. Trudeau/ RCMP as well as keeping the NS Teachers at large notified. (cc March 05-2017 letter to above parties)


1) I have not received any acknowledgment let alone analysis of allegedly fraudulent material contained in the Defendant Employer's factum in NS 458698 from the NS Barrister's Society.

2) That pattern is consistent across Canada in other provinces where this 32 year unresolved labour issue with its genesis in B.C. in which no compensation has been paid to senior teacher, Roger Callow, whom was illicitly laid off in June of 1985 under the imposed BILL 35.

3) If such as the Canadian Council of Judges under the aegis of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC), Beverley McLachlin, and now Prime Minister Trudeau, had not ignored earlier complaints about such fraudulent activities of the court as well as the Defendant Employer, I would not be in Nova Scotia raising this 'case-neutral' constitutional question of the relationship between imposed legislation and court oversight.

4) Until the above complaint is properly examined, we cannot proceed with the two hearings unilaterally arranged by the Employer in February & March (1/2 hour Chamber meetings) in which they try to have the entire case dropped leaving Canadians bereft of a constitutional question which is of national importance to both Employers and Employees.

5) The proper course, I submitted in my reply, was for the NS Barrister's Society to examine alleged fraudulent materials provided to them by me with an aim to bar B.C.'s Harris & Co. from Nova Scotia and proceed with the constitutional question. The Employer did not address the question of the constitutional question in their voluminous 'Book of Authorities'.

6) The Employer's argument is that, under imposed legislation, they do not have to recognize court oversight such as, in this case, the B.C. Court quashing an arbitration ruling, as it did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable.

7) My point is that even under the specious imposed BILL 35, compensation must be paid to laid-off teachers and yet over 50 judges (including 4 'unheard' trips to our SCofC) gave no answer to that question ...just silence which appears to be the reaction of the NS judiciary.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow) The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System


March 19-2017

TO: Nova Scotia Barristers Society                 FROM: Roger Callow NS 458698

Cogswell Tower                                                            1285 Cahill Drive #2001

800-2000 Barrington Street                                        Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Halifax NS B3J 3K1                                                      tel: 613-5231-1739

F: 902-429-4869  1  page sent by fax                                    e-mail: thecallows@gmail.com


1) If you had taken my letter to you of March 05-2017 seriously, the collapse of not only NS court credibility but all of Canada could have been avoided. Now no-one can trust to a court of law due to the precipitate action of NS Justice Suzanne Hood on April 06-2017 which Deputy Prothonotary Rhiannon Morgan B.A. would confirm by cancelling out the April 19th hearing date at the request of the rogue B.C. Law firm, Harris & Co.

2)  Earlier I had confirmed in a telephone call from the court that I would be in attendance at the April 19th hearing and did not agree with any postponement of this hearing requesting in that process, $15,000 costs from the B.C. Employer for cancelling the second date without my approval to equate with the $15,000 cost assignment for unknown reasons by Hood j. Any precipitate  action taken by Hood was to be reviewed at that second hearing.

3) In brief, Harris & Co. successfully pulled the same one-two suckerpunch which they used in SK and the government and courts of Premier McNeil blithely swallowed the whole scam.

4) The initial problem dates back to the failure of the NS Barrister's Society to investigate this matter although it does not excuse the court's failure to conduct a voir dire as I requested before any hearings were held. At the very least, both investigations would have insisted that NS legal counsel for the Employer be appointed as NS legal counsel would be bound by NS laws and not those of a dissolute B.C. Legal Society which is complicit in protecting Harris & Co. as seen from the SK debacle. The Employer earlier hired Hicks, Morley et al for Ontario (since dropped their representation) and Lavery de Billy which found it easier to just turn the Quebec Justice System on its head. Both appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada were not heard. So what is wrong with NS courts and government that they would not insist on local representa- tion under these circumstances?  In so many words, why is the grey eminence (Old Boys Club) able to walk all over the courts and governments of Canada, especially NS considering this egregious background?

5) Currently I am awaiting the registration of an action on a constitutional question listing the B.C. Union as Defendant although the case-neutral approach is not expected to produce any opposition. Further, the badly compromised 'Book of Authorities' by Harris & Co. is not available to them. Indeed, I would be surprised if they filed a response as all argument may be filed through myself as plaintiff.

6) The impression left by the outcome of your initial failure is that NS is ruled by a crooked Chief Justice and has an idiot (Stephen MacNeil) for a premier.


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

cc  Premier McNeil / NS Supreme Court 458698