REBUTTAL of PLAINTIFF, ROGER CALLOW to HI-JACKING OF EDMONTON COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH - APRIL 05-2019 (3 Pages) employeescasecanada.ca 2019 ALBERTA COURT HIJACKING
Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice D.R.G. Thomas
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Docket: 1903 06964 Registry: Edmonton April 04-2019
Citation: Callow v West Vancouver Teacher's Association (Local School District Number),2019
AQB 236 (Why isn't the second Defendant listed here?)
Board of School Trustees and West Vancouver Teacher's Association (two defendants) (Local School District Number 45)
Copies to Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Canadian Attorney General D. Lametti to take those steps necessary to quash the above document and suspend Justice Thomas for 'running a court within a court'. If the above document had been written after a one hour hearing where it would become part of the judicial record; the protocol of court justice could be considered to have been served. As it is, Justice Thomas has bastardized a number of key points in research and usurped court processes. A copy is also sent to MPP Jason Kenney.
ITEMIZED RESPONSE OF THE PLAINTIFF TO 1903 06964
(1) There was considerable 'to-ing' and fro-ing' between myself and the court including two telephone calls from them relating to the technical matter of the proper forms. Those calls were received after notification to Premier Notley was made.
(2) March 20-2019 URGENT For File No. cc Premier Notley (R.W. Callow)
(3) That request at an attempted filing number was referred to Thomas j. for 'abusive litigation' purposes. Why would the mere assignment of a docket number prompt this charge? Whom is it that referred this matter to Thomas j. for such a purpose and why? Premier Notley? If so, I do not see any copy enclosed to her and yet she is the logical source.
Statement of facts relied on: my 8 point AFFIDAVIT (FACTS) concluding with
8. Whatever approach is made, disclosure as outlined above is at the root of any successful remedy . No compensation has been paid (including pension rights) due to 'Mueller' actions by over 50 judges and now including Thomas j. Habeas corpus is at the root of all law.
Without seeing that key documentation, the court is acting blindly to this unresolved 34 year labour issue. In essence, what Thomas j. is doing here is acting as an agent for the Defendants whom refuse to provide the necessary documents (for 34 years).
(1) This section on page 2 is taken verbatim from my Statement of Claim and summarizes the entire case which Thomas j. has chosen to ignore.
1) ...disclosure which is a precursor to the fraud charges with B.C. Chief Justice Hinckley being an extension of that charge and the constitutional question in which the Employer does not acknowledge the oversight powers of the court vis a vis imposed legislation. The plaintiff was laid off under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 (1985); the only teacher to be a victim of this legislation before it was rescinded in typical banana republic fashion. The case remains unresolved with no compensation having been paid due to the chicanery of over 50 judges including four inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now add Thomas j.
(5) '...There is absolutely nothing in Mr. Callow's materials of his dispute, such as it is defined in the Statement of Claim, which relates to Alberta.' Thomas j. The question of jurisdiction always comes up in other provinces and is promptly dropped in the Decision after my explanations in court; a court hearing which Thomas j. would deny me for unconscionable reasons as I believe that he has perverted case law in order to justify himself. There are sections in the law under 'referencing' and 'to promote the cause of justice' which can be applied but that will take a very different kind of judge than the ones assigned to this case.
II Mr. Callow's Litigation History
(8) Obviously, Thomas j. did not read any of the detailed matters discussed in the plaintiff's web site: employeescasecanada.ca His mangled account here does not include the fact that the arbitration in support of the Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees, was quashed by the court and ordered back to arbitration; an arbitration which was never heard due to the Employer refusing to recognize oversight powers of the courts under imposed legislation making this case the single most important legal matter in Canada. As matters stand, 'no legal decision is a legal decision' under these preposterous terms. The imposed carbon tax is a key example with this unresolved case the only precedent in that regard.
(9) The first attempt to remedy this matter after being expelled from B.C. Courts in 2010 'for reasons best known to a judge' was unsuccessful before the Federal Court leaving me in limbo.
(10) In 2012 Mr. Callow sued in Ontario... The flamboyant statement of Justice McKinnon whom is one of the named judges associated with the civil fraud charges in Ontario and Saskatchewan appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on April 29-2014 and also appears on the internet under the biased control of Google. If Thomas had taken the time to read that legal material, he would have learned that I was the Defendant in ONSC 2547 as correctly noted in his account: West Vancouver School District No. 45 v Callow. That is a basic contradiction which this prejudiced judge could not be bothered with. The reason McKinnon j. was cited to the Canadian Council of Judges (recently heavily criticized by Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Richard Wagner) along with a second judge, R. Scott is because he wrote a second judgment a week before another trial in September before that second judge without referencing the first judgment. As both were Federal Court judges, the matter was referred to the Canadian Council of Judges which never acknowledged this fraudulent malfeasance.
(11) Thomas j. concluded that I was re-litigating matters already decided in B.C.; a popular mantra among many judges handling this case without detailing which matters and how they were handled. I am still without compensation which belongs to this writer under any of the following: the collective bargaining process, BILL 35 legislation, or any other legislative scheme dealing with employee compensation. Cover-up is not part of that process but that is what Thomas j. and every other judge assigned this case has committed the court processes.
(12) Mr. Callow next targeted Quebec and Saskatchewan. His filings were struck out: The Supreme Court of Canada is known as a 'great burial ground of civil cases'; most are refused a hearing. Yet in this case both challenges included judicial malfeasance complicated by the fact that the same hearing body heard both cases in 2016 amid my strenuous objections. One of those figures, Richard Wagner, is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
(13) 'I would be unsurprised if Alberta is not at some point added to this list (of forum shoppers).
(14) 'The day may have now arrived. Mr. Callow is a potential subject for court access restrictions in Alberta Courts.' For years now, I have always asked for court permission to proceed. See (23) and (31)That is what Thomas j. would deny me and why I call for his removal from the bench. His 'quick deed' should not be accepted by his superiors.
III Court Access Restrictions
(15) to (25) I have no argument with the many, many case studies which have been cherry-picked by Thomas j. to support his conclusion which, considering how he has botched basic details of the issue concerned, have little if no relevance.
(31) In the interim (up to April 19-2019), Mr. Callow is prohibited from filing any material on any Court file except for the submissions identified above, and Mr. Callow may not continue or institute further court proceedings in Alberta without the leave of the Alberta Court in question:... As already pointed out, I always ask for permission of the court to proceed.
ADDENDUM: One would not realize from the above account that a third judge from B.C. was included in this civil fraud charge.
In summary, the Alberta court is panicking, and in so doing, is denying the proper course of justice which all Canadians should be able to expect in terms of unfettered access to the courts; Thomas j.'s comments notwithstanding in this case. Under the circumstances, it would appear that the Edmonton Registry was toying with me similar to an earlier experience under Premier Notley in 2016. One point Thomas j. makes is disturbing; namely, a 'suggestion' that a lawyer must represent me in court. For one hour??? I have come across similar stunts like this before where every effort is made to keep this matter from becoming part of the judicial record which now explains the legal collapse of Alberta's judiciary unless remediation is taken.
Yours, in disappointment,
Roger Callow Plaintiff. 1903 06964 April 05-2019