TO: PREMIER FORD by fax (2 pages)
SEPTEMBER 19-2018 - annotated to reflect updates (Oct. 23-2018)
What Premier Doug Ford doesn't know about the Justice System which I have learned the hard way over the past 33 years
by: Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Government and Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance in an unresolved legal issue.' employeescasecanada.ca
1) Ford is in a position of being 'dead right' and in that order. The point is that if one is first dead, who cares whether or not he is right?
2) It does not appear that Ford is getting very good legal advice; the key one being that one may not be critical of a judge personally due to his decision; that is what appeal courts are for.
3) What a litigant can be critical of is the process by which the court conducted itself. That's why I am able to file a civil case for fraud in Ontario listing two judges with the West Vancouver School Trustees being the 'engine' of this charge for $20 million. No legal counsel will represent the WVST (as well as in B.C. in a second $20 million action) under pain of being sued separately for $20 million. In this unprecedented manoeuvre; two judges are named in the conduct of that fraud along with Ontario legal counsel for the Employer dating from 2014. SEE website for details.
4) What Ford needs and hasn't got is a casus belli to justify his action of reducing Toronto City Council from 48 to 24 seats. (Oct. 23-2018; 'perverted 'court action led to his success)
5) In dealing with the Ford issue above, the presiding Justice is not limited to the 'notwithstanding clause' as many other factors can be cited in dealing with an issue. Indeed, I quoted the Charter on a number of occasions only to be ignored which is the prerogative of the presiding justice. In the unresolved Employee's Case; the matter was reduced to this litigant merely being frivolous and vexatious on matters already decided. As to which matters were decided, the School Trustees are never specific and, here's the key point, the court does not ever demand that they be specific. That's been the story for 33 years.
6) A side note to the above is that I am dunned for all legal costs which I have never paid considering that I have never received an invoice. The Trustees refuse to say if they paid these bills and the North Shore News Tabloid refuses to challenge them on this level.
7) Other than a personal animus on the part of the Premier, the only thing to warm the cockles of his heart is the loud-mouth braying of the Conservative media bent on selling papers.
8) First past the post is a vital point in law as trying to come from behind leaves a litigant carrying baggage difficult to dispose. Ford already has one court loss. I had the loss of the arbitration dealing with my senior teacher lay-off in 1985 despite the succeeding court quashing the arbitration ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor (this perp; this crime). I have been left in limbo since that ruling with no judge willing to act to draw a conclusion. In essence, they pick up the ball and go home before the game is completed. That's how the Justice System imploded in 2004 under the 'ultimate remedy' conditions before the Supreme Court of Canada. 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law' volunteered my legal representative.
9)Today, I am 'walking back the cat' with the two charges one being for judicial fraud; a challenge unequalled in the annals of any legal system as I hit directly at 'the process'.
10) It would seem that Ford has not put out the money for qualified legal help and is about to pay the price a second time as judges do not take kindly to any one judge being personally 'dissed'. (Oct.-23-2018: SEE Point 4)
11) For my part, it matters little to my welfare as to which way the winds blow for the Ford Government on this issue. The key advantage is that both of us, in our own ways, have revealed activist judges which have always permeated the system. As I put it; the Justice System imploded in 2004; corpse to follow. The now putrid corpse is currently following in B.C. and ON with the Employee's Case....
OCTOBER 23-2018 - SECOND APPEAL: CV 18000 76950 0000 (Ottawa Supreme Court) copy to Ottawa Sun columnist, Mark Bonokoski
1) Considering that the B.C. action mentioned above filed after the Ontario Action has been adjudicated (with much prejudice - see employeescasecanada.ca), why is there a delay in providing a written Decision in Ontario particularly considering that the Employer did not file for an appearance in either case?
2) Also in contrast to B.C. is the fact that the Ontario action lists two Ontario judges whose actions still go uncontested as to malfeasance and were a factor in other venues across Canada. The Ontario action, also in contrast to the B.C. action, is for civil fraud although production of the disclosure by the highly politicized RCMP would most likely lead to a criminal charge of fraud. Under those conditions, in the event of a successful suit, everything flowing from the imposed BILL 35 (1985) as used by the Employer in an illicit senior teacher lay-off in 1985 would be 'null and void'.
3) At heart of all court actions for 33 years has been the issue of disclosure (as is the case of the criminal trial against Vice Admiral Mark Norman but that trial continues with this difference; I have no media coverage. Is that what Canada has become?...a newspaper democracy?) Bonokoski, are you listening?
4) The proper course for the Ford government (all correspondence now goes to Premier Ford considering the abject performance of his A.G. Carolyn Mulroney on this file) is to place the Ontario Judiciary under a trusteeship until answers are forthcoming explaining why the above legal case appears to have disappeared down the proverbial black hole.
Yours truly, Roger Callow aka 'outlaw'
MARCH 20-2019 - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: CV 18000 76950 0000
1) The above case is stagnating awaiting a hearing date due to what can only be labeled as the malfeasance of Premier Ford plus his incompetent A.G., Caroline Mulroney abetted by an un-named Registry filing clerk whom refused to provide this plaintiff with a hearing date. What if every court jurisdiction e.g. LavScam, decided on illegally foiling the holding of a trial?
Yours truly, Roger Callow Plaintiff