THE MACKENZIE CREED
On October 10-2010, I wrote my legal advisor: (annotation-2013)
1) You no doubt were aware of the enclosed 2-page MacKenzie document (dated Oct. 01-10) included here and received by me on Oct. 8-2010. (NB As the respondents did not file an appearance; they must have been given prior notice of this action = collusion)
2) As there is no case number, I have asked MacKenzie to state whether or not (her) prohibitive action applies to an appeal of her own decision? It may be that you will have to telephone the B.C. Courts to see under which rules she is functioning. (NB There is no such rule for this arbitrary type of Order which was made ‘for reasons best known to herself’)
3) There would appear to be a basic contradiction in her order to the extent that she includes the phrase ‘except with prior leave of the Court’ and our action: RELIEF SOUGHT 3. Permission of the court to institute this action’.(NB There was no contradiction from the perspective that this bid was to block a Third Approach to the Supreme Court of Canada. Currently there are five rejections of my appeals over the MacKenzie Creed by the SCofC quibbling over Section 40 rules.)
Currently, there is an action solely on the MacKenzie Creed in Ontario’s Divisional Court (Appeal) DC-12-1872. Will 3 judges ‘ tried and true’ screw up on it? Based on past history; count on it. In short, Canada will become ‘a failed state’ with the consequence of the demise of Canadian democracy not with a bang but a whimper, and it is all going down in an Ontario court room.
Below is the MacKenzie Creed. Can you spot the anomaly which horrified the authorities to such an extent that the B.C. Attorney General asked, in effect, the Federal Court of Canada to fall on its sword on behalf of this government conspiracy? (See answer at bottom of the following Creed.
Re: Callow v. the Board Of School Trustees S.D. #45
Vancouver Registry No. S106159
Please find enclosed a copy of an order issued by Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie in the above noted proceeding on Oct.01,2010.
H.L. McBride (Supreme Court Law Officer)
- o -
Supreme Court of B.C. Oct. 01-2010 Entered S106159 (Van. Registry)
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Between: Roger Callow plaintiff
and `West Vancouver School Board` and `the Union` defendants
THIS COURT, on its own motion and without a hearing, at
Vancouver, B.C. on Friday, October 1, 2010
ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT:
1. The Notice of Civil Claim herein is a nullity and is set aside.
2. Roger Callow shall not, except with prior leave of the Court, initiate any
proceedings in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way
connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of
B.C. Registry File Nos. S087238, S075775, S022978, A950147, or
pertaining to or connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the
Defendants in this action or arising from or related to that subject matter.
3. Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order
or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity.
4.The Defendants in this matter will not be obliged to respond to any process that
is filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process
inadvertently filed or received by the Registry.
By the court
Answer to the question ‘anomaly’. In suborning the District Registrar, (he
should not have signed this Order)MacKenzie elevated that body to that of one
with judicial standing equivalent to a court of law which no doubt explains
why an Appeal Court clerk believed he had the necessary authority to reject
an Appeal (CA038538) to that court without explanation. The failure of
Appeal Court Chief Justice Lance Finch to adjudicate this matter is why I
called for the dismissal of both judges to be arranged through the office of the
Prime Minister as it is clear that MacKenzie usurped the law and nothing was
done about it. That’s how Canada became a failed state: permitting a judge to
run a court within a court. No justice system can survive under those