OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – OCTOBER 01-2012 pp. 1-2
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN) ‘Pulitzer Prize’ potential for international reporter ?
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (27 year unresolved legal case) which has reduced Canada to Third World status through systematic court injustice; the final act of obliterating the Canadian Judiciary to be played out in a Vancouver Court over a rinky dink claim for ‘costs’ on Sept. 25
1) ‘It’s long past time to do away with Parliament.’ Did Sun Media’s Lorne Gunter really say that!!! (Nope; he said it about the U.N. but he could just as easily have been referring to Canada’s Parliament which is permitting the most egregious court action ever to reduce Canada to Third World status.
2) ‘…The guardians in black robes, the judges, are there to protect rights when called upon; they are ill equipped and unfit to ride out and right wrongs they have not been called upon to adjudicate.’ The Supreme Court Has Reached Too Far O.C. S.27 A12 by lawyer and Liberal aspirant be to be the next Minister of Justice, James Morton. I beg to differ as the judges are ill equipped and unfit PERIOD as exemplified by the Employee’s Case.
3) ‘…the lawyers and the judges, absorbed in the excruciating legal minutiae that see substance subsumed by procedure…’ Crimes of War Peter Hogg
IMPORTANT & TIME SENSITIVE – Response time October 5 (midnight Vancouver time)
September 26-2012 (1 of 2 pages)
TO: Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Lance G. Finch FROM: Roger Callow – plaintiff in CA038538
B.C. Court of Appeal FAX: 613-521-1739
SENT BY FAX ONLY 604-660-2420
REFERENCE: November 17 – 2011 letter from Deputy Registrar Maria Littlejohn signed by ‘Diane’ and my 3-page rebuttal to you of November 25 – 2011. (No response hence this second request).
ACTION REQUESTED: To reverse the procedures seeking to delist CA038538 ‘…This is to advise you that pursuant to Section25(1) of the Court of Appeal (B.C.) this matter has been placed on the inactive list….’
(Littlejohn letter was written knowing that MacKenzie’s Order barred this plaintiff from any court access.)
3) APPELLANT’S FACTUM (CA038538) OPENING STATEMENT: ‘This is an appeal from an Order of Associate Chief Justice A.W. MacKenzie dated October 1, 2010, which set aside the Appellant’s Notice of Civil Claim. (S106159) The ground for Appeal is Justice A.W. MacKenzie made the Order without notice to the Appellant, without a hearing, and without giving reasons…The Appellant’s right to procedural fairness was violated. This court is asked to set aside Justice A.W. MacKenzie’s Order and reinstitute the Appellant’s action.’
9) B) Perhaps of a more egregious action is that of the un-named court clerk whom, for reasons best known to himself, returned duly filed legal material to the courier. Think of the bedlam should that extra-legal action become commonplace. Organized crime will have a field day. If it should be that litigants may be treated in this fashion, then I submit a very careful statement must be given as to why any litigant is to be deprived of ‘due process’. MacKenzie, I submit, did not do that. Herein lay my appeal to the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court in September. I argued that such as the above action must either be accepted or denied by a Chief Justice. There was no response from Judge Finch. At this juncture, Parliament may see fit to suspend him along with A.W. MacKenzie. That is why his response here is significant.(February 14 – still no response=2nd request)
1) No response has ever been received from the office of B.C. Chief Justice Lance Finch by this plaintiff as of the above date.
2) The unthinkable has happened and the Employer and Union have approached the B.C. Court to collect monies under a surety paid in all good faith by this respondent to see the hearing of CA038538 which never occurred for reasons outlined in the letter to Justice Finch dated February 13, 2012. Excerpts appear above.
3) In short, the game plan appears to deny a litigant’s access to the courts on the whim of a judge where said litigant has no standing to present a rebuttal to an action laid against his interests. That action smashes the Canadian Judiciary in its entirety.
4) A letter to the Judicial Council of Canada of September 12-2012 illustrates this dilemma as to how any justice so-assigned may conduct himself: (SEE web)
(i) Under which authority may a Justice act where one of the litigants is not permitted to present an opposing argument. In the September 25-2012 hearing for costs, this writer did not sign the approval forms authorizing costs be paid to the Employer and Union from the surety posted for CA038538 thus complicating the matter.
(ii) Failure to define this respondent’s role in the above raises the question as to how any such judgment may be appealed?
(iii) On November 17-2012, ‘Diane’ for Maria Littlejohn wrote from the B.C. Appeal Court stating that CA038538 was relocated to the ‘inactive list’ with this action to be delisted if this writer did not contest the matter in court – a court whose access was denied to me in the first place by the MacKenzie Creed in this duplicituous letter. Hence it was the court and not this litigant who dropped CA038538 from the docket thus robbing any presiding justice on the hearing for costs of any justification to act on that basis.
5) On September 25-2012, I received a notice from the Union lawyer noting that a Registrar had approved his application for collection of monies from the B.C. Appeal court (*inclusions here sent only to Finch j. in what appears to be a case of someone merely walking in the back door of the court house and filling in a blank cheque). What kind of hearing (if any) was held is unknown by this respondent but it would appear to be a clear violation of the principals of law enunciated above. Indeed, this respondent is unable to make claim for the return of the surety due to the MacKenzie Creed which this writer now labels as ‘judicial theft’.
6) The Employer apparently changed their mind and filed a separate application of costs under CA038538. The situation for the Employer in this respect is different from the Union as currently an action has been laid solely against them (no Union presence) for interim compensation (monies belonging to this plaintiff regardless of judicial outcomes). Due to the prohibition order of the MacKenzie Creed, that action (#12-54944) has been set in Ontario and is to be heard on November 1-2012. Currently the Employer refuses to mount a response to that issue although it appears clear that the MacKenzie Creed overlies their thinking.
7) Mounting a second surety claim may be their goal here as a further means of suborning the Ontario Justice System although it is immaterial if the McGuinty government throws the Ontario Justice System under the bus through any hearing on this matter. In short, the ‘B.C. Disease’ has claimed the B.C. Labour Board, the Federal Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada. Is it a mere step to include the Justice System of Ontario at a time that the McGuinty government is desperate to break the back of the collective bargaining agreement with Ontario teachers? Time will tell.
8) I don’t know what you can do at this late date. Certainly the recent failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal from this litigant on condemning the MacKenzie Creed has led to serious charges against that organization as they appear to have permitted an administrative decision to supplant a judicial question of national importance. Canada, I submit, was reduced to Third World status as a consequence of that failure.
Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’
cc Hicks Morley LLP (for the Employer) Ottawa Superior Court Chief Justice C. Hackland/Ontario Att. Gen. J. Gerretsen/Ontario Premier D. McGuinty
p.s. considering the time constraints, a fax response to the above is acceptable. (Oct. 14 – no response received)
TEACHER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING INFORMATION
Current struggles to protect the collective bargaining process by Ontario public school teachers has its genesis in a 27 year unresolved B.C. case in which a senior teacher was illicitly laid off. No compensation (including pension rights) has been paid.
In short, Ontario teachers should not expect any support from the courts in their struggle.
RECENT & OCTOBER 01-2012
POST IN STAFFROOM
Ontario public teachers are about to be suckerpunched by their union leaders who will not want them to involve themselves with the Employee’s Case for the simple reason that their protest is not going to go to court. A deal will be cut with the McGuinty government that in exchange for dropping the attack on the collective bargaining process, the government will be given what they want in salary rollbacks. It’s a perceived win, win, win solution; the government gets what it wants, the Union leaders gain stature with the teachers, and the public teachers can claim to have ‘stood up and been counted’. In actual fact, the Catholic Teachers and French School Board Teachers may claim that it is the same solution that they signed without, of course, all the turmoil undergone by the public teachers including a bad press by the management-oriented media. A parallel may be seen here with BILL 35 passed in 1985 in B.C. which was declared as the ‘battle of all teachers’ by the Union who talked all School Districts out of using this innocuous Bill – except West Vancouver where it was used against one teacher in a sell-out by the Union which still goes on today in this case. To be sure, the usual cliché, ět wasn`t the best deal but it was the best deal under the circumstances` will be parroted to these gullible Ontario teachers. In reality, the union leaders merely open themselves to further bullying by management such as has been seen in B.C. with a teacher wildcat strike in 2005 in which the court came down heavily against the teachers. A more recent wildcat strike was about to be done in by the B.C. Labour Board (the same organization which betrayed this writer) although the Union is trying hard to get a court hearing in lieu of this kangaroo court…”Oh, what a tangled web we weave….”.
The point is that the ‘West Vancouver School Board’s Final Solution’ currently applies to all Canadian employees thus obviating the collective bargaining process for everyone: ‘If you do not sign a $1 settlement for your lay-off (not dismissal), then you will not collect your pension’. That’s why the Employee’s Case is the battle of all Canadians. Until this matter is resolved, no employee should hold union membership or contribute to a pension plan. As we have seen, B.C. Teachers won’t fight…the McGuinty Government is counting on Ontario Public School teachers to buckle under as well with the co-operation of the Union leaders.
Ontario Public Teachers should make a point of publicizing the Employee’s Case (Canada) as a battle on behalf of all Canadian employees.
OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – SEPT 14-2012 p.1 of 2
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)
(ONT. TEACHERS – SEE WEB FOR P.2)
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (27 year unresolved legal case)
1) ‘Delays, access, are the judicial system’s “biggest challenge” Justice Robert Wagner on his ascension to the SCofC
2) Letter to Editor O.C. Oct.10 A12 ‘Judy Hill’: Extreme Measures Re: Teachers’ fight for fairness ‘…Premier Dalton McGuinty’s tactics in this matter are outrageous. How can he suspend citizens’ rights, override any and every law which upholds human rights, and forbid any matter to be brought before the courts?...Where are the safeguards against such undemocratic, unconstitutional and extreme measures? Scary. RESPONSE: McGuinty might respond in this way; “The precedent, my dear Judy, is the continual failure of B.C. Teachers to stand behind the Employee’s Case ever since 1985 of whose folly the Ontario Teachers would repeat by refusing to publicize the November 1-2012 (#12-54944) hearing date in an Ottawa Court room challenging the very points made in your article. Hence your protest is little more than showing support for your Union leaders who can be expected to sell your interests out on a dime as evidenced by the B.C. story.”
3) ‘The published report of the UN investigation following the mass genocide in Rwanda of 1994 stated: ‘If those responsible for the 1992 and 1993 massacres had been punished, I do not think what happened in 1994 would have been possible’ The Secret Hunters Ralph Fiennes. Similarly, if the conspirators had been stopped between 1985 and 2010 in the Employee’s Case; the Canadian Judiciary would not find themselves today in the throes of disintegration as a consequence of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ (see web) passed in 2010 which permits any judge for reasons best known to himself, to deny any Canadian from court access.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA – STRIKE 4 (baseball anyone?) filed October 09-2012
MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT –see web SCofC –Strike 4 for complete argument
1) For 27 continuous years, the plaintiff has initiated actions to deal with the propriety of his lay-off from his senior teaching position in West Vancouver, B.C. on June 26, 1985 under `BILL 35`which became law on July 1 1985. The first two actions – namely, an arbitration and the subsequent court appeal which quashed the arbitration – were supported by the Union. Since that time, the petitioner’s action has been unitary and without judgment for jurisdictional reasons before over 30 judges including three inconsequential appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. No compensation (including pension) has flowed. The collective judicial action utilized appears to be one in which the plaintiff’s complaints are diminished in scope in order to dismiss them.
7) This plaintiff was unable to participate in the Vancouver hearing of September 25-2012 due to a prohibitive Order from Associate Deputy Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, Anne MacKenzie j. (2010) hereafter referred to as the `MacKenzie Creed’ barring him from all court access in the matter of his illicit lay-off.
In all of the above, the over-riding challenge is one of natural justice reminiscent of this line:
In the words of Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic)…’What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’ He must have prophetically had the Employee’s Case(Canada) in mind.
OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – OCT.28-2012
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (27 year unresolved legal case)
QUOTES: ‘The lawyers and the judges, absorbed in the excruciating legal minutiae that see substance subsumed by procedure…’ Crimes of War Peter Hogg
MESSAGE: As per 27 years of ‘minutiae’; we still do not see the Employer addressing the issues. For example, in REPLY-54944 (Actual #12-54944) the Employer fails to answer the central question for the November 01-2012 hearing in Ottawa; namely, ‘Why is the Employer not liable to pay ‘interim compensation’ which belongs to this plaintiff despite legal outcomes?’ In short, this writer should always have been kept on salary until a resolution to this case was found. An exerpt from the REPLY-54944 is contained below (SEE web for full account) and is a devastating indictment without equal of the Canadian Justice System…and not a peep out of the Ontario public teachers who claim to represent all Canadians in terms of saving the collective bargaining process in Canada. They don’t…this case does. Following is an excerpt defining the depth of this judicial cupidity.
D) While not excusing the cynical actions of various legal personnel attached to this case, full opprobrium needs be leveled against the actions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Form 25C alleging a conflict of interest was filed against Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin in that regard.
If the SCofC had heard the first appeal on the `universality of unions`, this writer would not be in the position of having to acquire his pension rights in the manner he is due to legal wrangling. In short, pension schemes, we submit, were never intended to be affixed in the fashion as has happened here. No employee will hold Union membership nor contribute to a pension plan when an employer is able to obviate his fiduciary responsibilities with this lay-off message: `If you do not sign a $1 quick claim, you will not obtain your pension`. The second SCofC Appeal related to `ultimate remedy` under the collective bargaining rules. By failing to see that compensation is paid in whatever amount, the SCofC undermined not only the collective bargaining rules, but the whole notion of contract law. The third SCofC Appeal related to`usurped judicial authority` in which a judge, for reasons best known to herself, may bar a litigant from court. That charge was so serious that the SCofC chose to hide behind a specious administrative as opposed to judicial decision. The fourth SCofC – Strike 4 baseball anyone? Appeal currently before the court is based on a surety collection in a B.C. Court where I have no standing due to the failure of the SCofC to hear the Third Appeal. In short, the Employer and Union may rob this writer blind due to the fact that this personage is ‘The Outlawed Canadian’. That action smashes the Canadian Justice System in its entirety. Presumably, if the Ontario Appeal reaches the SCofC, it will be labeled ‘Stage Five Cancer’.