IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED MAN IS KING
P.M. HARPER now P.M. TRUDEAU
AS OF OCT.19-2015 (Federal Election)
A New Matey on the Ship
Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1919-2000) '...Every government must accept responsibility for the rights of the citizens within its own jurisdiction. Canada as a whole suffers when any of her citizens is denied his rights, for that injustice places the rights of all of us in jeopardy.'
(' Something has to be terribly, terribly wrong with the courts to use the "notwithstanding clause" S.H.')
OPEN LETTER TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN JULY 15/09 (pg 1 of 2)
BY: Roger Callow aka ‘Revolting Roger’ www.employeescasecanada.com
QUOTE: ‘When the law itself starts to fuck you over, who you gonna call? Amnesty International? The U.N.?Black Water Transit Carsten Stroud
OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER
QUOTE: 'Something has to be terribly, terribly wrong with the courts to use the 'notwithstanding clause' - Opp. Leader Stephen Harper now P.M. Amen, Stephen, amen...so what are you doing about the Employee's Case (Canada) now that B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell has dumped this mess in your lap? How you handle this affair for one Canadian, I submit, is how all Canadians can be expected to be treated on all issues. Feb/06
MESSAGE: ...And something now indeed is terribly, terribly wrong with the courts and you have no option other than to invoke the ‘notwithstanding clause’ against the Province of British Columbia. Here’s why.
Many newsletters over the past 24 years of an unresolved and now unresolvable legal case targeting former West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, leaving him in the unenviable position of trying to prove a negative (an impossibility); namely, that he had not been laid off from his teaching job in 1985, is an issue which has led to the demise of democratic government in Canada. Count the cost.
In 1985, the B.C. government rushed the ill-designed BILL 35 into law, apparently for the sole purpose of ridding themselves of a ‘troublesome pedant’ (whistle blowing). Local MPP John Reynolds, currently a head honcho in your government was at the center of these events. The B.C. government appointed arbitrator, Louis Lindholm - later ruled ‘patently unreasonable when the court quashed the original arbitration in favour of the School District - had converted the 17 new hires into 17 lay-offs. (shades of IRAN)
Over the next 24 years with over 30 judges including two inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada (‘universality of Unions’ & ‘inherent jurisdiction’), the matter remained in limbo in defiance, I submit of many major laws. Apparently, timeliness, no merit, no chance of success, are terms commonly used by judges to obviate the judicial process. In bottom line language in this kafkaesque story, ‘no legal answer became a legal answer’ which flies in the face of any definition of a legal system. In effect, the B.C. government was hi-jacked and the judiciary were co-opted in this B.C. government conspiracy for a single case which now, due to precedent law, negatively impacts every Canadian. I call it law by osmosis.
In 2006 at age 65, in absence of a termination date from the court, I retired and applied to have my B.C. Pension transferred to Ontario as per regulations. There was no reply from the public B.C. Teachers Pension Fund to either myself or the private Ontario Teachers Fund. Without knowing, guesswork suggested more litigation was necessary to finalize the account. Earlier the judge in 1986 had ordered the matter back for more arbitration; an arbitration never held by the Union and the Employer leading to this impasse. In the latter 1990's, the B.C. Government rescinded BILL 35 before this single case laid under it was resolved. The Union and Employer abandoned the matter with the sanction of the B.C. Labour Board; a decision supported on three levels of court appeal. Under these circumstances, I returned to court in two separate and inconclusive hearings in 2008 and 2009 to receive a finalization of this matter so that I could collect my B.C. Pension. For a second time, I applied to the B.C. Teachers Pension Board and was told -this time- that I was entitled to a Pension. Once again, I applied through the Ontario Pension counterpart. Once again, we were sidetracked.
While not knowing for a certainty, the B.C. delay was occasioned by the fact that no pension may be paid until legalities cease; a logical requirement as pension amounts must be calculated based on the termination date. To act singly would place the B.C. people in a position of declaring an administrative decision supplanting the court procedures of the country. As this action would be in such marked re-direction for Canadian society, I asked both B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and yourself as Prime Minister to approve such an undertaking by July 15/09. I never heard back.
(page 2) www.employeescasecanada.com
At this time, you have little choice other than to invoke the notwithstanding clause against B.C. as this conspiracy has exposed government and the justice system to a level of chicanery never before witnessed but one, due to precedent law, which will be seen again and again. Other organizations have also been shattered. Sanctioning the sweetheart deal has led to the future demise of the Canadian Union movement. The anti-
employee Canadian media are culpable to an extent that their credibility will also sink with the above institutions in an event I label institutional autism. Currently, I call on the powers of the private Ontario Teachers Pension Fund to support this call of mine on an issue of major concern to all Canadians.
Perhaps this line from the late novelist, Morris West best describes what’s at stake here:
'The law's a farce, sonnyboy. You can plant evidence and suborn witnesses and make sweetheart deals with the prosecution. The only laws we're really interested in making stick are the laws of contract - because if commerce doesn't work we're eating tree bark instead of bread.' Cassidy
I also call for support from international sources. Canada is forever telling Third World countries how they should act according to democratic principals. Perhaps those self-same countries could offer Canada a hand in resolving her internal problems. Certainly U.S. President Obama should take a stake in this one to warn American investors of the dangers inherent of dealing in Canada as he can ill-afford another ‘sub-prime mortgage’ disaster. The first step in that regard is for the international press to publish this major Canadian story boycotted by the Canadian media.
I realize your own experience as Prime Minister makes you ill-suited to handling such a national crisis. Indeed, your response to a constitutional crisis negatively impacting your party was to remake the position of Governor General - a titular role for the most part - into one of partisan politics in order to benefit your political fortunes. There was little public outcry. Considering recent developments with regards to company bankruptcy and pension schemes, I do not foresee you escaping your obligations any longer as you have so consistently done with the Employee’s Case to date. Canadians have a right to know whether or not their pension contributions may be stolen from them as I submit is the case here with the public B.C. Teachers Pension Fund. It should also be noted that to date, the Canadian Parliament would retain their silence on this ground-breaking issue which no doubt has served as balm to you. Disappointing to be sure but no longer of any consideration as Parliament is a neutered force. Invoking the notwithstanding clause is the only way your government may forestall this looming anarchy which can only prove to the detriment of our country should you permit this issue to continue to fester.
Martin Luther would have, given the above situation, in all likelihood ended on this note: ‘Here I stand; I can no other’. ...and who, it needs be asked, is left to stand for a democratic Canada? ‘Ducking out’ is no longer an option. The words of the late Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, come to mind here: ‘It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong’.
In the interim, I maintain my call for a boycott of all travel to British Columbia until the above matter is resolved in terms of the contract.
ANTI-JUDGE DAY (July 1st) which coincides with Canada’s Birthday, is a universal in any event.
Please respond by Aug. 15/09.
OPEN LETTER TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN -JUN 15/09
BY: Roger Callow aka ‘Revolting Roger’ www.employeescasecanada.com
QUOTE: ‘Never mind hearts and minds: if you want a man’s undivided attention, grab him by the reproductive organs.’ The Fifth Cataract Jo Bannister 2) ‘Some haystacks have no needles’
OPEN LETTER TO THE RT. HON. S. HARPER -P.M.CANADA
The canary in the Tory coal mine has just expired.
You are no doubt too aware of the employeescasecanada.com , the 24 year unresolved and now unresolvable legal case in which former West Vancouver, B.C. teacher Roger Callow was targeted in a government conspiracy which has led to the demise of the Canadian Judiciary and hence all that associated with a democratic society. That this should happen on your watch has left you in the unenviable position of having to make a decision which will forever redefine the future of Canada...if she has one.
Of course you have had your own private pipe-line to this great Canadian debacle in terms of former West Vancouver MPP, John Reynolds - the go-between in 1985 with the infamous BILL 35 of the B.C. Government used only against this personage and later withdrawn before the above case was resolved. Reynolds now epitomizes your government in that he is a head honcho in your party, more recently described as ‘an advisor to the Vancouver court scene’ where many of these shenanigans have been committed although I do not rule out the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions. Over 30 judges in fact have chosen to leave this case unresolved in order to protect the perpetrators so that the story now becomes one of ‘cover-up’. Former U.S. President Nixon would understand that message only too well.
But what is the significance of permitting a legal case to ‘sail forever on a sea of red tape never to be put into the port of judgment?’ There are many as they relate directly to the conduct of the law as outlined in previous newsletters. All of those messages are negative.
The ramifications are slightly broader and bring into perspective as to why the Tory canary has expired.
All pension schemes require that a finalization of legalities be made before any pension is paid out. That is a logical position. But what is the public B.C. Teachers Pension Fund to do when they have no such finalization in the above case? In 2006, on my stated retirement at age 65, they ignored my pension requests, no doubt a harbinger of the future for those requesting government pensions. Subsequent court action in two separate trials in 2008 and 2009 brought this matter no closer to a finalization. Now a second application has been made; once again through the offices of the private Ontario Teachers Pension Fund where the fund is to be transferred and who quite rightfully realize that this case is setting a precedent for all future pension schemes, both public and private.
Should the B.C. Fund place a price on the value of that fund they will, one and at the same time, be making an administrative decision which will supplant court procedures. In short, there would no longer be any necessity for a Justice System, as a precedent would be set in which the strongest partner in a contract may exert ‘carte blanche’ powers. No doubt the B.C. Fund were only too aware of their problem which explains why they refused to acknowledge the transfer request in 2006. However, retaining control over that fund - a fund I contributed to for many years - labels this as a matter of outright theft by the B.C. government, the source of this government conspiracy in which no proof exists claiming that I was indeed laid off by the Board of School Trustees in June of 1985. Again, more cover-up.
You have no choice now but to act, particularly in light of the failure of B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell to take his responsibilities in this colossal debacle for a province which is clearly out of control.
Will the Prime Minister condone the public B.C. Pension Fund action in creating an administrative decision which will forever change the nature of Canadian judicial and political life? The B.C. Fund has attached a price tag in defiance of court procedures (or what there is of them) on compensation.
What I require from the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of B.C. (copy included for the purpose) is an acknowledgment of this B.C. Fund transfer which has a draconian influence on Canada’s future.
I will await 30 days for a response (July15 /09)...otherwise your silence will be frozen forever in the tatters that was once Canada.
No copy of this letter is being sent to Parliamentary Opposition leaders; Ignatieff/Layton/Duceppe
JUNE 18, 2008
TO: Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper - Prime Minister of Canada
FROM: Roger Callow aka ‘Revolting Roger’ www.employeescasecanada.com
MESSAGE: It doesn’t take a political scientist to note that your government is past its ‘best before date’. Should Obama become the next U.S. President, I see your style of leadership to be in difficulty. A rather lackluster performance by a Party which seems hard pressed to find Cabinet talent is no recipe for a majority government. ...and to heap insult onto injury, there is the Employee’s Case.
It is not that the Prime Minister’s Office and by extension, all of Parliament, are not aware of the single most devastating legal case in Canada’s jurisprudence by which former West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, was deprived of his career and pension in a 23 year unresolved legal battle. I wrote you on May 11, 2008 asking what the Prime Minister of Canada was prepared to do in the event my interests continued to be frozen out of the Justice System; this time as it relates to Pension Rights (SO75775 Van. Registry ‘Chambers’ June 6/08)?
Failure to respond to this account will not only have you labeled as Canada’s first official anti-employee Prime Minister but one viewed with askance by pensioners as well.
Nor is it as though Parliament has been caught with its drawers down on this one as they had an opportunity to use the ‘notwithstanding clause’ in 2004 (under your aegis) to revoke the Supreme Court of Canada notion that ‘no legal answer is a legal answer’ in this unresolved case. Hence Parliament’s failure to act is why a lower court judge is able to let the justice system trump Parliament in this mutually exclusive case. Parliament is now redundant. There is no purpose to passing laws which the judges may ignore with impunity. Hence there is no purpose to Canadians at large voting. You must take the lion’s share of the blame for that debacle. Indeed, you are harboring a figure in your Party (John Reynolds) who was at the very inception of this conspiracy in 1985 in West Vancouver. However, it would appear that you prefer to wait for the newspaper version of anything before you act in this ‘newspaper democracy’ of ours.
It need not have been the case in the June 6/08 Hearing. All the judge had to do to put a conclusion to this long-drawn out matter was to point out that as the West Vancouver School District failed to return to arbitration - as so ordered by the courts - in 1986 after the court quashed the original arbitration, then the operant termination date would be Mr. Callow’s retirement letter in 2006 with all terms of the contract applying. Hence the public B.C. Pension Board would have had a termination date acceptable to them and that would be the end of the matter. The price paid?...defeating the Union busting decision by the B.C. Labor Board which was a bad one in any event plus the rejection of the Appeal Courts (2) in B.C. and the Supreme Court of Canada. Fewer and fewer people are surprised on that latter account in any event.
By hanging tough, besides the defeat of Parliament and the laws of contract, the court has guaranteed prolongation of this case for, as the targeted person, my statute rights of compensation and pension are intact but only at the whim of the Union who would reject any settlement without giving a reason - beyond the legal one - as to their stand. Certainly Justice Shabbitts wasn’t asking for those reasons. It is merely - and a big merely at that - that I may not personally use the Justice System of Canada to enforce those rights. Of course that’s preposterous but its now a precedent which will eat itself through ‘contract law’ for decades to come. Canada is no more.
For the conspirators? They have destroyed not only the concept of seniority among B.C. Teachers but the sanctity of a contract as well. Their current goal to undermine pension rights is now a reality. The idea that the public B.C. Pension Board may ignore a client due to the fact that anyone is estopped from suing them has been established with only this personage speaking out on this outrage. Presumably I am the first but hardly the last for a government running ‘on air’ as far as paying teachers pensions is concerned.
Hence, what will the Prime Minister of this country do?...continue to fiddle? (ducking this letter certainly comes under that heading.)
February 18, 2007
OPEN LETTER TO RT. HON. S. HARPER - P.M. CANADA
BY: Roger Callow www.employeescasecanada.com
759 Pleasant Park Rd.
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 1Y5 PHONE/FAX: (613)521-1739
MESSAGE: You may recall letters to your office from this writer on the above issue when you first acquired power in January/06. At that time, my legal Counsel in this case wrote that I had exhausted all remedy under the law to re-examine a questionable ‘lay-off’ from the School District of West Vancouver in 1985. Even the judiciary claimed I had a right to a legal decision and yet they would, paradoxically, deny me that right (imploded judiciary). See www.magma.ca/~callow for those details. The reason the matter reverted to the Office of the Prime Minister was due to a preposterous letter written under those circumstances from B.C. Premier, Gordon Campbell, in Jan./06 advising me ‘to seek legal advice’. You chose to do nothing.
It would seem under the above circumstances that some contracts have no legal sanction in Canada and that individual employment matters are of little concern to the media and Canada’s politicians. In so many words, I have been cheated out of my career as a professional teacher and there is no interest group in Canada prepared to do battle on that score. I don’t agree with that conclusion, but so be it.
Now it would appear that the same authorities (Old Boys’ Club) would like to follow up this little gem with Act II; namely, cheating this writer out of his pension rights. As I wrote you earlier, pensions - unlike employment matters obviously - are sacrosanct with the Canadian public. And yet Jack Layton and his NDP Party would turn their back on this most important aspect of this case. The Liberal leader, Stèphane Dion, also leads from the ‘top down’. I contributed to that pension in all good faith; why should it be denied to me? (Canadians at large have every right to be deeply alarmed at what is happening here.)
As there was no definitive definition to my purported layoff, I submitted my resignation by legal letter at age 65 in 2006. As per regulations, I made application to the Ontario and B.C. pension boards to have my pension rights transferred to Ontario. The Ontario Pension Board acknowledged my request (Nov. 28/06) while the B.C. Pension Board failed to respond to either myself or a repeated request from the Ontario Pension Board (Jan/07). A further prompting was made by me through Action Line (Ottawa Citizen) Feb. 02/07.
It would appear to be the same story all over again. In March of 1985, I submitted material to the B.C. Ministry of Education revealing fraud on the part of an administrator. I never heard back. What I did receive after a hastily convened ‘Bill 35', was a lay-off notice from the West Vancouver School Board in June/85 which, I submit, was shown to be fraudulently written in the ensuing arbitration later quashed by the courts with the government-appointed arbitrator being labeled as being ‘patently unreasonable’ (see original website).
It would seem ‘no answer’ is becoming the norm for the respective government authorities in Canada and there is no organization to say them ‘nay’.
In an apparent boycott of this national issue by the media and the opposition politicians, what action is the Prime Minister of Canada prepared to take? In so many words, do we live in a newspaper democracy where only the likes of Arar may expect recompense for government wrongdoing?