TRANSCRIPT #13-59060 APRIL 10-2014 McKinnon j.



1) 'Law itself is a fight against the arbitrary'

2) 'That would be a shame, wouldn't it, Vic? A corrupt opinion becomes law.'

 The Racketeer  John Grisham

3) '...There is a lot of this sort of thing about: People arbitrarily declaring issues "settled" about which there remains room for doubt...How should we tell the difference?...But mostly it is a matter of judgment.'  O.C. Apr. 22-14 A10 Andrew Coyne columnist

4) 'Yeah, right. I've never bought off a judge before but in this case I'd do whatever it took.' Smokin' Seventeen  Janet Evanovich  


A pejorative definition by the defendant, Roger Callow

1) As the defendant in this case, I requested #30,000 maintenance ('legal tomfoolery' in answer to the judge) against the Applicant for an alleged act of fraud by lodging a separate action as opposed to a defense of #13-58607 which was registered earlier and set for May 15, 2014 until the McKinnon Order cancelled that hearing. It is a general principle in law that two proceedings may not be handled in tandem. In this case, the defendant laid a second action with the sole purpose of defeating the first action which I call fraud. I would have had no problem, as I stated in court, if the defendant had lodged their material in a more proper fashion  for #13-58607 to be heard May 15.

2) The transcript is a poor second to what was a lively debate and should have been attended by the media. Instead, what we got was an Ottawa Citizen page 1 article on April 28-2014 regurgitating McKinnon's judgment noting, from my website, that I was going to appeal this 'wacky judgment' to the Canadian Council of Judges, which I did. Neither of my Right of Reply were published by editor Andrew Potter which was unprofessional and irresponsible. Call it purple journalism. It would seem that the O.C. would, one and at the same time, sanction the judicial record as being the legitimate 'final word' on an unresolved legal case, while declaring that the O.C. is the flagship on pack media interests. The Montreal Gazette, in replicating this report, were 'ready, aye, ready' to conform.

3) In general, the defendant legal counsel was permitted to present his case without question while I was continually harangued from the bench much like a 'Judge Judy' who has taken one too many gavel hits to the head. With that much said, some salient features can be noted.

4) The court should have, but did not, ask why the Defendant did not place all their arguments into the original #13-58607 where I would not have questioned their presence. The appearance given was that the Defendant was complicit with the court in handling this case in this most unorthodox fashion. No-one, other than myself, would be aware of minor discrepancies on the part of McKinnon j. which pointed to a judge very well primed on certain background details not in the materials before him. Indeed, the common ground in this case suggests that someone has the power to walk in the back door of the office of the Chief Justice (6 of them) and order events. My private appeal to Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur to see to the appointment of the top Ottawa judge apparently fell on deaf ears.

5) The core reason as to why this matter was presented in an Ontario court under the provisions of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice' parallel two earlier unsuccessful bids to the Supreme Court of Canada (SEE PREAMBLE SCofC) to be heard leaving this target in a permanent state of limbo (arbitration quashed) where no compensation regarding his senior teacher lay-off in 1985 has been paid which flies in the face of the collective bargaining rules. 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law' was the preposterous conclusion of my legal advisor to this second 2004 SCofC appeal under 'ultimate remedy'. That is when Canada sank to Third World status for 'there can be no process without judgment'.

6) In the above Preamble, an assertion was made that, apart from the original alleged conspiracy, was an additional conspiracy 'of the judicial process'. Obviously the judges did not care to look into their own conduct. Legalities since that time - in B.C., the Federal Court, and Ontario courts consisted of court actions seeking to derail a Third Appeal to the SCofC which would bring into sharp juxtaposition their earlier perfidy. In essence, the SCofC has been able to hide behind judges and Registry figures as well as Attorney Generals and the supine Justice Minister, Peter MacKay; politicians who would turn a blind eye to this lead civil case which, under McKinnon j. has seen the justice system corrupted to an unimaginable level. I make no apologies for my accusations of fraud against the Employer, the Union and the judge who concealed damning memos in 1986. The current fraud is that of the Justice System collectively as it seeks at every turn to deny me my rights not only under the collective bargaining rules but also under the rules of 'natural justice'. That cover-up is, again, part of this massive government fraud of systematic abuse rubber stamped by our courts of law corrupting, as it does, innumerable judges.  In this assertion, I have left out the original fraud of the school administrator for which my whistleblowing started this caper in the first place. To bastardize McKinnon's j. perspective: This must be stopped. Now.

7) When McKinnon cancelled the main event of #13-58607 slated for May 15, he provided a rationale for something that does not exist. 'Denying a negative'; a logical impossibility, obviously has no meaning to him raising my question of his 'cowboying' #13-58607. First of all, he claimed, one and at the same time, that I must first seek the 'permission of a judge to proceed' while cancelling out the hearing denying that right. This type of legal casuistry is certainly not confined to this hearing as many examples abound in this 29 year saga, but it does stand out.

8) The most grievous of his errors was failing to recognize the Defendant Employer's request to discuss all issues and declare that the Employer had no fiduciary responsibilities to this target. That was their purpose of requesting a separate hearing. The court did not give them that request thus implying that the central issue regarding the efficacy of my lay-off in 1985 and consequent compensation (no compensation - including pension rights - has been paid in this case contrary to collective bargaining rules) is still an active issue.

9) As noted copiously in the transcript, McKinnon j. in his bombastic style continually rejected the use of Ontario courts as a means of accessing the Supreme Court of Canada for a third time; the only court competent to analyze all issues which would re-introduce the role of the Union. I have included them in my Appeal submission as that level of court is little more than a 'speed bump' due to the SCofC insistence that their interpretation of Section #40 regarding matters to go before that court must first be satisfied.

10) The argument I have with McKinnon j., other than cancelling #13-58607 for which I believe the Council of Judges should suspend him from the bench for 'cowboying' that hearing, is his abject failure to appreciate the significance of the 'Cullen Creed' (no 'permission of a judge')and its ramifications to this case as well to the justice system in general. A little background is required here.

11) In September of 2010, I laid an action (S10609) in B.C. Supreme Court (BCSC) asking for 'interim pay'; monies belonging to me apart from judicial findings as I should never have been curtailed from salary until after a conclusion was reached in my case. I left it to the court and the only two they would recognize - the Employer and Union - to duke it out for a settlement. My response was the 'MacKenzie Creed' (BCSC associate deputy minister), an undocumented Order which dropped S10609 for 'reasons best known to the judge'. In effect, her Order was to disappear down the same black hole as S10609 leaving the judicial register merely to read: 'Action dropped due to failure of the Plaintiff to proceed' implying failure solely on my part. Other than possibly the Ottawa Citizen, most would view that spurious action with disdain. She did include the all important 'with permission of the judge' should I proceed in court. The B.C. court failed to recognize my application forcing me to look elsewhere which I did first with the Federal Court and then before the courts in Ontario in cases heard earlier due to a registry screw up at the Federal Court level.

12) On July 23,2013, a second Order from an associate Chief Justice of the BCSC, Alistair Cullen (the 'Cullen Creed' which was the subject of Justice McKinnon's court) was laid with a docket number dating back to 2010 in which he also denied this plaintiff from court access 'for reasons best known to himself'. He did not - and this is the essential point which McKinnon j. and the Defendant would gloss over - include the all-important 'with permission of the judge to proceed'. That's anarchy which any judge in any province should be able to speak against. McKinnon j. said nothing although his own Order included 'with permission...' .

13) This weakness was also evidenced by Hicks, Morley et al by imputing reasons to the judge's action which are not extant in that Order (similar to earlier hearings regarding the 'MacKenzie Creed'.)

14) The central point being raised here is that while I rejected the MacKenzie Creed; I accept the more noxious Cullen Creed as evidence of the B.C. courts abandoning this case hence compensation may apply but due to the prohibitive nature of the Cullen Creed, I must seek remedy elsewhere in Canada. The appropriate place is, as McKinnon j. implies, the SCofC but how do I get it back there? He had no answer referring to the two earlier rejections apparently as being valid for this third submission; which it is not.



15) Many years ago, I tried to list my itinerant older sister (d. 2001) with the RCMP as a missing person only to be told that they acted only on reference from lower police forces. As her last known location was Boulder, Colorado, I had much difficulty in making that registration although, knowing the circumstances, the police official obliged by listing her as missing although no assets were assigned to investigate. As a result, the RCMP was able to locate her later in Canada. Similarly, much to the chagrin of such as McKinnon j., I must use the lower courts to reclaim access to the SCofC; the only court which can resolve this problem.

16) As McKinnon j. was expecting to be pilloried by me as well set out by the Defense; don't let me disappoint. In hoary old Ireland, a condemned man had to give his name before being dispatched. I am sure that Justice McKinnon who wished that, at least, I spell his name correctly, would under similar circumstances, not only be permitted to give his name but to spell it as well. Me? I would have to respond 'West Vancouver Teachers Association' which is my legal identity at least in B.C. in a case where the Association threw me under the bus.

17) Missing from the salacious inclusion of my newsletters in the official minutes was a Defendant reference to one of my protest placards: IMPEACH SCOFC BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN. McLachlin sat on the 'universality of unions' question which plagues this case (what to do in the event of a sweetheart deal?) with the then Chief Justice Antonio Lamers (d.). That's where the cover-up was condoned; when they refused to hear this matter. Later, I listed her as having a 'conflict of interest' (Form 25C since repealed) when she presided as Chief Justice in 2004 over the 'ultimate remedy' provision. To be sure, the Justice System is fighting tooth and tongue to block a Third Appeal; in McKinnon's words...'Callow must be stopped. Now.' In such an eventuality of a SCofC hearing, McLachlin will be asked to recuse herself, 25C or no 25C form.

18) Indeed, McKinnon j. could just as easily have blasted the Employer rather than myself for wasting court time as well as undermining the course of justice with his appeal. The proper place for the Plaintiff's factum was as a Defense for #13-58607 slated for May 15-2014; not a separate hearing held in tandem.

19) By selectively choosing internet material to accuse this Defendant of 'bringing the law into disrepute; Hicks Morley et al raises two interesting points. First, all legal counsel are officers of the court and are prohibited from doing anything which would bring the conduct of justice into dispute (hence my claim of 'fraud' by laying this second action in tandem with the first). By representing myself, I am not an officer of the court. Hence the validity of internet material in court is an open question.

20) It was the Employer in earlier court cases whom first used such internet material as evidence without any complaint from the judges. Hence, as stated in my recent Appeal of McKinnon's j. Order, I no longer feel any compunction not to include this information as well, as it serves in stark contrast to the dreary recital 'of the facts' which the judges would rely on to  be posted to the judicial register. (Judges like to have the last word.) While I try to obey court decorum, such phrases as 'the clusterfuck case' in referring to this case has no 'generic' equivalent as it describes most aptly a matter which has proceeded through 8 courts and still remains unresolved. I have sought to ameliorate the 'Statement of Facts' by calling it a 'Pejorative Background' which, incidentally, is far closer to the truth of this matter.

21) The courts attempt to 'ghost' this case e.g. by refusing to hear the matter as is the case of the SCofC or of diminishing its importance through such as the 'frivolous and vexatious' charge are two time honoured mechanisms which the courts would use (or abuse as the case may be) in order to manipulate the Justice System. The problem here is that - for a first time in Canadian jurisprudence - they have been caught abusing the system with dire ramifications.

22) Considering that the SCofC can hear such 'insignificant' issues such as an union employee refusing to give her address to the Union, surely - if I can get around the Praetorian Guard - the SCofC can hear a case which has placed the entire nation in jeopardy seriously questioning the value of the law as applied to any individual.

23) The fact that such as the 'absolute' Cullen Creed may be given tacit recognition by the McKinnon j. court is reflective of a court which has been smashed in its entirety due to the omission of the all-important 'with permission of the judge'. That is anarchy. The fact that the anti-employee media, in terms of the Ottawa Citizen, has lent credence to these spurious legal activities is proof positive that the media has thrown in their lot with a compromised justice system. And without a viable media, there can be no democracy. Canada is dead.

24) If nothing else, the employeescasecanada.com should be required reading for all law students on the first day of class. That way, the professor may continue on the second day with the 50% of remaining students.


cc PMO  

SCofC Hon. R. Wagner