ORAL ARGUMENT - Nova Scotia employeescasecanada. ca Oct.2017 (469918 Nov.29-2017)
1) The constitutional question raised in this court case is the single most important challenge to the operation of government as it relates to the judiciary in Canada.
2) This hearing is limited to only the constitutional question which should be conducted by Referencing with the appropriate specialists. Any attempt to thwart that challenge by the Nova Scotia Courts will not only heavily redound not only against Nova Scotia courts but the entire Canadian judicial infrastructure.
3) While this case is in the form of an ex parte application (without a defendant); an earlier action listing the B.C. Employer was thwarted by Justice Suzanne Hood (458698 April 2017) in which Hood j. did two things; a) she made a sworn affidavit a meaningless piece of paper calling into question the value of precedent law in Canada, b) her apparently innocuous action was sufficient to show that the court for a first time was heavily biased in favour of the Employer; an extant condition for 32 years in many other courts of law although not 'proven in court' until now. (Earlier, the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society refused an examination of this patently fraudulent Employer's 'Book of Authorities' ('B of A') leaving that chore to Hood j. She failed to conduct that examination and was reported to the NS oversight body concerned. The 'error of omission' was effectively supplanted by the 'error of commission' by her. There was no acknowledgment of that complaint. The matter was referred to the Prime Minister of Canada as a consequence. (This B of A with its origins in ON was played out through courts in QC and SK and not heard at the Supreme Court of Canada (36883 QC & 36993 SK)
4) In 458698, the egregious conduct of the B.C. Employer with its B.C. legal counsel, as noted above, asked the court to dispense with this action for no given reason (nor is any cited in Hood j.'s Decision). They did not address the legal concerns posited for that hearing by this plaintiff. That's a disgraceful performance by any defendant hence forcing this revised ex parte application. The court should not entertain any further attempt by this Employer to put in another appearance.
IMPOSED LEGISLATION and court review
5) Imposed Legislation functions on both a Provincial and individual level:
a) The provinces, for example, are subject to imposed legislation from the Federal Government. SK with its resistance to the carbon tax and various provinces with MB being the last hold-out to forced changes in the Health Measures Act; are two such examples. The provinces failed in their endeavor for 'unseen' reasons; probably bullying. A third CUPE case being appealed against the partial sale of HYDRO 1 assets in ON as a 'cash grab' by the Liberal Party was stymied because the court had no precedent regarding imposed legislation.
b) individuals such as this writer whom was laid off in 1985 under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 where the Employer refuses to recognize court overview. (other imposed Provincial actions in education were in ON's 2013 and NS's 2016 although only B.C. acted on the matter in this sole senior teacher lay-off in West Vancouver in June of 1985. No compensation (now includes pension rights) has been paid which belong to this plaintiff whether it be under the 'collective bargaining' procedures, BILL 35 conditions, or any other court mechanisms related to the issue.) In brief, there can be no process without judgment but that is what has happened in this 32 year litigation effort leading to the charge of systematic judicial malfeasance.
6) The Canadian Judiciary imploded in 2006 when the SCofC failed to hear a second challenge under the provisions of ultimate remedy (SEE web employeescasecanada.ca) 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law' wrote my legal counsel. Since that time, the courts have been operating on 'judicial air'; an untenable position for any Justice System and government in the developed world. An inclusion of this letter to 'Mr. Donald Trump' is on the 'individual' level as I believe that all international influences should be forewarned about the desultory nature of the Canadian justice system.
7) There was court review of an arbitrator's decision in the above case in which the 1985-6 arbitration was quashed with the arbitrator being labeled patently unreasonable. The point here is that this Employer refuses to recognize court oversight. While the Employer enunciates their arguments regarding the stand-alone nature of BILL 35 in many courts of law; no court of law has seen fit to include their argument in its decision. It just doesn't exist in this kafkaesque world of judicial cupidity. The chicanery of the Canadian Judiciary on this latter level is something to behold in many different courts as outlined on this litigant's web site: employeescasecanada.ca
8)It is submitted here that if the court in its wisdom does not rule in favour of imposed legislation being subject to court overview; then what is the purpose of having courts of law at all as capricious governments will impose all legislation. Under these conditions, Parliament will have no meaning. I have likened the situation to the Fall of the Roman Empire just before the generals took over. Lady MacBeth says it best...'What needst we fear it when none can call us to account?'
9) A copy of this oral argument is being sent to the PMO. No copies are being sent to the Chief Justice of the NS Supreme Court or Premier McNeil ...what's the point?
10) The conference telephone call should be very brief: the presiding justice is going to forward this matter to Referencing or not.
TO: Governor General of Canada FROM: Roger Callow
ATTN: Julie Payette - PERSONAL #2001-1985 Cahill Drive
Rideau Hall Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
1 Sussex Drive t./fax: 613-521-1739
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A1 e-mail: email@example.com
REFERENCE: Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Halifax No. 469918 ex parte hearing Nov.29-2017
to approve the hearing of the constitutional question relating to the relationship of the courts to imposed government legislation; the single most important legal question in Canadian jurisprudence.
1) Your personal observations regarding 'origins' was not greatly appreciated in some media quarters: a) 'So as much as Payette may want to speak out on policy, for the good of Canada, she can't.' firstname.lastname@example.org Nov. 5 p.20 b) 'The problem with such views isn't their validity or merit. It's that the referee shouldn't stick their nose into the game.' O.S. editorial
2) But wait, help is on the way in a matter in which you may and probably must speak out.
3) In the event that the presiding judge on Nov. 29 accepts the Referencing request from me for a panel of NS specialty judges to hear this matter, there is no crisis for Canada. Regrettably, an earlier hearing 'thwarted' by Justice Suzanne Hood in April 458698 in which an untested highly illicit sworn affidavit on a Book of Authorities was ignored by her court with ramifications across Canada. That disaster does not bode well for the current case although it is to be noted here that the matter this time is proceeding on an ex parte basis.
4) Hence this 'heads up' to you is for your information prior to the November 29 hearing date.
5) For the Employee's Case, the difference is minimal as to the outcome of this Referencing. As matters stand, the Employer refuses to recognize court oversight which quashed the arbitration regarding my teacher lay-off in June of 1985 claiming that the imposed BILL 35 was the sole determining factor in all matters regarding my lay-off.
6) Be that as it may, BILL 35, the collective bargaining rules, and other court functions relating to compensation all declare that compensation must be paid.
7) If the courts (50 judges including 4 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada (issues not heard) and governments (up to and including the executive powers of P.M. Justin Trudeau) had taken their responsibilities in this case where no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights for 10 years now as the Employer did not respond to my resignation at age 65), I would not be pursuing this matter in a Nova Scotia Court which is limited to this constitutional question. Further action will take place outside of Nova Scotia, providing that they do not screw up again.
8) If the court refuses to send this issue for examination, as Governor General, you must sanction (Magnitsky Act?) Nova Scotia for until this matter is sorted out, no-one should accept an award from the Office of Governor General nor, for that matter, should any be offered.
Roger Callow self-represented litigant
A NOVA SCOTIA SUPREME COURT LEGAL FABLE - NOVEMBER 29-2017
'It's amazing, Keller thinks, the human capacity - perhaps born of need - to establish a sense of normalcy in the most abnormal conditions. They live in a virtual war zone, under a constant state of threat, and yet they've evolved into doing the little routines that make up normal life....
"It's the new journalism"...Some call it the democratization of journalism, others might call it anarchy. The problem is there's no accountability...there is no editing process to separate fact from mere rumor....'
The Cartel Don Winslow
COURT CLERK: Hear ye, Hear ye, in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court on November 29 in the year of our Lord 2017, called to address the constitutional question as to whether the courts of law have oversight authority over imposed government legislation. Justice Two Feathers presiding.
TWO FEATHERS: Come up to my side bar, Outlawed Canadian, as you call yourself but I will merely refer to you as Outlaw; not a bad moniker for what you've done to Justice in Canada. You don't mind if I speak directly to you do you? (If you do, it will be the first time in 32 years that a judge has so spoken. Outlaw)
1) You look the academic sort so I will leap to the chase with Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor whom patiently explains in a monologue to his prisoner just how he has messed things up before the authorities with his Second Coming... much like you challenging the court's 'non-decision' by yattering 'there can be no process without judgment'.
2) In short, who is going to run the world - the vested authorities which in Canada, means the court system of (bless her ermine robes) Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin or, the 'troublemakers' ? Unless you are a George Washington with reams of teacher followers (where are they, anyway?) , don't even think it.
3) Yeah, I read your list of judicial yobos assigned to fall on their sword in this case...they are merely doing what they do on a daily basis on 'individual' cases although, when viewed in totality, they have revealed themselves as just that - yobos.
4) So balanced against hordes of angry teachers is my duty not to bring the law into disrepute...which surely would happen if I permitted the constitutional question to be heard thus exposing the rear ends of over 50 past judges on this matter to contumely...and that would never do....
5) It is the business of the courts to make business for themselves as evidenced by the recent CUPE $54 Million Educational win in Ontario on essentially the same constitutional question (I know, I know, your case expands beyond mere 'collective bargaining rules'). While the courts are backlogged with Family Matters which, while not a shooting war like Mexico above, nonetheless, is a war with an ever growing human toll in Canada... but back to my point; the above case took 5 years earning massive doses of legal billable time fees for the respected brethren of our judicial fraternity.
6) Now if I follow you correctly, you wish to ride up on your tricycle and do the same 'court thingy' at a fraction of the cost. May I refer you to the deceased Gerald Bull story and what happened to him when - with his giant gun - he was going to launch spaceships without the need of all that firecracker Cape Canaveral infrastructure which is still covered regularly today on TV as a reminder to little future 'outlaw' Gerald Bulls?
7) So if I step in the judicial 'doo-doo' as you would have me do; all hell will break out - NOT. From a philosophic point of view, you must realize if an issue falls in the middle of a forest and there is no media to report on it, does it exist? Of course not, the novel above is proof positive of that point as well as the Canadian media boycott on your national story.
8) The real question is why the courts would reduce themselves to oblivion by approving of the right of governments to play an end game around the courts. But here's the point; we are not going to let that court hearing take place for if I prohibit this case from going forward leaving the status quo; namely, an open situation where powerful forces may use the courts to their own end as long as we judges permit it; the Canadian Justice system sails on despite your claims of systematic malfeasance. For 32 years, you have not been permitted nor should you expect to be permitted to 'have your day in court'. In short, it is a truism that in the halls of Justice, all justice is indeed in the halls and no schmuck will ever be permitted to prove otherwise. End of sermon. End of outlaw...at least in this court although I recognize you have other equally nasty alternatives.
The Preceding was written on November 02 in a bid to find that one professional Canadian teacher (union leaders omitted) willing to create a blog: TEACHERS AGAINST IMPOSED LEGISLATION which would operate apart from the Employee's Case. Time is fast running out, teachers. Think of the alternative....
cc Governor General Julie Payette
TO: NS Supreme Court Scheduling Office FROM: Roger Callow - litigant
ATTN: Donna Vickery-scheduling officer #2001-1285 Cahill Dr. E.
Halifax Law Courts Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
1815 Upper Water Street tel/fax: 613-521-1739
Halifax, NS B3J 1S7 e-mail: email@example.com
REFERENCE: Halifax #469918 Hearing Date: November 29-2017 via teleconferencing
1) After receiving your e-mail with the docket number to which I confirmed my availability for the court on November 29-2017, I received in the mail an 'annotated' printed copy of my factum with the above file number.
2) For example pages #1-7 have had page 6 culled from the copy along with pp.09-13 which includes my oral argument.
3) Of greater concern is the omission of Exhibit A (Book of Authorities) PP 14-45 containing the all important copy of B.C.'s BILL 35 July 01-1985 (lay-off letter June 26-1985) raising the question as to how serious is the court in handling this extremely important constitutional question?
4) For this reason, a complete dossier pp.01-45 is being sent to the court. The first act of business before the court will be to ascertain the presence of these documents.
5) Further, the court is reminded that only a 'yes' (matter to be referred to constitutional specialists) or 'any other answer' is permitted; namely, that the court is not forwarding the matter for examination.
6) Reading between the lines, the Governor General should be prepared for a negative court response creating a cataclysmic debacle for democratic Canada.
7) At this time, as per regulations for constitutional questions, I am notifying the Deputy Attorney Generals for Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and Canada with the assigned file number and date of hearing.
cc Governor General Julie Payette