FEDERAL COURT SCAM
February 13, 2015
RESPONSE TO FEDERAL COURT VANCOUVER PROTHONOTARY ROGER LAFRENIÉRE ORDER IN T-2360-14 FEBRUARY 11-2015 BY THE PLAINTIFF, ROGER CALLOW
1) Why was a Vancouver Prothonotary appointed by the Federal Court in Ottawa to pre-empt an issue awaiting a written pre-evaluation in a labour matter before an Ottawa judge in the above case?
2) Assuming that a Vancouver Prothonotary was the appropriate individual to handle this matter, which this plaintiff considers highly unlikely, why was Prothonotary Lafreniére assigned this task considering that earlier actions by him in T-1386-11 were labeled 'highly irregular' and are part of the allegations of systematic judicial abuse included in the current accusations of fraud against the original perpetrators as well as the processes of four court systems?
3) In absence of any stated answer from Chief Justice Paul Crampton whom has been apprised of all recent developments before the Federal Court as well as Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is the claim that no judge nor prothonotary whom values his reputation will sit on this case. As Lafreniére's reputation is already compromised, perhaps the thinking is that nothing more can be lost.
4) Prime Minister Stephen Harper should consider the specious actions on the part of the Federal Court above to have emanated from the Office of the Chief Justice, Paul Crampton, whom has been kept apprised of all recent developments as has the Prime Minister.
5) The only appropriate action by the Prime Minister, if his government is to retain any credibility as to maintaining 'law and order'; is to immediately assign a trustee to the Federal Court to oversee all actions in this issue.
6) A belated response to the above request is tantamount to undermining any credibility the Tory government may hold in a significant way with the general public.
REBUTTAL (R.) to Lafreniére's Order (L.) dated February 11,2015
7) The tenor of L.s account in both T-1386-11 and T-2360-14 is much the same; namely, that while not directly rejecting arguments made by this plaintiff, he casts aspersions on the presentation of material as being a 'mish mash' and not deserving of court attention.
8) 'The plaintiff has not filed any submissions in response to the motion' in which the Respondents sought an Order striking the Statement of Claim.
R. Completely false as a detailed submission in terms of 6 Motions of Record have been filed; the most recent on February 09-2014. Five of those Motions were reconfigured to comply with Federal Court Rules. Lafreniére could not help but be aware of the existence of these copious details on the alleged matter of fraud on the part of the Respondents (including the earlier actions of the currently assigned lawyers) as well as four different court systems including the Federal Court of Canada raising the question as to why a B.C. prothonotary is assigned the task of handling possibly the single most important civil case in Canadian jurisprudence.
9) What L. has done here parallels his earlier action in T-1386-11; he has pre-empted the judicial processes in Ottawa although it should be noted in that earlier case that Ottawa Federal Court judge, Justice Mosley, rubber-stamped L.'s decision in yet another secret hearing. The Appeal process was mired in the usual confusion with a Harper newly appointed Chief Justice Crampton in 2009 failing to remedy this matter.
10) 'The Statement of claim is certainly not the model of clarity.'
R. Standard locution for any authority seeking to diminish an account.
11) 'For the purpose of this motion, the Court need not concern itself with extraneous complaints and should only consider the allegations made against the Defendants themselves'.
R. This statement holds the crux of the Federal Court Order: namely, like Caesar's wife, the courts are above any examination of their own conduct for what has been labeled by this plaintiff as systematic judicial abuse. Inclusion of the above statement forms part of this continuing judicial chicanery as L. would depend on the dictum of Lady MacBeth: 'What needst we fear it, when none can call us to account.' Most certainly L. would not hold the court to account which explains why the Prime Minister must intervene.
12) 'The essence of the claim against the Defendants appears to arise from a labour relations matter dating back to 1985 when the Plaintiff was laid off from his teaching position. Other than a bald allegation of fraud, the pleading is devoid of any material facts disclosing any known cause of action against the Defendants.'
R. L. implies all this happened so long ago that time has mitigated any claim that the plaintiff might have. The so-called 'bald allegation of fraud' consists of a court-quashed arbitration favouring the employer with the government-appointed arbitrator labeled 'patently unreasonable. Leaving the plaintiff in limbo with no compensation flies in the face of any number of laws; particularly the failure of the employer to return to litigation as so ordered by the court after the Employer refused to return employment as recommended by the court. If the above does indeed constitute 'material facts' as is the allegation here; then L. should be removed from his job for incompetency.
13) 'Fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and it is not allowable to leave fraud to be inferred from the facts.
R. In the Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 (second failed attempt to gain a hearing; the first being in 1997); an allegation was made for the first time as to the corruption of court processes. If the SCofC had heard this case, then the 'secret memo notes' of Justice Southin in 1986 (she requested all meeting notes from both the Employer and Union regarding this lay-off and later returned them 'because she did not use them') would have been made available. That is why this plaintiff filed a sub-poena for those records; an action to which L. makes no reference hence he has become part of the problem as opposed to the solution in that regard.
14) 'Even if the allegations of fraud were properly pleaded, the cause of action against the Defendants is plainly and obviously not within this Court's jurisdiction.'
R. This is a 'on-two' punch put-down. By dismissing the allegations outright, L. believes such ensuing language as the superlatives 'plainly' and 'obviously' are justified to pursue further argument. One of the Motion Records submitted is devoted solely to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it applies to court jurisdiction. L. is possibly not aware of that document as Ottawa headquarters would not appear to have forwarded that Motion Record to him hence his case falls completely flat. His three points of statutory law, as such, are woefully inept under the circumstances.
15) 'In particular, the Plaintiff's claim does not rely on the breach of any federal law.'
R. While the charge of fraud against the judiciary is not explicitly stated in any court system; it is a generally accepted rule that the charge of fraud takes precedence over the laws of any one court system. In agreement by me with Ontario Superior Court Justice, Colin McKinnon, whose Order (#13-59060) is the only argument filed by the Union (which did not participate in any of the four Ontario hearings; two under Appeal) claims that only the Supreme Court of Canada can deal with the question of fraud regarding court processes. 'How do I get it there considering that the SCofC only hears matters from the highest court, I asked?' He had no answer. Further, the law was breached outside of Federal Court such as in B.C. where this plaintiff is prohibited from any court in this unresolved legal matter by judges 'for reasons best known to themselves' which explains the appeal to outside courts under the provisions of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'. L. avoids any mention of those concepts in his Order.
16) 'Being substantially in agreement with the written representations filed on behalf of the WVTA, which I adopt and make mine, I conclude that the Statement of Claim should be struck as it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants.'
R. The highly specious McKinnon Order which is the sole argument of the Respondents is, as noted in the Motion Record, under appeal as well as referenced to the Canadian Council of Judges (CJC) for apparently fraudulent activity on the part of McKinnon and a second Ontario Superior Court judge along with the Ottawa legal firm, Hicks, Morley,et al on behalf of the Employer. Hicks, Morley no longer represents the Employer. At the very least, L.'s conclusion is premature until we have that CJC ruling.
17) In conclusion, this Order by L. should never have been written as all three parties were in agreement to abide by a written pre-examination by an Ottawa judge in which the many facets of this case could be studied. In particular, the new element introduced in the latest Motion Record relates to the status of the Union in this case; namely, do they represent this plaintiff under the Collective Bargaining Rules which appears to reflect their actions or do they have no role to play under the Collective Bargaining Rules as asserted by the Employer under BILL 35 conditions?
18) Considering that the Federal Court acts on behalf of federal employees and that the Federal Court precedes Provincial Labour Jurisdictions; a very real argument can be made for their participation, L.'s assertions notwithstanding.
19) The Judiciary continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole under the suzerainty of a 'blinkered' Parliament and a gullible anti-employee media. With those two entities on side, why should the bureaucracies toe the line with their 'kill the messenger' mentality? I cannot perceive of an Order written like this one without the explicit direction of Chief Justice Crampton as mentioned above. Unless Prime Minister Stephen Harper takes decisive and immediate executive action, the credibility of Canada and its Justice System will be a foregone story. The media is taxed with challenging Harper directly and immediately on this letter. Surely 35 million Canadians deserve better?
cc Prime Minister Rt. Hon. S. Harper
Chief Justice Hon. P. Crampton