The media prints the prevailing views and the prevailing views are those of the authorities' PLACARD: MEDIA-TELL THE TRUTH about the E.C.
PLACARD: JUST NOT READY - GANG OF 4
employee's case IS THE Election Issue
13)The court could also rule the matter as having being abandoned by the Employer (the direction of the Plaintiff's bid in 1995 before Spencer j. who ducked out of making any decision other than to create the notion of the (mis)application of the collective bargaining rules in which I was to be deprived of personal status in the courts.)
SEE web SEPTEMBER-2015 for full account
August 28-2015 LETTER TO THE WEST VANCOUVER SCHOOL TRUSTEES - DEFENDANT QBG 1902/15
( plus Lavery, de Billy for QC reference)
1) Your acknowledgment of 'Notice of Appearance' for the above case is past due.
2) Conspicuous by its absence, therefore, is whether the Board is prepared to accept mediation processes by the court on a party by party written basis as opposed to a court hearing for one hour on Thursday Sept. 24-2015 10:00 A.M. in the Regina Courthouse.
3) The problem with these one hour hearings as evidenced in Ontario and Quebec is that they follow a similar dreary procedure: As the Plaintiff, I address the issues while the Defendant Employer addresses the technicalities which would permit the court to expunge the case without any discussion of the issues. In short, the court has become a willing accomplice to a massive fraud now affecting court processes as well as the fraud on the part of the original conspirators (B.C. Government-BILL 35), gerrymandered arbitrator later ruled patently unreasonable after the arbitration favouring the School Board was quashed leaving this plaintiff in what has turned out to be a 30 year state of limbo where no compensation has been paid, and the Union ('sweetheart deal') in which the two forces have joined to deprive this plaintiff of any finding without which compensation (includes pension rights) may be paid. That is why this legal matter is a 'standing case'.
4) The precedent set is that no Employer needs keep a collective bargaining member on salary while he/she is questioning a dismissal. That proposition destroys the Union Movement in Canada.
5) Indeed, it is a moot point whether or not the presiding justice holds an oral hearing in which I will not present any more than my written argument to hopefully an 'A-level' judge which I have asked every Chief Justice concerned including SK Chief Justice, M. Popescul, to appoint. It never happens as appointed justices duck out of giving 'due process' with a specious 'frivolous and vexatious' application.
6) I submit an 'A'-level judge will, as a matter of course, convert the hearing into a 'party by party' written basis dealing with all issues.
7) Further, the 'frivolous and vexatious' appellation is the wrong question on which the court should focus. The central question relates to my explanation of turning to courts outside of B.C. when I was expelled by the 'Cullen Creed' in July of 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge'. No appeal of this absolute action on any grounds was permitted in that document. While this plaintiff has always believed that he has access to the courts, the B.C. Courts refuse to recognize his status apart from Union representation; a point the Employer would vociferously object to claiming only the conditions of BILL 35 (since withdrawn before this sole laid case was resolved) could apply.
8) If the B.C. Labour Board had held a Section 12 Meeting as opposed to merely accepting the Union's opinion that 'they had done nothing wrong' (did they do anything right?) and the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 (Chief Justice A. Lamers d. /B.McLachlin now the incumbent CJ /and Cory j.) had held a hearing, that exposure of this most important of evidence would have, it is submitted here, destroyed the court processes in their cover-up acting, as they have done, as agents for the Employer.
9) The proper question for the courts to ask outside of B.C. relates to jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's application is based on inherent jurisdiction for which the Addendum to this letter argues plus the notion of natural justice; namely, no litigant may be left in a permanent state of limbo if a Justice System is to have any credibility.
10) In that regard, case studies cited by the Defendant are woefully inept in being applied to this case. The court should only consider those cases where a litigant from another jurisdiction wishes to plead a case in the designated province along with the fact that the litigant is in a permanent state of limbo. I don't believe there is any such legal precedent in Canada.
11) While custom dictates that a Province confine their actions to matters within their border, no law has ever been quoted in preceding court cases saying that this proposition must be so. SEE ADDENDUM on 'Inherent Jurisdiction'
12) The focus of the SK court hearing is the ultra vires condition of BILL 35 for if that point- which has never been raised before, is proven, everything that flows from that condemnation is null and void. Current demonstrated ability is undefined in BILL 35 and the law in general although for structural reasons (BILL 35 was an addendum to the Education Act and did not displace any part of that Act); it cannot be used to refer to teacher competence. The SK Court must insist on argument from the Defendant on this point otherwise the court must rule in favour of the plaintiff's argument. SEE 'Commercial Lien' extension of Natural Justice. In short, I would be returned to employment with 30 years of back salary appropriately compounded making me the oldest permanent teacher in a Canadian School at age 74.
13)The court could also rule the matter as having being abandoned by the Employer (the direction of the Plaintiff's bid in 1995 before Spencer j. who ducked out of making any decision other than to create the notion of the (mis) application of the collective bargaining rules in which I was to be deprived of personal status in the courts.
14) In the event that the SK courts follow the courts of other provinces in disposing of this case for technical reasons, other approaches may have to be made. I include, for example, international based notes on a commercial lien in order to hold the Justice System of Canada responsible should the Governor General and the 'incoming' Federal Justice Minister fail to accept their responsibilities in this legal matter.
15) In the hiatus of the Federal Election on October 19-2015, Governor General David Johnston is the de facto government until the 'incoming' Federal Justice Minister is sworn in to deal with improprieties at the Federal Court level in which I have called for the suspension of Chief Justice Paul Crampton with his replacement to put T-2360-14 alleging fraud back into play for mediation.
16) Johnston's failure to act would be the de facto destruction of democratic Canada as Canada continues to slide down the slippery slope of anarchy from which there is no return. One man, in other words, can decide it all.
17) To be sure, if the B.C. Teachers were to stand up to their corrupt Union leaders and place all School Districts into dispute thus pressuring the media and politicians in breaking their boycott on this lead Canadian civil case, a different outcome could result. As matters stand, their inaction compromises every collective bargaining client in Canada.
18) A 'standing case' is a rare legal bird indeed; the Employee's Case vs the Canadian Justice System is paralleled by the Senator Duffy Case vs The Institution of the Senate.
cc Governor General D. Johnston / 'Incoming' Justice Minister
SCofC Hon. R. Brown
QUEBEC: D. Goulet j. / Premier Couillard / BLOC / Parti Quebecois / RCMP
Lavery, de Billy esq.
SASKATCHEWAN: Chief Justice M. Popescul / Premier Wall / Regina Leader-Post
FEDERAL COURT Chief Justice P. Crampton
CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL (Hon. B. McLachlin President - never replies)
A1) The 4 points listed below are pertinent in SK case QBG 1902/15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Inherent jurisdiction is a doctrine of the English common law that a superior court has the jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it, unless a statute or rule limits that authority or grants exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The term is also used when a governmental institution derives its jurisdiction from a fundamental governing instrument such as a constitution. In the English case of Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd, Lord Diplock described the court's inherent jurisdiction as a general power to control its own procedure so as to prevent its being used to achieve injustice.
Inherent jurisdiction appears to apply to an almost limitless set of circumstances. There are four general categories for use of the court's inherent jurisdiction:
1. to ensure convenience and fairness in legal proceedings;
2. to prevent steps being taken that would render judicial proceedings inefficacious;
3. to prevent abuses of process;
4. to act in aid of superior courts and in aid or control of inferior courts and tribunals.
As such, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is a broad doctrine allowing a court to control its own processes and to control the procedures before it. The power stems not from any particular statute or legislation, but rather from inherent powers invested in a court to control the proceedings brought before it.
According to the case law in Canada, the key restriction on the application of inherent jurisdiction is that the doctrine cannot be used to override an existing statute or rule. The clearest articulation of such restriction is set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in College Housing Co-operative Ltd. v Baxter Student Housing Ltd. (1976) which was a case dealing with whether a judge had exceeded jurisdiction in determining the mortgagee should have priority over other charges and encumbrances. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a court cannot negate the unambiguous expression of legislative will and further held that:...
Inherent jurisdiction cannot, of course, be exercised so as to conflict with statute or rule. Moreover, because it is a special and extraordinary power, it should be exercised only sparingly and in a clear case.
Another restriction on the application of the doctrine of inherent jurisdiction appears to be that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to create new rules of substantive law.
The Rules of Civil Procedure in various provinces in Canada have varying relationships with the inherent jurisdiction of their courts. In Ontario the Rules of Civil Procedure are considered to be regulations of the Courts of Justice Act, and thus an expression of legislative will. They are created and amended by a "Civil Rules Committee" which consists of fourteen judges and thirteen other persons involved in the legal community including the Attorney General or his representative. The rules are subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The judges of the Court obviously have a part in the making of the rules, but the rules are regulations under the Act. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to conflict with the unambiguous expression of the Rules.
In Nova Scotia, on the other hand, the Rules of Civil Procedure are made by the judges of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal pursuant to s.46 of the Judicature Act. The Attorney General does not have a hand in their creation, and they are not subject to approval by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Court of Appeal for Nova Scotia has taken the position that a single judge of the court may use the inherent jurisdiction of the court to manage its own procedures.
A 2)There is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and
irregular exercise thereof. Every court has inherent power to decide the
question of its own jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of a court depends upon the
averments made in the plaint and not upon the defence
in a written statement. For deciding jurisdiction of a court, the substance of
a matter and its form is important. Every presumption should be made in favour of jurisdiction of a civil court. A statute ousting
the jurisdiction of a court is on the party who asserts it. Even where
jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, it can still decide whether the
provisions of an Act have been complied with or whether an order was passed de
hors the provisions of law.
Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/inherent-jurisdiction-of-the-civil-court-constitutional-law-essay.php#ixzz3k0DBWGnq
B) Extension of 'Natural Justice' Note Section Regarding Justice
The Commercial Lien Strategy - Background (International Source)
Faced with corrupt lawyers and judges, no litigant can expect to win in court by simply playing defense. To
beat them, you must be able to scare them. You must be able to make them respect you, and that means
you must be able to take the offense — attack them personally.
Unfortunately, judges, lawyers, and other government officials enjoy various levels of personal immunity
provided by both law and "professional courtesy." How do you sue a lawyer for malpractice? You hire
another lawyer — if you can find one who’ll take the case. How do you sue an IRS agent for violating your
Constitutional rights? Only with great difficulty. How you sue a judge for railroading you in court? You
As a practical matter, private citizens can’t sue the President of the United States, a Governor, judge, or
even an IRS agent for failing to obey or enforce the laws. If we try to sue in court to compel our government
officials to obey the law and perform their lawful duties, the judges routinely ignore our petitions and laugh
us out of court.
Because legal and de facto immunities shield government personnel from being sued for committing crimes
against the People, the public is legally disarmed, unable to aggressively sue the government or its agents
and compel them to obey the Law. As a result, the public’s legal posture is fundamentally defensive: we try
to duck, dodge, and hide in legal loopholes to defend ourselves against the government and the courts. We
try to escape, evade, and avoid, but we seldom counter-attack against our antagonists, largely because we
think there are no lawful weapons to do so. However, it appears that a powerful offensive legal weapon
may now have been discovered, tested, and proven for common Citizens — the commercial lien. We don’t
try to sue a government official for failing to perform his lawful duties. Instead, we simply file a lien that
encumbers the official’s personal property and credit rating like a ton of bricks until he voluntarily satisfies
our demand to perform his lawful duty, and we, in turn, voluntarily agree to excise the lien.
Some Examples of the Strategy
Example 1— Edward J. Wagner, an hourly, unionized employee at General Electric, received
They also promote and rely on the general MISCONCEPTION that any statute passed by a legislature is
valid. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail! This is
succinctly stated as follows:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no
law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its
enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal
contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ...
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no
acts performed under it ... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd §177
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional act of the Legislature protects no one. It is said that all persons
are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under
an unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take the consequences." 16 Am Jur 2d §178
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491.
In order for a law to be proper, it must be just. It must protect equally the rights of all without violating the
rights of any. There is nothing mysterious about proper law; it is based on reasonableness and common
sense, and is harmonious with the Laws of Natural Justice.
The law is whatever you give your consent to. This insight frees you from being a "victim" and a "subject," and restores you to your rightful position of power and sovereignty.
Make no mistake! The CAP is a very lethal weapon in the war against injustice. It is capable of
righting wrongs while eliminating the "cost factor" that deprives thousands of people from getting justice. The
expression "equal under the law" again has real meaning, thanks to CAP.
The Foundation Of Law
There are basically three classes of laws: The Laws of God, which encompass the Laws of Nature; The
Law of the Land, also referred to as the Common Law; and lastly there is Private Law, or man-made law,
also referred to as Contract Law.
Gradually Common Law has been displaced by Equity Law until today the Common Law is rarely heard of or understood because it has been covered up and hidden away by the legal profession....
Administrative Law is one term used to describe private law that comes into existence when someone
acquires dominion over others and can dictate to them what the law is. Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code)
in an example of Administrative Law; it and the other federal titles classified by congress as "non-public"
(administrative) laws, thus apply only to subjects of the federal government.
That portion of law which deals with the powers, rights, duties, capacities and incapacities of government
and its delegated authority. Those laws which are concerned with a government in its political capacity,
considered in its quasi-private personality, i.e., as capable of holding or exercising rights or acquiring and
dealing with property in the character of an individual.
The rules and procedures (policy) of a sovereign over its subjects. It holds that no subject can lawfully do
that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good as defined by the
sovereign. Public policy is set by legislative acts and, pursuant thereto, by judicial and administrative
promulgating of rules and regulations.
Such rules and regulations are therefore not laws but rather terms imposed by contract agreements. It’s the
contracts themselves which make these rules and regulations binding. If you are not a party to those
contracts, not a subject (property) of the government, you can make yourself a party by volunteering to
comply. But once you decide to play the game you are compelled by the rules of that game to continue to
play. Once compelled, the best out is to reassert your sovereign rights. The very concept of Public Policy
and its inherent usurpation of power from the sovereign People is so addictive and has become so widely
accepted by bureaucrats in all levels of government that they act as if they were the masters of the People.
If your legal status is that of being a sovereign Citizen your unalienable rights are being violated!
The Commercial Affidavit Process is a pre-common law process. . It is a pre-common law process because until there is a disagreement, there is no dispute. All that is being done is the establishment of claims and obligations. The purpose of the CAP is to make claims and determine if the accused agrees or not. If the Accused does not contest the claims there is no dispute to be adjudicated thus the appropriate damages are consensually agreed-upon.
Thus the "laws of commerce" refers to the just rules of procedure governing human relationships, the self-evident principles of right and wrong which are the foundation of the common law. The foundation of COMMERCIAL LAW rests solidly on the bedrock of justice and common sense. These laws are so sound and so universally accepted that they cannot with impunity be overturned, overwritten or tampered with in any way: they are founded on eternal truths, needing no proof from anyone to justify their validity (i.e., self-evident); they are immutable; they provide equal justice to all parties of interest and thus are completely fair. That is the KEY to their power. All other just laws spring from this foundation.
upon self-evident truths. Such truths are commonly expressed as maxims.
Maxims In Law
Maxims are as much a part of the laws of human relations (commerce) as a foundation is a part of a
building. They are fundamental and immutable, having their basis in God’s Laws. No one of sound mind
argues against them. They are the bedrock of logic, of reason, of common sense, of truth. They are
fundamental principles upon which all that is right, just and true is founded. They are the standards to
measure the correctness of any course or action.
The word "maxim" is defined as an expression of an absolute truth or principle. Maxims are so powerful and
unequivocal that they are the foundation of all human relationships. They have the power to cut to the heart
of a matter in a heartbeat with reason, logic, and authority. They cover every topic imaginable and every
aspect of our lives. They are not easily misunderstood, misapplied, or subverted; they are universally
accepted for what they are: self-evident TRUTHS.
Maxims might be considered the redundant backup system when all else fails.
Anyone who is not schooled in the logic of maxims is easily confused for the want of such understanding.
The legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the People ignorant of these principles: protecting the
need for their "priestcraft." Priestcraft is "the craft of specialists who work to create the illusion their craft is
too complex to be understood by anyone else."
It doesn’t take a law degree to understand maxims.
The light of truth in maxims cannot be extinguished through the evil works and craftiness of men. They may
be forgotten by many, intentionally concealed by some, but they still exist, no matter what, and they won’t
Below are maxims that surround the rightfulness and lawfulness of the Commercial Affidavit Process. This
by no means is an exhaustive list:
Regarding Justice . . .
— All are equal under the Law.
— A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
— Claims made without accountability are void.
— Might does not make right.
— Force, perjury or subornation of perjury, voids all.
— Fraud vitiates the most solemn promise.
— While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by
— You are free to make any decision you wish, but you are never free to escape the
consequences of your decisions.
— A laborer is worthy of his hire.
— Thou shalt not steal.
— Notice to the agent is notice to the principal and notice to the principal is notice to the
— Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Regarding Truth . . .
— Truth stands supreme.
— Truth affects but cannot be affected.
— Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.
— Truth will out.
— An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.
— An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.
— Thou shall not bear false witness.
— Ignorance is no respecter, it affects all without regard to position or title.
Regarding Sovereignty . . .
— It is self-evident that all men are endowed by their creator (God) with equal and unalienable
— The created cannot be greater than its creator.
— A man can give to another no more than he himself has.
— A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man’s rights.
— The People are Sovereign.
— In America the government is the servant of the "sovereign" People.
Regarding Power and Authority . . .
— We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.
Failed Legal System
Although the court system MAY have an essential part to play once the Commercial Affidavit has been
served AND ANSWERED, that system is not and cannot be invoked until the charges in the affidavit have
been answered by (1) acquiescence, (2) rebuttal or (3) default: until that point, THERE IS NO
DISAGREEMENT TO ADJUDICATE. A disagreement could arise only from a rebuttal.
But even though it would be feasible to involve the court system to adjudicate such disagreement, no one
seeking JUSTICE really would want to do so because the court system has become extremely costly, very
slow and corrupted by the conniving convolutions of man-made rules and legalisms and by the natural
inclinations of those who live from the legal system to promote the financial success of the legal business!
If any adjudication is found necessary (only in the event of rebuttal) it will be done by a common law jury
invoked at the discretion of the Claimant (see "RESOLUTION BY JURY" below). In stark contrast to the
equity court system of today, the CAP system is so effective in exposing the truth, in rendering and enforcing
justice, that it is a lethal weapon in the war for the freedoms and liberties — the unalienable rights — of the
The Commercial Affidavit Process places the full power of justice back in the hands of the common man. It
cannot be overstated that the whole Commercial Affidavit Process is not dependent on the court system. It
functions quite well on its own outside the current legal system.
It needs to be thoroughly understood that because it is driven by SWORN TRUTH, the Commercial
Affidavit Process is outside the jurisdiction of any equity court. It is a private contract matter. Should an
attempt be made to involve an equity court it would result in a trespass against the Affiant’s rights: those
interfering individuals, who were unlawfully involved, would themselves become one of the accused. An
equity court has no jurisdiction whatsoever, for the CAP is strictly a non-judicial or pre-judicial process
between individuals and is private.
This alone presents a very real dilemma for those who are accustomed to using the legal system to work
wrongs and trespass against others with seeming impunity. They can’t hide behind a legal system that only
dispenses justice to those who can afford to play the game. Those who are used to shielding themselves
under "sovereign immunity" protections, hiding behind legions of attorneys and judges, and using other "legal
tricks" now have none of this protection.
NO judge, court, law, or government can invalidate these commercial processes, i.e., an affidavit or
complaint or a lien based thereon because no third party can invalidate someone’s affidavit of truth. A judge
CANNOT interfere with, tamper with, or in any way modify testimony without disintegrating the
truth-seeking process of his profession, destroying the very fabric of his own occupation and abrogating the
First Amendment which was established to protect truth. For a judge to interfere with testimony is to
commit professional suicide and to invite countless civil and criminal repercussions. ANYONE who tampers
with testimony is a threat to the peace and security of society, violating its laws and acting as its enemy and
is therefore justifiably subject to the appropriate penalties. The Commercial Affidavit Process is by its very
nature private, and strictly between parties of interest, only. It is unequivocally non-judicial.
Accused. The Accused’s rebuttal must be done in the form of an Affidavit of Truth. That means it must be
SWORN TESTIMONY and must be signed by at least two witnesses. The Accused/Affiant must swear to
the truth, the correctness and the certainty of his or her rebuttals within that affidavit, thereby assuming
complete liability for the statements contained in it and must be prepared to prove his or her statements,
preferably with documentation that is unimpeachable.
Failure to follow the correct process of rebutting the charges or ANY ATTEMPT TO PRESENT
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT SWORN AS BOTH TRUE and "THE WHOLE TRUTH"
INVALIDATES such response as if no evidence or rebuttal were given at all. SUCH FAILURE IS
FATAL TO THE DEFENSE!
The Affidavit is a commercial complaint, but it is not yet a "criminal" complaint. The main distinction is that
by resolving the charges during the Affidavit stage, the Accused can get off by simply redressing the
grievances as specified in the Affidavit or as mutually negotiated. If the Accused recognizes his or her errors
and wants to redress the Claimant but does not have the ability to do so within the time limit, the Accused
may contact the Claimant and express that desire with a written statement to that effect. Then arrangements
can be made to stop any further action. If some such arrangements are not made, then the CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT issues adding PUNITIVE DAMAGES and JAIL TIME!
The Criminal Complaint is in reality a ledger in which those details which were omitted in the Affidavit are
(now) spelled out. It lists the causes of action, the number of counts, redresses demanded and the
MASSIVE CIVIL PENALTIES (which occur when unalienable rights are violated), thus compounding the
problems for the Accused: now, on top of the redresses being demanded, massive PUNITIVE DAMAGES
are added as well! Normally this increases the cost to the Accused by a factor of at least a hundred if not a
thousand fold. The effects of the criminal complaint invariably destroy all prospects for the future of the
Should the Accused be so foolish as to ALLOW the Criminal Compliant to be activated (i.e., fail to answer
by redressment or rebuttal), the war is over: all that remains is collecting the spoils of battle. The Accused
has lost and lost in a very big way. In all probability the Accused will never recover from the consequences.
This is true is because THE "TRIAL" WAS GOING ON DURING THE 30 DAYS
Commercial processes are fundamentally non-judicial and pre-judicial. NO judge, court, law, or
government can invalidate these commercial processes; i.e., an affidavit or a lien or complaint based
thereon, because no third party can invalidate someone’s affidavit of truth.
Constitutions as Enforceable Contracts
The Commercial Lien Strategy depends upon one "maxim" as its linchpin: the idea of a constitution as a
specific performance contract between a governing official and the people in a particular jurisdiction.
In practice, it is very difficult to prosecute a malfeasant public official. However, such officials may be
exposed to great personal, commercial liability for violating their oaths of office.
Also (according to this theory) a government official’s bond is dependent upon his legal immunity, and that
immunity is to some extent based on having a legal Oath of Office on file (usually with the Secretary of
OPEN LETTER TO GOV.GEN. (CANADA)– SEPT.27-2015
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS and PMO)
JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' teacher lay-off) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 9 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. 'Standing Cases' are a rare commodity; in this one a challenge to the entire Canadian judiciary. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future - just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case. The current case in Federal Court (T-2360-14) alleges fraud on behalf of the Respondent West Vancouver,B.C. Employer and Union plus the court processes over the past 30 years. It would appear that the Respondents misrepresented themselves to this petitioner as to the their authority. #550-17008208-157 currently extant in Gatineau, Quebec, will see if the French Canadian courts suffer from this 'English disease'. Premier P. Couillard is being kept fully informed as to court progress as well as, now, the Quebec RCMP. Sask. QBG 1902/15 (H.D. Sept. 24) has, as its focus, the ultra vires nature of BILL 35 as 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in the Act or in law in general hence anything flowing from it is 'null and void'. The SK court did not order up the 'missing memo notes' (minutes of School Trustees meetings in June of 1985 where they heard from gov't officials on all aspects of BILL 35) from Justice Southin (1986) which hold the key to this government fraud. (SK decision pending as is the procrastinating Que. Court with its focus solely on those 'missing link' notes.
A) The media prints the prevailing views and the prevailing views are those of the authorities' PLACARD: MEDIA-TELL THE TRUTH about the Employee's Case
B) PLACARD: JUST NOT READY - GANG OF 4 ( HARPER/MULCAIR/TRUDEAU/MAY)employee's case IS THE Election Issue
C) PLACARD: THE ROYAL PURPLE /MULCAIR - ASPIRES TO IT/TRUDEAU - BORN WITH IT/HARPER- COULDN'T CARE LESS
D) Lady MacBeth: What needs we fear it when none can call us to account.
HOW DEMOCRATIC CANADA SLIPPED FROM THIRD WORLD STATUS (2004) TO A FOURTH WORLD ENTITY (2015) DUE TO THE 'MISSING LINK' NOTES.
Legal Precedents set by the Employee's Case
1) Any employer may break the contract rules and deny salary to any employee while contesting a dismissal. The back of the Union Movement is broken with that condition as now the 'sweetheart deal' has been sanctioned by the legal system.
2) Any judge may act apart from the laws of the country and expect to escape censure. Every court hearing this matter is complicit by not challenging the B.C. 'Justice Cullen Creed'.
3) 'No legal answer' is now 'a legal answer' which places an end to the credibility of the Canadian Justice System.
cc Governor General D. Johnston - fall election marks the end of the individual in Canadian society due to his failure to act under 'we the people' or 'peace, order and good gov't.'
'Incoming' Justice Minister - for whichever party whom must fire Hon. B. McLachlin as a message that the government, and not the judges, run Canada
SCofC Hon. Karakatsanis
QUEBEC: D. Goulet j. / Premier Couillard / BLOC / Parti Quebecois / Que. Judicial Council
RCMP - Which no doubt takes their messages from Commissioner Bob Paulson whom, in turn is subject to the 'gray eminence' which has backdoor access to the Offices of the Chief Justices across Canada. It's time for the RCMP to act now in this matter of fraud.
SASKATCHEWAN: Chief Justice M. Popescul / Premier Wall / NDP Opp L. Cam Broten /Regina Leader-Post / SK Judicial Council
FEDERAL COURT Chief Justice P. Crampton
CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL (Hon. B. McLachlin President - never replies)
POSTMEDIA'S LEGAL COLUMNIST Christie Blatchford as a symbol of the anti-employee media silence which ends with the fall election when internet credibility will surpass that of public media credibility
4) A standing case is a rare legal oddity. For example, any civil case - other than the Employee's Case (E.C.) - which is rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada (85% figure) is left with a lower court Decision which certainly is not going to make one litigant happy but that is what passes for justice.
5) There is no lower court Decision (quashed arbitration) in the E.C. leaving this targeted employee in limbo with no compensation (includes pension rights) for 30 years despite many court challenges. SEE points 1) - 3) above as to legal ramifications.
6) In this unique situation above, this case becomes a 'standing case' in which the entire Justice System of Canada may be challenged.
7) Two other extant cases illustrate the point of a 'standing case'; The Senator Mike Duffy Case and the CBC employee Jan Gomeshi case.
8) The second part of Duffy's case forms a challenge to the existence of the Senate which judges feel most uncomfortable dealing with explaining why judges subvert judicial processes in order to avoid such challenges as seen in the E.C. That's why I submit that the presiding Justice is going to throw out the Duffy enquiry before Senate peccadilloes can be exposed in public.
9) I dare say that almost all dismissals have some collusion between the Employer and Union. Typical dialogue...'Well, we are not happy with it but as long as it is not a Union Leader, we will not oppose you but remember, you owe us one....'. However, for the Union to be involved with the collective bargaining process, a reason must be given for a dismissal which was noticeably lacking in the Jan Gomeshi case leaving him 'high and dry' to defend himself. The Union, after a long delay and publicity, decided to defend him but the central question is this one; is their defense 'gratuitous' or under the 'collective bargaining rules'?
10) A similar circumstance applies to the E.C. Are the rules of the 'collective bargaining' arrangement applicable (as invented by Justice Spencer in 1995 as a means of sanctioning a sweetheart deal at my personal expense by denying me a presence in court - only the Union could represent me - or are the conditions of the imposed B.C. Government BILL 35 to take precedence which is the Employer's argument although they do not reject actions commensurate with a sweetheart deal?
11) That constitutional question above has been raised for a first time by me in the SK version of this case should the court in the unlikely case pursue that angle.
The 'Missing Link'
12) The answer to all of the above questions in the E.C. resides in the meeting notes of June 1985 which 'apparently' authorized the lay-off of this senior teacher; the only lay-off of a B.C. Teacher under BILL 35 before it was withdrawn in this unresolved case (banana republic justice). The school trustees held meetings with lawyers and government officials to deal with this Act including a discussion of what is meant by 'current demonstrated ability'; a term undefined in law or elsewhere.
13) In Arbitration, Asst. Superintendent Bill May responsible for staffing (his testimony conspicuous by its absence from the arbitrator's report) testified that he did see the need to lay off any teacher in June of 1985 nor did he make any such recommendation under the conditions of BILL 35. In answer to the question, he replied that the request for the lay-off came from Superintendent Ed Carlin. Later figures (Freedom of Access Information - 2004) showed that 2 out of the 5 School Trustees - Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith- voted in favour of the dismissal. While the dismissal notice was filed in Arbitration marked carried; the disposition of the voting pattern was not shown. No trustee took the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers (there was an increase of 16 positions with no lay-offs made in the School Board meeting notes of June 26-1985). Obviously, they were not going to perjure themselves.
14) The above is what Justice Mary Southin read when she demanded all meeting notes but later returned them 'because she did not use them'. Hence what did the court know and when did they know it becomes the key question in this accusation of fraud extant in Federal Court (T-2360-24) against both the 'original' conspirators and the Justice System over the past 30 years before over 30 justices and 9 courts in a matter of systematical judicial abuse never before witnessed in a Judicial System. The word systematical terrorizes the authorities as the credibility of no bureaucracy can expect to survive that charge. Hence such as Ontario Superior Court's Justice McKinnon's rather hysterical comment reported on page 1 of the Ottawa Citizen (April 28-2014) that 'This must be stopped. Now.'
15) As to what really happened during the lay-off may only be surmised as the Employer steadfastly refuses to produce Justice Southin's 'secret memo notes' with court support making the courts complicit in this matter of cover-up.
16) My theory is that two former local Union Presidents approached the Superintendent requesting my lay-off at West Vancouver Secondary School as a means of protecting principal John Williams whom I had charged with fraud in materials to B.C. Deputy Minister, Jim Carter, the previous principal and colleague of Williams at West Vancouver Secondary School and himself the target of a highly publicized dismissal of a senior teacher for so-called incompetence in 1978. The Union feared the loss of principals which accounted for 20% of funds plus many principals were restless with Union membership. The last thing the Union needed was an exposure of administrative cupidity. (The administrators were separated by legislation in 1988.)
17) The selling point by this cabal of conspirators to the School Trustees was that as the conditions of BILL 35 applied to any lay-off, this target would be unable to obtain funds under the collective bargaining process from the Union making defense to a lay-off unfeasible and next to impossible considering costs aka Jan Ghomeshi story.
18) The umbrella Union, the B.C.T.F., which had proselytized BILL 35 as 'the enemy of all teachers' refused the local position to the extent that they financed the expensive arbitration and, when caught by my change of lawyers, the ensuing court challenge which saw the arbitration thrown out with the arbitrator being condemned as patently unreasonable. Without that course of supporting action by the Union, there would have been no future to the Union Movement among B.C. Teachers.
19) Realizing that she was faced with a sweetheart deal, Justice Southin had no compunction in returning those meeting notes to the Employer and Union which, to this day, those forces steadfastly refuse to provide a copy to me as well as the courts which, in turn, equally steadfastly refuse to order such revelations. I have called in the RCMP as one consequence.
The Grey Eminence
20) The 'grey eminence' is a euphemism for those conspirators whom act in arranging matters behind the legal scene in this case. This person has ready backdoor access to the Office of the Chief Justices across the country as well as to oversight bodies which is capable of derailing any politician's actions (although there have been none in the E.C. including Harper / Mulcair / Trudeau / May. The Governor General seems to be under his sway much to the detriment of democratic Canada.)
21) The judicial control usually comes in the form of judicial appointments. Suffice it to say, no 'A-level' judges are ever appointed to this case although I am keeping my option open with Justice Macaw of SK court (At least he didn't fall asleep as one Ontario Divisional Court judge did earlier as I so aptly pointed out in court much to the merriment of all...it seems an occupational hazard). The number of judicial hoops in the above regard that I have been made to leap through is, I am sure, without equal in courts across the land in this case. A complete over-haul of the Canadian Justice System is required, perhaps along the level of the 1982 Charter of Rights (protection of individuals) vs the 1867 BNA Act with its focus on the protection of private property. In any event, the E.C. is placing an end to the role of the individual in Canadian Society (including the credibility of the anti-employee media which has a national boycott on this story. The Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Sun refuse any correspondence from this writer even apart from the E.C. issue).
22) It is not only a matter of editors controlling their writers but also that the media does not have a paradigm for dealing with judicial excesses described above. For example their modus operandi with regards to government excesses is that the problems are attributable entirely to the governing body which the voters may replace. It's a nice fiction justifying their existence. That's why they are in a panic with my 'Don't Vote' placards. They have no such paradigm for dealing with a Justice System gone bad.
23) In the above regard, the Canadian Justice System has always 'been bad'; it is merely the revelation of its decrepitude that has been exposed in the E.C. much like the Senator Duffy case has done for the Canadian Senate; that is the significance of a 'standing case'.
24) By evicting me from the B.C. Justice System for no given reason under the 'Cullen Creed'; there was no place for me to go as my route to the Supreme Court of Canada was truncated which was no doubt a source of considerable legal humour until I broached my concerns in courts in other jurisdictions; courts which are busy falling on their sword due to their complete inexperience with this type of 'cross-checking' which explains why I am in new legal precedent-setting territory. To be sure, while the laws permit of what I am doing, the authorities are terrorized hence explaining why the Federal Court would seek to undermine the major charge of fraud against both the original perpetrators as well as court processes with the diminutive 'frivolous and vexatious' charge.
25) And it is not only the judges Orders which encompass the domain of the 'grey eminence' but also the Registries as well which, through an injudicious interpretation of the rules, may thwart any litigant which has been the pattern of all Appeal Courts that I have approached to date; the Cullen Creed being the worst such travesty.
26) On one occasion while serving documents in the Supreme Court of Canada, the clerk telephoned another clerk of the B.C. Appeal Court. The usual call - 'leave a message and we will get back to you within 24 hours' (never done for regular litigants except the SK courts) - was responded to within 10 minutes where I listened to the two clerks discussing with gay abandon points of law on this case normally relegated to lawyers.
27) The favourite brushing off technique is that of the telephone call - usually by the coffee tray girl - to which anything may be later attributed. Typical example is this one to the B.C. Legal Society...I am sorry, Mr. Callow, but there is nothing this Organization can do to help you in your case...Why not?...Oh, (pause) that's a good question...(pause) But I am sure that the Society must have very good reasons for doing what they do....
28) While the Federal Court would jump in with both feet denying my claim; the Quebec Court through its procrastination of producing the 'secret missing memo notes' forced a dramatic revision to my case to the SK courts. A second Quebec judge entered the scene running 'a court within a court' which has complicated matters for the Couillard government. The issue in Quebec was devoted solely to attaining those memo notes. How could the court reject my submission, I argued, without seeing those notes which, of course, would place them in my hands. The court just froze up as it was clear the grey eminence was at work.
29) 'The problem with you', as once stated to me by a legal advisor,' is that no-one knows what you are going to do next.' That is true because I don't know what I will do next. For example, should I institute an action against the B.C. Government including the Employer on my side as both of us have been abused? That way, the money paid to the School District by the government could cover the cost of my settlement which is about to increase from the current $6 million figure.
30) The above matter will rest with the 'incoming' Federal Justice Minister (barring GG intervention) whom has no support from any of the four current Parliamentary leaders so that it is immaterial which one becomes P.M. It is a Herculean task and, from what I have viewed from Canadian politicians, an impossible one for them. Perhaps an international seeking Pulitzer Prize writer is the best that will ever come from a country now functioning as a 'Fourth World entity'. Canada will forever be the judicial laughing stock among civilized nations as the hoax has rebounded on the hoaxers.