A template for typical institutional
bureaucratic BS
REFERENCE: Callow
letter to the Ontario Ombudsman Office regarding the Franco Alulio
Algorithm which steals not only one's driver's license but
attendant Identity in such fashion
that one has no access to the laws in any
legal matter = death of Cdn. democracy and
beyond. SEE Sub-heading 2021 NOV.12 rogercallow.com 3 pages
A) The Letter:
Oct. 13-2021
TO: ON Ombudsman FROM: Roger Callow
483 Bay St. 10th Floor #2001 - 1285 Cahill Dr.
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C9 Ottawa, ON. K1V
9A7
cc. P.M. Trudeau via fax web: rogercallow.com MEDIA sept & oct.
encl. A) Driver License suspension plus
analysis
B)NEWSLETTER oct.
15-2021
To whom it may concern;
(edited letter Oct. 12-2021)
2) The B.C.
Ombudsman sent me a booklet outlining where the provincial legislature may be
involved with the ombudsman which does not include judicial actions. In brief,
they are limited to institutional individuals 'running amok' which is surely
what Ontario's Franco Alulio did in October of 2019
by inserting the term 'psychiatric' in a driving suspension without any
apparent authority.
5) This
issue is the 'crime of the 21st century' with its extension of Identity Theft as this native born
Canadian is without a legal identity; a first in the civilized world since the
1942 Nazi Wannsee Conference in which the 'Final
Solution' was sanctioned.
6) 'Blowing
me off' is a popular institutional escape hatch which I label 'Institutional
Autism' in which Institutions speak only to other Institutions with little
regard for individual interests. Public anger is growing on this level on
myriad topics but herein lies the 'get-out-of-jail' free card for any rogue
civil servant whom would pervert the course of democratic law & order. As
such it is a 'deal breaker' involving Cda., the U.S.
and Western Europe.
...ACTION REQUIRED
2) For the
Human Rights Commission to pass the following Resolution:
THE CALLOW
ACT
That no citizen born in a country may be deprived of
his driver's license in such fashion to invoke the suspension of his identity
thereby depriving him of any access to the law. All such suspensions must be
channeled through the appropriate government structures such as Parliament and
the law courts.
3) As I have
exhausted all alternatives to challenge this issue with such as the courts of
law in Canada and the current Governor General and Prime Minister to act, I
feel duty bound to protect the driving public from the crime of the 21st
century world-wide. I may be the first, but to be sure, not the last if the Franco
Alulio Algorithm is not rooted out and
destroyed.
Yours truly, I remain,
Roger Callow 'individual without a country'
B) ON Ombudsman Response to 2), 5) & 6)
above:
Submission to Our Office – File No. 228188
Inbox
|
Thu, Nov 11, 3:45 PM (13
hours ago) |
|
||
|
||||
Dear
Mr. Callow,
I received your
submission regarding the Ministry of Transportation and the court system. I left you a
voicemail on October 19, 2021, as I was hoping to speak with you to convey the
following information.
The Ombudsman is an independent and impartial
Officer of the Ontario Legislature with authority to review and investigate
complaints about the administrative conduct of municipalities, universities,
school boards, and provincial government organizations, as well as the services
provided by children’s aid societies and residential licensees, and the
provision of French language services under the French Language Services
Act.
The Ombudsman
Act gives the Ombudsman the discretion to decide whether or not to
review a complaint, based on several factors, including whether there is
another adequate remedy available. We are intended to be an office of last
resort. This means that individuals are normally expected to first address
complaints to existing complaints processes and appeal mechanisms before our
Office will intervene.
If
you have not already done so, you may wish to contact the Driver Medical Review
Office at the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) by phone at 1-800-268-1481 or by
email at drivermedicalreview@ontario.ca. Should you contact the
MTO and remain dissatisfied, please feel free to reach out to our Office again
as we may be able to review the responses you received to determine our role.
Our
Office does not have direct authority over the courts or decisions of judges.
Consistent with our role as an independent and impartial Office, we cannot
advocate for or provide legal advice to individuals with respect to their
complaints. Should you wish to seek a legal opinion, you may contact the Law Society Referral
Service at
1-855-947-5255 and they will provide you with the name of a lawyer who will
provide you with a free consultation of up to 30 minutes.
I
hope that this information will be helpful to you. Thank
you for contacting the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario.
Yours truly,
Talitha Kozak
Early Resolution Officer
416-586-3527
Office
of the Ombudsman of Ontario | Bureau de l’Ombudsman
de l’Ontario
1-800-263-1830 - Complaints Line | Ligne des plaintes
1-866-411-4211 - TTY | ATS
C) My Reply to Ombudsman (O) letter B)
1) Apparently the term 'complaint line' is moved
sideways to becoming 'my submission' thus putting the O. in the driver's seat
hence diminishing my complaint at the outset. If I were successful in my bid,
the bureaucracy would report that 'as that particular employee has moved on';
please resubmit your claim to the new advisor (to receive the same answer to be
repeated, if necessary 'ad nauseam' until the 'old boy's club' answer gets
through to you.)
2) Appointing females for this task to address
male complainants is a universal as perhaps 'sex appeal' might work where all
else fails.
3) Of course I did not pick up the telephone by
which you could impute any record to further your corporate cause hence you
were forced to take Plan B and send a written response. Your letter appears to
suggest that I am at fault for forcing Plan B as you intended to resolve
everything apart from writing although I am sure your private memo would be
summed up thus: got rid of old crackpot
which could lead to a personal promotion for you.
4) Second paragraph reads like you are quoting the
Bible which would support my contention that my complaint does indeed come
under the purview of the O.
5) Third paragraph is the usual bureaucratic 'buck passing' to sidetrack an issue
with its discretion to decide... BS.
6) How helpful in paragraph 4! Yet another
bureaucracy with its own sidetracking techniques. Why not forward the complaint
- oops, submission of a complaint to the following for their observations:
a) Premier Ford - Is this a 'clear and present danger' to the
ON driving public (as he was the initiator of FAA)
b) A.G. Doug Downey - which laws are justified for FAA? (never any response)
c) Dept. of Transport - Medical, Deputy
Minister Franco Alulio asking why there wasn't any legal rebuttal to
the $10 million action laid against him with a copy to the Ottawa Chief Justice
asking why no docket time was assigned to this legally registered matter?
...ah
yes, no need to do the above as long as your 'my submission' superimposed over
my complaint, is made to comply.
7) I have already done Paragraph 7 and the answer
came back loud and clear... even to your tone-deaf ears: I have no legal identity which no bureaucratic body nor the courts
nor gov't. nor Governor General will address. Hence
this concluding paragraph is the most specious of all.
8) As to signing off as 'I hope this is helpful to you'; I am reminded of the old
salesman's dictum: ' I would like to help you out... which door
did you come in?'
Yours
etc. Roger Callow Canadian citizen whom
had his citizenship stolen from him.