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:
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.
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.
Early Resolution Officer
of the Ombudsman of Ontario | Bureau de l’Ombudsman
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.