TREASON - ( CV20-849830 APR. 15-2021)


BY:                                           THEME: COVID 19?...MOVE OVER AND MAKE ROOM FOR 'MORAL COVID'


signed off by Ottawa Justice Kristin Muszynski (M)


As many of the points are of a technical nature and therefore of little interest to the public, I place an * beside the more gross errors as ones to be noted. (R) for my RESPONSE



1) opposed to my court request to drop the matter in that the 'Bobbsey Twins' (internet label) merely stated a desire to discuss all issues without being specific about even one = hence they were the ones being frivolous & vexatious.

2) Mr. B. is a named defendant in a civil action commenced by Mr. Callow. R. Where are the court file Numbers?= sloppiness. B. is a lawyer  R. No court details as to qualifications  given as I requested for both B. and his representative, Ken Dixon of Cavanagh LLP. (No evidence they were ever called to the bar).

*3) This application is not about the termination of Mr. Callow's employment as a teacher in B.C. in 1985. R. As M. knows, civil cases are about compensation which has not been paid in the 35 years of this unresolved labour case. In brief, M. would sanction the right of Employers to escape their legal obligations in that regard; a major legal re-direction. This application is not about whether Mr. Callow's driving privileges were suspended lawfully, his involuntary committal to Ottawa General Hospital, or whether his repeated requests for documentary disclosure from physicians were appropriate. R. This is the nub of the current case in Ontario as the listed matters stem from an illegal driver license suspension (Franco Alulio algorithm) in which he perverted the suspension forms to deprive me of my driver's license for 'reasons best known to himself'. M. would whitewash that 'Final Solution' typical of Nazi Germany earning her the accusation of treason. We live in a car society and anything which unfairly deprives us of that privilege needs to be pursued to the fullest extent of the driving public in the world. I have appointed U.S. Professor & SUN columnist, V.D. Hanson, to be the international 'point man' in this 'clear and present danger' to the driving public. I would go so far as to say M. should be shunned by her brethren in the legal fraternity for this stunt. Further, a medical file belongs to the patient, not the doctor or clinic which was the nature of the dispute under B. As matters stand, I cannot get a new doctor without my complete file which the Ottawa Police refuse to seize on my behalf. To say that M. is looking through the 'big end of the telescope' in this Decision is an understatement.

4) I have no jurisdiction to decide any other matters which Mr. Callow has litigated in the past nor authority to stray from the procedures set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure ...and the Courts of Justice Act  R. Why not? Merely 'throwing the Bible of Court dictums' against me without specifying which rules are being allegedly breached is preposterous.

*5) The issue that I must decide on this application is whether Mr. Callow should be declared a vexatious litigant and, if so, what reasonable measures would be required to protect the administration of justice from Mr. Callow's conduct. R. Herein lies the crux of the conspiracy. If M. had permitted my action against B which preceded his inverted form to proceed where I was the Applicant; presumably M. could be expected to write something along these lines: Legal Counsel bringing the Justice System into disrepute by their actions must be pursued to protect the administration of justice (from M.) The cupidity found here sets a dangerous precedent. For example, rather than being the Defendent against the gov't. against fraud charges, SNC Lavalin could invert the process such as we find here so that the gov't is placed on the defensive for being frivolous & vexatious. Then arrange for the appointment of M or her ilk. M's wording presages a guilty verdict for Callow.


*6) The applicant submits that the purpose of s.140 of the CJA is to honest citizens, litigants, (apparently the Bobbsey Twins would include themselves here) who continually abuse the court's process by engaging in frivolous & vexatious litigation. R. Detailed accusations by me of fraud dating from 1985 which the Applicant filed in court one week before the hearing tells it all but not a peep out of M. on this level.  What she does do is to quote generalizations from the Applicant regarding myriad charges of the Respondent being deemed frivolous & vexatious (correct as over 50 judges refused to rule on the question of compensation. Nor does M., leaving powerful Employers to escape their fiduciary obligations; a major shift in the law as noted earlier) Further, the applicant points to Mr. Callow's complaints to administrative bodies regarding physicians, lawyers and judges that have crossed his path. R. That is why Canada collapsed as a nation as these oversight bodies are badly flawed. In the words of city guru, Jane Jacobs; 'a society goes rotten when its institutions decline'. M. would merely be an apologist for something the Romans recognized in the decline of their Empire. Surely the proper course for so-called maligned individuals is to lay a charge of slander in open court. No-one has ever done so.

*7) Mr. Callow declined to participate in the hearing of the application when the court refused his request to adjourn the hearing and proceed by way of written questions from the bench. R. This is as close to a lie as M. knowingly comes. She makes no mention of the technical glitches where I was unable to hear all participants in this ZOOM-Telephone conferencing call not sanctioned by her blessed rules. Secondly, she makes no recognition of the single most important point in the Franco Alulio Algorithm; namely, that as the affected Party, I have no identity in that no lawyer will represent me leaving me to request that the Governor General under 'we, the people' should represent my interests in court although I would have no problem giving written answers as a witness to questions from the bench. But here's the point. I would have had an opportunity to respond to everything M. declares so that the above Decision would not be the final Judicial draught as it would be tempered by my comments ...and that would never do for these conspiracists.


8) - 16) detail Hearing matters on Feb. 11 (postponed by Pierre Roger j. to Apr. 08 (Musyznski j.) without any mention of my 'identity problem' (which isn't in their rules which they are so fond of quoting).


17) Section 140(1) of the CJA provides:  (a - d) not quoted here.  = general rules dating from 1990 (before internet)

18) Lang Michener  Lash Johnston v. Fabian  typical in court billable time battles where one side quotes one section to the others selection from the same case: (a) - (g) would basically favour my contentions: e.g. (e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the Court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action; R. The Employee's Case was always about compensation which was never paid because the judges failed to deal with the disclosures related to that issue. Locally, M. is guilty of not asking for key disclosures regarding the ON Legal Society's silence on filed information of fraud against both lawyers as well as asking for disclosure regarding the Franco Alulio algorithm. The problem of disclosure in Canada, the bedrock of habeas corpus plagues more than just the Employee's Case; it is a national disaster which has been exposed here with all the King's horses and all the King's men not being able to put this Humpty Dumpty together again. Thus M. is barking up the wrong tree...and I submit she knows it along with other conspirators. All she has to do is read my material dating from 1985 as filed by the applicant here.

19) I agree with the Applicant...all but a) and g) are applicable. R. How so? M. does not say on the others. I have shown e) with a definition supporting me. I could do it with all the others.

20) This case study is superfluous on Goodlife Fitness  Centres. The key phrase is 'someone unreasonably obsessed with a cause' This tar brush is used further along in the SUMMARY with this highly volatile invective: 31) Mr. Callow is a passionate individual (Is that the kind of pejorative language they now teach in Law 100 'woke class'?). This is evident from his cross-country legal battle (not defined in her Decision as she would ghost those actions. Indeed, ghosting is the appropriate label here.) that went on for decades until he ran out of options. I did not run out of options; the Ottawa court did when they refused me court time for filed actions prompting my desertion of the cause: The Employer won; I didn't; and the public lost the entire Canadian Judiciary. He is similarly passionate about the circumstances relating to the suspension of his driver's license. That statement, under the circumstances, is treasonous. However, Mr. Callow's passion (nothing like a little repetition to make one's point) has become a destructive force in the lives of individuals who cross him (and the Justice System) and the justice system more broadly. It is time for this to end. R. Just exactly what does 'this' refer to? The previous unsubstantiated blather of M?

21) '...None of Mr. Callow's efforts have been met with success, but that has not deterred him. R. M would view this as a criticism. If you lose your case, you are a 'loser' type of thinking. Unfortunately many in the Canadian public buy into that philosophy having veterans 'ding their duty' role over in their graves.

22) B. without my knowledge or consent, diverted a case into an illicit 'agreements court which I had against the medical clinic for my medical file, with the co-operation of the Ottawa Courts. M. badly misconstrues those events which my filed information  would elucidate (she never makes any reference to this detailed fact here.) As regards 'Callow is a deadbeat' not paying his court assessments: I have never received an invoice from the opposition and hence in 35 years, I have not paid a single court charge. So who is paying? I asked the North Shore News to investigate. I submit no invoice is sent (including B.) as the opposing litigants do not want extortion added to my charges. The section on COSTS at the end is so much codswallop as M makes me out to be a deadbeat. Ottawa lawyer, Paul Conlin, acting on my behalf stated that in 2003, I was current with my legal expenses from 1985 for all sides. He further volunteered this statement: 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law'; an indictment of the preposterous Justice System. In brief, the Justice System was wrong in this unfinished case which the courts at one time ordered back for further adjudication. No judge would do that. Over 50 gave the M. answer. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) is a dead letter as one consequence.

23) Other factors...a. Mr. Callow was declared a vexatious litigant in Ontario in 2014.... If M had read from my notes any of the three separate Decisions by Colin McKinnon j. (federal court appointee), none referencing the other two (Would the real Colin McKinnon please stand up?), I still do not know which of the 3 was filed, if any, or if one was filed only to be withdrawn later; all due to the Canadian Council of Judges refusing to acknowledge their oversight legal mail. No matter to M, as this travesty of Justice is sanctioned by her by the fact that all 3 used the same frivolous & vexatious conclusion. Go figure.

*d) Mr. Callow's correspondence, and print outs from his website contained in the record, includes baseless and damaging allegations of conspiracy and fraud against individuals with no supporting particulars (my underlining). R. Straight B.S.

25) On the evidence before me, (while wearing horse blinkers), I am satisfied that the public and the integrity of the justice system require protection from Mr. Callow. If I am not mistaken, that selfsame public is not as enamored of the Canadian Justice System as M would make it. And whom is willing to protect the public from a capricious Justice System? I invite those dissidents to add this PLACARD to their public protests: JUSTICE FOR CDN. ROGER CALLOW adding, please no violence to people.

28) No one has suggested that Mr. Callow should be stripped of the right to commence litigation in perpetuity. (A good one considering that I cannot have a lawyer). M goes on to say with the necessary court authorization, I may proceed. What is she afraid of here? How about this one. What if the ON Legal Society finds the Bobbsey Twins guilty of Fraud subsequently to this Decision? Why then, Mr. Callow can reapply etc. etc. This is 'cover your ass language, for M's failure to call for this all-important disclosure. It strikes an appropriate balance. R. Yeah, for but for who?

*29) B. wants my CV20-82889 against him for fraud dismissed. I decline to do so...The appropriate remedy on this application is to stay all litigation commenced by Mr. Callow until such time can obtain an order granting him leave to continue the same. R. Never going to happen as M. knows. This is payback for B. filing my complete dossier from 1985 thus upsetting M's game plan. She is still at fault for not giving a court Order to the ON Legal Society.

30) M asks me to give this Decision to any appellate court before continuing a proceeding. R. She taxes my imagination on this one.

ORDER (1-6)

31) To file a special pre-court hearing for any prospective case. R. Now the reader knows why I vacated Ottawa Courts as of Dec. 31-2021 turning to non judicial appeals to publicize the evils of the Franco Alulio algorithm to the driving publics of the world as I must run 'a court within a court' in the first place to be heard in the second place.



The Message from the authorities is clear. We have all the power, Mr. Callow. You have none; it's a truism common to the world but people in other countries risk their lives for what they believe in. Not so in Canada. That is what makes us political cowards. There is nowhere in Canada to appeal. Deputy Minister Chrystia Freeland is the symbol of all other political M.P. and MMP eunuchs. The media with its midwits has sold out on this issue which is why I insist that my website address: appear in all articles. I will continue to battle the Franco Alulio Algorithm apart from the law courts but that would seem to lie with street protesters. Of course it goes without saying, that Kristin Muszynski j. becomes the poster child of legal chicanery without equal in Canada. Maybe she is what Canadians deserve to have as a judge considering the silence the Employee's Case has engendered from all quarters. And the real joker? I had already voluntarily closed down the Employee's Case as of Dec. 31-2020 as I did not want defiance to become denial in my remaining years (79). I even dropped the case against the Bobbsey Twins in Feb. telling both the judge and the two lawyers that there would be no repercussions. Hence the hearing above was redundant...but I always figured Canada and Canadians were ruled by idiots. Now a whole new can of worms has been opened. Move to the front of the class, M. This time, the battle will be on my home turf of the internet which, no doubt, is the next thing that the Justice System would seek to control to parallel the gov'ts. Bill C10. Gee, just like China.


Respectfully submitted,  Roger Callow  Amour de cosmos but not Canada


cc U.S. Professor V.D. Hanson - SUN columnist and now, the international 'point man' for the Franco Alulio algorithm.