Stultification Within the Legal Profession, Administration of Justice
and Government That Perpetuates the Last Democratic Fiefdom
© 2008 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
Some governments maintain their dictatorial, despotic or totalitarian paradigm of governance through violence and fear. Others do it with organized religion or rely upon ancient tradition and custom. Canada’s rich and powerful and Chinese, found another way in addition to using the "climate of fear": institutionalized stultification.
‘Stultification’ in a Canadian governance context used in the Fiefdom treatise research project is defined as follows:
“Stultify” is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “to be of unsound mind; to allege one’s own insanity in order to evade some responsibility; to cause or appear to be foolish, ridiculous or absurdly inconsistent; to render nugatory, worthless or useless”. […] What better characterization of the paradigm of governance prevalent on all levels of federal and regional eco-political power. To the country’s ruling elite and nepotistically connected, the bureaucracy was proactively evolved over the generations to become incredibly efficient, potent, speedy and competent. However, ministers, MPs, MLAs, judges, lawyers and police fake the loss of intelligence and demonstrate an incapacity of critical insight.
The proposition can also be stated in this way: instead of employing widely accepted standard principles of reason, logic and common sense or the law, sound policy and academically accepted methodologies of analysis when rendering decisions in government, law enforcement and forums of accountability, officials render opinions without any care they are devoid of merit, are perceived as blatantly biased and are transparent as who and what interests, agendas activities and relationships they protect, nurture and strengthen; or in the face of complaints and allegations that involve the public interest become hostile, engage in whistleblower retaliation and reform and accountability sabotage or are non-cooperative and turn mute.
This institutionalized practice was observed throughout the treatise dissemination initiative and, most troublesome, by those who operated the country’s accountability institutions.
With the administration of justice being concluded to having an instrumental role in ratifying and protecting violations of Thee Security of Information Act the legal profession was one of the first recipients during the August 2007 commenced edification campaign. The Canadian Bar Association was first contacted. The now former president of the British Columbia branch, Frits Verhoeven, wrote on July 18th:
This is in response to your letter to me of July 18, 2007, enclosing several other documents. I note the same or similar material has been sent to numerous other organizations. I thank you for drawing your concerns to our attention. However, having reviewed your letter to me and at least some of the accompanying documents, it is clear to me that the matters of concern to you do not fall within the role of the Canadian Bar Association.
He received several hundred pages – the twenty page cover letter and the condensed version of the research. He issued his response within hours.
His shockingly poor treatment led to taking the matter up the administrative ladder to the CBA’s national office. In the disciplinary complaint filed with the Law Society of Upper Canada, the following was documented, stated and argued:
On Friday afternoon, July 20, 2007, the Ottawa CBA’s office manager, Caroline Charlebois, was spoken to and provided a truncated version of the evidence; advised Mr. Verhoeven’s treatment was unsatisfactory; and the member would be contacted directly on Monday.
On Monday, July 24th, the member was hostile in the extreme from the outset, repeatedly refused a brief summary and demanded the matter be summed up in as short a time as possible. Within one and a half to two minutes the conversation was over.
Having exhausted the appeal at that level of administration, the President and two Vice-Presidents were contacted by e-mail: Sent: July 30, 2007 10:39:01 AM,; To: jpmaccarthy@rlr-law.com; Sent: July 30, 2007 10:48:20 AM, To: bamyot@heenan.ca; Sent: July 30, 2007 10:53:21 AM
I wanted confirmation that the three recipients had received the entire e-mail so I phoned Caroline on or about July 30th asking her to contact each of them to get said confirmation. The matter was not revisited for three weeks because she attended the CBA’s annual convention in Calgary.
On Tuesday, August 21st she was contacted to follow up and she advised she had been instructed by the member to provide no assistance with respect to confirmation. Corroboration that the member was behaving in an obstructing manner came on Thursday, August 23rd when another call was made to her. The inquiry this time was seeking information about how members of the executive obtain their positions (i.e., elected, nominated). She advised she was not allowed to cooperate.
It is respectfully submitted there is sufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary proceedings against the member for the aforesaid violations of the CBA Code of Professional Conduct.
No other government or quasi-governmental official or individual contacted to date employed such a level of hostility as the member – indicative at minimum of having loyalties and seeking to protect interests and cover for officials and individuals involved in the two secret agendas; and at maximum evidence of complicity to perpetuate them.
The member has held a very important and nationally high profile position in the country with respect to the administration of the legal profession and justice for eleven years. His failure to engage the research findings, conduct investigations, collaborate with colleagues and mandate committees reveals not stultification as contextualized supra, but leads to the conclusion he has no interest whatsoever to engage in what Chapter XIII [of the Code of Profession Conduct] requires.
Mr. Hoyle’s reaction amounted to stultification. The organization’s President was silent. The response came from one of the VPs:
I found it neither informative nor factual. [...] Your writing seems to be quarried in the negative.
Dr. Kevin Caroll QC LSM, 2nd Vice-President Canadian Bar Association
The other original recipients were all members of the Senate. The first official response arrived on August 24th, the Leader of the Senate of Canada, Marjory LeBreton (1993, Cons.), stated about the litigation’s unchallenged facts and research findings:
While your commentaries make for interesting reading and are well written and articulate, I have seen no evidence during my time in the Senate or while working for the government to support any of your contentions with respect to the government of China and the government of Canada.
[…]
There is no doubt that there was a time when nepotism was a significant factor in making appointments in Canada, but that has been a diminishing force at all levels of government. Canada’s New Government has been working to reduce political influence and proposed what is now the Federal Accountability Act, which includes the creation of a public appointments commission to oversee, monitor, and report on the selection process for appointments to government boards, commissions, agencies, and Crown corporations.
Her stultification was consistent with reactions – including outright hostility, whistleblower retaliation and reform sabotage – and silence from several senators during that first month, in September and throughout the next eight months: St. Germaine, Jaffer, Campbell, Fairbairn, Mitchell, Tardif, Dyck, Merchant, Peterson, Mercer, Corbin, Kinsella, Oliver, Phalen, Stratton, Cools, Eyton, Kenny, Munson, Poulin, Dallaire, Dawson, DeBané, Fraser, Nolin, Baker, Banks, Cordy, Downe, Watt, Robichaud, Murray.
Here is one example of the kind of implicit hostility and non-cooperation that comes from patronage appointments with undying loyalties. Senator Percy Downe was, inter alia, Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Chrétien and his Director of Appointments:
I acknowledge receipt of the documents you forwarded to our legislative assistant, Diana DeLong. I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with Senator Downe, and he suggests that you call on your local Member of Parliament. We now consider this file to be closed. I would ask that you not contact Ms. DeLong, as we are not in a position to assist you in this matter.
Thank you,
Jenny Bascur, Executive Assistant/Adjointe de direction
fice of the Honourable Percy E. Downe
The dissemination initiative was directed at provincial and municipal political figures. Being a British Columbia resident there was a constituency jurisdiction issue relevant to making contact. On August 30th, the B.C. Legislature’s Vice-Chair of the Committee on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct, Diane Thorne, stated:
I cannot see any information for me to follow up on. I believe your concerns can best be addressed by medical professionals rather than a Member of the Legislature.
Various relevant members of B.C. NDP Opposition Leader Carole James’ party were contacted in August and September. One day the receptionist indicated she had instructed all her MLAs to have no contact with the lawyer.
Speakers and senior staff of most provincial legislatures were added to dissemination list. This is one response:
Kindly refrain from sending me spam emails forthwith.
Ian Izard QC, Clerk to the Speaker of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly
Acknowledgement of receipt of Fiefdom treatise submission and reactions to same from law societies were sparse; coming from only two. One came from the Law Society of Upper Canada; the Executive Director declined to get involved. And this reaction and all the other mutes from the law societies are collectively stultification:
I automatically delete without reading anything you send me (October 4, ’07)
Deleted immediately (January 14, ’08)
Perfectly delighted to delete this unread (February 5, ’08)
Peter Ringrose, Executive Director, Law Society of Newfoundland & Labrador
Accountability pursuant to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission process was triggered. The RCMP officer in charge of the file halted his subordinate’s investigation before all the documentation submitted had been read. His assessment was as follows:
Upon review of this material, [your allegations appear to] be based upon your own research and opinions…
Inspector Paul Darbyshire M.O.M., Professional Standards, RCMP Public Complaints Division
Vice-Chairman of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, lawyer Brooke McNabb issued a report on what was litigated.
[T]here is no question that Mr. Kempo’s present complaint is vague and speculative in nature. Moreover, it is unclear how his claim relates to the RCMP in any real or concrete fashion. Accordingly, after reviewing the information, I find that the RCMP’s decision to terminate the investigation, pursuant to paragraph 45.36(5)(c) [of the RCMP Act] was reasonable.
During the summer of ’07 a complaint was registered with the Vancouver Police Department’s Professional Standards Branch (i.e., Internal Affairs). Sergeant Jeff Harris was assigned the file. He was stultification in the extreme. His arguments were nothing more than ramblings of a teenager, rather than that of a seasoned, experienced law enforcement officer. Eventually, he put the position of the department in writing. In a March 27, 2008 e-mail he states:
[Y]our complaints/allegations are not within the scope of any form of Police Act investigation I can conduct nor do they pertain to anything under my investigative umbrella. They are written in what I shall term "extreme legalese" and are essentially undecipherable by anyone but a Supreme Court Judge.
I told you that I would not entertain any allegations/investigation from you unless you were absolutely specific about a particular VPD member on a specific day and not allegations about millions of Chinese agents infiltrating Canadian business and politics.
As you will remember you pleaded with me to continue receiving your e-mails as you stated every time you send one to me, Government agents intercept them and after reading them, you feel these agents will be kept "in line" as they can see you are "watching" them. I agreed to receive them and have been saving them as I said.
[…]
With this in mind I hope your quest to bring down the Chinese government and right the "wrongs" that you perceive to have happened to you come to fruition.
Take care.
Sergeant 1633 Jeff Harris, Professional Standards Section, Vancouver Police Department
In late autumn ’07 both the Attorney General of British Columbia and Canada were formally asked to investigate. The former’s immediate subordinate states on October 1, 2007:
Your e-mail dated September 27, 2007, and attachments, received by Allan Seckel, Deputy Attorney General, and David Morhart, Deputy Solicitor General, have been forwarded to me for response on their behalf.
Staff in this ministry have reviewed the materials that you have provided and we have concluded that your allegations have no legal merit. Therefore, we have decided not to investigate the matters described in your correspondence. If you have reason to believe that someone has been involved in criminal activity, the proper course of action would be for you to report your allegations to the police. If the police determine that an investigation is warranted, they will conduct one.
I wish to advise you that neither the Deputy Attorney General or the Deputy Solicitor General will be responding further on this particular matter.
Thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Argall, Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General
pc: The Honourable Gordon Campbell, David Morhart, Allan Seckel
A review of the decision was requested of the B.C. Attorney General. His response, dated December 3, 2007, was to sustain the position of his subordinate:
Thank you for your e-mail dated October 12, 2007, addressed to my Ministerial Assistant, Mr. Michael Harrison. I am responding on his behalf. I understand that you are requesting that I put in writing whether I support the position taken by Ms. Elizabeth Argall, Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Legal Services Branch, in her e-mail of October 1, 2007, which responded to your e-mail of September 27, 2007.
I note your allegations regarding the DND, the RCMP, CSIS, municipal police forces and others with respect to an alleged military alliance between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China. In her October 1 e-mail, Ms. Argall explained that ministry staff have reviewed your allegations and determined that they have no legal merit. I have faith in that determination. Therefore, we will not be investigating your allegations any further. As Ms. Argall also mentioned, you should report any allegations of criminal wrongdoing to the police with jurisdiction. I trust that this letter explains my position. I will not be corresponding further with you regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Wally Oppal, Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism
pc: The Honourable Gordon Campbell, The Honourable Michael de Jong, The Honourable John Les, Mr. Michael Harrison, Mr. David Morhart, Mr. Allan Seckel, Mr. Brian Sims
The response from the federal A.G. on November 5, 2007:
On behalf of the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding various issues. Please be assured that your correspondence has been brought to the attention of the Minister and examined by appropriate departmental officials. However, I must advise you that the Minister is unable to assist with these matters in any way.
Thank you for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Maureen Murphy, Chief of Staff
In late 2007 and early 2008 law society disciplinary complaints were filed. Lawyers have been at the highest levels of the Canadian federal government for the last forty years, including prime ministers non-stop from 1968 to 2006. It is therefore impossible for two centuries of nepotism and patronage driven corruption and thirty-five years of Chinese totalitarian principles, values, beliefs and loyalties not to have been injected into and become thoroughly engrained in the ideological fabric of the country’s legal profession, Attorneys General and courts. Source: Systemic Corruption and Chinese Loyalty in Canada’s Administration of Justice; and The Ethical Responsibilities and Obligations of Lawyers in Public Office and as Members of Legal Profession Organizations Based on carefully collected and assessed evidence, the Law Society of Upper Canada received complaints against the following:
|
Jean Chrétien 2007 – 53544 Paul Martin 2007 – 53688 Irwin Cotler 2007 – 53720 John Turner 2007 – 53748 John Hoyles 2007 - 53749 Herb Gray 2007 – 53777 Robert Rae 2007 – 53943 Joseph Day 2007 – 53944 William Graham 2007 – 54104 Tim Murphy 2007 - 54133 William Davis 2007 – 54547 John Manley 2007 - 53721 Robert Nicholson 2007 – 54951 |
Douglas Lewis 2008 – 64180 Francis Fox 2008 – 64182 Jean Blais 2008 – 64183 John Campion 2008 – 64184 John Rowinski 2008 – 64185 Robert Fox 2008 – 64186 James Pengelly 2008 – 64187 Ward Elcock 2008 – 64188 William Elliott 2008 – 64189 Robert Granatstein 2008 – 64190 Eric Elbidge 2008 – 64191 Melanie Kiszegi 2008 – 64192 Walter Palmer 2008 – 64370 |
|
Michael Rankin 2008 – 64193 Norman Bacal 2008 – 64194 Peter Kevin Doody 2008 – 64195 Robert Bell 2008 – 64196 Robert Cranston 2008 – 64197 Roderick Barret 2008 – 64198 Ronald Caza 2008 – 64199 Sean Weir 2008 – 64200 Kirby Chown 2008 – 64201 Peter Lukasiewicz 2008 – 64202 Wayne Kerrick 2008 – 64203 Barbara McIsaac 2008 – 64204 Marie Ouimet 2008 – 62938 |
Michael Whitcombe 2008 – 64371 Marilyn Appel 2008 – 64372 Margaret McNee 2008 – 64373 John Campbell 2008 – 64374 Jacques Demers 2008 – 64375 Grant Jameson 2008 – 64376 David Dunlop 2008 – 64377 Andrew Kent 2008 – 64378 John Carr-Harris 2008 – 6437 Brooke McNabb 2008 – 64575 William Beattie 2008 – 64576 Don Kwon (no file number) |
Other complaints were filed against the following:
Law Society of British Columbia: Vanda Rea Black, Tom Zworski, Sinclair Mar, Richard Heiser, Rose Keith, Mobina Jaffer, Patsy Scheer, Kenneth R. Curry, J. Parker MacCarthy, Ian Izard, Frits Verhoeven, Frances Connell, F Kenneth Walton, Carmela Allevato, Allan Seckel,
Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society: Anne McLellan, Elmer MacKay, Jerry S.T. Pitzul, Julia E. Cornish, Kevin A. MacDonald, Alison Davidson
Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador: John Crosbie, Ken Watkin
Barreau du Québec: Brian Mulroney, Marc Lalonde Donald Johnston, Maxime Bernier, Stéphane Rivard, Bernard Amyot, Véronique Saulnier, Louis Brousseau, Benoit Lussier
Law Society of Manitoba: Annette J.R. Horst, J. Guy Joubert, Michael J. Law
Law Society of Saskatchewan: Michael W. Milani, Michelle Ouellette
Lawyers from the country’s largest law firms who were concluded on the evidence to be linked to the Chinese (i.e., members of the Canada China Business Council or indicating on their websites they serviced the Chinese government or wealthy Chinese companies and nationals) also faced complaints; filed with their respective law societies:
Blake, Cassels & Graydon Montréal: Norm Saibil; Vancouver: Bill S. Maclagan and Peter C. Kalbfleisch
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Montréal: John G. Murphy; Ottawa: Peter K. Doody; Vancouver: Deborah H. Overholt
Bull, Housser & Tupper Vancouver: Herb Isherwood
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP Montréal: Jacques Fournier
Davis & Company Montréal: Michiko Hara and David W. Rothschild; Vancouver: Brian F. Hiebert
Fasken Martineau Dumoulin Quebec: Claude Auger; Vancouver William Westeringh
Gowling, Lafleur & Henderson LLP Montreal: Robert Dorion; Vancouver: Shayne Strutkoff
Heenan Blaikie Montréal: Guy Tremblay; Québec City: Marcel Aubut; Vancouver John A. Legge
Lang Michener LLP Vancouver: Stephen Wortley
McCarthy Tétrault Montréal: Marc-André Blanchard; Québec City: Kim Thomassin; Vancouver: Elizabeth Vogt and Donald Sorochan
Miller Thomson LLP Montréal: Louis-Michel Tremblay; Vancouver: Donald Sorochan
Ogilvy Renault Québec: Pierre Cimon and John A. Coleman
At first instance Joy Elliott, an officer in the Complaints and Investigations Department of the Nova Scotia Barristers Society, declined to open a file because in her view the law society lacked jurisdiction; as stated in her letter dated 22 November 2007. Her decision was appealed; and correspondence was issued by the Director of that Department, Victoria Rees, dated 14 December 2007, stating:
I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of December 13, 2007 requesting a review of our determination that your complaint falls outside of our jurisdiction. […] As a result of our determination that the subject matter of your complaint is not within our jurisdiction, we did not open a file for investigation. Your complaint was not dismissed as a file was never opened. There is no review process where jurisdiction has been found not to exist and where there has been no decision made.
On February 19, 2008 the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Legal Director, Phyllis Weir, sent a letter stating the following:
[A] perusal of your [e-mailed] attachments indicates that the issues you raise exceed the mandate of the Law Society’s disciplinary process. Therefore, the Law Society will not be conducting an investigation. […] Further, future correspondence addressing the issues canvassed in the correspondence you have provided … will not be investigated.
.
She also states that the Society’s investigatory mandate is limited to “Mr. Crosbie’s or Mr. Watkin’s professional conduct in the practice of law”. This policy is patently false; flying as it does in the face of pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian Bar Association and respected jurists, law professors and academics.
On April 3 and 4, 2008, Law Society of Upper Canada Complaints Services Law Clerk Carla Frutuoso prepared correspondence on instruction by senior counsel to the Canadian lawyer stating:
Your recent letter about the actions of [the lawyer], whose firm is allegedly a member of the Canada China Business Council, relates to your earlier complaints against various other lawyers and their involvement in an alleged plan to keep you from becoming a judge. It has been determined that the Law Society has no jurisdiction over how and why individuals are appointed to the bench.
As the issues you have raised do not fall under the Law Society’s mandate at this time, we are unable to assist you and we are closing our file.
The same decision and reasoning was made with respect to lawyers who were federal cabinet ministers and were and continue to be senior executive members of the Canadian Bar Association. She states:
The Law Society has reviewed your detailed treatise about the alleged “extreme predatory nepotism” that was influenced by an alleged Chinese immigration and/or infiltration scheme to keep a section of the Canadian citizenry marginalized. Despite your earnest protests, the Law Society is unable to assist you with your complaint. It has been determined that the process by which individuals are chosen for judicial appointments are not within the sphere of regulatory powers of the Law Society.
As the issues you have raised do not fall under the Law Society’s mandate at this time, we are unable to assist you and we are closing our file.
Of the twenty-five dismissals received at the same time, one – only one – is authored by an individual other than Carla; by someone identifying himself as “Counsel, Complaints Services”. His name is “Don Kwon”, presumed to be of Chinese ethnicity:
I have reviewed your correspondence as well as Carla Frutuoso’s response to you, and confirm that her letter has accurately outlined the Law Society’s position. The Law Society is not in a position to intervene based on the information you have provided. We can only act on complaints that provide information suggesting a lawyer has done something contrary to our Rules of Professional Conduct.
Your complaint against Mr. Day, along with other political figures who are lawyer licensees of the Law Society of Upper Canada, is that he is allegedly involved in a conspiracy .... In support of your complaint, you have kindly provided us with a detailed treatise outlining how various government agencies and politicians were “secretly mandated” to employ various means to “professionally marginalize” Canadian citizens ... who had upward mobility opportunities.
Although your research was very interesting, we cannot assist you with your complaint.
On April 9, 2008, Barreau du Quebec Syndic officer Pierre Despatis argues:
It is our understanding, based on the enormous quantity of documentation you submitted, that you reproach politicians, at both the federal and provincial level, high-ranking officials, as well as police authorities, for being accomplices to the plot hatched in the early 70’s by the then Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and Mao Tse Tung. In effect, you believe that they conspired to enslave Canada to China such that our country would eventually become “Chinada”.
[…]
Thus, you reproach the attorneys, whose names you submitted to us, for not having responded to your requests for an inquiry and for not ensuring that the rights and freedoms prevail over those of their Chinese invaders.
You must understand that, despite the seriousness of what you have reported to us, we cannot , in any way, force an attorney to accept any mandate whatsoever if the latter does not with to take on the case. As much as a citizen has the freedom to chose his attorney, the latter has the freedom to accept or refuse a case.
Under the circumstances, we inform you that we decline jurisdiction over your request dated March 5, 2008, as well as over your subsequent requests. This also applies to any future questions, if any.
As this problem comes under the jurisdiction of the political authorities, we once again reiterate that it is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction.
The Manitoba Law Society Complaints department at first instance refused to investigate. Commissioner W.G. Burns issued his letter on July 4, 2008 dismissing the appeal of three complaints against CBA executives Annette J.R. Horst, J. Guy Joubert and Michael J. Law as follows:
This writer has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the material provided in connection with the noted files. I have concluded that the opinion expressed by Ms. Kosokowsky in her letter of March 11, 2008, is the appropriate decision. Accordingly, I am advising the department that their position has been sustained.
The Law Society of British Columbia originally stood out as unique in how it engaged in stultification. It didn’t show the complainant the professional courtesy of sending him correspondence acknowledging receipt of his complaints and dismissing them. According to a Complaints Department officer he spoke to, it was standard practice to send a receipt letter – ashe then without reason changed the policy; taking the new position that often complaints are dismissed if the allegations are unmeritorious. However, with persistence law society action was eventually put in documentary form. On June 3, 2008, the Director of Professional Regulation, Stuart Cameron, prepared correspondence stating:
We have carefully reviewed all the materials you have provided the Law Society. Simply put your concerns do not describe or support that there has been any unethical or unprofessional conduct on the part of any lawyer requiring any intervention by the Law Society of British Columbia. Accordingly we are not commencing an investigation against any of the lawyers mentioned in your various letters.
On March 11, 2008, it was discovered that the Senate’s committee on National Security and Defence, headed by Senator Colin Kenney, had refused to put Fiefdom treatise issues on the agenda. The usual courtesy of sending correspondence was dispensed with. Other committees followed suit: Aboriginal Affairs, Human Rights, Foreign Affairs & International Trade and Banking, Trade & Commerce.
Senator Fraser, as Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Legal & Constitutional Affairs, did issue correspondence on April 15, 2008 stating:
.
[T]he issues you raise do not appear to fall within the general mandate of the Committee. This combined with the Committee’s heavy legislative agenda will prevent us from undertaking such a study in the foreseeable future.
On the Committee’s website the following description of the mandate appears:
The Committee has a mandate to examine legislation and matters relating to legal and constitutional matters generally, including: (1) federal-provincial relations; (2) administration of justice, law reform and all related matters; (3) the judiciary; (4) all essentially juridical matters…
In September 2007 House of Commons party leaders were contacted. Both NDP and Bloc leaders refused to get involved. On September 26 and October 9 respectively, these e-mails were received:
Dear Mr. Kempo,
Upon review of your documentation, please be advised that our office does not have the resources to assist you with your grievances.
Office of Jack Layton, NDP Leader
-------------------------------
On behalf of Gilles Duceppe, Member of Parliament for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and Leader of the Bloc Québécois, we acknowledge receipt of your e-mail of September 14, 2007.
We have reviewed your documents and unfortunately, the matter you have raised is out of the Bloc Québécois’ area of jurisdiction. We recommend that you contact your federal MP for the riding of Vancouver Centre, the Honourable Hedy Fry. Mrs. Fry’s constituency office is located at: 1030 Denman Street, Suite 106, Vancouver, British Columbia V6G 2M6, Telephone #: (604) 666-0135.
Please rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will continue to take a responsible approach and act at all times with the greatest respect for the Canadian people as well as in the best interests of Québec.
Yours sincerely,
Marie Bourgeois, Correspondence Coordinator, Office of the Leader of the Bloc Québécois
Lieutenant Governor were contacted. This one response was received on October 9, 2007, and there was no disagreement with the decision:
I am writing in response to your e-mails to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor for Ontario dated September 21, September 27, October 1, and October 5, 2007.
After reviewing your e-mails and accompanying documents, it does not appear that the issues you raise fall within the responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor and, accordingly it would not be appropriate for His Honour or his office to comment on these matters.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Glenda Milrod, Research and Correspondence Coordinator, Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario
Also in September mayors from the larger cities were contacted. One was especially revelatory of stultification by Whitehorse council member Dave Austin:
I am not certain who you are or where you are coming from, or just how it is you think you are about to save the world, but your latest rant, and any others you may send will be forwarded to the RCMP. You have been instructed to remove me from your e-mail list, and I will certainly be encouraging the rest of city council to make that request as well.
In March and April 2008, the dissemination loops was widened to include Parliament Backbenchers. More than three quarters proved to be hostile and non-cooperative. MP Art Hanger was the House of Commons Chair of the Human Rights Committee. His adverse reaction was documented in this May 8, 2008 e-mail:
Upon review, Mr. Hanger is unable to assist you with this issue. I would suggest bringing these concerns forward to the office of your specific Member of Parliament if you continue to feel that they are best addressed in the political context.
Sincerely,
Jeff Pritchard, Office of Art Hanger, MP
Five British Columbia MPs -- Richard Harris, Mark Warawa, Colin Mayes, Nina Grewall and James Abbott -- collectively sent an e-mail indicating he must ‘cease and desist’ contacting them:
Cease From: Harris.R@parl.gc.ca
Sent: April 28, 2008 8:13:09 AM
c: Warawa.M@parl.gc.ca; Mayes.C@parl.gc.ca; Grewal.N@parl.gc.ca; Abbott.J@parl.gc.ca; Cannan.R@parl.gc.ca
Dear Mr Kempo,
In my capacity as BC Conservative Caucus Chair, I ask you to cease sending e-mails and making telephone calls to this office and to the offices of my BC colleagues who request same as included in this cc.
Sincerely,
Richard M. (Dick) Harris, M.P. Cariboo - Prince George, B.C. .C. Caucus Chair
National Conservative Caucus Chair, MP Rahim Jaffer was immediately asked to review this decision with a view to reversing or affirming it. No reply was ever received; and he stopped holding that position when the election writ was entered in September 2008. His failure is directly attributed to a Prime Minister who’d decided to stand behind the Chinese, as documented when election ’08 was called.
S
ince judicial decision-making was concluded to be both politicized and geo-politicized, complaints were filed with the Canadian Judicial Council. Within four days, the decision was rendered, as follows:
I have come to the view that this is a matter which falls within the meaning of the above provision [i.e., a complaint being “irrational” and “an obvious abuse of the complaints process”]
Norman Sabourin, Executive Director, Canadian Judicial Council
While not either a public or quasi-public sector institution, the largest law firms are of sufficient importance they constitute a critical component of the administration of justice. How the behave has a direct, massive and lasting impact on the integrity and proper functioning of the legal profession, judiciary and government. In March and April 2008, the fourteen largest in Canada and who were observed to have substantive links with the Chinese government and wealthy Chinese nationals and their corporations were put in receipt of the Fiefdom treatise and encouraged to evaluate and reform their client policies. Virtually all were silent– some even unwilling to acknowledge they had received the e-mails. One of only a very small number replied; one stupefyingly as follows:
What a load of poop. Get help right away.
David Rothschild, senior managing partner, Davis & Co., Barristers & Solicitors
The legal profession’s various organizations were contacted in August 2007 and then again in late 2008 for a second attempt to have them investigate and engage in reform. The British Columbia Trial Lawyer’s Association was asked in the autumn of ’07 to place Fiefdom treatise matters on the agenda. The executive committee refused. The rest didn’t respond with an acknowledgement of receipt.
In late 2008, they and others were contacted. The response from the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association on December 10th from the November 25, 2008 correspondence was hostile:
OTLA has reviewed your matter and determined that we cannot be of any assistance to you. Please remove us from your email, mailing and phone lists.
Linda Langston, Executive Director
The same kind of response came from the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association in January 6, 2009:
Further to your e-mail of January 5, 2009, we cannot offer you any support as your concerns are not within our association’s mandate.
Micheal Hudec, President, Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association
Their counterpart associations in Alberta, Manitoba and the Atlantic Provinces were not so quick to dismiss the issues. Same goes for the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association. However, all eventually not only failed to investigate, but also simply declined to call or send correspondence of their decisions.
On January 11, 2009, the Saskatchewan’s Law Society Executive Director, Tom Schonhoffer, Q.C., proved non-cooperative. After accepting correspondence throughout all of 2007 and 2008 an e-mail was deleted without being read:
Not read: from Brad Kempo
From: Tom (tom@lawsociety.sk.ca)
Sent: January 11, 2009 7:04:53 PM
Your message To: lawsociety@lsuc.on.ca; afineblit@lawsociety.mb.ca; mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca; peter.ringrose@lawsociety.nf.ca; linda...
Subject: 4/2/2008 11:58 AM was deleted on 1/11/2009 2:51 PM.
On January 29, 2009, the President of Canadian Defence Lawyers stated her position again – after the Vice-President was asked for an independent assessment:
As previously expressed to you when we spoke on December 11, 2008, Canadian Defence Lawyers is not interested in becoming involved in the matter which you are involved with. Firstly, your matter does not accord with our mandate, and secondly, your matter remains the subject of past and ongoing litigation. Our Executive already discussed your matter, and asked the writer to communicate the foregoing to you which I did on December 11.
Canadian Defence Lawyers' position has not changed since we spoke.
Thank you very much and best regards,
Sandra Corbett, President, Canadian Defence Lawyers
One organization in the legal profession didn’t immediately dismiss Fiefdom treatise submissions. President of the Council of Canadian Law Deans, Professor Philip Bryden, asked for clarification, i.e., what relevance there was to addressing the issues raised as they related to the administration of law schools. He was directed to independent sources that indicated Chinese de facto governance involved using the country’s universities to advance the PRC’s foreign policy agenda. However, in due course he proved not to be interested whatsoever in what was submitted.
