SITE MAP

 

Other Institutions of the Administration of Justice That Perpetuated

and Protected Chinese Joint Sovereignty Involving Economy

Monopolization and Wealth Embezzlement 

© 2010 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor

 

The initiative launched in August 2007 to create a collective awareness in Canadian consciousness about the true nature of governance and triggering all accountability mechanisms led to a wealth of evidence just how much the interests of Chinese joint sovereignty and the country’s criminal triads were being protected.    

 

 

All four institutions of the administration of justice – Bench, Bar, Attorney General and law enforcement – were contacted during the edification initiative.  The reactions and abdication of public interest responsibility of organizations in the legal profession and by attorneys general are documented in Stultification Within the Legal Profession, Administration of Justice and Government That Perpetuates the Last Democratic Fiefdom.  In this chapter how the judges and police reacted is compiled. 

 

 

When the Fiefdom treatise author’s Federal Court lawsuit was dismissed before getting to the Examination for Discovery stage, and where, for example, from filing to decision two motions took two years and everything before being terminated favoured the defendant government, a complaint was filed against the three case management judges with the Canadian Judicial Council in November 2008.  The National Security Division of the RCMP launched the investigation two months previously and thus the legitimacy of the allegations were more substantive and the complaint should have gotten traction, leading to an administrative review and judges being held to account for their adjudicative malfeasance.

 

 

It took but six days between receipt of the complaint letter and authorship of the Executive Director’s correspondence dismissing the complaint pursuant to his discretionary authority under section 2.3 of the Council’s Complaints Procedures rules.   The complaint was worded as follows:

 

November 25, 2008 

Canadian Judicial Council

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0W8 

Attention: Norman Sabourin, Executive Director and Senior General Counsel

                                                                        Via e-mail:  nsabourin@judicom.gc.ca

   Dear Sir:

Re: Formal Complaint Against Allan Lutfy C.J., François Lemieux J., Robert Décary J.A., Marc Noel J.A., Karen Sharlow J.A., Donald Brenner C.J. and John E. Hall J. 

 

This constitutes a formal complaint against the above-captioned for violating judicial ethics and otherwise engaging in conduct that brought the Bench and administration of justice into serious and virtually irredeemable disrepute.   Their abdications of responsibility warrant dismissal as much because they were blatant as their decision-making served to advance a most illegal, unconstitutional, internationally unlawful and immoral set of political and geo-political policies, agendas, interests and activities. 

 

The relevant of the section, which he quotes, states: 

 

The Executive Director shall open a file when a complaint about a named, federally appointed judge made in writing is received in the Council office from any source, including a member of the Council who is of the view that the conduct of a judge may require the attention of the Council.  The Executive Director shall not open a file for complaints which, although naming one or more federally appointed judges, are clearly irrational or an obvious abuse of the complaints process. 

 

He accurately cites the grounds for the complaint by quoting from the complaint letter, as follows: 

 

In the background information to your complaint, you refer to “systemic malfeasance reaching into the highest levels of federal and provincial governance traced back to the early 1970s and which transcend political party ideologies and affiliations”.  You say that “a set of domestic policies that were implemented generations ago and foreign policies effected in the early 1970s” have had a serious impact on “the independence, impartiality and proper functioning of Bench, Bar, the police and attorneys general”.  

 

You allege the existence of a “secret totalitarian paradigm of governance shielded by a cleverly manufactured façade of democratic respectability”. 

 

Referring to legal proceedings in the Federal Court, you claim that a former Prime Minster “appointed another generation of adjudicators who in some cases were intentionally added to the Bench – and to fill the administratively important CJ and ACJ roles – to insulate criminality and corruption and because they were unshakably loyal to Chinese militarization and sovereignty-sharing”.  

 

In regard to various decision of judges, you say: “All this judicial action not only had the effect of ratifying unconstitutional and internationally illegal Chinese de facto governance and all manner of domestic criminality, tortious conduct and human rights violations…”

 

About one specific judge, you allege: “He too acted with malicious judicial bias to frustrate the filing of the action to insulate the Federal Court defendant’s principals and others in Canadian governance; seeking to protect and strengthen the secret political and geo-political policies, agendas, interests and activities described herein”. 

 

He ends with: 

 

 

Your complaint is otherwise replete with sweeping statements regarding the existence of improper influence by Chinese (and other) authorities on Canadian institutions.  

 

I have carefully reviewed your 22 page complaint letter and the accompanying submissions.  I have noted your remark that “The purpose of these complaints is to effect reform and accountability on the federal and provincial levels”. In relation to your allegations of judicial misconduct, I find that there is no coherent information presented to support your broad and grave claims of impropriety on the part of several judges.   

 

 

Concluding the Judicial Council was protecting Chinese and criminal triad interests the complaint was brought to its members directly.  Each chief and associate chief justice and judge in the country was contacted in December 2008; all sent this correspondence:

 

Supreme Court of Canada (& Provincial Courts)

301 Wellington St.

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1 

Attention: The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and Chiefs & Associate Chief Justices and Judges  

Dear Honourable Members of the Court: 

 

Re: Reform of and Accountability in the Canadian Administration of Justice

 

 

It’s now been four months since you were all individually and collectively introduced to my research treatise and the concerns and intended involvement of many international parties in Canadian affairs.  One of their objectives is summed up in this remark: 

 

The fundamental solution that will address the foregoing systemic dysfuctionalities and unconstitutional and internationally illegal relationship with the [Peoples Republic of China] resides almost exclusively in a fully reformed and thereafter strong and independent Bench and Bar; since being such is an efficacious bulwark against the kinds of blatant and resilient abuses of political and economic power described herein. 

 

Now collectively privy to the non-transparent unlawful, unconstitutional and internationally violating dimension of Canadian governance and the complicitous or supporting roles played by segments of the legal profession (inter alia law societies, Canadian Bar Association and other organizations and the country’s largest law firms), my international clients urge you to consider undertaking an initiative in reform and accountability.  

 

Because the law societies en masse abdicated their public interest responsibilities when formally asked to investigate and effect discipline, it is appropriate, and it is respectfully submitted imperative, for you to empanel both a commission to examine these matters and a disciplinary tribunal to assess ethical culpability. 

 

[…] 

 

[T]he judiciary pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court ought to step into the shoes of the abdicating law societies and assess ethical culpability and impose punishment pursuant to the Code of Professional Conduct.   

 

[…] 

 

The inherent jurisdiction of the court is a broad set of judicial powers that has never been codified.  In Halsbury’s Laws of England the following is stated:  

 

In sum, it may be said that the inherent jurisdiction of the court is a virile and viable doctrine, and has been defined as being the reserve or fund of powers, a residual source of powers, which the court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of due process of law.  

 

It has also been said that the inherent jurisdiction is to be used “to act in aid of or control of tribunals”: K. Mason, “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court” (1983) 57 The Queensland Law Journal 449. 

 

The Supreme Court of Canada contributed to the jurisprudence in College Housing Co-Operative Ltd. v. Baxter Student Housing Ltd. [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475, stating at 480:

 

Inherent jurisdiction cannot, of course, be exercised so as to conflict with a statute or rule.  Moreover, because it is a special and extraordinary power, it should be exercised only sparingly and in a clear case. 

 

In Re Regina and Unnamed Person (1985) 22 C.C.C. (3d) 284, 10 O.A.C. 305, the court stated, at para. 9, that “the limits of this power are difficult to define with precision but cannot extend to the creation of a new rule of substantive law”. 

 

In Re Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd. (2000) 5 B.L.R. (3d) 75 (Ont. S.C.) the court stated: 

 

I note that the Courts of this country have utilized inherent jurisdiction to fill in any gaps in the legislation and to promote the objectives of the CCAA. 

 

In Re United Used Auto & Truck Parts Ltd. (2000) 16 C.B.R. (4th) 141 (B.C.C.A.), the court stated at para. 18: 

 

[W]hile that jurisdiction cannot be exercised contrary to a statute nothing precludes its exercise to supplement a statute and effect a statutory object.

 

Limitations on the use of the residual powers was stated as follows in Re Royal Oak Mines Inc. (1999) 96 O.T.C. 279: 

 

[I]nherent jurisdiction is not limitless; if the legislative body has not left a functional gap or vacuum, then inherent jurisdiction should not be brought into play. 

 

Other judicial observations include Mayo Associates v Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (CI) Limited [1998] JLR 173, in which Smith J.A. said, at page 188: 

 

If inherent jurisdiction exists to enable a Court to order that a thing be done, fairness and justice will obviously be factors to be taken into account when the Court is deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion to do so.

 

The authorities that go to the argument that Canada’s judiciary, in particular Chief and Associate Chief Justices and Judges, empanel investigative and disciplinary tribunals, are that the inherent jurisdiction ought to be employed:

 

(i)            to effect a statutory object, i.e., promote the primary object of legal profession statutes protecting the public interest: Pearlman and Re Babcock & Re United Used Auto;

 

(ii)          because these judicial powers are going to only be used sparingly and in this clear cases: College Housing Co-Operative Ltd.;

 

(iii)         because no new rule of substantive law is being sought to be effected: Re Regina;

 

(iv)        to act in aid of and control of tribunals that have failed to advance and fulfil their primary legislated mission, the protection of the public interest: K. Mason;

 

(v)          because of politicization and geo-politicization there is a functional gap or vacuum in the legislation: Re Royal Oak Mines; and

 

(vi)        whenever it is just or equitable to do so: Halsbury’s and Mayo

 

Canada’s law societies en masse failed to discipline members who on the evidence were complicit in or loyal to those who were with respect to government domestic and foreign policies that are in violation of s. 20 of The Security of Information Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, tort law, the Constitution and international law (including the United Nation’s Charter and human rights conventions).  

 

[…] 

 

It is unprecedented in modern western civilization and the British Commonwealth that political policies and decisions (here including federal, provincial and municipal governments) violated the Constitution by (i) the creation of a secret alliance with the Government of the Peoples Republic of China (“PRC)” beginning in the 1970s that led to PRC de facto governance… 

 

[…] 

 

In all the circumstances it is just and equitable that the judiciary investigate what has institutionally immobilized law societies and brought the administration of justice into serious disrepute; and empanel a tribunal to adjudicate ethical culpability and assess punishment.  Not doing so would leave serious, protracted and systemic abuses of political and administrative power and nefarious misuses of lawyers’ privileges unaddressed.  Plus those who used their offices to insulate and protect the complicit or loyal would be left unaccountable for their unethical actions.  

All of which is respectfully submitted.  

Yours truly, 

Brad Kempo

 

No action was taken – none.  All the judges remained completely silent and thus demonstrated their loyalty to Chinese joint sovereignty and the interests of China’s criminal triads.

 

In early summer 2009 all law enforcement associations were contacted (see List of Recipients); putting this other institution of the administration of justice already proven to have been perpetuating and protecting unlawful Chinese interests on notice it either helps with reform and accountability or the police will face the consequences.  Here are some of their responses, which represent the position of all the organizations.  

 

Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police

 

From:  West, Steve (SWest@winnipeg.ca) 

Sent: June 22, 2009 9:16:30 AM

To:  Brad Kempo (bkempo@hotmail.com)

 

Message received.  Please be advised we no longer require this communication, therefore I request to be removed from your mailing list. 

S. West

 

B.C. Federation of Police Officers

 

From: Don [mailto:dnmckenzie@rogers.blackberry.net]

Sent: June 22, 2009 10:03 AM

Subject: Re: from Brad Kempo Barr&Sol 

Please remove my name from this list also.  

Don McKenzie [President]  

 

Police Sector Council & Canadian Police Knowledge Network

 

From:  Geoff Gruson (GGruson@policecouncil.ca) 

Sent: June 22, 2009 12:58:43 PM 

 

Mr Kempo - this has nothing to do with the work of the Council or CPKN, and of no interest to us - please remove my name from future e-mailing and documents - thank you 

regards gg 

 

 

Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police

 

From:  Merle Fuller - AACP (merle.fuller@aacp.ca) 

Sent: June 24, 2009 7:40:36 PM

To:  'Brad Kempo' (bkempo@hotmail.com) 

Dear Mr. Kempo

 

Please remove my name and email address from your distribution list. I am not now, nor will be in the future, a part of your association or your coordinated efforts… 

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this regard… 

Merle  Fuller,  DLE, B.Sc., M.Ed. (C.P.)

Executive Director – A.A.C.P. 

 

RCMP Veterans Association – National Office 

 

From:  Bill Maxwell (bmaxwell@trytel.net) 

Sent: June 23, 2009 3:24:01 AM

To:  'Brad Kempo' (bkempo@hotmail.com)

Mr. Kempo, 

Kindly remove my name and all other RCMP Veterans’ Association members from your mailing list immediately.

Thank you.

W. Maxwell

National Secretary 

 

Police Association of Ontario

 

From:  Kimberley Ellis (k.ellis@pao.on.ca) 

Sent: July 2, 2009 12:03:04 PM

To:  'Brad Kempo' (bkempo@hotmail.com)

Mr Kempo - this has nothing to do with the work of the PAO, and of no interest to us - please remove my name from future e-mailing and documents - thank you.  

Yours Sincerely, 

Kimberley 

 

Nova Scotia Association of Police Boards

 

From:  Jim MacLeod (JMACLEOD@cbrm.ns.ca) 

Sent: July 27, 2009 9:49:55 AM

To:  Brad Kempo (bkempo@hotmail.com)

Cc:  David Walker (hdwalker@eastlink.ca); Gloria McCluskey (mcclusg@halifax.ca)

 

Mr. Brad Kempo, this notice will advise you that it is not the intention of the NSAPB to enter into dialogue with you on this smatter whatsoever and please remove the members of the NSAPB from any correspondence either by email or phone.

 

Sincerely  

Jim Mac Leod

President NSAPB  

 

 

 

An October 26, 2009 e-mail to Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and Ron Bain, Executive Director of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police went unanswered.

 

 

Karl Walsh, President of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, never responded to the June 15, 2009 telephone message and e-mail.  

 

 

And introductory calls and e-mails to Tony Simioni, President of the Edmonton Police Association, and John Dooks, President of the Calgary Police Association, went unanswered. 

 

 

SITE MAP

Make a Free Website with Yola.