The Evidence Speaks for Itself 

Part I  

© 2010 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor 


One of the objectives of disseminating Fiefdom treatise research findings was to deconstruct the conventional wisdom on the nature of Canadian governance and how the economy’s been managed.  One doesn’t need a degree in political science and economics to conclude there is something institutionally and profoundly wrong with the distribution of wealth and opportunity in the country when reviewing historical and current stats, facts and figures on poverty, homelessness and the state of aboriginal communities.  Since not every new recipient involved in addressing social justice issues gets the full introduction over the phone, this chapter seeks to provide that information, and more; in particular why the research was conducted in the first place and a chronology of discoveries and defining moments during that three-year initiative.



The genesis of the research project, entitled The Last Democratic Fiefdom, emerged out of a Federal Court lawsuit commenced in September 2002 alleging serious systemic corruption and criminality at the highest levels of federal and provincial government dating back to the late 1980s.  The defendant, the Government of Canada, then headed by former PM Jean Chretién, chose a very peculiar and suspicious defence strategy – claiming ‘national security’ and ‘injury to international relations’ privilege to prevent government documents from being introduced into the court evidence record.    The first confidentiality claim was deemed to be an implicit confession on the court record that the policies, practices and agendas that underpinned the pled illegality and tortious conduct were of top secret; and the second one that a foreign government was involved in the malfeasance.  The decision was made to conduct an investigation until what was being concealed was discovered.  



Given the length of time the criminality and corruption was alleged to have occurred as pled in the Statement of Claim, both the Conservatives and Liberals were involved.  Thus the first conclusion was the underlying policies, practices and agendas were trans-political, or trans-ideological.   It didn’t matter who was at the helm of federal and provincial governance, the malfeasance persisted.  Further, with the NDP having governed British Columbia for 9½ years in the ‘90s meant that all three major political parties were complicit in and loyal to these secret activities. 



Facts pled in the lawsuit implicitly included matters nepotism and patronage in government appointments and hiring practices; thus the starting point in March 2004 was a historical analysis of this phenomenon.  Since the intent of the research was to produce a compelling case of whatever was determined to have caused the malfeasance alleged, the review began with the earliest days of Confederation.  It was determined that Canada’s political system evolved over two centuries in a fashion that institutionalized this practice.  The sources were, among others, these as indicated in the introductory correspondence:


·         Hansard, Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance), January 29, 2000 


·         The Perils of a One-Party State and the Consequences of Perpetual Liberal Rule, Peter G. White and Adam Daifallah (March 2004) 


·         Liberals at the Abyss: Paul Marin may be unable to navigate the Chrétien ‘puddle of sleaze’, Maclean’s, Peter C. Newman 



As the litigation progressed in late 2002 and through 2003 and 2004, it was evident that all of the court’s decisions totally favoured the defendant government.  Being a lawyer for over a decade, it was more than evident the scales of justice were always being unjustifiably tipped in manner that benefited the state and severely prejudiced the victim.  A close look at the judge who unilaterally appointed himself case manager, now Chief Justice Allan Lutfy (then Associate Chief), raised suspicions.   The research did more than suggest the lawsuit had fallen victim to judicial bias:  



There has been a long history of patronage appointments by both major parties in Canada. Although there have been some commendable exceptions, the practice of appointing the party faithful to the Bench has been all too common. 


Source: A "Gender Patronage" For Judges?, Lawyers Weekly, March 29, 1991, Rob Martin



When juxtaposed and cross-referenced with what other sources (in addition to what’s itemized above) said, how the litigation evolved which benefited the government made sense. 


Almost all of Federal Court judges are Liberal appointees

by Cristin Schmitz

CanWest News Service

February 01, 2005 



Of the Federal Court's 32 judges, 27 were appointed during Liberal mandates, including 24 named during Mr. Chretien's tenure as prime minister. Just four judges were appointed by Brian Mulroney, the Conservative prime minister from 1984 and 1993. 


The Federal Court's chief justice, Allan Lutfy, was appointed to the court in 1996 by Mr. Chretien and was elevated to head the court three years later. 


A respected former litigator with Lavery de Billy in Ottawa, whose clients included the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, Chief Justice Lutfy has a history with the federal Liberals dating back to at least the 1970s, when he was a political advisor to former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. Before his appointment, he was a prominent Liberal fundraiser and activist, and a longtime Chretien loyalist. 




Established in 1971, the Federal Court's reputation was tarnished during the 1970s and 1980s because both the Liberals and Conservatives used it as a dumping ground for failed or retiring federal politicians.



Also suspicious was the fact that in early 2003 Lutfy A.C.J. appointed not one, but two more judges to the role of case manager.  Why so many?  One is standard unless the case is extra-extraordinarily complicated, has more than usual multiple moving parts in terms of issues of fact and law and a lack of judicial resources would unreasonably slow down the adjudication process.  There was never any formal or informal request from plaintiff or defendant for even one case manager. 



It would be easily concluded after the lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality before getting to the Examination for Discovery stage and upon completion of the research project, having three judges was an intentional tag-team to prevent anyone concluding judicial bias was in play seeking to insulate those operating the triangle of power and wealth and the Chinese. 



Given what was pled it was inferred on all the evidence that upward mobility into coveted government, bureaucratic and judicial positions was being carefully regulated – jealously guarded by triangle operators so as to protect what had become a complete consolidation of political authority over the generations through nepotism, patronage and lengthy Liberal rule.   While Canada looked like a healthy and admirable democracy, behind that façade was what’s observed in authoritarian states.  In the early 1980s the country's security apparatus was instructed to “stalk, swarm, surround and sabotage” the lives of 'outsiders' with natural skills and talent who would likely end up in top policy and executive decision making and accountability offices; what the research project labels “extreme nepotism-patronage exclusion”.  This had and continues to have serious ramifications for the independence of, for example, courts, the legal profession, attorneys general, police boards and administrative tribunals.   



Since their independence and impartiality had eroded during the course of the 20th century it was natural the Federal Court would fatally impair the plaintiff with a series of adverse rulings and then punt the lawsuit before it got anywhere.   The court agreed with the defendant on the two privilege claims, preventing the forced disclosure of critical records and documents, and denying the plaintiff’s motion that having been forced into a life of impoverishment the government should pay the costs of prosecuting the action.  



Also revelatory of the court having become totally dysfunctional in protecting individuals from abuses of state power were time frames between filing these two critical motions and their hearing and between the hearings and rendering each decision.  The lapse of time between filing, court appearance and decision is always no more than a week, a month tops:


P. Hargrave:   Costs in Advance Motion filed March 26, 2003; heard March 25, 2004; rendered April 20, 2005  

1 year from filing to hearing

1 year, 2 months year between hearing and decision  

             Time Factor: 2 Years, 1 month


J. Lemieux:      Privilege Motion filed December 27, 2002; In camera (Ottawa) hearing on October 2003; rendered November 30, 2004  

11 months from filing to hearing  

1 year 1 month between hearing and decision  

Time Factor: 2 Years 



When PM Trudeau took office in the early 1970s, he looked across the entire political, judicial and law enforcement landscapes and saw nothing but Liberals or closet Liberals -- the result of trans-generational nepotism and patronage and lengthy Liberal rule.  Realizing he had no opposition, dissent or accountability, he began to implement policies that would benefit the parochial interests of the wealthy.  The pillar of his domestic policy was economy monopolization.  (Note: the late 1970s National Energy Policy was one dimension of that initiative.) 



Also informing these research conclusions were various publications on what had been discovered about Liberal created and trans-ideologically managed state institutions that are supposed to be the guardians of Canada’s national and economic security interests.  The academic work Whose National Security? Canadian State Surveillance and the Creation of Enemies (Kinsman, Buse, Steedman, Between the Lines Toronto 2000) argued these interests were defined only by triangle operators, not by Canadians – and their sole concerns were, according to the evidence that emerged, protecting the trans-generational consolidation of political and corporate power, the accumulation of wealth and perpetuating Chinese de facto governance; and especially what’s documented in the CSIS-RCMP study The Sidewinder Report – the economic prosperity of China’s government, nationals and the country’s criminal triads.  In other words, their only focus was holding onto absolute power, economy monopolization, the embezzlement of the country’s vast wealth, benefiting their foreign friends and keeping this all hidden from public view.  Andrew Mitrovica’s Covert Entry: Spies, Lies and Crimes Inside Canada's Secret Service (Random House of Canada Limited, 2002) made it clear certain constituents of law enforcement and the intelligence community were working hand-in-glove to protect the status quo



The evidence complied during the five-month period following the review of The Sidewinder Report led to the conclusion PM Trudeau had entered into a secret alliance with Chairman Mao – one that went well beyond standard diplomatic niceties; and did so during the height of the Cold War – a most heretical foreign policy given the state of world affairs back then.   By the end of the 1970s the Chinese enjoyed joint governance of Canada.   The Security of Information Act made it a crime punishable by life in prison for being responsible in embedding Chinese political and corporate interests that violated our constitution and sovereignty.  The statutorily stipulated gate-keeper for prosecutions? The Attorney General of Canada. 



With trans-generational institutionalized nepotism and patronage over two centuries and the fact the Liberals won enough federal elections in the 20th century to have ruled for some 75% of that period led to a complete consolidation of political, bureaucratic and corporate power; and as a consequence the state became completely factionless (the form vs. substance analysis).  On the ideological level the paradigm of governance upon him taking office was nothing different that what is observed in authoritarian regimes – communist or totalitarian states and dictatorships; namely a small tight-knit group bonded by blood and close social ties who run every major institution of the state.   Factor in Gomery J’.s finding of a “culture of entitlement” and one begins to see how the triangle of power and wealth hijacked our system of government for its sole benefit and behind that façade of democratic respectability hoarded wealth and secretly distributed the burdens onto the backs of millions of Canadians.  Secret cabinet policies have societal consequences that can be eventually empirically measured.  Today we see what Trudeau et al. began in the prosperity gap: a million families and children at the poverty line, the worrisome rise of homelessness and multitudes of aboriginals continuing to live in Third World conditions – all despite the 1989 unanimous resolution of the House on child poverty and non-stop railings by opposition parties (see Hansard compilations) and social justice groups.  



From the perspective of political ideologies, while Trudeau and his rich Liberal friends portrayed themselves as believers in democracy, freedom, rule of law, transparency, accountability, human rights and free market capitalism – remember his PR campaign, the “just society” – he was nothing more than a closet communist, as the Americans believed him to be.  Thus not only did he not have anything in common with our southern neighbors or members of the NATO Alliance, he despised them because they stood in firm opposition to Canada’s secret political and corporate culture; and so he preferred to keep company with those of like ideological mind – Castro and Mao. 



It was only because of a series of serendipitous events that this intended perpetual secret of Canadian governance would be exposed. The first two stages were the lawsuit claiming fifteen years of non-stop egregious abuse of power by government officials and the research project.   The next step was corroborating its findings.  That came in two stages: the edification campaign that began in August 2007 and shortly thereafter triggering all non-judicial accountability mechanisms.   Therein lay proof that nepotism, patronage, lengthy Liberal rule and Chinese sovereignty-sharing were here to stay unless something triangle operators couldn’t control was introduced. 



Law society complaints were filed in every province, totaling some 75; including against high-level politicians who were lawyers and senior and managing partners of nationally operating law firms who bragged about having big Chinese clients or who were listed as members of the China-Canada Business Council (1, 2):



The Canada China Business Council (CCBC) is the country’s Canada-China bilateral trade and investment facilitator, catalyst and advocate, bringing more than three decades of experience and business relationship building to its members. A private, not-for-profit business association, CCBC is dedicated to building its members’ business success in China and Canada by offering unmatched business service and support. From direct operational support in China to trade and investment advocacy on its members’ behalf, CCBC is a vital resource in enhancing Canada-China bilateral trade and investment and in building prosperity for Canadians through enhanced Sino-Canadian business. 


The Canada China Business Council was founded in 1978. Its members range from the largest and best-known Canadian and Chinese firms to leading innovators and SME entrepreneurs in both countries.  Members are competing in a diversity of sectors including financial services, legal services, information and communications technology, education, manufacturing, construction, transportation, mining and energy.  With over 300 member companies, the CCBC also has a small but growing number of Chinese member companies.  



Research project findings were circulated throughout the legal profession beginning in August 2007 – Canadian Bar Association, all law societies and all organizations that cater to lawyers.  Not one – not one – agreed to investigate.  Complaints were filed against their executives too.  The silence was deafening; and summary dismissals loudly proclaimed the dominance of triangle interests.  It was all corroborative of what was discovered about the true and full nature of Canadian governance.  



Observed in the historical record was the fact that all prime ministers back to Trudeau (with the exception of Harper) were lawyers; as were cabinet ministers in portfolios critical to advancing triangle and Chinese interests, including John Manley, Herb Grey, Bill Graham, Anne McLellan, John Crosbie, Maxime Bernier, Donald Johnson, Marc Lalonde, Robert Kaplan and Francis Fox.  The following was argued based on all this evidence:  



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 principles, values, beliefs and loyalties from two centuries of nepotism and patronage –driven corruption and thirty-five years of Chinese de facto governance 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 Complicity & Loyalty in Canada’s Administration of Justice



The fact that the entire administration of justice was undermined as a result of unlawful, unconstitutional and international law violating political and geo-political interests and influences – the lawsuit sabotaged through malicious judicial bias, the RCMP investigation terminated, law society and other filed complaints summarily dismissed – strengthened the international community’s concerns and trepidations and entitlement to become more involved in this country’s affairs.  (See Stultification Within the Legal Profession, Administration of Justice and Government That Perpetuates the Last Democratic Fiefdom for results). 



Of the greatest concern to the conglomerate of international public and private sector parties is Chinese imperialism that has the same unrelenting aggressiveness and potential efficacy as the former Soviet Union.  The Beijing leadership, up some $2.4 trillion in hard currency reserves and the industrial nations of the world drowning in massive national debts, exacerbated by the global financial crisis, gives the totalitarian regime the ability to employ an economic methodology of expansionism.  The Soviet’s chosen and failed approach was strictly military.   The research findings conclude Beijing is going to “buy, bribe, seduce and lend its way dominos style to a global presence that puts the gains made by democracy, rule of law and human rights in the 20th century in serious peril”.  Beijing has essentially militarized capital. 



The United Nation’s Charter defines threats in a military way; but the realities of the 21st century require that archaic definition be modified to accommodate what the China-Canada alliance is using to broaden its global scope of control and influence.   With vast wealth and corporate clout that produces political influence the means of expansionism, forces amassed to confront “The Soviet Union The Sequel” are going to begin by depriving the imperialists of what maintains their eco-military posture.   The Soviet threat ended when Moscow tried to keep up with the Reagan-Thatcher Star Wars program; and the economy imploded.  Similarly a lack of money and the ability to generate it will halt Chinada’s imperialism in its tracks.  Canadians who’ve been complicit in Security of Information Act violations will be forced into insolvency; which will be achieved in part through the cooperation or forced involvement of the country’s banks.   They’ve been asked to assist by withdrawing services to triangle operators, seizing personal and corporate bank accounts, canceling lines of credit, etc..  



Canada’s enormous natural resources wealth, like the oil sands (estimated to hold $30-50 trillion), will no longer be available to finance this unlawful adventure. Principal parties operating in the energy sector have foreign interests and operations and some of their capital is off-shore.  They can be custodianized or outright seized – powerful leverage to compel compliance to what domestic and international laws dictate. 



Why would Canada’s triangle of power and wealth want to join the Chinese in this unlawful adventure?  The Rosetta Stone of explanation was formulated in the research treatise thusly:  



They’ve achieved total domination and control at home and the only way to satisfy their cravings for more is to monopolize and subjugate elsewhere in the world; and Beijing’s territorial expansion foreign policy is where they’ve found opportunity and gratification for that addiction-fuelled need. 



Deprivation of Chinada’s imperialism-financing wealth will occur another way.  Article 5 of The United Nations Convention on Corruption is going to be used to trace, seize and repatriate Canada’s embezzled wealth.  Hundreds of billions of dollars, some of which is identified in massaged government statistics as ‘outward foreign direct investment’, will be returned and quietly – emphasis on quietly – distributed.  The beneficiaries of this non-public initiative: the poor, homeless and aboriginals.  



Each recipient is asked to (i) review in full what is submitted – in other words complete the due diligence on these submission before drawing conclusions; then (ii) consult with colleagues and (iii) with your counterparts in other research treatise recipient organizations and (iv) have a full discussion and debate on all the facts provided.   In due course, based on this hitherto unavailable understanding of the full nature of Canada’s political and economic systems, you can (v) develop strategies to tackle social justice issues employing a novel approach that takes full advantage of the international community’s tenacious resolve to successfully address Canada’s systemic dysfunctionalities as described.  Those adverse in interest to its membership and 30 million plus Canadians are going to do everything underhanded to derail reform and accountability.  Use your good judgment, experience and common sense to see sabotage if it rears its ugly head for what it is and refuse to be mis-influenced and deterred.  



The evidence of the ever-widening prosperity gap and its consequences speaks for itself.  There’s been something profoundly wrong at the highest levels of federal and provincial governance for decades.   When in possession of credible information, corroborating proof and employing sound methodologies of research and analysis, the evidence that emerges about the underlying reasons for this unacceptable gap between uber-wealth and crushing poverty also speaks for itself. 



Make a Free Website with Yola.