Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor [Alberta, Inactive]

914 950 Drake Avenue

Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6Z 2B9
Ph. 604.609.0520
bkempo@hotmail.com
Your File #: OTP-CR-274/10

September 21, 2010

International Criminal Court

Information and Evidence Unit
Office of the Prosecutor
2500 CM The Hague
The Netherlands

Attention: M.P. Dillon, Head of Information & Evidence Unit

Via e-mail: OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Culpability Assessment; Complaint Pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Statute of

Rome

The purpose of this correspondence is to deliver and analyze the evidence of

crimes against humanity culpability under the Statute of the Chief Justice of the

Federal Court of Canada, Allan Lutfy.

The starting point of this examination is the Canadian Judicial Councils Ethical

Principles for Judges (1998)1:

1
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_1998_en.pdf
 2

2. Judicial Independence

Statement:

An independent judiciary is indispensable to impartial justice under law.

Judges should, therefore, uphold and exemplify judicial independence in
both its individual and institutional aspects.

Principles:

1. Judges must exercise their judicial functions independently and free of

extraneous influence.

2. Judges must firmly reject any attempt to influence their decisions in

any matter before the Court outside the proper process of the Court.

3. Judges should encourage and uphold arrangements and safeguards

to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational
independence of the judiciary.

4. Judges should exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct

so as to reinforce public confidence which is the cornerstone of
judicial independence.

Commentary.

4. Judges must, of course, reject improper attempts by litigants,

politicians, officials or others to influence their decisions.

[]

6. Impartiality

Statement: Judges must be and should appear to be impartial with

respect to their decisions and decision making.

Principles:

A. General

1. Judges should strive to ensure that their conduct, both in and out of
court, maintains and enhances confidence in their impartiality and that
of the judiciary.

2. Judges should as much as reasonably possible conduct their personal

and business affairs so as to minimize the occasions on which it will
be necessary to be disqualified from hearing cases.

3. The appearance of impartiality is to be assessed from the perspective

of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person.
 3

Commentary:

A.1 From at least the time of John Locke in the late seventeenth
century, adjudication by impartial and independent judges has been
recognized as an essential component of our society. Impartiality is
the fundamental qualification of a judge and the core attribute of the
judiciary.

[]

A.3 Impartiality is not only concerned with perception, but more

fundamentally with the actual absence of bias and prejudgment.
This dual aspect of impartiality is captured in the often repeated
words that justice must not only be done, but manifestly be seen to
have been done. As de Grandpre, J. put it in Committee for Justice
and Liberty v. National Energy Board [[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369], the test
is whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and
practically and having thought the matter through would
apprehend a lack of impartiality in the decision maker. Whether
there is a reasonable apprehension of bias is to be assessed from
the point of view of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person.

[]

A.6 The expectations of litigants may be very high. Some will be quick to
perceive bias quite unjustifiably when a decision is not in their
favour. Therefore every effort should be made to ensure that
reasonable grounds for such a perception are avoided or minimized.

[]

E. Conflicts of Interest

E.2 What Constitutes a Conflict of Interest? As Perell puts it,A common

or unifying theme for the various classes of conflicts of interest is the
theme of divided loyalties and duties.43 The potential for conflict of
interest arises when the personal interest of the judge (or of those
close to him or her) conflicts with the judges duty to adjudicate
impartially. Judicial impartiality is concerned both with impartiality in
fact and impartiality in the perception of a reasonable, fair minded
and informed person. In judicial matters, the test for conflict of
interest must include both actual conflicts between the judges self
interest and the duty of impartial adjudication and circumstances in
which a reasonable fair minded and informed person would
reasonably apprehend a conflict.

E.3 A number of texts and commentaries offer guidance to judges on

this subject. The Hon. J.O. Wilson in A Book for Judges, for
example, says a judges disqualification would be justified by a
pecuniary interest in the outcome; a close family, personal or
 4

professional relationship with a litigant, counsel or witness; or the

judge having expressed views evidencing bias regarding a litigant.

[]

E.5 As elsewhere in this area, the concern is with reasonable

perception, as well as actual conflict of interest.

As is stated at page 3 in my August, 23 2010 correspondence, I conducted an in-

depth multi-disciplinary analysis of Canadian governance; discovering that as a

direct result of two centuries of trans-generational nepotism and patronage and

the Liberal Party of Canada being at the helm of the federal level of government

for some 75% of the 20th century a complete consolidation of political power

evolved an authoritarian paradigm of governance in which a small tight-knit

elite controlled every major institution of the state. Further, in the 1970s the

Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle of power and wealth entered into a publicly

non-transparent relationship with the government and wealthy of the Peoples

Republic of China (PRC) that by the end of that decade developed into what I

describe as a geo-political marriage of the most intimate kind. The

constituents of this triangle political dynastic families, old money families and

the executives of the largest corporations in the country granted the PRC

leadership joint governance status contrary to this countrys constitution and

which violated the international law of sovereignty. Employing the common law

analytical principle of form vs. substance it was concluded that while Canadian

governance appears to be democratic (i.e., jurisdictional and operational

distinctions between executive, legislative, judicial), it has been and continues to

 5

be factionless and is totalitarian at the intersection of political authority,

accumulated vast wealth and Chinese interests.

In order to perpetuate and protect the consolidation of political authority and the

interests of those benefiting from the triangle of power and wealth, appointments

to critical organs of the state were systematically and exclusively influenced by

nepotism and patronage:

Prior to 1837 both Upper Canada and Lower Canada were plagued with
patronage, nepotism and corruption. Only those with the closest ties to
government prospered. The rest were shut out of decision making and full
participation in their own country's administration.

Source: Hansard, Mr. Rahim Jaffer (EdmontonStrathcona, Canadian

Alliance), January 29, 2000

---------------------------------------------------

This corruption of the mind has been well described as the arrogance of
power, and Liberal ministers are not immune from this near-universal
human failing. Louis St-Laurents minister of trade and commerce, C.D.
Howe, once actually taunted the opposition about their powerlessness to
prevent the Liberal government from doing whatever it wanted. Whos to
stop us? he asked not rhetorically 1951.

Source: The Perils of a One-Party State and the Consequences of

Perpetual Liberal Rule, Peter G. White and Adam Daifallah (March 2004)

---------------------------------------------------

[Trudeaus] last weeks in office were marked by one of the greatest ever
orgy of patronage appointments.

Source: Liberals at the Abyss: Paul Marin may be unable to navigate the
Chrtien puddle of sleaze, Macleans, Peter C. Newman

---------------------------------------------------

During the [1990s] Liberal decade of drift, the ugly face of nepotism has
returned to Canadian government, this time stronger than ever. The
 6

Liberal Party of Canada has replaced the chateau clique and the family
compact.

Source: Hansard, Mr. Rahim Jaffer (EdmontonStrathcona, Canadian

Alliance), January 29, 2000

---------------------------------------------------

The long Liberal hegemony in Ottawa has created a small, self-

perpetuating oligarchy or aristocracy of governors, from which the vast
majority of Canadians are permanently excluded and to which only bona
fide members of the Liberal Party may expect to accede. Since power in
the Liberal Party is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, the source of all
its leaders, or even more narrowly in Toronto and Montreal, few outsiders
need apply.

Source: The Perils of a One-Party State and the Consequences of

Perpetual Liberal Rule

To perpetuate the faade of democracy and maintain the paradigm of

governance that emerged when Canadian authoritarianism and Chinas

totalitarianism converged into a nationwide political culture in the late 1970s, a

particular kind of Chinese Wall was created throughout the factionless federal

and provincial system of government. This Wall is defined as follows:

The imposed lack of communication between the investment

banking and brokerage services of a financial institution. The
Chinese wall exists in order to prevent brokers and investment
bankers working for the same company from deliberately or
accidentally sharing inside information that could lead to illegal
insider trading.

Source: http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chinese+Wall

In the political context it means that there is one group of Canadian official

appointed or employed that is loyal to the non-democratic paradigm of

governance and another group that is; and the latter and Canadian public have

no knowledge that the former exists. State action, such as adjudication, is

 7

assigned to officials depending on its nature. If it is relevant to the interests of

those operating and benefiting from the triangle of power and wealth, then

administrators will arrange to have only those loyal to them be involved.

Thus in Canada there are two types of judicial appointments. In order to

perpetuate the faade of democracy the vast majority of Prime Minister

appointed members of the Bench believe in democracy, rule of law,

transparency, accountability, human rights and free market capitalism.

However, the most critical appointments, those of chief and associate chief

judge, are reserved for those who protect triangle interests. Being judicial

administrators, they manage the docket; deciding which judges hear cases.

They steer litigation that involve these interests to those adjudicators who will

decide them both in violation of the sections of Ethical Principles for Judges

quoted supra and, most especially, domestic and international law.

The result is that pre-trial and trial decisions are not independent and impartial in

these circumstances. They are arrived at by what I label malicious judicial bias.

The Federal Court of Canada litigation I commenced in September 2002 was

preceded by a successful motion prior to formally registering the Statement of

Claim. I sought impecuniosity status and to shield my identify from public view.

On July 15, 2002 in Docket No. T-1114-02 Campbell J. granted an Order stating

(i) I grant the Plaintiffs impecuniosity status and (ii) I order that the Plaintiffs
 8

identity be protected from media enquiries and those of non-parties to the action

and I also direct that the duplicate [i.e. public] file note the Plaintiff as Mark

Doe.

My next step before registering the Statement of Claim was filing a motion for

costs in advance of trial; the argument being that having been forced by the

defendant federal government into a life of poverty since 1987 to advance the

human experimentation program (Article 7 violating R&D) it be ordered to pay

all expenses of prosecuting the lawsuit (i.e. legal bill and disbursements).

The headquarters of the Federal Court of Canada is Ottawa, Ontario; and its

judges are on a national circuit. Chief Justice Allan Lutfy, who in September

2002 was Associate Chief Justice, decided he would be seized of the case and

flew from Ottawa to Vancouver, British Columbia, to hear it. The motion was

heard on September 9th; and he reserved his decision, rendering it on September

11th.

It wouldnt be until I completed my years of research that I was able to conclude

chief and associate chiefs were appointed to advance the non-transparent

constituent of Canadian governance. While being a lawyer for twelve years in

September 2002 I couldnt accurately and comprehensively analyze what was

causing all pre-trial motions to fail, retrospectively with the aid of what was

discovered during my lengthy multi-disciplinary academic examination I could.

 9

All court documents reproduced herein are digital photographs of originals.

10
11
 12

In the proposed Statement of Claim annexed to the affidavit before Campbell J.

and available to Mr. Lutfy, I plead:

4. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants, CSIS and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police [] conspired with their respective agents
from April 1990 to the present to, and did in fact, conduct a long-term
hypnosis experiment on the Plaintiff.

[]

5. At no time did the Plaintiff give his consent, express or implied, to the
Defendants or any other department or agency of the Defendant []
to participate in the hypnosis experiment.

[]

6. The Defendants and their agents procured or aided and abetted in the
procuring of perceptual inaccuracies and involuntary motor functions
by the Plaintiff.

[]

7. Other components of the Defendants aforesaid experiment included

intentionally inflicting mental and physical suffering.

Presented to the Court was a circumstance where a licensed member of the Bar,

a Barrister & Solicitor in active practice, and whose mother was a sitting judge on

the Tax Court of Canada and his uncle a sitting member of the Senate of

Canada, was surreptitiously recruited into an experimentation program; one that

not only affected him in most egregious ways personally, but also impacted his

professional practice and his long-term career intention to seek a judicial

appointment or high political office. Because of the sabotage of my upward

mobility, which impacted upon the independence of the administration of justice,

the facts rose to the level of an exceptional or unique circumstance and a case

of great public importance. Additionally, an Article 7 R&D violation measured in

 13

decades is a most serious matter, especially given the provisions history, which

in and of itself meets these criteria.

When examined with all other judicial actions, omissions and decisions it is

concluded he was in willful violation of the quoted provisions of Ethical Principles

for Judges and not acting in a judicial capacity, but rather as an agent of the

countrys political executive and the PRC.

After filing the Statement of Claim and the defendant its Statement of Defence,

the latter made two claims of documentary privilege: national security and injury

to international relations (an admission on the record a foreign government was

implicated in what was pled). I revisited the circumstances of my life in light of

this development and filed the Amended Statement of Claim in March 2003

totaling 168 pages (http://coalition.synthasite.com/st-cl.php): a diary of

institutionalized criminal and tortious conduct that perpetuated the Article 7

violating R&D.

What followed the filing of the amended pleading is not something ever done in

civil litigation in Canada, and thus raised suspicions. While it is standard practice

in litigation that is observed to be complex or will span a lengthy period of time to

have a case management judge, two is rare and three is unheard of. Mr. Lutfy

moved on April 2nd, 2003 proprio motu to appoint himself case management

judge and a Prothonatary to assist.

14
 15

Mr. Lutfy then moved on May 9th proprio motu to appoint Lemieux J. as case

management judge.
 16

One case manager is standard. These two Orders had no other purpose than to

preemptively limit pre-trial determinations to those judges on the Federal Court

secretly loyal to the interests of the triangle of power and wealth.

Mr. Lutfys career path is described on the Federal Court website as follows:

Born November 21, 1943 in Montral, Quebec. Education at Loyola

College and McGill University. Called to the Quebec Bar, 1968 and
Bar of Ontario, 1985. Practised with Lavery, de Billy and its
predecessor firms, 1968-73 and 1979-96, in civil litigation and
administrative law. Political advisor with the federal government,
1973-79. Counsel before a number of commissions of inquiry,
including the McDonald Commission (Royal Canadian Mounted Police
and its Security Service), the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
(State of Competition in the Canadian Petroleum Industry) and the
Dubin Commission (Use of Drugs in Sports). Counsel for the Security
Intelligence Review Committee and the Canadian Parliamentary
Press Gallery, 1986-96. Appointed Queen's Counsel, 1983. Appointed
judge of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division and member ex
officio of the Court of Appeal, August 7, 1996; member of the Court
Martial Appeal Court of Canada, August 28, 1997; member of the
Court's Rules Committee, September 1998; member of the
Competition Tribunal, June 8, 1999; and Associate Chief Justice of
the Federal Court of Canada, December 8, 1999. Since July 2, 2003,
the date of the coming into force of the Courts Administration Service
Act, he is now Chief Justice of the Federal Court.

Source: http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/bios/lutfy_e.shtml

The relationship Mr. Lutfy has had with the Liberal Party of Canada and its prime

ministers dates back to the 1970s. When every single pre-trial decision was

observed to advantage the defendant and be extremely prejudicial to my litigation

interests I conducted a review of the federal bench and discovered that by 2003

due to an aging judicial population former Prime Minister Chrtien appointed 24

out of 29 judges to the trial and appeal divisions of court.

 17

This National Post news report* states:

The Federal Court, as it stands, is the bench the Liberals built. Chief
Justice Allan Lutfy is Jean Chretiens old friend and he worked on the
former prime ministers 1993 campaign that vaulted the Liberals to
power. Only four of 29 judges are Conservative appointees.

* http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Emboldened+Federal+Court+challenges+Harper+foreign+policy/1695378/story.html

My research posted on the Reform Coalition of Canada website (http://evidence-

speaks1.yolasite.com) states this:

As the litigation progressed in late 2002 and through 2003 and 2004, it was
evident that all of the courts 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
whats 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.
 18

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.

Critical is the reference to Mr. Lutfy being a prominent Liberal fundraiser and

activist and a longtime Chretien loyalist and a political advisor to former Prime

Minister Pierre Trudeau. This puts him at the core of the genesis of the

Canadian state towards Chinese joint governance in the 1970s.

Mr. Lutfy appointed himself and two others to case manage because he wanted

to protect both the Liberal legacy viz. Chinese joint governance and the

reputations of two prime ministers who reached iconic status within the party and

a significant segment of the Canadian population. He and his hand picked

judicial colleagues were not going to let their images be tarnishing by making

findings of fact Liberals in power systemically and systematically violated the

Criminal Code of Canada, our constitution, the law of sovereignty and

international conventions prohibiting human experimentation and torture.

This January 2003 filed submission pursuant to my motion challenging the two

privilege claims outlines the case being made against Prime Minister Chrtien
 19

and all his executive appointments within the security apparatus, i.e. law

enforcement and intelligence agencies, and the departments of Defence and

Foreign Affairs:
20
21
 22

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed my appeal of Mr. Lutfys costs in

advance of trial decision, stating Having carefully considered the record before

us, and the submissions of the appellant, we are not persuaded that the motions

judge erred in concluding that this is not a case that warrants an order for costs

in advance of trial.

Upon filing the Amended Statement of Claim in March 2003 and adding a

plethora of new causes of action I filed a second costs in advance of trial

motion. The defendant claimed the relitigating defence of res judicata. The

Prothonotary declined the relief sought, strengthening the incrementally derived

inference he was appointed a case manager to help torpedo the litigation. The

motion was registered on March 26, 2003, heard March 25, 2004 and decision

rendered April 20, 2005 a total of two years, when the standard elapsed time in

Canadian litigation is less than a month. The motion challenging documentary

privilege was registered December 27, 2002, heard in camera in Ottawa in

October 2003 and the decision rendered November 30, 2004 another span of

two years. As then (i) Associate Chief Justice and (ii) principal case manager

Mr. Lutfy is responsible for these inexcusable time delays ones which allowed

the human experimentation regime to continue.

The defendant and malfeasant parties watched the litigation very closely and

viewed this succession of failed motions as ratifying their unlawful and

improprietous conduct, giving them license to proceed with the program.

 23

What brought an end to the litigation was the defendant successfully applying for

security for costs money I had to deposit with the court that served as security

for expenses the government paid in defending the action in the event I lost. My

affidavit evidence that I had been forced into perpetual poverty over a fifteen-year

period to advance the Article 7 violating R&D fell on deaf ears.

I was faced with enormously expensive litigation, which included not only legal

fees but also disbursements for, inter alia, deposing (i.e., conducting Examination

for Discovery proceedings of) political leaders, cabinet ministers, civil servants,

military commanders and intelligence personnel. The overall bill was projected

to be well in excess of $100,000. The Prothonatary in his reasons for ordering

security for costs found as fact the following:

[while he] may be living below the poverty line in Vancouver, he does
have income in part in the form of rent, utilities and food paid for by his
mother, together with an allowance from his mother and social
assistance.

Another circumstance that demonstrated malicious judicial bias was filing two

motions that were never set for a hearing. On March 26 and 28, 2003 motions

alleged that in engaging in surreptitious ruination of my law practice the

defendant has unlawfully and maliciously undermined and attacked the

independence of the Canadian Bar and unlawfully and maliciously undermined

and attacked the independence of the judiciary. The foundation for these

motions was this pled statement in the Amended Statement of Claim:

 24

187. As direct and indirect consequences of its behaviour over a period

of 17 years, the Defendant unlawfully interfered with the
independence of the Canadian judiciary, such independence being
authorized and guaranteed by the laws, constitution, conventions
and practices of the Dominion of Canada. The Defendant knew or
reasonably ought to have known that it was unlawfully interfering
with said independence.

Having a mother on the federal bench and an uncle in the Senate provided an

opportunity to follow in her footsteps due to that family pedigree. Upward

mobility in the administration of justice was fatally compromised by the Article 7

violating R&D. In the motion I state:

When the independence of the judiciary and independence of the Bar are
unlawfully and maliciously interfered with, attacked or otherwise
undermined, the Court may take a proactive role to defend its interests
and protect the interests of its Officers of the Court.

It is submitted when the independence of the judiciary and independence

of the Bar are unlawfully and maliciously interfered with, attacked or
otherwise undermined, the Court has a duty to defend the institution, its
authority, constitutional independence and other interests and
entitlements. It has a duty to undertake a proactive role to protect both
itself and the autonomy, interests and entitlements of members of the
legal profession and as Officers of the Court.

[]

In The Judiciary in Canada: The Third Branch of Government, (McGraw-Hill

Ryerson Limited, Toronto 1987), Peter Russell at page 82 states:

Important as security of tenure is as one of the necessary

conditions for judicial independence, it would be a mistake to
equate it with judicial independence . There may well be other
ways, less crude than outright removal, whereby government
officials or politicians endeavour to influence the judiciary.
Political considerations in the selection of judges and
governmental control of promotions within the judicial system are
two examples. [] The political scientist concerned about
ascertaining the degree of judicial independence in Canada must
remain sensitive to the possibility of political influences which
operate at a more subtle [level]. [] The soft underbelly of
Canadian courts are the tens of thousands of lawyers that are
 25

practicing in Canada on a daily basis, the thousands more who

are attending law school and those who are in the highest
scholastic percentile in Canadian universities and intending to
apply to law school. It is this class of person and this class alone
that judges are appointed from.

Also citing: A.G. Can v. Law Society of B.C. [1982] 2 S.C.R. 324, LaBelle
v. LSUC [2001] O.T.C. 39 (Ont. Superior Court), Universal Declaration on
the Independence of Justice (Canada), W.L. Lederman, The
Independence of the Judiciary, 34 Canadian Bar Review 1179 (1956),
Lord Dennings The Independence of the Judges (1950).

More on this matter is posted at http://federalcourtlawsuit.synthasite.com.

It wouldnt be until the conclusion of my research I could determine with accuracy

Mr. Lutfy wasnt acting as a judge, but rather operating covertly as an agent for

Canadas political executive on behalf of triangle of power and wealth interests

and as an agent for the PRC. And thus he is complicit in the crime against

humanity of SCT R&D, deployment and proliferation.

Upon the National Security Division of the RCMP formally investigating in

September 2008 I filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC).

The Executive Director dismissed the complaint within days. That matter is

documented at http://canadianjudicialcouncil.synthasite.com. So I tried a second

approach to get the CJC to fulfill its mandate. In December I directly contacted

every chief and associate chief justice and judge in the country (except in the

provinces of Alberta and British Columbia and on the federal court level), seeking

and failing to procure collective action and to deal with Mr. Lutfys

unconstitutional, unlawful and unethical conduct:

 26

(i) http://supremecourtcommunique.synthasite.com

(ii) http://supremecourtcommunique2.synthasite.com

(iii) http://supremecourtcommunique3.yolasite.com

As is in part argue in my September 21, 2010 submission on jurisdiction, Canada

is not only a democratically failed state, its also a rogue state for its participation

in Chinas Soviet-style global expansion that seeks to proliferate totalitarian

political and corporate cultures by in part deploying SCT to take advantage of

inherent weaknesses and vulnerabilities in government and capitalist institutions

people and consciousness itself. The factionless nature of the Canadian State

prevents accountability institutions like the court system from conducting bona

fide adjudication and therefore the ICC has jurisdiction.

Best regards,

Brad Kempo, Barrister & Solicitor