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 29, 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 Mr. Lutfy Supplemental; Complaint Pursuant to

Article 15(1) of the Statute of Rome

The purpose of this correspondence is to add to what was delivered on

September 21, 2010 with respect to Allan Lutfy.

I submitted evidence that in his role as Associate Chief Justice of the Federal

Court of Canada and self-appointed case manager Mr. Lutfy also ordered

Chrtien appointee Justice Franois Lemieux to also have that role; and argued

that doing so was to restrict who on the Bench would hear pre-trial motions to

those on the unlawful and unconstitutional side of Canadas institutional Chinese

Wall.
 2

Mr. Lemieux reserved judgment on my December 2002 filed motion challenging

the privilege claims of national security and injury to international relations after

an in camera hearing in Ottawa in October 2003; and rendered judgment in

November 2004.

He sustained both of the federal governments privilege claims, unjustifiably

balancing competing interests between the individual and the state in favor of the

latter preferring to protect the Article 7 violating R&D of stealth cognition

technologies than fulfill the judiciarys role of protecting me from this egregious

abuse of power:

After applying and weighing these factors, I am satisfied on the evidence before
me, the importance of disclosing the redacted information does not outweigh the
public interest in keeping that information from disclosure. As to the nature of the
public interest sought to be protected, the redacted information relates to how
CSIS, Canadas intelligence service, operates. Clearly, as I have found, such
disclosure is injurious to the public interest. I adopt the words chosen by Justice
MacKay in Singh (J.B.) v. Canada (Attorney General),, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1007, a
case where the R.C.M.P. Public Complaints Commission sought disclosure of
documents related to the 1997 APEC Conference. Justice MacKay, at paragraph
32, stated:

The public interest served by maintaining secrecy in the national

security context is weighty. In the balancing of public interests here at
play, that interest would only be outweighed in a clear and compelling
case for disclosure. [emphasis mine]

Given the history of Article 7 back to Nuremberg and the nature and duration of

the human rights violations I suffered and what he knew to be unlawful and
 3

unconstitutional Chinese interests operating in the country back to the 1970s, his

decision-making in this matter cannot be but viewed as non-judicial.

Mr. Lemieuxs background is as follows:

Born October 5, 1937 in Toronto, Ontario. Education at University of Ottawa

(B.A.) and University of Toronto School of Graduate Studies (M.A.) and Law
School. Called to the Ontario Bar, 1966. Associate and Partner, Herridge,
Tolmie. Gray, Coyne and Blair (which merged with Osler Hoskin and Harcourt,
1985), 1967-99. Appointed Judge of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division
and ex officio member of the Court of Appeal, January 21, 1999.

Source: http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Lemieux

Osler is a leading business law firm practising nationally [with almost 500 lawyers
working together from offices across Canada in Toronto, Calgary, Montreal and
Ottawa] [] and is consistently ranked as one of Canadas top firms.

Source: http://www.osler.com/AboutUs

Alumni to the firm include former Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson and
former Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osler,_Hoskin_%26_Harcourt

While geographically the second largest nation in the world, population-wise

Canada is small. For example, it has one-tenth the population of the United

States. Consequently, its very common for those at the pinnacle of government,

industries and associations to know one another and share ideologies. This

circumstance facilitated the consolidation of political power over the generations

(through nepotism and patronage and lengthy Liberal Party rule in the 20 th

century). And it helped the Trudeau Liberals in the 1970s and 1980s firmly
 4

establish Chinas public and private sector interests. The research treatise

argues the following:

To determine how connected to a person is to and knowledgeable about a

countrys governing faction and the super wealthy, an analysis needs to look
closely not only at nepotism and patronage driven appointments, but also and as
importantly with whom an individual is linked to through associations,
organizations and societies. Since national, regional and local communities are
comprised of social networks in and through which the agendas and business of
government and corporate activity are conducted and advanced, discovering who
are on boards reveals what the network is capable of procuring, pursuing,
protecting and achieving because of interlinking spheres of control and influence.
Since membership in Canadas federal, provincial and municipal governments
and the administration of justice are all tightly controlled through the micro-
management of upward mobility opportunities, who someone is linked to through
these associations betrays what and how much he or she knows about and
contributed to the non-transparent constituent of governance.

A notable alumnus of Mr. Lemieuxs firm Osler Hoskin & Harcourt is Paul Martin,

who has intimate personal and corporate links with operators of the Ottawa-

Toronto-Montreal triangle of power and wealth and China 1. He became Prime

Minister upon the resignation of Jean Chrtien in December 2003. During the

1990s Mr. Martin was finance minister (1993 2002) and was perceived

throughout the country as the natural successor to Mr. Chrtien when his political

career came to an end.

Another alumnus of the firm is Ron Atkey QC.2 He was a Canadian federal

minister who served as Chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee

(SIRC) from its inception (1984 to 1989).

1
http://rccintroduction.yolasite.com beginning at headline Puppets of Beijing
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Atkey
 5

SIRC was established by statute to be an independent watchdog of the then

newly created Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS). However, as

is the case with all institutions critical to the interests of the triangle of power and

wealth, the Committee only serves its operators and benefactors.

During the second half of the 1980s Mr. Lutfy was senior counsel at SIRC.

Therefore, theres a nexus of close association and knowledge about national

security issues between Mssers. Lutfy, Lemieux and Atkey.

And herein lies the rationale for Mr. Lutfy appointing Mr. Lemieux to be joint case

manager; for together they ensured the defendants SCT R&D would be

protected and the litigation dismissed before maturing. They were well aware of

the primacy of Chinese political, military and intelligence interests and used their

positions on the federal Bench to advance them at the expense of justice and

having no consideration for the threat SCT posed to the country, its southern

neighbor and the 21st century world.

The law firm Mr. Lutfy was appointed from is Lavery, de Billy. According to its

website1, it traces its roots back to 1913. He was there from 1968 1973, after

which he was recruited to help the Trudeau government as a political advisor;

and thus a member of the inner circle procuring Chinese joint governance.

1
http://lavery.ca/lavery-laywer-firm/lavery-history
 6

That kind of personal and professional history when contextualized in my

research1 adds more evidence demonstrating how much of the Canadian Bar

has been undermined by non-democratic political influences and then Chinas

interests beginning in the 1970s.

From another evidentiary perspective Osler Hoskin & Harcourt produced a

federal judge that would protect Chinas interests because of the kind of clients it

has had. On its website it states and identifies the following:

(i) China Investment Corporation and China National Petroleum

Corporation (Chinas largest oil and gas producer) in connection

with Canadian investments as well as several other Chinese SOEs

in considering acquisitions of Canada listed entities;

(ii) August 2005: China National Petroleum Corporation in the US$4.3

billion acquisition by its wholly-owned subsidiary, CNPC

International, of PetroKazakhstan Inc.;

(iii) February 2007: China National Oil & Gas Exploration &

Development Corporation in a securities class action relating to

alleged insider trading;

(iv) February 2010: ConocoPhillips sale in the Alberta oil sands

Syncrude joint venture to Chinese government owned Sinopec;

1
The culpability assessment of Canadas political leadership lists members of the Bar in top
leadership positions
 7

(v) March 2010: China Investment Corporations sovereign wealth fund

US$500 million secured convertible debenture investment in

Canadas SouthGobi Energy Resources Ltd.;

(vi) May 2010: China Investment Corporations $435 million investment

in Penn West Energy Trust and its $817 million contribution

establishing an oil sands joint venture development.

Additionally, the firm represented some of the biggest companies and

commercial entities in the country all members of the triangle of power and

wealth:

(i) December 1998: Royal Bank of Canada1 in connection with the

Competition Bureaus inquiry into the credit card sector;

(ii) October 2006: Torstar Corporation2 acquires interest in Bell Globemedia

(a division of Bell Canada);

(iii) December 2008: Bank of Montreal1 in its offering of $1,000,200,000 share

offering;

(iv) January 2007: Canwest Global Communications Inc. 3 in connection with

the sale of each of its broadcasting businesses and its newspaper and
publishing businesses; its acquisition of Alliance Atlantis Communications
Inc.; and other related acquisitions and sales;

1
List of the largest: http://www.financialpost.com/news/fp500/list.html
2
Conglomerate of newspaper and television media assets, including a 20% stake in
CTVglobemedia see Thomson-Bell-Chum culpability assessment
3
Canwests media asset, Global TV, is one of three nationally operating television stations
and was involved in the Triggering Event and Haiti telethon as documented in the
Thomson-Bell-Chum culpability assessment
 8

(v) June 2007: TELUS Corporation1 in the auction of BCE Inc. (Bell Canada)
assets;

(vi) October 2007: Royal Bank of Canada2 in its US$2.2 billion acquisition of
RBTT Financial Group;

(vii) December 2007: Cadbury Adams Canada Inc.3 in connection with the
regulatory investigation into allegations of price-fixing in the chocolate
industry and in numerous class actions across Canada;

(viii) February 2008: Royal Bank of Canada in its $1.35 billion acquisition of
Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd.;

(ix) October 2009: Bank of Nova Scotia in its offering of $1,000,000,000

Debentures.

1
Telus was a vehicle to brag about the R&D, deployment and proliferation of SCT as
documented at http://chinadamalfeasance4.yolasite.com
2
The Royal Bank was identified at http://www.financialpost.com/news/fp500/list.html in 2009 as
the largest commercial entity
3
Cadbury was with Thomson-Bells CTV a vehicle to brag about the R&D, deployment and
proliferation of SCT as documented at http://article7bragging2.yolasite.com

While there is no easily obtainable direct evidence of who Osler Hoskin &

Harcourt represented in the 80s and 90s, it is a safe inference given the firms

alumni and the clients identified supra they were the same calibre and of the

same international nature as in the 2000s. It along with other nationally

operating, politically connected firms dotted the Is and crossed the Ts of Chinas

commercial interests as documented in the CSIS-RCMP Sidewinder Report1.

1
http://www.primetimecrime.com/Articles/RobertRead/Sidewinder%20page%201.htm
 9

In the case of the Federal Court of Canada, culpability for crimes against

humanity lies with Mr. Lutfy because he was the Associate Chief Justice and

responsible for administering the court docket. He was the directing or

operating mind on the federal Bench. In that role he assigned himself and Mr.

Lemieux as case managers for the reasons stated.

Mr. Lemieuxs conduct is not in the category of a directing mind with respect to

SCT. However, he and many others will be prosecuted in due course pursuant

to The Security of Information Act (text at http://rccintroduction.yolasite.com);

which provides for upwards of life imprisonment for those who help foreign

governments in a manner that endangers the health and safety of Canadians

whether as perpetrator or accessory after the fact.

Best regards,

Brad Kempo, Barrister & Solicitor