You are on page 1of 15

Canadian Governance Reform Council

914 950 Drake Avenue


Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6Z 2B9
Ph. 604 609 0520 (Cdn)
Ph. 0435 872 867 (Au)
reformcouncil.weebly.com
bradkempoesq13@gmail.com

April 21, 2016


Ministry for Immigration and Border Protection
Parliament House
Canberra, ACT
Australia 2600
Attention: Honourable Petter Dutton MP
Dear Sir:
Re:

Request for an internal investigation with respect to visa


extension application and relief pursuant to criminality and
abuses of power

On or about March 30, 2016 I attended at the immigration office in The Civic
for the purpose of inquiring about extending my Visitor Visa not knowing I had
failed to comply with the requirement of leaving the country every three
months (due to a Vancouver travel agents advice incompetence) and
reapplying. I was granted a temporary visa for five days, expiring on April
7th, to file the documentation. Because there was not enough room for full
disclosure I authored a series of addendums and provided additional evidence.
I was notified that processing would take between two to three weeks. The
decision was made and delivered to me on April 13th; which comprised a total
of only four business days.

Notification of refusal of application for a Visitor (class FA) Visitor (Tourist)


(subclass 600) visa
Upon reviewing the reasons for the rejection it was immediately apparent the
assessor was not just biased, but maliciously so. There was such an
accumulation of blatant errors of procedure, fact and law it was easily inferred
she was approached by the constituent of the Australian intelligence
community responsible for serial criminality, abhorrent abuses of power and
egregious human rights violations (when residing in Sydney, Melbourne,
Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Canberra) and agreed to contribute to what is
conspiratorial punitive retaliation for:
(1)

the Joint Submission delivered on February 20th to Prime Minister


Malcolm Turnbull, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Minister of Defence
Marise Payne, Inspector General Margaret Stone and PJCIS Chair Mr.
Dan Tehan MP (as he then was) & Deputy Chair Anthony Byrne;
premiers Jay Weatherill, Daniel Andrews and Mike Baird; and on
2

March 21st ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr; and on March 16th to
Attorney General George Brandis QC;
(2)

the submission delivered on March 11th to Senator Penny Wong that


sought to assist in her formulating amendments to legislation that
regulates the oversight of the intelligence community;

(3)

the police report filed on March 22nd with AFP Sr. Constable Lauren
Greenup pursuant to the theft of my flatmates bike in my possession
and control at the Woden bus interchange;

(4)

the submission delivered on April 4th to Mark Staughair, Security


Manager for the National Library of Australia documenting criminality
on the premises; and

(5)

the correspondence delivered on April 10th to Speaker of the House


of Representatives, Tony Smith MP.

The Error of Procedure


There is no right of merits review for this decision. This is patently false. I
stated in Question 1 that I was applying in Australia.

Further, Question 20 was answered by stating I was residing at 3 Bunbury


Street, Stirling ACT. Therefore, I have a statutory right to a review by the
relevant tribunal(s).
Errors of Fact
Error #1:
600.211 Genuine NOT MET
Reasoning: Based on the information provided, I am not satisfied
that applicant is a genuine visitor. [] No evidence of intention to
depart.
First, there is no question on the application form inquiring about a date of
departure. Had there been, the information would have been submitted. My
answer: I have an Air Canada flight scheduled for departure from Sydney to
Vancouver on April 26th.
Second, an applicant cannot know with any accuracy when his/her extended
visa, if granted, will expire pursuant to a successful application and thus make
departure arrangements. Its ludicrous to insist on that detail.
Consequently, the assessors reasoning is doubly flawed.
Applicants, like myself, who answer Part 7, Question 43 with a ticked No box
would not be aware of this requirement if there even is one.

Error #2:
600.211 Genuine NOT MET
Reasoning: Details of reasons for staying are not supported with any
documentation.
Firstly, I state in Addendum A: Graduated from law school in Cardiff, Wales
in 1987; and the only other time I left Canada was to travel to Texas in late
April 2013.

In November I intended to spend a lengthy amount of time

exploring this country. The only way to document an intention is by stating


it and doing so truthfully.

If the information provided is false there are

penalties imposed by the law; which is referenced in the application form:


52 Declaration
WARNING: Giving false or misleading information or documents is a
serious offence.
Having read the 'Conditions for a Visitor visa to Australia' on page 1 of this
form, I declare that:

my intention to visit Australia is genuine and I will abide by the


conditions and period of stay of the visa

I have truthfully declared all relevant details of me in this application

Second, I state: I was desirous of circumnavigating the continent in late


December 2015; but not being climatized, i.e., coming from winter conditions,
I experienced heat exhaustion and postponed it. Now that I can handle
temperatures above 30O C, traveling to places like Darwin will not be
physically problematic. Again, the only way to document this is by
representing it in the application and also under pain of sanction if false.

Third, I state:
In January 2015 I commenced a new career in mine financing. []
Over 500 calls to Australian executives led to introducing myself
in early May to Andrew Mortimer. [] He and I entered a strategic
alliance agreement [] the primary purpose of which is to procure
the expansion of his business to the North American market. [] I
continue to assist his pursuit of this corporate objective and want to
be available to meet with him and prospective investors if the need
arises.
There is full documentation of this; namely, the correspondence of Andrew
Mortimer, dated November 30, 2015, and a copy of the first and last page of
our Strategic Alliance Agreement.
Error #3:
The assessor also states inaccurately identifying me in the plural:
They have declared they are a volunteer for Penny Wong. No
evidence was provided to support these claims.
There was sufficient evidence, namely the first page of a twenty-one page
submission (with four other documents: page lengths: 22, 23, 37 & 71):

Canadian Governance Reform Council


914 950 Drake Avenue
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6Z 2B9
Ph. 604 609 0520 (Cdn)
Ph. 0435 872 867 (Au)
reformcouncil.weebly.com
bradkempoesq13@gmail.com

March 10, 2016


Government of Australia
Parliament House
Canberra ACT
Attention: Senator Penny Wong
Dear Maam:
Re: Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and
Security Amendment Bill 2015
I was advised by a PJCIS staffer last week you were sponsoring the
above-captioned. I submit your Bill ought to make accommodation
for the facts and circumstances documented in my Joint Submission
of 20 February 2016 (included herein).
As you know all too well, parliamentary practices and procedures
evolve just like the law does taking into account new circumstances
that need to be examined and regulated. What I experienced since
my arrival in early December that involves the intelligence
community very much necessitates significant reforms
amendments to current legislation that will serve to both provide
adequate oversight viz. abuses of power, criminality and human
rights violations as described herein and deconstruct an institutional
culture that is antithetical to democratic traditions and principles.
I further state: I am desirous to remain in the Australian Capital Territory in
April and May to continue to be available to assist; and include this footnote:
Confirmation of making this submission can be obtained from Anton Van
Bavel, Advisor to the Senator: 2 7277 3874.
Error #4:
600.212 Finance NOT MET
Reasoning: Applicant has provided a bank statement with insufficient
funds. Whilst the applicant has stated they will be supported by their
mother, there is no evidence to support these claims.
7

Again I am inaccurately identified in the plural. Not only did I represent this;
My trip to Australia for as long as I intend to be here has been and
continues to be exclusively financed by my mother. She is a retired
Federal Judge (Tax Court of Canada). She receives a substantial
pension and has the means necessary to pay all my expenses for as
long as I remain in the country. Also see Addendum D.
said Addendum consisted of: Evidence of access to funds to support your
stay: See correspondence herein from my mother dated March 31, 2016.
In it she states:
This is to confirm that I am the mother of Bradley Kempo, that I
have exclusively financed my son's trip to Australia [...] and that I
fully intend to pay all his expenses for as long as he remains in your
country.
This is also to confirm that my current financial status as a retired
Federal Tax Court of Canada Justice enables me to make and
continue the above mentioned commitment.
The submitted Commonwealth Bank statement indicated she had already
made $8,000 available to cover expected and incidental expenses.
To add to the documentation I submitted correspondence with a very recent
bank statement which stated:
Last Thursday, on March 31st, I submitted the [visa extension
application]. Find enclosed herein my Commonwealth Bank
statement for the month of April. Note that today my mother
transferred $700 (minus the fee) into my account. While the
purpose of the funds was to reimburse me for the costs of my
passport (see receipt in my application documents) and the visa
(plus $100 for incidentals), this further demonstrates her
commitment to finance my visit to Australia.

Both were more than totally sufficient to prove I would have sufficient funds
to finance my continued stay in Australia. Full credibility should have been
granted given she is a former federal judge and I am a member of the
Canadian Bar and have been since September 21, 1990.
Error #5:
600.215 Length of Stay NOT MET
Reasoning: Applicant did not state the dates they intend to remain
and depart from Australia.1
I refer you to my previous argument in the section entitled Error #1.
Error #6:
600.213 PIC 4011 Incentive to return NOT MET
Reasoning: Applicant has declared they are employed, however has
not provided evidence to confirm they will be returning to their
employment in Canada.2
When one is self-employed, as I indicated I was in Question 39, there is no
other person who can proffer this evidence except the applicant. Further, no
evidence was requested by the form that would provide that confirmation.
Those who answer Part 7, Question 43 with a ticked No box would not be
aware of this requirement if there even is one.

1
2

Again I am inaccurately identified in the plural.


Again inaccurately identified in the plural.
9

Error #7:
600:221 Visitor NOT MET
Reasoning: Applicant states they intent to amend legislation for
Penny Wong and appears to want to do consultation work with
Government. No documents that support these claims intents are
business related rather than tourist related. Under 600.221, the
applicant must be seeking to visit Australia, or remain in Australia
as a visitor for any other purpose not related to business or medical
treatment.3
I refer you to my previous argument in the section entitled Error #3 with
respect documents that support these claims. It is, when contextualized
within the totality of the allegations made herein, a brazen error of fact and
law to characterize what I submitted to Senator Wong as business related.4
Fabricated is the allegation that it appears [I] want to do consultation work
with Government. This is most telling of the assessors determination to
assist with conspiratorial punitive retaliation.
The most compelling evidence of this employment termination and criminal
prosecution justifying malfeasance is the date of the decision: 13 April 2016.
I was advised by a senior visa official at The Civic office processing the
application it was going to take two to three weeks and it was only four
business days. The chosen date proves specific knowledge in the possession
of the intelligence community. Those responsible arranged for the application
processing time to be swift to meet this deadline in order to signal the
motivation for the relief refusal was geo-political and not based on the merits.

3
4

Again inaccurately identifying in the plural.


Reference Addendum infra herein.
10

This was pled in a U.S. Statement of Claim (February 2013):


2.12

In May 2003 KEMPO was contacted by the DEFENDANT


(hereinafter also the Bush administration, Obama
administration, former President George W. Bush
President Obama and Obama et al.) and solicited to assist
(1) with reform of Canadian governance where it threatened
American national security interests and (2) to help the
DEFENDANT learn how stealth cognition technologies
functioned. He was introduced to and participated in a
sophisticated CIA and Pentagon operated global surveillance,
intelligence
collection
and
communication
system
(hereinafter the diplomatic back-channel).

2.13

The back-channel electronically comprised what the


Pentagon, CIA, other departments and agencies of the
DEFENDANT and NATO members designed, implemented and
operated during the Cold War and was significantly upgraded
after the 9/11 terrorist attack. It did then as it does now link
together the Defendant and thousands of domestically and
internationally situate public and private sector parties. They
and the DEFENDANT collectively comprise a global
community of democracy and human rights advocates
(hereinafter NATO 2.0 or the organization).

2.14

In early January 2004 the diplomatic back-channel


commenced operations; and the Plaintiffs home/office
located at 914 950 Drake Avenue, Vancouver, became and
to this day is a publicly non-transparent diplomacy hub
(hereinafter diplomacy hub) that gave and continues to
provide the DEFENDANT the ability to communicate directly
and in real or slightly delayed real time with him, NATO 2.0
members and the Canada-China alliance.

You, Minister, know all too well, as does Prime Minister Turnbull, his cabinet
appointees and their predecessors dating back to the government of former
P.M. Howard whats transpired in this still publicly non-transparent back11

channel. The number 13 is a globally and organization significant reference


to one of NATO 2.0s most admired and beloved members. It is this attribute
of the decision which irrefutably, i.e., glaringly, proves contemptuousness,
maliciousness, arrogance and belligerence by and complicity with those in the
intelligence community who are responsible for my ordeal since my arrival in
Australia as documented in the Joint Submission and more recently filed with
the Australian Federal Police and Attorney General.
Three other motivations for this decision were to:
(1)

incur an expense by my mother of $1,670 in the form of the tribunal


review fee in the hopes this additional cost to my visit would move
her to terminate my stay in this country (as I have no savings and
she is exclusively financing it). When advised of this decision the
morning of April 16th her very first reaction was to insist that I return
home on April 26th;

(2)

ensure my untimely departure, as that would have enormous


consequences. I am reasonably inferring you are also privy to what
the Joint Submission sought; namely remuneration from the federal
government for taking possession of stealth cognition technologies
(SCTs) without compensating me for decades of pain, suffering,
injury and enormous economic losses and quantum for the serial
criminality and human rights violations when in this country. Being
compelled to leave would end the need to address both matters. And

(3)

make moot the AFP criminal complaint of March 22nd and the request
for another AFP and an Attorney General investigation dated April
13th, as there will be no witness. What was done to shorten my stay

12

as documented herein, therefore, constitutes criminal conspiracy and


criminal obstruction of justice.
It must be pointed out and heavily condemned that in addition to the $1,670
tribunal filing fee plus $1,100 for an advocate, shell be paying my flatmate
whose bike was stolen on March 22nd the settlement agreed amount of $400.
Thats a total of $3,170 shes liable for as a result of scandalous criminality
and abuses of power.
I must draw to your and the Turnbull governments attention she took on the
responsibility of financing all my necessities of life since I was surreptitiously
removed from the practice of law in January 1993 to make way for SCTs R&D.
Further, she continued to exclusively support me during the last decade of
back-channel diplomacy.
It cost my mother from 1993 to 2006 around $25,000 per year being nothing
more than a lab monkey for the Canadian and Chinese governments. And
that same annual amount was paid when a pensioner for the period 2006 until
2015. During this time I was held in geo-political servitude to advance NATO
2.0s agenda. Accounting for occasional expensive incidentals her layout
approaches Cdn$600,000.
If it wasnt for her there wouldnt have been my professional, competent,
trustworthy and reliable Vancouver-situate office serving as a diplomacy hub
one P.M.s Howard and Rudd and their respective cabinet appointees utilized
in 2006 and 2007 to advance NATO 2.0 interests and objectives. Since the
third week of January 2016 Prime Minister Turnbull and his cabinet also
entered the back-channel at every opportunity to pursue the same goals,
which would not have been possible except for her financing my trip. That

13

shes now saddled with the amounts referenced supra because Im a target
for punitive retaliation directly related to back-channel matters is intolerable.
The government must take steps to address what she incurred.
At minimum the foregoing circumstances require your office to conduct a
comprehensive internal investigation or refer the matter to whatever
department or agency that does so, like the AFP. At maximum, that must
occur and my mothers expenses related to the tribunal process ought to be
waived and she reimbursed for the additional costs.
Refusal to pursue the former will constitute an abdication of ministerial
responsibility.
Should there be a need to provide answers to relevant questions by way of an
interview or otherwise, a desire for elucidation on any matter or more
documents, do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Brad Kempo Esq.
c.c.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Senator Penny Wong and the


Australian Federal Police

[see Addendum infra]

14

ADDENDUM
The Error of Law
The submission to Senator Wong was alleged to be a business.
Interpretation Act 1987
33 Regard to be had to purposes or objects of Acts and statutory
rules
In the interpretation of a provision of an Act or statutory rule, a
construction that would promote the purpose or object
underlying the Act or statutory rule (whether or not that purpose
or object is expressly stated in the Act or statutory rule or, in the
case of a statutory rule, in the Act under which the rule was
made) shall be preferred to a construction that would not
promote that purpose or object.
The purpose of the relevant provisions of the Act and Migration Rules relating
to visitor visas is to deny foreigners entrance who would take on gainful
employment at the expense of Australians.

The principal detriment is not

being able to generate income to support ones family and/or oneself. The
Senator did not seek the submission; I offered it unilaterally without terms,
conditions or provisos. Her office did not pay any remuneration for that
authorship nor what followed.

15

You might also like