Professional Documents
Culture Documents
crimes against humanity culpability under the Statute of the Chief Justice of the
The starting point of this examination is the Canadian Judicial Councils Ethical
1
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_1998_en.pdf
2
2. Judicial Independence
Statement:
Principles:
Commentary.
[]
6. Impartiality
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.
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.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
[]
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
elite controlled every major institution of the state. Further, in the 1970s the
Republic of China (PRC) that by the end of that decade developed into what I
constituents of this triangle political dynastic families, old money families and
the executives of the largest corporations in the country granted the PRC
which violated the international law of sovereignty. Employing the common law
analytical principle of form vs. substance it was concluded that while Canadian
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
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.
---------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------
[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.
---------------------------------------------------
particular kind of Chinese Wall was created throughout the factionless federal
Source: http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chinese+Wall
In the political context it means that there is one group of Canadian official
governance and another group that is; and the latter and Canadian public have
those operating and benefiting from the triangle of power and wealth, then
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
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.
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
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
11th.
causing all pre-trial motions to fail, retrospectively with the aid of what was
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.
[]
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
not only affected him in most egregious ways personally, but also impacted his
the facts rose to the level of an exceptional or unique circumstance and a case
decades is a most serious matter, especially given the provisions history, which
When examined with all other judicial actions, omissions and decisions it is
for Judges and not acting in a judicial capacity, but rather as an agent of the
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
this development and filed the Amended Statement of Claim in March 2003
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
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
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
Mr. Lutfys career path is described on the Federal Court website as follows:
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
interests I conducted a review of the federal bench and discovered that by 2003
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
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:
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.
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.
[]
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
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
judicial colleagues were not going to let their images be tarnishing by making
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
Foreign Affairs:
20
21
22
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
motion. The defendant claimed the relitigating defence of res judicata. The
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
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 defendant and malfeasant parties watched the litigation very closely and
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
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
[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
and attacked the independence of the judiciary. The foundation for these
Having a mother on the federal bench and an uncle in the Senate provided an
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.
[]
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).
Mr. Lutfy wasnt acting as a judge, but rather operating covertly as an agent for
and as an agent for the PRC. And thus he is complicit in the crime against
September 2008 I filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC).
The Executive Director dismissed the complaint within days. That matter is
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
(i) http://supremecourtcommunique.synthasite.com
(ii) http://supremecourtcommunique2.synthasite.com
(iii) http://supremecourtcommunique3.yolasite.com
is not only a democratically failed state, its also a rogue state for its participation
people and consciousness itself. The factionless nature of the Canadian State
prevents accountability institutions like the court system from conducting bona
Best regards,