When Lawyers Don’t Come to the Aid of Lawyers
the Imperialistic Totalitarians Win
The Canadian and American Experience
© 2010 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
There are a multitude of weaknesses and vulnerabilities in democracy and capitalism; and the Chinese have been looking for each and every of them since they emerged out of their self-imposed isolation in the late 1980s; and which not coincidentally coincides with enslaving the Canadian lawyer in the Article 7 violating program.
The administration of justice is undeniably the soft underbelly of modern society, being a product of centuries-in-the-making accountability mechanisms that protect individuals from abuses of power and thereby keep civil society democratically healthy.
The evidence is now incontrovertible that north of the 49th Parallel lawyers who’ve been a victim of most egregious human rights violations cannot rely in any way shape or form on them or the collegiality in the legal profession when not only seeking justice but also when trying to reform systemic dysfunctionalities and holding malfeasant parties to account.
It’s an experience that U.S. counsel should heed with considering whether or not to assist him because if they decline that’ll send a powerful message to imperialistic totalitarians that what they’ve discovered and have been exploiting for two decades is much more acute than first thought.
That the legal profession is a target for what’s described in the headnote was underscored in the very last episode of David E. Kellys’ ‘Boston Legal’ as documented in the diplomacy archive: David E. Kelley's Final Episode of Boston Legal: Closing Arguments Drawing Attention to the Chinadization of Canada's Legal Profession and its Consequences.
David E. scripts the fictionally famous law firm who’s suffering financial woes being purchased by the Chinese. Some members oppose this and file a motion to halt the sale. (The lexicon in the original documentation is omitted here.)
The very last broadcast of David E.’s always geo-politically captivating television series was episode number 12, entitled “Made in China” and arranged for broadcast on the lexiconically significant 12.8.08.
[…]
The hearing starts with the judge being confused:
Judge: Wait a second. You [Paul] are here representing Crane Poole & Schmidt? And you’re here [Shirley] …
Shirley: …Also representing Crane Poole & Schmidt. And I would remind the court that I’m ‘Schmidt’.
Paul: Your Honor, the partnership voted overwhelmingly to approve this merger; and it is lawful. It’s pursuant to a valid partnership agreement entered into by Ms. Schmidt.
Shirley: And it is against public policy.
Judge: Why? To have a business acquired by Chinese interests - - You’re a little late on the protest wagon, if that’s what you’re talking about.
Shirley: You Honor, it is one thing for them to acquire manufacturing and software companies. It’s quite another to allow them to have a death grip on our law firms…
Paul: …Death grip?
Shirley: …which are in the business of safeguarding our individual liberties…
Judge: …Hey counsel…
Shirley: …this does not scare you?
Paul: Shame on you!
Judge: Hold on. The law is the law. If the Chinese buy companies here, well, they have to play by our rules.
Shirley: And if they don’t want to play by our rules, what more effective and insidious way to circumvent our laws than to gain control of America’s law firms?
Paul: Your Honor, this is just outrageous…
Shirley: …May I finish? [pause] China is a lovely country. I’ve always wanted to visit their [...pause...] walls.
But the idea of China coming here is terrifying – I’m sorry – their record on human rights is atrocious. do not support freedom of speech, freedom of religion. They do support Sudanwhich enables them to contribute to the genocide in Darfur.
They turned a blind eye to female infanticide. They force abortion. They practice torture. China’s economy will overtake ours– that’s not even a question. They have so much money invested here now, add to that the devaluation of our dollar, they practically own us already.
Their goal is to become a civilizational power. And they have the wealth to achieve that. Let them buy up all our lawyers and watch out. I do not want to fall into their hands. And, by the way, it is folly to think we will control them with our laws. It is ludicrous to think we’ll be tough on their human rights violations because we haven’t been. And why? Because they own us. As Hillary Clinton said: “How do you get tough with your banker?”.
I…, I understand the United States may end up working for China one day – I get that. It’s a new world order. But as far as law firms go, my name is on this one and my life’s work has been to build up… [pause]. Let them start with someone else’s firm.
In September 2002 the Canadian lawyer appeared in the Federal Court of Canada to argue the merits of the ‘costs in advance of trial’ motion that because he’d been aggressively impoverished for over a decade by the defendant’s agencies to advance the militarized Article 7 violation it ought to pay all his costs of prosecuting the litigation. Case law was on his side. One of the criteria the common law imposed upon him before seeking this relief was that he have attempted and failed to retain counsel who’d act on a contingency or pro bono basis.
One case that was argued before then Associate Chief Justice Allan Lutfy (now C.J.) that served as precedent for establishing the relief proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada and was decided in favor of the pecuniarily disadvantaged party. For McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Binnie, Arbour and Deschamps JJ.) Lebel J. states:
Concerns about access to justice and the desirability of mitigating severe inequality between litigants also feature prominently in the rare cases where interim costs are awarded. An award of costs of this nature forestalls the danger that a meritorious legal argument will be prevented from going forward merely because a party lacks the financial resources to proceed. That costs orders can be used in this way in a narrow class of exceptional cases was recognized early on by the English courts. In Jones v. Coxeter (1742), 2 Atk. 400, 26 E.R. 642 (Ch.), the Lord Chancellor found that “the poverty of the person will not allow her to carry on the cause, unless the court will direct the defendant to pay something to the plaintiff in the mean time”. Invoking the “intirely discretionary” equitable jurisdiction to order costs, he ordered costs to be paid to the plaintiff “to empower her to go on with the cause” (p. 642). The discretionary power to award interim costs in appropriate cases has also been recognized in Canada. An extensive discussion of this power is found in Organ v. Barnett (1992), 11 O.R. (3d) 210 (Gen. Div.). Macdonald J. reviewed the authorities, including Jones, supra, and concluded that “the court does have a general jurisdiction to award interim costs in a proceeding” (p. 215 (emphasis in original)). She also found that that jurisdiction was “limited to very exceptional cases and ought to be narrowly applied, especially when the court is being asked to essentially pre‑determine an issue” (p. 215).
There are several conditions that the case law identifies as relevant to the exercise of this power, all of which must be present for an interim costs order to be granted. The party seeking the order must be impecunious to the extent that, without such an order, that party would be deprived of the opportunity to proceed with the case. The claimant must establish a prima facie case of sufficient merit to warrant pursuit. And there must be special circumstances sufficient to satisfy the court that the case is within the narrow class of cases where this extraordinary exercise of its powers is appropriate.
[…]
[P]ublic law cases as a class can be distinguished from ordinary civil disputes. They may be viewed as a subcategory where the “special circumstances” that must be present to justify an award of interim costs are related to the public importance of the questions at issue in the case.
[…]
I agree with Newbury J.A. that the prospect of the Bands’ hiring counsel on a contingency basis seems unrealistic in the particular circumstances of this case.
It is in this final quote malfeasant parties were encouraged as the Canadian lawyer sought and failed to retain counsel to assist with prosecuting his complex litigation. Because he’d been covertly driven and kept below the poverty line since the late 1980s for the purposes of advancing the Article 7 violating program and the case itself was highly controversial getting help on a contingency fee basis was impossible. To those who in the early 2000s had been seeking to proliferate totalitarian political and corporate cultures, this was a victory to relish.
All seven motions filed in pursuit of pre-trial relief, including the critical ‘costs in advance of trial’ and privilege challenges, fell victim to malicious judicial bias.*
* More on Lutfy C.J. and the costs motion in International Criminal Court submissions dated September 21st and 29th posted on the A7AI website in the ‘ICC Review’ section
Since all judges were once lawyers who’d been in practice for decades, intentionally abandoning that which makes the courts a protector of fundamental rights and entitlements to advance policies and practices antithetical to western values was more than an abdication of judicial responsibility. In this circumstance those vehemently opposed to democracy, rule of law, human rights and free markets joyfully observed, and found status quo beneficial a vulnerability-seeking roadmap for securing undefeatable domestic hegemony in more and more countries. Trans-generational nepotism and patronage and protracted one party rule in emerging democracies delivers an administration of justice that serves the parochial interests of sociopathic power and prosperity theft.
The next time these interests both in Canada and globally were put to the test were in August 2007. That’s when he launched his double-pronged reform and accountability initiative. Original recipients of his research and credibility unchallenged litigation evidence were all of Canada’s law societies, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) and various other organizations in the profession. And beginning in the autumn he began filing what would become some seventy disciplinary complaints with law societies whose members were top-level political leaders who on the evidence were complicit in Chinese joint governance in all its forms. And there were senior counsel of the largest firms in the country who’d been first asked to reform client policies. They dotted the Is and crossed the Ts of unlawful Chinese economic activity as documented in the CSIS-RCMP Sidewinder Report. As was stated in How Canada’s Fourteen Largest Law Firms Linked To the PRC Reacted to the Fiefdom Treatise and What That Says About Their Culpability and Ethical Irresponsibility:
Senior and managing partners of the largest firms from the 1970s to 2008:
(a) established a plethora of big business corporations for the Chinese that had close federal, provincial and municipal ties;
(b) established a plethora of small, medium and big business corporations for the Chinese that gained access to the American marketplace for the purposes of espionage and global hegemony related sabotage;
(c) served as go-between to facilitate and perpetuate lucrative state contracts for the Chinese and the country’s wealthy;
(d) created and structured partnerships, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions for and between PRC corporations and Canadian big business (including federal and provincial Crown corporations); and
(e) helped the Chinese and rich connected Canadians together individually and collectively hoard and funnel Canadian wealth through outward foreign direct investment avenues to China and all points east, west and south (i.e., the wealth plundering dynamic).
It’s an inescapable fact the PRC and its million plus military and intelligence agents couldn’t have militarized the country nor could Beijing have shared plundered wealth with the rich and powerful without the complicit aid of the legal profession – just like predatory nepotism-patronage exclusion wouldn’t have been successful unless the law societies proactively filtered out ‘undesirables’ like the Canadian lawyer. Where the police, attorneys general, solicitors general and Bench absolved the malfeasant of criminal and civil liability and nurtured their schadenfreude-addicted sociopathology, senior and managing partners took care of the legal formalities of these dynamics: made sure the I’s were dotted and the T’s crossed. They never put their mind to the carnage of pain, suffering and loss the rich, powerful and Chinese were causing – or if they did, didn’t care; because to them it was all about power and control, all about money; all about prestige.
That the egregious unlawfulness occasioned on him measured in decades fell on deaf ears within the very organizations that were supposed to champion the independence of Bench and Bar and protect members at all costs was further revelatory for malfeasant parties what to covertly attack when seeking to establish and perpetuate law-violating policies and practices in the developing world. In March 2008 complaints he states the following, beginning with drawing attention to his credibility having remained in tact since not a single motion affidavit was ever cross-examined:
The federal court record of credibility-unchallenged evidence prevented everybody in receipt of the Fiefdom treatise substituting their opinion for the record and claiming I had not been a victim of what was pled.
[...]
Once I proved my case in court the legal profession – law firms, law societies, the Canadian Bar Association and affiliated agencies – should have fully empathized with me to the point of extending protection and offering advocacy. And the RCMP, local police, attorneys general and judges should have moved quickly and efficaciously as much to prosecute and punish wrongdoers for their conduct not only because I was a Canadian citizen deserving of security and justice, but also because I was the son of a federal judge and nephew of a senator. Ipso facto what happened to me was a vicious, unrelenting and successful attack on the institutions and independence of the legal profession, judiciary and Parliament by malfeasant Canadians and a foreign government.
Instead I was abandoned en masse – which was convincingly corroborative not only of staunch loyalty within the institutions of the legal profession to Canada’s secret totalitarian paradigm of governance, but also these omissions further eliminated reasonable doubt about the complicity of the Law Society of Alberta and British Columbia serving me clandestinely up to enslaved human experimentation.
In professions and business communities where there is collegiality, members who are attacked, injured, sabotaged and harassed are immediate recipients of efficacious assistance and aggressive remedial action. In the legal profession and judiciary, especially, where their independence is more than just a theoretical construct – it’s a constitutional imperative – there is an objective expectation I would be embraced, not left to the ubiquitous hell originally created by the sociopathic malfeasant and perpetuated by them when they saw ratification from the very organizations and associations that naturally provide lawyers and the children of judges and parliamentarians aid and advocacy. They reveled in the court and legal profession’s implicit endorsement of their transgressions and not only continued to stalk and threaten me with death repeatedly to keep the ‘climate of fear’ inescapably in the fore of my mind, they persistently tortured me with the hypnosis technologies they created using me like a trapped lab monkey and enthusiastically pushed the experimentation envelope ever further.
The first recipient of his research and evidence was the Canadian Bar Association in July 2007. He writes in his law society complaint against its Executive Director:
The violations of these provisions of the [legal profession’s] Code of Conduct stem from original communications with the President of the British Columbia Branch of the CBA:
Attention: Frits Verhoeven, President
From: Brad Kempo (bkempo@hotmail.com)
Sent: July 18, 2007 9:24:23 AM
To: fverhoeven@ekb.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Frits
Please find attached thirteen documents for your committee's review.
Best regards,
Brad Kempo
914 – 950 Drake Avenue
Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6Z 2B9
Ph. 604.609.0520
Mr. Verhoeven wrote back the following day:
This is in response to your letter to me of July 18, 2007, enclosing several other documents. I note the same or similar material has been sent to numerous other organizations.
I thank you for drawing your concerns to our attention. However, having reviewed your letter to me and at least some of the accompanying documents, it is clear to me that the matters of concern to you do not fall within the role of the Canadian Bar Association.
Having not received the response expected in the circumstances and to ‘appeal’ the decision not to engage the research findings, conduct investigations, collaborate with colleagues and mandate committees to the national office, the member was contacted. On Friday afternoon, July 20, 2007, the Ottawa CBA’s office manager, Caroline Charlebois, was spoken to and provided a truncated version of the evidence; advised Mr. Verhoeven’s treatment was unsatisfactory; and the member would be contacted directly on Monday.
On Monday, July 24th, the member was hostile in the extreme from the outset, repeatedly refused a brief summary and demanded the matter be summed up in as short a time as possible. Within one and a half to two minutes the conversation was over.
Having exhausted the appeal at that level of administration, the President and two Vice-Presidents were contacted by e-mail – each provided the submission. I wanted confirmation that the three recipients had received the entire e-mail so I phoned Caroline on or about July 30th asking her to contact each of them to get said confirmation. The matter was not revisited for three weeks because she attended the CBA’s annual convention in Calgary.
On Tuesday, August 21st she was contacted to follow up and she advised she had been instructed by the member to provide no assistance with respect to confirmation.
[…]
No other government or quasi-governmental official or individual contacted to date employed such a level of hostility as the member – indicative at minimum of having loyalties and seeking to protect interests and cover for officials and individuals involved in the two secret agendas; and at maximum evidence of complicity to perpetuate them.
The member has held a very important and nationally high profile position in the country with respect to the administration of the legal profession and justice for eleven years. His failure to engage the research findings, conduct investigations, collaborate with colleagues and mandate committees reveals not stultification as contextualized supra, but leads to the conclusion he has no interest whatsoever to engage in what [the Code‘s] Chapter XIII requires.
Spotting deficiencies in the legal profession, administration of justice and the law, addressing malfeasance in the system and engaging in meaningful, substantive reform – rectifying systemic failings in Bench and Bar – are the raison d'être of the CBA. His total refusal to hold meetings, investigate further, collaborate and engage in reform is an abdication, an inexcusable abandonment, of his core responsibilities; which, it is respectfully submitted, attracts sanction.
What elevates culpability is the fact the member didn’t simply fail to fulfill his obligations under the Code; he did so to protect and perpetuate the two nefarious agendas for secret interests of the aforesaid three sub-factions, which include but are not limited to economy monopolization, wealth plundering, sovereignty-sharing motivated Chinese militarization, the institutionalization and militarization of International Covenant violations (which included breaches of the United Nations conventions on slavery and torture) and aiding Chinese global imperialism.
In addition to Code obligations, the member is involved in the judicial appointment selection process. The CBA, law societies and the Minister of Justice regularly collaborate. Having been and continuing to be involved in the advancement of the two secret agendas, it can be reasonably and safely inferred his candidate selections were tainted with a view to undermining the integrity and independence of the federal and provincial Bench.
In a March 15, 2007 letter to the Parliamentary Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights by the then CBA President he states:
The CBA has a long-standing interest in the appointment process for judges, and in ensuring that the independence of the judiciary is preserved and enhanced, that appointments are of the highest quality, and that the process for appointment of judges is open and transparent. The 1984, the CBA established the McKelvey Committee on The Appointment of Judges in Canada. A key issue before the … Committee was the extent of political patronage in appointments.
[…]
The CBA Committee on the Judiciary [was] created in 1966 to provide non-partisan advice to the federal government on judicial appointments.
[…]
Any person in Canada appearing before a federally-appointed judge deserves to have confidence that the judge is qualified and will be impartial between the parties and any government interests in the case. This is a fundamental tenet of our democracy and a constitutional requirement.
This reference was added to the CBA Executive Director’s complaint:
Ensuring Supreme Confidence in Judicial Appointments
by William Johnson QC [Former CBA President]
Policy Options 2004, irpp.org
An independent judiciary is essential to confidence in the integrity of our justice system. “Judicial independence,” writes the president of the Canadian Bar Association, “ensures that the courts guard our Constitution and the democratic process.” And nothing ensures an independent judiciary more than a nomination process that is free of patronage and political manipulation. The present appointment process of judges, involv[es] extensive but private consultations between the federal justice department, provincial attorneys general, and the Bar…
[…]
The Canadian Bar Association […] [has] long been in the forefront of calls to strengthen that process, to make it more transparent, and to reduce the possibility of appointments based on patronage rather than merit.
[…]
The [CBA] established its National Committee on the Judiciary in 1967 after discussions with Pierre Trudeau, then minister of justice. The committee’s mandate was to assist the minister of justice by considering and expressing opinions on the suitability of individuals the minister was considering for judicial appointment.
This was argued in a bias motion filed in the Federal Court action in December 2004 and never set down for a hearing:
12. What are the possible mechanisms that could be employed or influences brought to bear to interfere, attack or otherwise undermine the independence of the Bar and the judiciary? There is a continuum from the most brazen and most vicious attacks on lawyers, such as assassination, blackmail, extortion, battery, defamation, libel and conspiracy to injure to more subtle but intimidating, including assault, surveillance qua stalking and harassment of family members, unlawful entry to residence to commit vandalism and theft and using wiretap information to socially engineer emotionally destabilizing events and circumstances. In The Judiciary in Canada: The Third Branch of Government, (McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, Toronto 1987), Peter Russell at page 82 states:
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 level more subtle than the threat of removal.
With not a single disciplinary complaint filed, with one exception, being investigated is more evidence of a profoundly dysfunctional legal profession and an exploitable paradigm for imperialistic totalitarians. That exception involved former Prime Minister of Canada Brian Mulroney, under whose Conservative Party leadership Chinese joint governance and militarization became a trans-political (i.e., Liberal-Conservative) policy and the human experimentation program commenced. The Quebec Law Society reviewed and dismissed at first instance. An appeal was filed and it too was dismissed. In the case involving former Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan (December 2003 – January 2006) the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society refused to even open a file. When an appeal was launched on that decision it was refused on the basis that since a file wasn’t opened there was nothing to appeal.
* Results are posted on the RCC website in Stultification Within the Legal Profession, Administration of Justice and Government That Perpetuates the Last Democratic Fiefdom
The other autumn 2007 reform and accountability motivated interaction with the administration of justice was with attorneys general – federal and one provincial. Criminal complaints pursuant to The Security of Information Act (quoted in the RCC Introduction) were filed and … ignored.
When when the ‘National Security’ Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police formally commenced an investigation pursuant to that statute in September 2008 – a life sentence being legislatively available for the most egregious violations – every chief and associate chief justice and judge in Canada were contacted directly and edified. The investigation brought credibility independent of the litigation to all the allegations.*
* Not contacted were the judiciary in British Columbia and Alberta and the Federal Court of Canada (trial & appeal divisions) -- the former two to preserve integrity of possible court action in the future and the latter because it was proven complicit via the 2002-commenced and 2005-dissmised litigation. See Other Institutions of the Administration of Justice That Perpetuated and Protected Chinese Joint Sovereignty Involving Economy Monopolization and Wealth Embezzlement
By mid-spring 2009 it was evident the most administratively important members of Canada’s judiciary were going to protect the non-transparent unconstitutional and international law violating constituent of governance. Doing so in the face of what they knew was an international coalition threatening all manner of reform and accountability was more evidence how entrenched and protected systemic corruption, criminality and human rights violations were – and of brazen arrogance.
To successfully replicate all of the foregoing in what are mostly second and third world nations on the planet is a now challenge-tested recipe for totalitarianism to expand dominos-style and triumph over democracy in the 21st century. Add China’s now demonstrated extortionistic capitalism and success is guaranteed: Beijing Leadership Flexes its Global Imperialism Muscle by Forcing a Dozen and a Half Governments to Boycott Human Rights Motivated Nobel Prize Award Ceremony.
Beginning in mid-December 2010 the Article 7 Accountability Institute was launched to in part hold malfeasant parties to account in U.S. courts. One procedural barrier is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which serves as a complete bar to filing suit against the governments of Canada and China. An aggressive search was conducted for American counsel to assist. The following e-mailed argument seeks to convince them there is no absolute prohibition:
A review of your c.v. on your firm’s website indicates you have expertise in foreign sovereign immunity law. You therefore have both direct knowledge and what I call “informed intuition” that can help predict how receptive U.S. courts will be when filing suit against foreign governments.
I readily confess to being a neophyte viz. alien tort and foreign sovereign immunity law; although I have done enough preliminary research to be aware of potential procedural roadblocks. While it appears black letter law precludes jurisdiction we both know courts have the ability to and occasionally do craft exceptions based on public policy, distinguishable facts and other considerations where the legislation is silent and there are exceptional or exigent circumstances.
As you move the facts I present on the A7AI website through the prism of your expertise I’d ask you to consider the likelihood that an exception would be granted where an egregious human rights violation manifestly and profoundly threatens American national and economic security. It’s one thing for foreigners to seek relief in U.S. courts for what their governments did and where the judiciary protects domestic political and/or corporate interests. It’s quite another for those infringements to threaten America.
Certainly the common law is sensitive to the floodgate argument and judges always feel handcuffed when faced with legislation short-sightedness, intentional or inadvertent. In the situation I introduce a motion or appeals court could well determine that in light of distinguishable facts an exception can be made or, alternatively, trigger a national debate in articulating very publicly how Congress ought to address this matter.
Receptivity during the first week was mixed. Not encouraging were two experiences. One lawyer from Morrison Foerster (10 firms U.S.; 6 worldwide) listened intently for a solid hour and then most surprisingly stated the case wouldn’t be taken on a contingency fee basis. Frustrating was not being advised of his firm’s policy when learning during the introduction the Canadian lawyer had been forced into poverty to advance the Article 7 violation and not being sensitive to the argument a fellow member of the Bar had been turned into a perpetually enslaved and tortured lab monkey for imperialistic totalitarians. Another, who had an almost identical undergrad degree as the Canadian – Government and Philosophy – from Gibbons P.C. (5 U.S.) heard some 40 minutes of it and then without any notice and rudely hung up when discovering there was only an implied contract between the Canadian and his coalition partners. He failed to recall that independent of that cause of action was the more serious issue of suing malfeasant parties for the multi-decade human rights violation and blatant attack on the legal profession.
Encouraging was observing the opposite – several lawyers, in spite of the unique-and-controversial-to-bizarre facts, agreed to conduct due diligence.
For American lawyers to ultimately declined to participate will be another massive coup for those who see the West like royalty of its neighbors during medieval times – there to be conquered, citizens subjugated and chattelized and the wealth of defeated nations to be plundered. Further, the proven culture of political schadenfreude motivated by some twisted attraction to Satanism and which leads to surreptitious assassination without culpability will find comfort, strength and motivation in an American Bar that declines to confront a menace which lurks right next door north of the 49th Parallel.
Most geo-politically and historically advantageous is who’s at the pinnacle of American federal political authority – leaders truly appreciative of the foregoing: Obama, Obama, Biden & Clinton: Four Lawyers Inhabit the White House and What That Means for the Reform and Demilitarization of Canada's Administration of Justice.
In this diplomacy archive supplemental is the following, which is apropos to what’s documented and argued herein:
What lawyer can forget that part of the 1997 movie The Devils Advocate when Keanu Reeve’s character finds out he’s the son of Satan, played by Al Pacino, and confronts him; asking him why he reincarnated the two of them as members of the profession?
Lomax: Why the law? … Why lawyers?
Milton: Because the law, my boy, puts us into everything. It's the ultimate backstage pass. It's the new priesthood, baby.
The general point made ... is historically accurate. The lawyer’s role in the 20th and early 21st centuries has undeniable parallels with the functions, power and credibility of medieval clerics when the state was organized and governed according to the dictates of ancient religions. In Canada as with other western democracies, lawyers comprise all the judges; are prime ministers, premiers, cabinet members, mayors and senior bureaucrats; are heads of quasi-judicial and administration tribunals; are appointed to the executive and serve on corporate boards of the largest corporations; and are turned to by governments, companies, associations and individuals regardless of station in life for critically important advice, direction and advocacy.
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 two centuries of patronage-driven authoritarian corruption and thirty-five years of Chinese totalitarian principles, values, beliefs and loyalties not to have been injected into and become thoroughly engrained in the ideological fabric of the country’s legal profession, attorneys general and courts.
