Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor [Alberta]

914 950 Drake Avenue

Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6Z 2B9
Ph. 604.609.0520
bkempo@hotmail.com
CONFIDENTIAL

October 14, 2007

Directeur gnral
Me Pierre Gauthier
Barreau du Qubec
445, boulevard Saint-Laurent
Montreal, QC, H2Y 3T8

Via e-mail: pgauthier@barreau.qc.ca

Dear Sir:

Re: Brian Mulroney

In Submission One, Appendix A is a list of violations of domestic and

international law, some of which the member is accused of. There is a domestic
statute which it is respectfully submitted was also blatantly violated by him and
his government in a systemic manner:

Security of Information Act (R.S., 1985, c. O-5)

3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a purpose is prejudicial to the safety
or interests of the State if a person

(a) commits, in Canada, an offence against the laws of Canada or

a province that is punishable by a maximum term of
imprisonment of two years or more in order to advance a
political, [] or ideological purpose, objective or cause or to
benefit a foreign entity [];

(c) causes or aggravates an urgent and critical situation in

Canada that
 2

(i) endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians, or

(ii) threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to

preserve the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of
Canada;

(d)(i) impairs or threatens the capabilities of the Government of

Canada in relation to security and intelligence

Foreign-Influenced or Terrorist-Influenced Threats or Violence

20. (1) Every person commits an offence who, at the direction of, for the
benefit of or in association with a foreign entity [], induces or
attempts to induce, by threat, accusation, menace or violence, any
person to do anything or to cause anything to be done

(a) that is for the purpose of increasing the capacity of a foreign

entity to harm Canadian interests; or

(b) that is reasonably likely to harm Canadian interests.

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is

guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.

Harbouring or concealing

21. (1) Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of enabling
or facilitating an offence under this Act, knowingly harbours or
conceals a person whom he or she knows to be a person who has
committed or is likely to commit an offence under this Act.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is

guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a
term of not more than 10 years.

Conspiracy, attempts, etc.

23. Every person commits an offence who conspires or attempts to

commit, is an accessory after the fact in relation to or counsels in relation
to an offence under this Act and is liable to the same punishment and to
be proceeded against in the same manner as if he or she had committed
the offence.

It is submitted that the member governments secret domestic and foreign policy
agendas of Chinese de facto governance and economy monopolization and
Canada-China wealth sharing back to the Trudeau era and ratified, advanced
and strengthened by the member in his official capacity and all activity related
 3

directly or indirectly to them were egregious in the extreme; violating the spirit
and letter of the excerpted sections of the legislation.

The unexamined evidence in the Amended Statement of Claim filed in the

Federal Court action (T-1114-02; DES-5-03) proves multiple instances of harm
and aggressive menacing I experienced over when the member was Prime
Minister that the research indicates was linked to his governments China
domestic and foreign policy relating to Canadian colonization and militarization
and the global hegemony initiative. This state behavior under his direct control
and influence is accurately described in the follow passage, referred to in the
original complaint letter:

Laurentian University professor Gary Kinsmen published Whose National

Security? Canadian State Surveillance and the Creation of Enemies
(Kinsman, Buse, Steedman, Between the Lines Toronto 2000), which
corroborates what I pled in my federal lawsuit about what Ive
experienced for the last twenty years:

The members of the political, economic, and social elite who

defined Canadian national security were interested in perpetuating
social regulation, in ensuring a social stability that would, in the
end, be to their own benefit and to the benefit of others like them.
The national security campaigns would stir up and maintain a
climate of fear directed against those defined as different or
other and thereby also help to maintain the control of people
located in positions of power and privilege.

[italics and underscore added]

Numerous assaults were experienced when the member was Prime Minister;
documented in the Amended Statement of Claim: paras. 68(j) and (k), 82(h) and
119-122.

A natural question that ought to be asked for the purposes of assessing ethical
culpability is what falls within the statutes definition of Canadian interests. It is
indisputable that one cluster of interests involves the protection of democracy,
enforcing rule of law accountability and assuring human rights, political,
 4

economic and cultural pluralism and relatively free market capitalism. Another
involves the integrity, independence and impartiality of institutions of law
enforcement and justice, such as the police, the legal profession and the courts.
It was previously submitted that segments of them were secretly undermined and
co-opted to advance the agendas of political power consolidation and economy
monopolization motivated predatory nepotism exclusion to advance Chinas
Canada and global hegemony agendas.

The publication of Professor Kinsman et al. asks the question relevant to this
analysis: Whose National Security is being protected and enhanced by Canadas
security apparatus of the RCMP, CSIS, DND and police services. To him and his
colleagues it is only the the political, economic, and social elite (supra) in
other words, Canadas politically affluent and wealthy, which includes the
category of rich Chinese identified in the Sidewinder Report (and their military
assets identified in the submissions and supplementals). And, given my
experiences, Canadas interests have been to the parochial and unconstitutional
benefit of the indigenous eco-political elite who were striving for absolute political
authority throughout the 20th century to share with the PRC; and when achieved
by Pierre Trudeau et al. in the 1970s led to the member mandating the security
apparatus to engage in campaigns of perpetual professional and entrepreneurial
marginalization and economic peripheralization for their victims. In the early
1990s menacing- and violence-relevant Chinese military schadenfreude and
propaganda generation motivated the entire security apparatus. The Amended
Statement of Claim is a testament to what they were instructed to do by the
member and which the Chrtien-appointed courts blanket ratified in 2002, 2003,
2004 and 2005.

Frankly, there couldnt be a more gross set of violations of the Security of

Information Act when examining my predicament; that is, except the effects of
this secret paradigm of legislation-infringing governance on other groups in
Canadian society including the First Nations and the poor. Here the egregious
 5

natures of the infractions are as if not more pronounced. Perpetually

impoverishing economically disadvantaged Canadians (see Federal Eco-Political
Hypocrisy That Proves Economic Genocide in the Last Democratic Fiefdom and
Submission Seven) and causing the premature deaths of many because of these
government policies also comes within the meaning of harm in the legislation
because they were linked to the members China colonization and militarization
agendas.

Best regards,

Brad Kempo