Canadian Governance Reform Council

914 950 Drake Avenue

Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6Z 2B9
Ph. 604.609.0520
http://cgrc.yolasite.com
bradkempoesq@gmail.com

September 13, 2015

Office of the Attorney General of British Columbia

PO Box 9290 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9J7

Attention: Richard Fyfe, QC, Deputy Attorney General

E-Mailed: agwebfeedback@gov.bc.ca

Dear Sir:

Re: Formal Request for a Special Prosecutor to Investigate Criminality and

Human Rights Violations

I am in receipt of the formal response by the Acting Deputy Attorney

General Kurt J.W. Sandstrom, Q.C., dated 3 September 2015. My first
rebuttal is that law enforcement and the nations security services on the
federal and local levels, including their respective executives, have shown
themselves a plethora of times since 2002 to be directly involved in
conducting and protecting the R&D program, insulating the culpable and
turning a blind eye to what rises to the level of criminality and whats
prohibited by Parliaments ratified1 Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

1
Ratified on June 24, 1987
1
Because of that circumstance, Crown Counsel has never been and will never
receive a request for an investigation thatll inquire into the allegations Ive
made as documented in my 30 July 2015 submission to your office.

Mr. Sandstrom states:

The Attorney General and Minister of Justice does not have a general
mandate to intervene in this established process. Each component of the
justice system is independent of the other, in order to meet the legal
requirements of a fair and independent prosecution process.

My many years of academic research (annexed to my submission)

discovered that centuries of extreme nepotism and patronage throughout
the countrys system of government on its three levels, including the
administration of justice, produced a paradigm of rule that no longer
guarantees what is fair and independent at the intersection of power,
wealth and Chinese joint hegemony. Just because Canada looks democratic
doesnt ipso facto mean that when presented with compelling proof of what
Ive labelled publicly non-transparent macro-authoritarianism the default
position is to perceive it as democratic. Having degrees in political
philosophy and law, plus what Ive documented that occurred to myself and
my sister (qua corroboration) and the result of my several reform and
accountability efforts afforded me the ability to deconstruct said system.
You cant in good conscience rely on it upon learning just how operationally
undermined and corrupt it has become and gamed by those who sought a
military capability via unlawful and human rights violating means.

I note he uses the phrase doesnt have a general mandate to intervene.

Given the evidence thats been presented of a accountability protocols that
dont function properly I seek the appointment of a special prosecutor to

2
investigate whats been transpiring since I moved to Vancouver in early
January 1994. Your office is all too familiar with s. 7 of the Crown Counsel
Act.

7(1)If the ADAG considers it is in the public interest, he or she may

appoint a lawyer, who is not employed in the Ministry of Justice, as a
special prosecutor.

(2) A special prosecutor must carry out his or her mandate, as set out in
writing by the ADAG, and in particular must

(a) examine all relevant information and documents and report to the
ADAG with respect to the approval and conduct of any specific
prosecution, and
(b) carry out any other responsibilities respecting the initiation and
conduct of a specific prosecution.

This is stated on the Ministry of Justice website:

Special prosecutors are appointed where there is a significant potential

for a perceived or real improper influence in prosecutorial decision
making in a given case. The paramount consideration is the need to
maintain public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.

The independent role of the special prosecutor in British Columbias

justice system is defined by the Crown Counsel Act and is intended to
strengthen the independence and impartiality of the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion. Historically, special prosecutors have been
appointed in cases involving cabinet ministers, senior public or ministry
officials, senior police officers or persons in close proximity to these
individuals.

3
What has been presented is no ordinary instance of police misconduct or
executive decision-making. Whats being complained of and repeatedly has
been a multi-decade, systemic and systematic mobilization of law
enforcement and the security services to pursue and protect the R&D
program whatever the costs. And as a direct result of nepotism and
patronage, accountability fact finders were also appointed or employed to
ensure establishment interests would continue unfettered by conventional
checks on the abuse of power.

The misconduct the malfeasant sought to protect and advance is repugnant

to modern and democratic sensibilities. I draw your attention to articles 1
and 2 of the afore-referenced U.N. Convention:

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, the term torture means any act by
which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from
him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an
act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for
any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent
in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial

or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its
jurisdiction.

4
There have been two reasons why pain, on occasion extreme suffering, was
being and continue to be inflicted to effect punishment, intimidation and
coercion. The first is documented on page 4 of my submission: In May
2006, I entered into an agreement with the Bush administration to help with
reform of whats become so blatantly dysfunctional in this countrys system
of governance. The second is documented in footnote 4 on page 4; namely,
the reform and accountability initiatives I undertook pursuant to that
contract.

The history of my relationship with the U.S. government began in the spring
of 2003. Because of Chinese joint hegemony dating back to the 1970s, i.e.,
during the time of the Cold War, every major institution of the state was
under constant surveillance; and have been ever since. When I filed my
Federal Court of Canada lawsuit in September 2002, it popped up on the
U.S. intel radar screen; top officials at the Pentagon and CIA learning Beijing
and Ottawa had successfully developed what the latter tried and failed at in
the 1950s and 1960s, namely the series of experimentation methodologies
that became known as MK-Ultra.

A seminal article on the R&D program and documentation of one victims

pursuit for compensation is:

Anatomy of a Public Interest Case against the CIA, Hamline Journal of

Public Law and Policy, Fall 1990

Our courts serve us best when the law advances the public interest.
Occasionally this happens in suits brought solely to protect a private
partys personal interest, but more often progress is made through a test
case brought and designed to further both public and private goals. Our
decade long fight to secure redress for the Canadian victims of CIA

5
brainwashing experiments, Orlikow, et al. v. United States, 682 F. Supp.
77 (D.D.C. 1988) (Civ. No. 80-3163) is an example of such a public
interest litigation.

But this case involving the CIA goes far beyond the typical public interest
litigation precisely because it addresses an area of lawbreaking where
normal political and legal remedies are not available. As the late Senator
Frank Church concluded, after leading the congressional investigation of
the CIAs improper activities in the 1950s and 1960s, that agency was a
rogue elephant operating outside the law and protected by a shroud of
secrecy. This is an account of that rogue elephants reckless
experimentation upon unwitting Canadian citizens, as well as the story of
a public interest litigation against an opponent of immense power and
dubious purpose.

The forty years since 1950 have been an unprecedented period of

national security hysteria fueled by the likes of the Dulles brothers,
Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Helms, and implemented
through repressive measures enacted by the state and federal
legislatures. In the course of this hysteria, individual liberties have too
often been sacrificed in the name of national security. During this period,
federal court decisions have occasionally restored liberties and protected
traditional constitutional values, but these judicial successes have been
few and far between. The clash between liberty and national security has
never been as stark as in the inhumane and illegal sponsorship of the
Canadian brainwashing experiments by our most powerful national
intelligence agency -- an institution that was created to protect and to
preserve the very freedoms that were so devastated in those
irresponsible experiments. After years of effort, vindication was won
through the payment of nearly a million dollars to the CIAs victims by
the governments of the United States and Canada in response to the
federal suit.

6
This review of the CIAs actions in the United States and Canada
demonstrates how completely unprincipled was the Agencys original
brainwashing program, as well as its course of legal manoeuvers years
later when it was required to answer for its misconduct. The story of the
brainwashing suit and the barriers that were overcome before the CIAs
victims were finally compensated, illustrates both the formidable hurdles
presented and the unique satisfactions gleaned in a public interest law
suit.

[...]

Early in 1979 Canadian Member of Parliament David Orlikow called our

office with a horror story that bordered on the incredible. It seemed that
some twenty years earlier, Davids wife, Val Orlikow, had suffered a bout
of depression following the birth of their daughter and had sought help at
the leading psychiatric hospital in Canada -- the Allan Memorial Institute
at McGill University in Montreal. Under the care of the Director of the
Institute, Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, Val was subjected to a number of
unorthodox procedures in lieu of generally accepted psychotherapy. In
particular, she was given injections of LSD and was exposed to what Dr.
Cameron called psychic driving -- a procedure used nowhere else in
which tape-recorded messages were played hundreds of thousands of
times. Not surprisingly, these bizarre procedures did not help Val, but
made her condition worse.

It was only in the late seventies that David and Val learned for the first
time, from a New York Times story, that Camerons work had been
subsidized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency as part of a
secret program to study techniques of brainwashing. The Orlikows
wanted to sue the CIA for its part in experiments performed on Val by the
now deceased Cameron; they insisted that there was no one else who
would take their case and help them right this wrong.

7
Getting the full story from a potential client is always important, but it is
paramount in a public interest litigation, because the suit is brought to
advance a principle as well as to vindicate an individual. Concealed
pitfalls, half-truths or distortions will inevitably sabotage both objectives.
A lesson learned time and again during the McCarthy period is that a
public interest lawyer must insist on the whole story, warts and all.
McCarthys victims had to be induced to tell their whole story despite
their fears of confiding in anyone, even their own lawyers. We insisted on
all the facts in this case before agreeing to represent the Orlikows and
other victims of the CIAs Canadian fiasco. From the beginning and
throughout the long fight for justice our clients told us the truth. Without
this confidence we would not and could not have properly represented
them.

[...]

A. Genesis of the MKULTRA Program and the CIAs Negligence in the

Death of Dr. Frank Olson.

In the early 1950s the CIA reaction to the unprecedented confessions of

U.S. POWs in Korea was one of panic that the Communists had
discovered an effective method of brainwashing our soldiers. The
response was an intensive research and development program code-
named MKULTRA. It was in April of 1953 that Richard Helms, then the
head of the CIAs Operations Directorate, recommended that the Agency
explore covert brainwashing techniques for offensive and defensive use,
to counter the suspected Soviet and Chinese efforts in that area. CIA
Director Allen Dulles promptly approved the MKULTRA Program which
was to operate outside the usual CIA administrative channels without
the usual contractual arrangements, and to be highly compartmented.
Dulles also ordered that exacting control will be maintained over the
Project by TSS.

8
 [...]

B. CIA Negligence in the Funding of the Montreal Experiments

Early in 1957, Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, Director of the Allan Memorial

Institute in Montreal, submitted a formal grant application to the Society
for the Investigation of Human Ecology a CIA front operating at the
Cornell University Medical School in New York City. That application
proposed to extend brainwashing experimentation which Cameron
described as follows:

i. The breaking down of ongoing patterns of the patients behavior by

means of particularly intensive electroshocks (depatterning).

ii. The intensive repetition (16 hours a day for 6 or 7 days) of the
prearranged verbal signal.

iii. During this period of intensive repetition the patient is kept in partial
sensory isolation.

iv. Repression of the driving period is carried out by putting the patient,
after the conclusion of the period, into continuous sleep for 7-10
days.

Cameron also proposed to test drugs such as LSD 25 and other similar
agents in depatterning his patients and to experiment with new
methods of inactivating the patient during the repetition of verbal
signals with other drugs including curare, a drug used in surgery to
temporarily paralyze a patients involuntary muscles.

There is a parallel in Val Orlikow and I being covertly recruited into a mind
control experimentation regime; namely, she like I and my sister were

9
linked to Ottawa by way of a family member holding political office. In my
and Romas case we not only had an uncle who was a Senator (Paul Lucier,
Yukon), our mother was on the federal bench (Tax Court of Canada).

Further, because I was member of the Bar being surreptitiously attacked and
my practice with the conspiratorial participation of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service brought to ruination to advance the R&D program the
responsible parties interfered with the constitutionally protected
independence of the Bar.

The litigation I referenced included the Canadian government defendant

being granted a national security designation.

The forty years since 1950 have been an unprecedented period of

national security hysteria fueled by the likes of the Dulles brothers,
Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Helms, and implemented
through repressive measures enacted by the state and federal
legislatures. In the course of this hysteria, individual liberties have too
often been sacrificed in the name of national security. During this period,
federal court decisions have occasionally restored liberties and protected
traditional constitutional values, but these judicial successes have been
few and far between. The clash between liberty and national security has
never been as stark as in the inhumane and illegal sponsorship of the
Canadian brainwashing experiments by our most powerful national
intelligence agency -- an institution that was created to protect and to
preserve the very freedoms that were so devastated in those
irresponsible experiments. After years of effort, vindication was won
through the payment of nearly a million dollars to the CIAs victims by
the governments of the United States and Canada in response to the
federal suit.

10
It was beyond comprehension that Lemieux J. would balance the interests
between disclosure and national security in favor of the latter; and doing so
informed my academic research and its findings. This was one of several
instances where the Court sought to protect the R&D program and insulate
the culpable.

Heres a germane fact that is also demonstrative of the lengths went to to

neutralize accountability: the lawsuit ended in October 2005 because I didnt
show up for a motion that sought to dismiss on the grounds of want of
prosecution. It wouldnt be for quite some time after the relief was granted
that I looked through my box of documents to discover Id been served. It
was beyond outrageous that stealth cognition technologies had been
deployed to wipe my memory clean of having being served. Theres a
parallel in Mrs. Orlikows case here too:

This review of the CIAs actions in the United States and Canada
demonstrates how completely unprincipled was the Agencys original
brainwashing program, as well as its course of legal manoeuvers years
later when it was required to answer for its misconduct.

What my reform and accountability initiatives demonstrated and

compellingly beyond doubt is that there is no fairness or independence in
the agencies tasked with holding political leaders, cabinet ministers, high
ranking officials accountable.

Why Ive waited so long since making a submission to your predecessor,

Allan Seckel2, and thereafter Wally Oppal3 was to acquire more evidence of
what is non-stop criminality and torture and have more proof the checks on

2
July 30, 2015 cover letter, page 6.
3
Ibid, page 7.
11
the abuse of power no longer function as they should. Because they dont
there will be no public confidence in the administration of criminal justice if
Canadians discover my and my sisters multi-decade circumstances.

American intel agencies have been conducting round-the-clock surveillance

of my residence since early 2003. The Obama administration advised me on
several occasions it may forward to me all that has been gathered over the
years, i.e., the identities of executives and operatives responsible for my
ordeal, for the purpose of commencing litigation. The decision may be made
to put your office in receipt of same. Consequently, my submission and this
follow-up lay the groundwork for that production and thereafter
investigations and criminal prosecutions.

I look forward to your timely response.

Brad Kempo Esq.

12