Fiefdom Treatise Recipients Still Skeptical About the Coalition and its Tenacious Resolve to Achieve Stated Objectives Ought to Read This Supplemental
or
An Open Letter to Canadian Senator Catherine Callbeck
© 2009 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
Unlike the threats emanating out of North Korea and Iran, which are strictly regional in nature, China and its Canadian military alliance partner, pose a historic global threat to the peace, security and prosperity of modern civilization. The coalition had two options – go public and watch the expanding globalized economy screech to a grinding halt and exacerbate the international financial crisis when it emerged or prevent these catastrophes by working in a confidential diplomatic environment to contain and neutralize this Soviet-style militarized imperialism. As has been argued from the outset, the latter methodology of crisis management and resolute was adopted.
Fiefdom treatise recipients ought to ask themselves how would they have approached the Chinada problem. Would full public disclosure be both efficacious and minimize the downsides or was the coalition’s approach most appropriate. What if it was their current and future billions, hundreds of millions or tens of millions of dollars hanging in the balance, which would have been wiped out if the world discovered China was the Soviet Union The Sequel? It is, of course, a rhetorical question; for nobody in their right mind would sacrifice this kind of wealth simply to appease democracy’s principle of transparency. Then there are major, uncontrollable ramifications as argued in Policy Reasons for Maintaining Perpetual Confidentiality of the Fiefdom Treatise and the Existence and Raison D'être of the Anti-Chinada Coalition.
Not included in the supplemental are arguments about what the consequences would be for all Asian populations, who would immediately become targets for vicious and blood lust vigilantism. Since Caucasians have racial identity inadequacies everyone in the country who looks Chinese – the Japanese, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Koreans, Malaysians, etc. – would be indiscriminately attacked.
For this reason neither the leaders of the country’s aboriginal groups nor trade unionists were edified during the Fiefdom treatise dissemination initiative. Both have militant wings that would seek to advance their parochial agendas and have little or no regard for the innocent members of Canada’s oriental communities or anything else pointed to in the supplemental as affected by full disclosure.
The coalition sought to give more than lip-service to the democratic principle of transparency. They went great lengths to provide it and only because the diplomatic back-channel is so unique many treatise recipients have been unwilling to ascribe credibility to what’s posted on the coalition website. That said, ultimately the partnership doesn’t care if its postings are ignored or ridiculed. They’ve provided full and formal notice of their concerns, fears and intentions. When they move those who harbored skepticism will soon find themselves reversing their views.
Correspondence was sent to former P.E.I. premier Senator Catherine Callbeck, who has appeared receptive to coalition issues since first contact. Doubts emerged recently about the accuracy of that perception; and the following was articulated which all recipients ought to consider if they fall in the skeptical camp:
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
October 30, 2009
Office of Senator Callbeck
Senate of Canada
Dear Senator:
I was brazenly attacked beginning in the early 1990s, which to this day hasn’t stopped; and despite every attempt I’ve made to bring an end to this systemic atrocity – being a multi-decade human experimentation subject and for the purposes of schadenfreude generation – I’ve gotten no traction anywhere. That’s despicable and a testament to just how dysfunctional government institutions and the police are.
I did what any aggrieved citizen would do – file a lawsuit [1, 2, 3]. The defendant federal government never once challenged my credibility employing standard methods, preferring to rely on malicious judicial bias inherent in the court system to railroad it into dismissal as fast as possible – according to my research a product of generations of trans-generational nepotism and patronage, lengthy Liberal rule and an undying loyalty to the China agenda. Further, the National Security Division of the RCMP commenced an investigation in September 2008 in part relying on their 1997 study The Sidewinder Report. It was halted through political interference and Chinada complicity in the high echelons of police administration decision-making. Both of these results of my efforts should have moved treatise recipients in government and the administration of justice to action. Not doing so demonstrates to my international clients just how dysfunctional and serious a threat the country is.
I empowered some half-dozen Senate committees to examine these matters [1, 2]. As you know not one bothered to place them on their agenda.
To the issue of what is claimed to be no hard evidence of my clientele I say this: Canada’s system of governance is nothing more than a secret exceptionally large organized crime syndicate hiding behind a façade of democratic respectability and in geo-political bed for four decades with totalitarians and serial human rights abusers of the highest order. It is not incumbent on the international community to come to Canada and visit political and corporate leaders to plead their case for reform, accountability and demilitarization. You will recall my clients extended an invitation in mid-2008 to all non-complicit and non-loyal treatise recipients to assemble delegations and go to them to discuss issues. That offer was never accepted.
Given what is in my view an appropriate choice of confidentiality in all matters pertaining to China’s Soviet-style imperialism and Canada’s complicity and the pubescent sociopathology that permeates so much of this country’s public and private sector ‘establishments’, a unique way of handling diplomacy and change was constructed. My clients designated my office as their official diplomatic corridor; one which the malfeasant have accepted as legitimate and who use every day to reply to communiqués and practice their arrogant belligerence. Their acceptance is fully documented on the website – one Melanie advised she read most of and therefore you are cognizant of. It causes my clients and I to shake our heads in disbelief that with so much being presented as a show of good faith, viz. providing full transparency, you are incapable of fully and accurately assessing the state of international relations.
You will remember that immediately after my invitation to the White House in late July[*] we extended an offer to you that you join or send a delegate to attend meetings. It was rejected. This is more evidence of they being as accommodating as possible and recipients unjustifiably failing to accept proof of their existence. We did as much as reason dictated. No more is required and my clients intend on moving when they are ready.
[* 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X3, 6 X3, 7, 8, 9 X2, 10]
To the issue of who should meet with whom, the current situation is not unlike the relationship between a prosecutor’s office and a criminal who for decades has been a serial murderer[*], enslaver, experimenter, torturer, [hypno-]rapist, extortionist, embezzler, stalker and batterer; and now wants to expand, extending their territory of operations to other countries. You don’t see the Crown attorney seeking out the latter for a peaceful sit-down to negotiate a settlement. They wait for the police to make the arrest and then become involved to effect justice.
[* Surreptitious assassination without culpability and depraved indifference murder]
On occasion, the career criminal if so disposed will approach the Crown, usually with aid of counsel, and surrender him/herself to the authorities after a plea arrangement is achieved. Otherwise the criminal continues breaking the law until the police arrive.
My clients are the international police and are going to deliver the rich, powerful, Chinese and many members of their street soldier community to the accountability tribunal for prosecution and then step back in to effect punishment.
My clients have made their case and are fully justified in effecting regime change and rendition, seize assets and prosecute the offenders. Transparency was offered to generate formal notice, as a courtesy and to prepare those not complicit or loyal to fill the voids created by their actions. With the ‘establishment’ telling them to piss off every day since Dogville* was released in May ’04 and persisting enthusiastically with violations of domestic and international law, there are no reasonable expectations and they are under no obligation, legal or ethical, to come to this country and sit at the table with what would be a miniscule number of officials; the receptive constituent of our audience is infinitesimally small. My clients originally hoped for a ‘Made in Canada’ solution but when that wasn’t going to materialize made it unequivocally clear repeatedly they fully intend on deconstructing and reconstituting every institution and corporation that’s complicit or loyal. They didn’t get past step one – belief in their existence despite all the efforts made and offers extended.
We trust you will conduct the affairs of your office in accordance with the constitution and directives of the Custodian-in-Council in due course.
Best regards,
Brad Kempo, Chief Executive
Office of the Custodian-in-Council
* You are encouraged to watch the last scene of Dogville now posted on YouTube, as documented in Revisiting Dogville’s Final Scene: “If There’s Any Town This World Would be Better Without, [Vancouver] is It.” (@ http://dogville-revisited.yolasite.com) and Updating the Interpretation of Dogville’s Final Scene (@ http://coalitiondiplomacy9-27-09.yolasite.com) and before or after reading again the two-part chapter The Interpretation Key to Nicole Kidman's 'Dogville' : Part I & Part II
