Mary M. Gusella

Mary M. Gusella, Chief Commissioner
Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)
344 Slater Street
Ottawa ON   K1A 1E1

RE:  CHRC File 20031527, Canadian Jewish Congress v Lubomyr Prytulak (CJC v Prytulak) ATTENTION:  The instant 10-Jan-2006 correspondence is for the purpose of further exploring the question of whether the Mary M. Gusella request that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) inquire into the case of CJC v Prytulak was fraudulent and is therefore void, and the CHRT therefore without jurisdiction to proceed, and the related question of whether Mary M. Gusella aspires to obtrude into the heart of CHRT proceedings her program of denying Prytulak his right to be heard.

Mary M. Gusella:

I would appreciate your helping me make sense of Giacomo Vigna's letter dated 23-Dec-2005, in which he attempts to answer the "Four questions concerning the Disclosure Package" that I put to him in my letter of 05-Dec-2005, and which questions appear in the first four headings below.

QUESTION 1:  DOES GIACOMO VIGNA TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHRC DISCLOSURE PACKAGE?

With the Prytulak list (12-Dec-2005 Prytulak-to-Gusella "CJC Show Trial Continues Expurgating Prytulak Defense") of the ten documents that have been expurgated from the CHRC Disclosure Package staring Giacomo Vigna in the face, then of course his 23-Dec-2005 letter refuses to take responsibility for that CHRC Disclosure Package and of course it refuses to vouch for Disclosure Package completeness.

What Vigna does accomplish in his answer to the first Prytulak question is to blow a smoke screen of equivocation.  Any blame for document omission, he seems to say without quite saying it, must fall on the shoulders of some unidentified "Commission employee" who did the photocopying, scanning and transmission.  And Vigna seems to imply that he can't be held responsible for any omission of documents that this "Commission employee" may have been guilty of because, after all, Vigna did not micro-manage this unidentified employee's work, but only gave it his "guidance."  As Vigna did disclose all documents "in the Commission file," he seems to say, then he cannot be faulted if someone else excluded or removed documents from that file.  And in any case, if documents were suppressed or destroyed, it would be only because they were not "arguably relevant," Prytulak insistence that they contain the core of his defense notwithstanding.  The Vigna definition of document irrelevance appears to be the Stalinist one of the document containing an effective defense to a show trial.

However, the inescapable and undeniable reality is that the 12-Dec-2005 Prytulak-to-Gusella letter "CJC Show Trial Continues Expurgating Prytulak Defense" itemizes the spoliation (suppression or destruction) of ten Prytulak submissions.  CHRC representatives that were mailed the letter were Chief Commissioner Mary M. Gusella, Director of Investigations John J. Chamberlin, Commissioner Aimable Ndejuru, and � yes � Commission lawyer Giacomo Vigna.  In addition, of course, the letter was posted on the Internet for the entire world to read.  Therefore, there can't be anybody at the CHRC who is unaware that Mary M. Gusella is dedicated to suppressing or destroying Prytulak submissions, and thereby denying Prytulak his right to be heard, and there cannot be anybody at the CHRC who remains unaware of the specific ten documents that Gusella has suppressed or destroyed.  This list of ten missing Prytulak documents is the elephant in the living room that Vigna affects not to notice.

Would you consider it an imposition to be asked to direct Giacomo Vigna to answer the question Prytulak originally put to him:

Would you be so good, then, as to state that you � the CHRC representative on the matter of CJC v Prytulak � do take responsibility for the Disclosure Package, and that you do vouch for its fidelity?

The answer so far � that nobody at the CHRC is willing to take responsibility for, or vouch for the integrity of, the CHRC Disclosure Package because everybody at the CHRC knows that it is gutted of Prytulak submissions � is a blot on the CHRC and a disgrace to the Canadian justice system.

QUESTION 2:  DOES GIACOMO VIGNA DECLARE THAT NO SCHEDULE B EXISTS?

Giacomo Vigna falls short of declaring that no Schedule B exists.  He asserts only that no Schedule B is being disclosed.  This non-disclosure, Prytulak already knows; the non-existence of Schedule B documents, Prytulak doubts.

Prytulak has two reasons for believing that the CHRC is concealing the existence of Schedule B documents:

1. It is inconceivable that over the course of more than two years, not a single privileged document has been created.  One document in particular that Prytulak expects does exist is a CJC Comment upon the Second Investigator's Report.  Another is a CJC Comment upon the Prytulak Comment upon the Second Investigator's Report.
   
   
2. Given the CHRC readiness to spoliate Prytulak submissions when it is aware that Prytulak is able to detect the spoliation, then it follows that the CHRC is even readier to spoliate documents whose existence it believes Prytulak has no way to detect.

Would you be so good as to explain to Giacomo Vigna the difference between stating that no Schedule B is being disclosed and that no Schedule B documents exist, and after that to ask him to answer the question that Prytulak asks, and not some unasked question that he finds easier to answer?

QUESTION 3:  HAS GIACOMO VIGNA PERFORMED ELEMENTARY VERIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER HIS CLIENT CONTINUES DOCUMENT SPOLIATION?

Giacomo Vigna must have found the above question particularly troublesome, as he does not even attempt to answer it, but tries instead to lure Prytulak into forgetting his own question by waving in front of his face a string of irrelevancies: that the CHRC is not the CHRT (but he fails to document Prytulak confusing the two), that he finds certain Prytulak allegations unclear (but he doesn't say which ones), and that Prytulak has a right to raise issues at the Tribunal hearing (a platitude whose veracity is threatened by Mary M. Gusella carrying her campaign to deny Prytulak his right to be heard into those Tribunal hearings).

But what about the QUESTION 3 that Prytulak asked and has managed not to forget: did Vigna perform elementary verifications to determine whether the CHRC continues document spoliation?  The question may be spelled out more specifically � did Giacomo Vigna ask Mary M. Gusella why her copies of all ten missing Prytulak submissions were absent from the CHRC Disclosure Package?  And did Giacomo Vigna ask Suzanne Best, Sherri Helgason, Hannya Rizk, and Lucie Veillette why their copies of two Prytulak submissions are missing from the Disclosure Package?  The disappearance of a total of eighteen copies of ten underlying documents is a phenomenon that Prytulak still waits to hear Vigna explain.

QUESTION 4:  HAS GIACOMO VIGNA GIVEN FAIR CONSIDERATION TO A LAWYER'S DUTY TO WITHDRAW?

Giacomo Vigna replies that Lubomyr Prytulak has not raised any issues which would require Vigna to withdraw as CHRC counsel.  However, Vigna does not take into account CHRC spoliation of Prytulak documents, as has been summarized in the final paragraph of 12-Dec-2005 Prytulak-to-Gusella "CJC Show Trial Continues Expurgating Prytulak Defense":

Mary M Gusella won Commissioner Aimable Ndejuru's anti-Prytulak Disposition Committee vote by excluding all Prytulak facts and arguments from each of the two CHRC Investigator's Reports, and by concealing from Ndejuru the 29-Jul-2005 Prytulak Comment.  And now Gusella's expurgation of the ten above Prytulak documents, which include four that are central to the Prytulak defense, raises the reasonable apprehension that she hopes to rely on a continuing suppression of exculpatory material to win an anti-Prytulak decision from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as well.

Nor does Vigna take into account the conflict of interest inherent in his representing the CHRC whose mandate is to remain neutral in CHRT proceedings, and his at the same time working under Mary M. Gusella whose obsession is to suppress the documentation of her malfeasance that is to be found on the pages of UKAR.

Giacomo Vigna's position, then, reduces to his first blinding himself to the reasons for withdrawing as CHRC lawyer, and then declaring that he is unable to see any reason to withdraw.

Perhaps it would help CHRC lawyers in general, and Giacomo Vigna in particular, to learn to contain their enthusiasm for their work within ethical bounds if the CHRC supplied them with copies of the Law Society of Upper Canada Rules of Professional Conduct, from which excerpts particularly relevant to Vigna's predicament have been appended to the instant letter for the purpose of getting Mr. Vigna's education off to an early start.

GIACOMO VIGNA ASKS A QUESTION TO WHICH HE HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THE ANSWER

In the second-last paragraph of his 23-Dec-2005 letter, Giacomo Vigna asks the following question:  "I notice that you repeatedly send materials to my intention at the Commission which seems to be materials on your website.  Please inform with an accompanying letter the arguable relevance of these materials to the present litigation before the Tribunal [...]."

It would be good of you to inform Mr. Vigna that he can find the answer to his question prominently displayed in a box at the top of documents of which he has copies, as for example:

1. 05-Dec-2005  Prytulak to Vigna  "Four Questions Concerning The Disclosure Package"
2. 12-Dec-2005  Prytulak to Gusella  "CJC Show Trial Continues Expurgating Prytulak Defense"
3. 10-Jan-2006  Prytulak to Gusella  "Please help me deal with Giacomo Vigna" (which is the instant letter).

To repeat what should need no repetition, Prytulak considers the CHRC decision to request CHRT enquiry to have been obtained by fraud, and thus to be void, and thus views the CHRT as lacking jurisdiction to enquire into the case of CJC v Prytulak.  Prytulak correspondence with the CHRT never argues the merits of the case, and asks the CHRT for only a single remedy � the declaration of its own lack of jurisdiction.  Prytulak continues to offer evidence of CHRC bias, corruption, malfeasance, and denial of due process for the purpose of lending credibility to the contention that the CHRC decision can reasonably be regarded as void on its face.  In further support of this contention, Prytulak also continues to offer evidence that the moving force behind the void CHRC decision � the Canadian Jewish Congress � does not represent the Jewish people or work in their interests, but is rather a criminal organization run by fanatical, anti-Semitic psychopaths among whose highest goals is the strangulation of free speech, and which organization falls under the direction of Zionist multi-billionaire Gerald W. Schwartz.

The above accumulation of negative evaluations is not an emotional outpouring, but is, rather, a compilation of accurate descriptors whose selection is guided by argument and documentation:

"moving force"	@	Prytulak to Gusella	09-Jan-2004	Disclosure of usage statistics and personnel data
"not represent"	@	Prytulak to Morgan	26-Jul-2004	Jewish complaints of CJC authoritarianism
"criminal organization"	@	Prytulak to Morgan	10-Aug-2005	Four varieties of CJC criminality
"fanatical"	@	Prytulak to Morgan	28-Jan-2004	CJC Fanaticism Infects the University of Toronto
"anti-Semitic psychopaths"	@	Prytulak to Gusella	06-May-2004	UKAR reply to the CJC complaint of anti-Semitism
"strangulation of free speech"	@	Prytulak to Martin	12-Jul-2004	Please amend the Canadian Human Rights Act

THE MARY M. GUSELLA SWATH OF DESTRUCTION

In Mary M. Gusella's eagerness to defame Lubomyr Prytulak and suppress his Ukrainian Archive web site at www.ukar.org, she has lured into unethical and unlawful action the CHRC employees John J. Chamberlin, Sandy Kozak, Aimable Ndejuru, Hannya Rizk, and Giacomo Vigna, who have, in consequence, suffered a loss of credibility and a lowering of career expectations.  Their losses cannot be blamed on Lubomyr Prytulak, who exercises his right to defend himself against persecution by exposing the misdeeds of his persecutors, and on top of that shares with all citizens the obligation to protect the public by notifying it of pockets of corruption within their government.  The losses to these five CHRC employees must rather be blamed primarily on themselves for having chosen to engage in misconduct, and secondarily on Mary M. Gusella for having enticed or coerced them into misconduct in an effort to gain allies in her unlawful campaign.

Mary M. Gusella, then, has reason to regret the injury that she has inflicted on these five CHRC employees, and they have reason to regret ever having come under her employ.  All the while, people of virtue are being given reason to avoid working at the Canadian Human Rights Commission out of fear of being pressured into committing acts that are unethical or unlawful.  Such are among the predictable consequences of government officials flouting the law and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.




Lubomyr Prytulak

Hard copies also to:
Irving ABELLA, National Honourary President, CJC, Dept History, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto ON  M3J 1P3
John J CHAMBERLIN, Manager Investigations, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1
Hon Irwin COTLER, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 0H8
Mark J FREIMAN, CJC lawyer, McCarthy Tetrault, Suite 4700, Toronto Dominion Tower, Toronto ON  M5K 1E6
Sandy KOZAK, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1
Rt Hon Paul MARTIN, Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister, 80 Wellington Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 0A2
Ed MORGAN, CJC National President, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 84 Queen's Park, Toronto ON  M5S 2C5
Aimable NDEJURU, Commissioner, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1
Hannya RIZK, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1
Gerald W SCHWARTZ, Chairman and CEO Onex Corporation, 161 Bay Street, PO Box 700, Toronto ON  M5J 2S1
J Grant SINCLAIR, Chairperson CHRT, Suite A100, Floor 11, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1J4
Giacomo VIGNA, CHRC lawyer, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1


APPENDIX: RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Dishonesty, Fraud, etc. when Client an Organization 2.02 (5.1) When a lawyer is employed or retained by an organization to act in a matter and the lawyer knows that the organization intends to act dishonestly, fraudulently, criminally, or illegally with respect to that matter, then in addition to his or her obligations under subrule (5), the lawyer for the organization shall (a) advise the person from whom the lawyer takes instructions that the proposed conduct would be dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or illegal, (b) if necessary because the person from whom the lawyer takes instructions refuses to cause the proposed wrongful conduct to be abandoned, advise the organization�s chief legal officer, or both the chief legal officer and the chief executive officer, that the proposed conduct would be dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or illegal, (c) if necessary because the chief legal officer or the chief executive officer of the organization refuses to cause the proposed conduct to be abandoned, advise progressively the next highest persons or groups, including ultimately, the board of directors, the board of trustees, or the appropriate committee of the board, that the proposed conduct would be dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or illegal, and (d) if the organization, despite the lawyer�s advice, intends to pursue the proposed course of conduct, withdraw from acting in the matter in accordance with rule 2.09. (5.2) When a lawyer is employed or retained by an organization to act in a matter and the lawyer knows that the organization has acted or is acting dishonestly, fraudulently, criminally, or illegally with respect to that matter, then in addition to his or her obligations under subrule (5), the lawyer for the organization shall (a) advise the person from whom the lawyer takes instructions and the chief legal officer, or both the chief legal officer and the chief executive officer, that the conduct was or is dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or illegal and should be stopped, (b) if necessary because the person from whom the lawyer takes instructions, the chief legal officer, or the chief executive officer refuses to cause the wrongful conduct to be stopped, advise progressively the next highest persons or groups, including ultimately, the board of directors, the board of trustees, or the appropriate committee of the board, that the conduct was or is dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or illegal and should be stopped, and (c) if the organization, despite the lawyer�s advice, continues with the wrongful conduct, withdraw from acting in the matter in accordance with rule 2.09. Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, originally at  www.lsuc.on.ca/media/rpc2.pdf

Commentary The past, present, or proposed misconduct of an organization may have harmful and serious consequences not only for the organization and its constituency but also for the public, who rely on organizations to provide a variety of goods and services.  In particular, the misconduct of publicly traded commercial and financial corporations may have serious consequences to the public at large.  Rules 2.02 (5.1) and (5.2) address some of the professional responsibilities of a lawyer acting for an organization, which includes a corporation, when he or she learns that the organization has acted, is acting, or proposes to act in a way that is dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or illegal.  In addition to these rules, the lawyer may need to consider, for example, the rules and commentary about confidentiality (rule 2.03). Rules 2.02 (5.1) and (5.2) speak of conduct that is dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or illegal, and this conduct would include acts of omission as well as acts of commission.  Indeed, often it is the omissions of an organization, for example, to make required disclosure or to correct inaccurate disclosures that would constitute the wrongful conduct to which these rules relate.  Conduct likely to result in substantial harm to the organization, as opposed to genuinely trivial misconduct by an organization, would invoke these rules. Once a lawyer acting for an organization learns that the organization has acted, is acting, or intends to act in a wrongful manner, then the lawyer may advise the chief executive officer and shall advise the chief legal officer of the misconduct.  If the wrongful conduct is not abandoned or stopped, then the lawyer reports the matter "up the ladder" of responsibility within the organization until the matter is dealt with appropriately.  If the organization, despite the lawyer�s advice, continues with the wrongful conduct, then the lawyer shall withdraw from acting in the particular matter in accordance with rule 2.09.  In some but not all cases, withdrawal would mean resigning from his or her position or relationship with the organization and not simply withdrawing from acting in the particular matter. These rules recognize that lawyers as the legal advisers to organizations are in a central position to encourage organizations to comply with the law and to advise that it is in the organizations� and the public�s interest that organizations do not violate the law.  Lawyers acting for organizations are often in a position to advise the executive officers of the organization not only about the technicalities of the law but about the public relations and public policy concerns that motivated the government or regulator to enact the law.  Moreover, lawyers for organizations, particularly in-house counsel, may guide organizations to act in ways that are legal, ethical, reputable, and consistent with the organization�s responsibilities to its constituents and to the public. Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, originally at  www.lsuc.on.ca/media/rpc2.pdf

Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest 2.04 (2) A lawyer shall not advise or represent more than one side of a dispute. (3) A lawyer shall not act or continue to act in a matter when there is or is likely to be a conflicting interest unless, after disclosure adequate to make an informed decision, the client or prospective client consents. Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, originally at  www.lsuc.on.ca/media/rpc2.pdf

Mandatory Withdrawal 2.09 (7) Subject to the rules about criminal proceedings and the direction of the tribunal, a lawyer shall withdraw if (a) discharged by the client, (b) the lawyer is instructed by the client to do something inconsistent with the lawyer's duty to the tribunal and, following explanation, the client persists in such instructions, (c) the client is guilty of dishonourable conduct in the proceedings or is taking a position solely to harass or maliciously injure another, (d) it becomes clear that the lawyer's continued employment will lead to a breach of these rules, (d.1) the lawyer is required to do so pursuant to subrules 2.02 (5.1) or (5.2) (dishonesty, fraud, etc. when client an organization), [...]. Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, originally at  www.lsuc.on.ca/media/rpc2.pdf

Advocacy 4.01 (2) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall not (a) abuse the process of the tribunal by instituting or prosecuting proceedings which, although legal in themselves, are clearly motivated by malice on the part of the client and are brought solely for the purpose of injuring the other party, (b) knowingly assist or permit the client to do anything that the lawyer considers to be dishonest or dishonourable, (c) appear before a judicial officer when the lawyer, the lawyer's associates or the client have business or personal relationships with the officer that give rise to or might reasonably appear to give rise to pressure, influence, or inducement affecting the impartiality of the officer, (d) endeavour or allow anyone else to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to influence the decision or action of a tribunal or any of its officials in any case or matter by any means other than open persuasion as an advocate, (e) knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct, [...]. Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, originally at  www.lsuc.on.ca/media/rpc_4.pdf

Discovery Obligations 4.01 (4) Where the rules of a tribunal require the parties to produce documents or attend on examinations for discovery, a lawyer, when acting as an advocate (a) shall explain to his or her client (i) the necessity of making full disclosure of all documents relating to any matter in issue, and (ii) the duty to answer to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, any proper question relating to any issue in the action or made discoverable by the rules of court or the rules of the tribunal, (b) shall assist the client in fulfilling his or her obligations to make full disclosure, [...]. Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, originally at  www.lsuc.on.ca/media/rpc_4.pdf