Mary M Gusella Chief Commissioner

Purpose

The purpose of the instant letter is to solicit information from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) which will assist Lubomyr Prytulak in filing a complaint under Criminal Code §§ 340(c) and 341 against CHRC Chief Commission Mary M Gusella and other employees of the CHRC.

Reasonable Apprehension Of Document Destruction Or Fraudulent Concealment

From the behavior of the CHRC to date, Lubomyr Prytulak has reason to believe that his submissions to the CHRC in connection with File 20031527 are being either destroyed or fraudulently concealed.  Specifically, for almost a year now, Prytulak has submitted numerous documents relevant to his case, which documents the CHRC has not incorporated into its Investigator's Report, has not acknowledged receipt of, and has not cited or alluded to in any way.  Lubomyr Prytulak's complaints of the seeming disappearance of these documents have been numerous and couched in unambiguous language, but all have suffered the same fate as the disappeared submissions complained of � the fate of themselves disappearing.

In short, whenever Prytulak begins to speak, the CHRC claps its hands over its ears.  This is a denial of the most fundamental of legal rights � the right to be heard.  The right to be heard is so obvious and so indispensible to justice, that the framers of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms omitted to guarantee it in their §§ 7 to 14 on Legal Rights � they simply could not imagine this right being denied and therefore needing to be guaranteed.  As the CHRC is predisposed to interpret Charter silence as license to overthrow Western tradition, perhaps the CHRC will begin to explicitly defend as Charter-mandated its de facto policy of denying Prytulak his right to be heard.  One shudders to imagine the result of the CHRC discovering that the Charter also fails to guarantee Canadians the right to breathe.

Prytulak's inference that his submissions are being spoliated � which is to say, concealed or destroyed � is encouraged by this tactic's having been the foundation of an earlier attempt to suppress his Ukrainian Archive web site that had been spearheaded by Canadian Jewish Congress protégé Steven Rambam before the Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC), whose outcome was defeat and discredit for the spoliators.  In the course of the LASC proceedings, Prytulak became acquainted with the manifestations of a vexatious and meritless prosecution relying for its success entirely on document spoliation, and he sees those same manifestations in the instant CHRC proceedings, and he intends to defeat the Irwin Cotler, Irving Abella, and Steven Rambam coalition in Ottawa just as he has already defeated it in Los Angeles.

Destruction of Documents

With regard to destruction of documents, Criminal Code § 340(c) reads as follows:

340.  Every one who, for a fraudulent purpose, destroys, cancels, conceals or obliterates  [...]  (c) a judicial or official document, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

As Prytulak submissions are intended for use in proceedings before the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, then they are "judicial or official documents," and Prytulak wishes to ascertain whether any have been destroyed, and if so, how many and which ones.  Accordingly, Prytulak requests the CHRC to provide a list of Prytulak submissions that are currently extant in CHRC files.  The appropriateness of filing a complaint under Criminal Code § 340 will be determined by the completeness of the CHRC list.

Fraudulent Concealment

On the possibility that no Prytulak submissions have been destroyed, and so that all are extant within CHRC files, the only remaining explanation of their seeming disappearance is that CHRC employees have been fraudulently concealing them, which falls not only under Criminal Code § 340(c) above (which does include "conceals"), but also under Criminal Code § 341, which mercifully reduces the maximum term of imprisonment from ten years to two:

341.  Every one who, for a fraudulent purpose, takes, obtains, removes or conceals anything is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Which CHRC Employees Are Implicated?

Of central concern is whether CHRC investigator Hannya Rizk practiced fraudulent concealment in the writing of her Investigator's Report, or whether she was a victim of someone else's fraudulent concealment.  Specifically, it may have been the case that the full set of Prytulak submissions had been placed before Ms Rizk, and it was her decision to exclude all but one of them from her report, and in fact to in no way acknowledge their existence, which is to say to conceal them.  On the other hand, it may have been the case that the key Prytulak submissions were denied Ms Rizk, and she was unaware that she had been asked to write a report based on an expurgated file.

However, it is not necessary to conclude that fraudulent concealment must have occurred only immediately before the file was handed to Hannya Rizk or only immediately after.  More realistic would be to suppose that several CHRC employees made their various contributions to the fraudulent concealment, in particular any of the CHRC employees from whom Prytulak has received correspondence regarding the file: Suzanne BEST, Mary M GUSELLA, Sherri HELGASON, Hannya RIZK, and Lucy VEILLETTE.

Accordingly, in addition to informing Lubomyr Prytulak of what Prytulak documents are in CHRC possession, the CHRC is also requested to disclose which CHRC employees had access to which documents, starting with the outstanding question of what documents were before Hannya Rizk when she wrote her Investigator's Report � information which Lubomyr Prytulak needs to properly determine whether fraudulent concealment under Criminal Code §§ 340(c) and 341 has taken place, and to know which CHRC employees to name in his complaint.

The Questions of Document Destruction And Fraudulent Concealment Cannot Be Deferred

The time has come for the CHRC to make some answer to the charge of document destruction and fraudulent concealment.  Had the CHRC perception been that Prytulak submissions were in some way deficient, then the CHRC would have been obligated to inform Prytulak of this.  For example, if a submission had been sent to the wrong CHRC employee, then that employee would have exceeded his authority to destroy the submission, say nothing about it, and refuse to answer questions concerning its disappearance.  Rather, that employee would have been obligated to return the submission, indicating that it had been sent to the wrong person.  Or if the formatting of a submission had been unconventional, say written as a letter rather than as a lawyer-prepared document, then again the CHRC would have exceeded its authority to destroy that submission without feedback to the defendant, and to maintain silence in the face of enquiries as to that submission's fate.

At least that's what the CHRC would have been obligated to do if it operated formally.  The CHRC, however, operates informally, and has no rules with respect to such things as to whom a submission must be sent, and what form it must take.  Informality is granted the CHRC in the hope that it will promote and expedite justice, and not so as to afford the CHRC license to transform itself into a kangaroo court to conduct show trials.  Consider what would be the public indignation if a piece of evidence was sent to a Police Chief instead of to the Lead Investigator in a police investigation, and the Chief failed to turn it over to the Lead Investigator, and refused to answer questions as to whether the evidence was in police hands, or whether the Lead Investigator had ever been shown it.  Canadians would have no patience with that Police Chief answering that the evidence had been improperly delivered to him rather than to the Investigator, or that it had arrived unaccompanied by the proper paperwork.  The world would condemn this Police Chief as corrupt, and would take action to remove him from office, along with any others who had conspired with him to exceed their authority and pervert the administration of justice.  Exactly such destruction, or fraudulent concealment, of evidence is taking place within the Canadian Human Rights Commission today, and exactly such intolerance of CHRC misconduct is fitting.

Time To Reply

If the CHRC does not produce the requested information by 30-Nov-2004, or does not request an extension of time, Lubomyr Prytulak will infer that the CHRC intends to avoid supplying the information, and in fact intends to destroy or conceal the instant letter as it has his other submissions, and Lubomyr Prytulak may proceed with the filing of his criminal complaint based on the evidence otherwise available.





Lubomyr Prytulak

cc:

Irving ABELLA, National Honourary President, CJC, Department of History, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON  M3J 1P3
Suzanne BEST, Manager Intake Services, 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
Bernie FARBER, Executive Director, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2
Sherri HELGASON, Director Investigations Branch, 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
Hon. Anne MCLELLAN, Hill Office, House of Commons, Ottawa ON  K1A 0A6
Ed MORGAN, Chair, CJC, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 84 Queen's Park, Toronto, ON  M5S 2C5
Hannya RIZK, Investigator, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1
Moshe RONEN, Chair Board of Governors, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2
Len RUDNER, Director of Community Relations, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2
Lucie VEILLETTE, Secretary to the Commission, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1