THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE OF 10-NOV-2005 WAS A CHRT BUSHWHACK

The Lubomyr Prytulak 08-Nov-2005 email to Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) Registry Officer Line Joyal expressed Prytulak's understanding that the telephone conference upcoming on 10-Nov-2005 was for the purpose of discussing venues for mediation, and for no other purpose.  Prytulak's email complained of his lack of information in comparison to all other participants, and requested the information that everybody else already had.  Prytulak particularly expressed his wish to avoid being confronted with "surprising information and unexpected choices" and expressed his intention to not be pressured into making any snap decisions.  What Prytulak demanded above all else in connection with the upcoming telephone conference was "Please remove all element of surprise":

From:   Lubomyr Prytulak To:   Line Joyal Subject:   Re: Canadian Jewish Congress v. Lubomyr Prytulak Date:  08-Nov-2005  09:54 AM It seems to me that everybody on the CJC-CHRT side knows who the participants in the proposed telephone conference will be � but I don't.  Everybody knows what venues will be proposed for consideration � except me.  Everybody understands why the question of venues is to be negotiated by telephone and not by email � except me. In other words, I am being invited to play the role of idiot, thank you very much. I can see only one reason for the CJC-CHRT proceeding this way � it is to pressure me over the telephone to acquiesce to decisions that the CJC-CHRT has considered at leisure, but that I will be expected to make on the spot without opportunity to investigate or reflect, obviously to my disadvantage. And I can see only one outcome for the proposed telephone conference, which is that I will be presented with surprising information and unexpected choices, I will ask to see the details in writing and tell you that I will need a week to reflect.  This is plainly inefficient.  The telephone conference will have been to no effect.  As a general rule, you may expect that I never make decisions under pressure, and that I always refuse to be hurried.  If you want efficiency, then keep me informed and not in the dark. This is a most inauspicious beginning.  I am particularly disappointed in the CHRT which I expected to play a neutral role, and not watch contentedly as one party disadvantaged the other from the word GO.  I can promise you that if I continue to be treated with the same lack of consideration, mediation will be over. The CJC has offices all over Canada, including Vancouver, but I am only in Vancouver.  Therefore, neutral territory lies halfway between the CJC Vancouver office in the Jewish Community Center and my house, but I don't insist on exactness.  Any federal or provincial or municipal or educational facility within reasonable reach of my house, as in downtown Vancouver or on or near the UBC campus, will do fine, including facilities of the CHRC despite the egregious bias it has displayed toward me, and including facilities of the CHRT despite its beginning to show that it intends to follow in the footsteps of the CHRC. Before we go any farther, then, please inform me who will participate in Thursday's telephone conference.  Please inform me what venues will be proposed.  Please inform me why the question of venues needs to be decided over the telephone and cannot be decided by email.  Please remove all element of surprise. The date of mediation is of no concern to me.  I am ready to proceed tomorrow.  Of course, unexpected circumstances could arise which reduce my flexibility.

The answer that Prytulak received from Line Joyal provided what seemed to be complete disclosure as to what the forthcoming telephone conference would involve, and gave not the slightest indication that any subject other than venue of mediation was to be broached:

From:   Line Joyal To:   Lubomyr Prytulak Subject:   Re: Canadian Jewish Congress v. Lubomyr Prytulak Date:  08-Nov-2005  11:55 AM Good afternoon Mr. Prytulak: I am responding to your concerns about the conference call scheduled for November 10 at 1:30 (Ottawa) and 10:30 (Vancouver). Venue: All parties agree to mediation.  A specific venue was not proposed by the Tribunal in our initial letter to the parties.  We asked all parties� preferences, including you. The venues proposed by the parties are: Canadian Jewish Congress:  Toronto Canadian Human Rights Commission:  Will accommodate parties. Lubomyr Prytulak:  Vancouver. It is the Tribunal�s normal practice when a venue cannot be agreed upon by all parties to schedule a conference call to hear from the parties regarding their preferences and the reasons why they prefer that venue.  Please rest assured that all parties� preferences are taken into consideration before the Tribunal makes its decision. Participants during Conference Call: Mark Freiman � Complainant Counsel Len Rudner � Director, Community Relations � Canadian Jewish Congress Giacomo Vigna � Canadian Human Rights Commission Counsel Lubomyr Prytulak � Respondent Karen Jensen � Member chairing the call, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Registry Officer (to be determined) � Canadian Human Rights Tribunal I hope this information is of assistance to you.  If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Line Joyal Registry Officer Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (613) 995-1707 x356

Prytulak had actually been naive enough to believe that the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) was interested in mediation, and so was astonished that CJC lawyer Mark J Freiman opened with abuse which instantly slammed the door on mediation.  And then came the big surprise that Prytulak had been naive enough to believe he had protected himself from � the CHRT immediately launched into case management, with as little disappointment or discomposure as if it had never expected mediation to work in the first place.  Prytulak objected and expressed his refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the CHRT, but continued to listen as an observer, though nevertheless answering questions in the attitude that these might serve as Prytulak answers in the event that he did decide to submit to jurisdiction.

In order to avoid misunderstanding, however, Prytulak emailed Line Joyal the following unequivocal clarification a few hours after the conference:

From:   Lubomyr Prytulak To:   Line Joyal Subject:   Canadian Jewish Congress v. Lubomyr Prytulak Date:  10-Nov-2005  02:04 PM 10-Nov-2005 Line Joyal: The CHRT should consider me to have participated in the telephone conference of this morning only for the purpose of promoting mediation, and should consider me to have listened to the case conference discussion that followed only as an observer. In fact, I do not submit to the jurisdiction of the CHRT, and will not participate in any CHRT proceedings for the reason that I am not properly before the CHRT, the CHRC proceedings which placed me before the Tribunal having been unlawful and the CHRC decision to send the case to the CHRT being void. Lubomyr Prytulak

To remove any ambiguity that may remain, Prytulak repeats that he does not submit to CHRT jurisdiction.  Prytulak protests the CHRT luring him into participating in the telephone conference on the offer that it would deal with no topic other than mediation venue, only to ambush him with case management.  The Gwen Zappa letter to Prytulak of 14-Nov-2004, delivered by email on the same date, is wrong to ignore Prytulak's email to Line Joyal immediately above and to address Prytulak as a participant in CHRT proceedings, and is wrong to refer to the 10-Nov-2005 telephone conference as a "case conference" that had been conducted by a "Case Manager" when it had not been billed as such, and when Prytulak would not have participated in it had it been so billed.

It is necessary to add that Prytulak doubts concerning what role the CHRT intends to play are evaporating, as the above initial indication is that the CHRT has already allied itself with the CJC and the CHRC in casting off ethical restraint to railroad him.

THE CHRC REQUEST FOR TRIBUNAL INQUIRY IS VOID

From the beginning, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) refused to answer Prytulak questions, spoliated (which is to say suppressed or destroyed) Prytulak submissions, and excluded all Prytulak facts and arguments from both CHRC Investigator's Reports.  As a last straw, CHRC Chief Commissioner Mary M Gusella obtained Disposition Committee member Aimable Ndejuru's anti-Prytulak vote fraudulently, by withholding from Ndejuru the only Prytulak facts and arguments that Ndejuru was in danger of seeing, which is to say by withholding from Ndejuru the Prytulak Comment.  The accusation of fraud is not so much a Prytulak inference as it is a CHRC confession, as is documented at the two links below:

• 03-Oct-2005  Lubomyr Prytulak to Mary M Gusella  "Concealment, followed by confession, of CHRC spoliation"
  www.ukar.org/chrc/gusell-11.html
  
  
• 05-Oct-2005  Lubomyr Prytulak to Aimable Ndejuru  "Mary M Gusella both compliments and endangers you"
  www.ukar.org/chrc/ndejuru-01.html
  
  

No valid CHRT procedure can build on a CHRC foundation bearing a taint this odious.  No valid act can spring from an invalid one, as is expressed in the Latin aphorism nihil ex nihilo fit.  The passage of time does not legitimize a chain of prosecution which originates in so blatant a fraud.  Prytulak categorically denies any obligation to sacrifice time and resources to proceedings launched by Mary M Gusella in punishment for Prytulak having disclosed her malfeasance to public view.  A democratic and open society does not allow scofflaw bureaucrats to impose such costs in retaliation for citizens exercising their right of free speech and petition for the redress of grievances.

CHRC PARTICIPATION IN THE CHRT IS NOT NEUTRAL

CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna's statement during the conference to the effect that the CHRC intended to participate in CHRT hearings as a neutral party serving the public interest lacks plausibility, to say the least.  The CHRC from the outset has sided with the CJC and has flaunted an unrelenting eagerness to block Prytulak's right to be heard.  The Ukrainian Archive web site documents this CHRC malfeasance and places much of the blame at the feet of Mr Vigna's superior within the CHRC, the CHRC Chief Commissioner, Mary M Gusella.  Mary M Gusella in particular, and the CHRC in general, then, have the strongest motives to ally with the CJC in suppressing the Ukrainian Archive.  The idea that Mr Vigna could appear impartially in the public interest while at the same time finding employment within the CHRC and taking direction from Mary M Gusella is a palpable fiction.  Thus, any CHRC participation in future CHRT hearings would saturate them with odious taint.  The proposed CJC v Prytulak trial would see a lone defendant opposed by the might of a CHRC-CJC coalition, and in view of the bias shown so far, possibly a coalition joined by the CHRT as well.

One wonders whether Mr Vigna will ever be in a position to disclose when he first became aware of CHRC spoliation of Prytulak submissions, and when he became aware of Mary M Gusella obtaining Aimable Ndejuru's vote by fraud, and what advice he gave Mary M Gusella and other CHRC employees concerning the legality of their actions, and what advice concerning the penalties that they might face if caught, and whether he experiences any ethical qualms about working for an organization that places such heavy reliance on document spoliation, and whether he feels any obligation to report the misconduct of CHRC personnel to superiors.

THE CJC IS COMPLICIT IN DENYING PRYTULAK THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD

The CHRT has reason to view CJC claims with a degree of skepticism in view of CJC immersion in criminal activities, the criminal activity most relevant to the instant discussion being CJC complicity in the spoliation of Prytulak documents, as has been explained at:

• 10-Aug-2005  Lubomyr Prytulak to Ed Morgan  "Four varieties of Canadian Jewish Congress criminality"
  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan11.html
  
  

In order to suppress such Prytulak documentation of CJC criminality as the above, the CJC can be expected to propose that Tribunal proceedings be confidential, as perhaps under some far-fetched twisting of Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) § 52(1)(b).

In other words, a necessary characteristic of some of the show trials that are needed to support the CJC's "Stalinist-fascist doctrine that the State has the right to determine historical truth and to punish deviation from it" � to quote Noam Chomsky � is that certain show trials be secret.

One also wonders whether CJC lawyer Mark J Freiman will ever be in a position to disclose when he first became aware of CJC complicity in the spoliation of Prytulak submissions, and when he became aware of Mary M Gusella obtaining Aimable Ndejuru's vote by fraud, and what advice he gave CJC representatives concerning the legality of their actions, and what advice concerning the penalties that they might face if caught, and whether he experiences any ethical qualms in representing a client whose litigation places such heavy reliance on document spoliation.

TRIBUNAL HANDS ARE NOT TIED

The CHRT would have Prytulak believe that the word "shall" in CHRA § 49(2) below, to which bold emphasis has been added, leaves the CHRT Chairperson no discretion in instituting an inquiry.

	Inquiries into Complaints
Request for inquiry	49. (1) At any stage after the filing of a complaint, the Commission may request the Chairperson of the Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaint if the Commission is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, an inquiry is warranted.
Chairperson to institute inquiry	(2) On receipt of a request, the Chairperson shall institute an inquiry by assigning a member of the Tribunal to inquire into the complaint, but the Chairperson may assign a panel of three members if he or she considers that the complexity of the complaint requires the inquiry to be conducted by three members.

The interpretation that the word "shall" deprives the CHRT Chairperson of discretion, however, can be demonstrated to be incorrect by a modicum of reflection on what the statement containing "shall" must mean:

On receipt of a request, the Chairperson shall institute an inquiry

The above statement obviously means things that it does not explicitly say, but which common sense requires to be understood, as for example the words inserted in bold font below:

On receipt of a proper request from the CHRC Chief Commissioner, the Chairperson of the CHRT shall institute an inquiry

Justification for understanding the adjective "proper" to qualify the noun "request" becomes salient upon consideration of any in the infinite series of examples that can be imagined in which a request would be improper and would not require the CHRT Chairperson to institute an inquiry, as for example Mary M Gusella scrawling on the back of an envelope "I request that you get that bastard Prytulak and nail his hide to the wall!" and signing it "Mary M. Gusella," and sketching a skull and crossbones under her signature.

Or if a Mary M Gusella request were coerced at gunpoint, say, then surely the CHRT Chairperson would declare � just as soon as he found out � that the request was void, that proceedings triggered by that request must be halted immediately, and that most decidedly it was insufficient and unjust to merely inform defendant that inflexible construction of the CHRA demanded that proceedings continue and that defendant's recourse lay in appeal to the Federal Court where he might expect redress a year later and at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars.  Surely such a pusillanimous refusal to admit considerations of natural justice into CHRT thinking would open a CHRT Chairperson to ridicule.  Surely the Canadian public would look with astonishment at Kafkaesque tableaux making their appearance within the Canadian justice system.

And the argument must be extended to ask to whom the elaborated CHRA 49(2) above refers when it says "CHRC Chief Commissioner."  The answer seems simple � why Mary M Gusella, of course!  However, while it is true that Mary M Gusella is CHRC Chief Commissioner as long as she acts within her mandate, within her jurisdiction, within the CHRA, within Canadian law generally � yet in law she stops being Chief Commissioner the moment she wanders from her mandate, acts without jurisdiction, contravenes the CHRA, flouts Canadian law.  In the latter case, she reduces herself from a Chief Commissioner clothed in authority to an individual devoid of official status and who usurps authority, and her product becomes void and commands no compliance or respect.  In the event of lawlessness, Mary M Gusella has exactly the same claim to acting as Chief Commissioner as would a homeless person who wandered into her office and sat down in her chair, and proceeded to write requests and sign papers.  What these fresh reflections add to the above-elaborated CHRA 49(2), then, is the further qualification captured in the bold words below:

On receipt of a proper request from the CHRC Chief Commissioner acting within his/her jurisdiction, the Chairperson of the CHRT shall institute an inquiry

And now we arrive at the heart of the matter.  Mary M Gusella was without authority to spoliate Prytulak submissions and to exclude Prytulak facts and arguments from CHRC Investigator's Reports, and she most decidedly exceeded her authority when she won Commissioner Aimable Ndejuru's Disposition Committee vote by fraud.  While Mary M Gusella was doing any of these things, she was acting not as CHRC Chief Commissioner, but only as a woman usurping authority.  Thus it may be reasonably said � and natural justice demands that it be said � that Mary M Gusella's request to the CHRT to prosecute Lubomyr Prytulak was an improper request, and that it came not from the Chief Commissioner serving the CHRC but only from a woman engaged in criminal misconduct on behalf of the CJC, and that it imposes on the CHRT Chairperson no obligation to institute an inquiry.

Anyone who flouts the law throws off his rank, strips himself of authority, divests himself of office, and emits actions which command no deference.  To appreciate that this is the position Mary M Gusella repeatedly placed herself into one need only glance at the CHRA § 49(1) above which says that "At any stage after the filing of a complaint, the Commission may request the Chairperson of the Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaint if the Commission is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, an inquiry is warranted."  That is, Mary M Gusella's handling of CJC v Prytulak did not at all lead to "the Commission" being "satisfied," but only to the two people on the Disposition Committee casting an anti-Prytulak vote, Mary M Gusella from revenge and Aimable Ndejuru from having been duped.  And "having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint" was not a requirement that Mary M Gusella satisfied either, as none of the circumstances alleged by Prytulak were regarded at any time or in any way.  The entire CJC enterprise so far constitutes the latest in a series of hoaxes that the CJC has become proficient at staging, on a par with its 50-Confessions Hoax which the Ukrainian Archive documents at

• 25-Mar-2004  Lubomyr Prytulak to Paul Martin  "Irwin Cotler collaboration with Steven Rambam"
  www.ukar.org/martin/martin05.html
  
  

and on a par with its Deschenes Commission Hoax which the Ukrainian Archive documents at

• 27-Apr-2004  Lubomyr Prytulak to Paul Martin  "Irwin Cotler Leadership in the Deschenes Commission Witch Hunt"
  www.ukar.org/martin/martin07.html