Will Zuzak; DESCROCK.008 = Interfering with Judicial Independence; 
Forwarded courtesy Orest Slepokura                            1996-05-21
Dear readers:
	I have been following the gradual corruption of the Canadian
system of jurisprudence ever since the Deschenes Commission debacle
initiated by the newly elected Mulroney government in early 1985.
Retroactive war crimes legislation was passed to allow the prosecution
of a very specific segment of alleged war criminals in Canada. None of
the prosecutions were successful.

	With the advent of the Chretien government and Allan Rock as
Justice Minister in late 1993, the strategy has shifted to the civil
proceedings of denaturalization and deportation, rather than the more
rigorous criminal proceedings which had failed.

	It was exactly this type of proceedings which were utilized in
the infamous John Demjanjuk case by the U.S. Office of Special
Investigations to denaturalize and deport Mr. Demjanjuk to Israel where
he was falsely convicted and sentenced to hang in April 1988.
Fortunately, the verdict was overturned and subsequently the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the OSI was guilty of "prosecutorial
misconduct which constituted fraud on the court" in obtaining Mr.
Demjanjuk's denaturalization and deportation.

	Readers are invited to visit the following website
to familiarize themselves with these issues. Look at the DESCROCK,

	In the 7 DESCROCK files, I have repeatedly warned Canadians of
the dangers of Allan Rock's initiative with denaturalization and
deportation corrupting our system of jurisprudence as occurred in the
United States. The recent article reproduced below from the Toronto
Globe and Mail has confirmed my worst fears.

	It is my considered opinion, that Canadians must demand that
Allan Rock be removed as Justice Minister and that the offending
bureaucrats be dismissed and/or disciplined. Perhaps an independent
review of the whole Justice Ministry would be in order. Both justices
Julius Isaac and Bud Cullen should remove themselves from any further
involvement in these cases. The civil proceedings of denaturalization
and deportation against the 3 individuals must be dropped. If the
government feels strongly that the cases have merit, it should pursue
them in the criminal courts under the appropriate legislation.

Will Zuzak; 1996-05-21

From: The Globe and Mail [p. A 11]
Saturday, May 18, 1996

          Official sought to influence war-crimes deportation cases
    Improper meeting with judge violated rights of accused, lawyers say

                     by Kirk Makin [Justice Reporter]

TORONTO - An attempt by a senior federal bureaucrat to influence a judge
presiding over three nazi war-crimes deportation cases was not harmful
enough to warrant halting the actions, a federal prosecutor argued

"Where there is an attack upon the conduct of the Chief Justice of this
court, it is not sufficient to simply point to an isolated incident,"
prosecutor Christopher Amerasinghe told a Federal Court of Canada

The incident involved assistant deputy justice minister J.E. (Ted)
Thompson's private meeting with Chief Justice Julius Isaac of the
Federal Court to criticize the conduct of the presiding judge, Associate
Chief Justice James Jerome.

Judge Jerome removed himself from the case two weeks ago and has been
replaced by Mr. Justice Bud Cullen.

In an exchange of letters after their March 1 meeting, Mr. Thompson
warned Judge Isaac that the government would seek a reference to the
Supreme Court of Canada if the deportation cases didn't begin to move

He wrote that this dramatic course of action was being contemplated
"primarily because the Federal Court Trial Division is unable or
unwilling to proceed with the subject cases expeditiously."

Donald Bayne, a lawyer who represents Johann Dueck, who is accused of
war crimes, said in an interview yesterday that Mr. Thompson's choice of
words reveals a flagrant attempt to undermine Judge Jerome and influence
the case. He said it implies that the judge purposely shirked what he
knew to be proper rulings.

Mr. Bayne and two colleagues who represent Helmut Overlander and Erichs
Tobiass have urged the court to stay proceedings against the three men
on the basis that the improper meeting violated their right to a fair

"I believe this is the worst case in Canadian history of improper
backroom interference with judicial independence," Mr. Bayne said
outside the Toronto courtroom where the motion is being heard.

"It was an attempt to pressure him to change his approach - and it
worked," he said. "You cannot run a case based on a threat to take a
reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. They have to answer for this.
It is an outrage to democracy."

Mr. Amerasinghe told Judge Cullen earlier yesterday, however, that it
was only through inadvertence that his opponents were not present at the
meeting or informed immediately that it had taken place.

Even so, he acknowledged that the incident was highly unusual.

"The fact it has not happened before does not make it more terrible than
it actually is," Mr. Amerasinghe argued. "Has the process in these cases
been tainted to such a degree by the conduct that took place that it
would tarnish the integrity of the court to allow them to proceed?"

Proceedings against the three elderly men began almost 18 months ago. 
It was the latest move in a largely unsuccessful campaign by the
government to bring to justice war criminals from the Second World War.

The government alleges that the three lied to get into Canada,
effectively disguising participation in acts of genocide in
Nazi-occupied Europe.

Mr. Bayne said unless there is an outcry against what has taken place,
it can only mean people are willing to accept any affront to democracy
and judicial tradition in the name of catching alleged war criminals.

"The quality of a democracy is judged by how you treat your least
popular people," he said.

Equally important, he continued, is the principle that the government
has no greater status before a court than any ordinary citizen.

"Can you imagine an ordinary Canadian walking into the office of the
Chief Judge to complain that he should intervene with a judge - and
without them telling the other side?" he asked.

"Mr. Thompson is not only a member of the executive branch, but he is
counsel for one of the parties," Mr. Bayne said. "You have to protect
the judiciary against any backroom attempts by government to influence

In his letter to Chief Judge Isaac after their meeting, Mr. Thompson
noted that several potential witnesses in the deportation cases had
become seriously ill.

"As you know, there is great public interest in seeing these case
disposed of on their merits, and the potential for embarrassment is very
high should it be seen that the justice system is unable to respond to
these urgent cases in a timely way," he wrote. "I would appreciate any
assistance you can offer."

Chief Justice Isaac acted immediately. Later the same day, he wrote to
Mr. Thompson that he had spoken to Judge Jerome, "and like me, he is
prepared to take all reasonable steps to avoid a reference to the
Supreme Court of Canada on these matters."

Chief Justice Isaac said that in the light of Mr. Thompson's concerns,
Judge Jerome had undertaken that in future he would treat such
deportation cases as a "highest priority."

The Chief Judge said Judge Jerome explained to him that "he did not
appreciate until he read your letter the urgency of dealing with these
matters as expeditiously as the government would like."

Mr. Bayne said Mr. Thompson's approach to the Chief Judge Isaac was
apparently prompted by the government's having lost four important
motions before Judge Jerome:

- A defence motion asking that portions of the three deportation cases
be heard together.

- A motion in which the government asked the judge to dismiss summarily
an attempt to stay the proceedings because deportation proceedings were
nothing more than a way of doing an end run around procedural guarantees
contained in actual war-crimes legislation.

- A defence motion asking for the disclosure of certain documents.

- A government motion that portions of the proceedings be handled solely
through written submissions rather than with the addition of oral

Mr. Bayne said it is shocking that Chief Judge Isaac would not simply
have shown Mr. Thompson the door the moment it became clear that he had
come to discuss particular cases on the day they met.

"The chief judge didn't say: 'I can't talk to you,' as any law student
would know he must," Mr. Bayne said. "Instead, he invites him to go on.
Did Chief Justice Isaac not notice that the respondents were not there;
that all of this was going on in private?"

Mr. Bayne learned of the meeting about a week after it took place, when
Mr. Amerasinghe sent him copies of the correspondence.

Mr. Bayne speculated in the interview that the government may have been
hoping to cut its losses by coming clean before word of the meeting
leaked out. "I think it was like a bomb going off, and they thought:
'What have you done, Ted?'" Mr. Bayne said.

Mr. Bayne said it is particularly upsetting that, with Judge Jerome's
removal of himself from the case, the government has ultimately gained
more than it had hoped for.

He said the biggest outstanding question is whether Mr. Thompson acted
on his own initiative in trying to influence the judges.

Mr. Bayne said the sanctity of the judicial process is evident in a
quote from a Supreme Court of Canada decision written by former chief
justice Brian Dickson: "No outsider - be it government, pressure group,
individual or even another judge - should interfere in fact or attempt
to interfere with the way in which a judge conducts his or her case or
makes his or her decision. This core continues to be central to the
principle of judicial independence."

In documents filed with the court, Mr. Amerhasinghe also maintains that
lawyers for the three accused men have consistently tried to drag out
the case.

Mr. Bayne retorted that even as government lawyers keep referring to
their desire to expedite matters, their refusal to disclose documents
and witness lists has actually lengthened the case substantially.

In a letter sent on Aug. 10, 1995, and echoed in subsequent letters, Mr.
Bayne wrote to Mr. Amerasinghe: "I should have thought that you would be
doing everything to expedite proceedings in this matter, but instead we
are eight months into this case with no idea of what witness will
purportedly give what evidence."

Mr. Amerasinghe countered that since deportation is a civil proceeding,
there are no strict requirements to disclose evidence as there are in
criminal proceedings.

The case has been adjourned until June 12.

Will Zuzak; DESCROCK.008 = Interfering with Judicial Independence; 
Forwarded courtesy Orest Slepokura                            1996-05-21