Newsreal Archives/Critic' Corners

Following is an email sent to the Canadian Bar Association and following is a reply from Dr. David Kuntz who is an authority on corruption of courts.

Hello CBA and Ms. Nevin,

News Release from the the President of the Canadian Bar Association

I have read the immediate release dated May 25th, 2007 regarding the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada in B.C. (Attorney General) v. Christie and I'm compel to write the following:

I am a citizen who is very concern about access to justice however I find that the argument by the CBAA and by the late Dugald Chritie does not stand the test.

I say this by virtue of the fact that access to justice does not depend solely on the 7% tax imposed on people but rather on the very fact that court proceedings are in itself very expensive.

Thus if the bar is serious about “access to justice” it must argue about its own billing that is handed over to their clients and the costs of trying to obtain justice.

In effect access to the court does not exist for those who do not have the funds to play with the big boys.

A 7% tax on a bill of costs handed over by a lawyer in the amount of $10,000.00 for example, is not really an issue in as much as the $10,000.00 that the lawyer claims he worked for is what concerns regular citizens, especially when there is no result coming from the lawyer.

I suggest that in the event the bar is serious about access to justice, than the bar association ought to not concern itself with a tax that is claimed by the SCC to be constitutional but rather concern itself with the entire justice system that leaves the poor out of the playing field.

Do you really believe that the working class and the poor people would have more access to justice if the 7% tax would be removed?

Do you really believe that the working class and the poor people would be more incline to hire lawyers if the 7% tax would be removed?

The fact that the Superior Courts in British Columbia agreed with the argument of the late Dugald Christie was in itself unbelievable given that other businesses would also make the same argument regarding the unconstitutionality of the sale tax.

In effect, truth be told any taxes imposed on people is unconstitutional however the court would not admit to it since our judges are directly paid from the tax pool.

I would like to see the CBA stop wasting court time, as it did the last time before Chief Justice Donald Brenner and really get down to the truth by making a conscious decision that your industry will stop cheating people by charging too much money for your time.

I suggest you click on

Myths to Justice

and read what it says about Myths of Justice.

You may also consider reading other material on the website such as

Myth of Access to Justice

and note that Dugald Christie is mentioned on the site.

--- Dugald Christie was a wonderful man in many aspect but also torn between his allegiance to the bar and to regular people.

The CBA must eventually decide on which side it stands and whether it is prepared to turn itself around.

The new generation of lawyers need to be educated about the court and it needs to get back to its roots otherwise, more lawyers coming out of law school will soon find out that they cannot make a living being a lawyer.

Keep in mind that access to justice does not depend on a 7% sale tax.

Sincerity from the bar may win you over clients however the question is whether the bar has the capacity to be sincere.

Respectfully yours,

Tina Zanetti


Following is Dr. David Kuntz's reply to what Ms. Zanetti wrote to the Canadian Bar Association:

Hello Tina Zanetti,

Lawyers are little more than clerks who prey upon their clients, pretend to knowledge they do not have, play evidence like a deck of cards, and sell their clients to the highest bidder.

There is nothing in place to make them accountable as they are being bribed to withhold evidence to ensure a wrongful conviction against the clients they "pretend to defend."

Lawyer are judges in embryo and when they get appointed to the bench to do favors for their old clients and confreres, there is no official body in place willing to expose an unethical lawyer who withholds evidence to obtain a wrongful conviction against the client he is pretending to defend.

There is no whistleblower protection for lawyers who would expose their confreres for abuse of authority because if the crimes of lawyers against their clients are prosecuted, it would bankrupt the lawyers' legal malpractice defense fund and that would cost all lawyers who would be required to pay up to $150,000 in insurance premiums annually just as orthopaedic surgeons or neurosurgeons are required to pay in Florida as a result of the judicial malpractice.

Since 14% of all Members of Parliament are lawyers, they are all sitting in conflict of interest by failing to recuse themselves while making laws which benefit lawyers including themselves when they leave politics.

Any lawyer who tries to restore justice to the system is quickly removed as a whistleblower because "justice" would interfere with the cash flow of the majority of lawyers who are stealing from insurance funds or earning their money by influence peddling to obstruct justice.

There is a solution to judicial malpractice. No lawyer appointed to sit as a judge should be allowed to sit in the same province where he practiced as a lawyer.

No judge should be allowed to hear any case in his new province where any of the plaintiffs or defendants have retained lawyers from a law firm affiliated with his old law firm in his home province.

All lawyers should be forced to list all their former clients, law firms and confreres.

Judges should be forced by law to identify all their previous clients while practising law because they cannot be relied upon to admit to conflicts nor will they recuse themselves when requested after their conflict surfaces.

The solution is to develop a parallel justice system run by the public where lawyers and judges have no status or ability to cover up for lawyers and judges caught influence peddling, withholding evidence, or sitting in conflict of interest.

This citizens justice forum should report publicly and directly to Parliament which should exclude all sitting MP's who are lawyers in required votes to recommend removal of the rights of lawyers and judges caught abusing authority from all further usage of the publicly funded court facilities.

The Canadian Judicial Council should be disbanded because it serves as an early warning system for aberrant judges who then stalk their critics from the bench as their confreres on the Council cover up to avoid embarassment to the judiciary.

I have had personal experience of complaining to the CJC about law-breaking judges where the CJC covered up for them. Three of these judges then re-appeared in conflict to sit in judgment of me and harm their critic. Two of them were specifically asked to recuse themselves and refused - they wanted to punish me for reporting them to the CJC and make an example that Canada does not tolerate whistleblowers on the judiciary.

Dr. J.D. Kuntz M.D., F.R.C.S.