Saturday, June 22, 2013

Is Kirat Khalsa a dishonest lawyer? The Josef Rudolf case starts to get really nasty.

A Real Khalsa Doesn't Cheat 
Josef Rudolf is having a difficult time with Canada Revenue Agency lawyer Kirat Khalsa in Canada's Federal Court because Ms. Khalsa, in our opinion, has resorted to dirty tricks.

Dirty Tricks are sneaky, often dishonest, things that lawyers do so they can win a case in an underhanded and unfair way.  It is kind of like punching below the belt in boxing, tripping and hooking in hockey, and chemical weapons in warfare.  It is illegal but, if you get away with it, then you, as a lawyer, win your case but as a human being, you sell a piece of your soul and degrade yourself.

For example, lawyers will often write you a letter and not sign it.  This way they cannot be blamed for the dishonest words on the unsigned piece of paper that often mislead the recipient.  This is one of the dirty tricks that dishonest lawyers use.

In Josef Rudolf's case, Canada Revenue Agency was required to serve "Affidavits" in response to Josef Rudolf's initiating documents. Josef Rudolf, under the rules of court, was then entitled to cross-examine the person who swore the affidavit to be true.  Cross-examination of the "deponent" of an affidavit (i.e. the persons who swears it to be true) is an important part of the judicial process to ensure so that the parties are given the opportunity of a fair hearing.

However, in Josef Rudolf's case, Kirat Khalsa, as legal counsel for Canada Revenue Agency and other Respondents in Josef Rudolf's case, did not serve "sworn" Affidavits upon Josef Rudolf.  Instead she sent him an unsworn "Affidaivt" which is not really Affidavit at all but is simply a few pages of paper with words on them that cannot be attributed to anyone. In our opinion, by using this dirty trick, Kirat Khalsa craftily denied Josef Rudolf the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent of the Affidavit and, in the result, he was denied a fair hearing of his Petition in Canada's Federal Court.

Later, when the case went to court, Kirat Khalsa used the sworn Affidavit and Judge Simon Noel  let it be used in court over the objections of Josef Rudolf.  This was unfair also.

When Josef Rudolf appealed the decision of the lower court judge to Canada's Federal Court of Appeal, he objected to the inclusion of the sworn Affidavit in the Appeal Book because, in his opinion, it was not properly before the lower court and was not served upon him in the proper way thereby denying him a fair  hearing of his Petition.

Federal Court of  Appeal judge, Eleanor Dawson, ruled that the sworn Affidavit should be in the appeal book.

So, Josef Rudolf appealed the decision of judge Eleanor Dawson based on the fact that in his opinion, the Order of Eleanor Dawson had been obtained by fraud. 

Rule 399 (2) (b) states

On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order
  • (b) where the order was obtained by fraud.
This could get very nasty for Kirat Khalsa because, if the court finds she committed fraud, then she could, in theory, lose her licence to practise law.  We say "in theory" she could lose her licence because the professional body in British Columbia that supervises these kinds of things is the Law Society of British Columbia an organization riddled with corruption and with a notorious reputation for protecting government employed lawyers despite clear proof of their dishonesty.      

Josef Rudolf is claiming that Kirat Khalsa, (no photo available) a lawyer with Canada's Department of Justice in Vancouver, and William Pentney, (shown in photo on right) the Canadian Deputy Minister of Justice, in Ottawa, are both involved in this because William Pentney's name appears on the court documents and he establishes the legal culture in the Department of Justice.

If lawyers working for the Department of Justice cheat, use dirty tricks and get away with it, then William Pentney is not doing his job properly and he should be fired.