|KATHLEEN MOORE v. ELIZABETH WINDSOR|
ANNEXATION BY SECESSION:
The forced annexation of Canada to the United
States and Mexico to form a continental union under a
new form of government is being made possible by a
decades-long scam at all levels of government to
dissolve the Constitution of Canada by pulling Québec
As all our Prime Ministers and their complicit
law firms know, secession is illegal in Canada, and
always has been.
Moreover, Parliament is the form of government
chosen by the Founders of Canada precisely because, by
its very nature, Parliament prevents and prohibits
secession. Parliament is one. There is no such
thing as a separatist in Parliament or in a Provincial
Legislature when government is lawfully constituted in
Government has not been lawfully constituted in
Canada for some time.
These legal proceedings in HABEAS CORPUS will
make and prove these points before a competent court,
and assert them in a way that permanently enjoins any
measures at secession of a Province, and at
Canada - Critical Links :
PLAN : Goodbye, Canada and
Goodbye, Québec !
Building a North American
Community (BANC) is the published
portion of the blueprint to annex Canada to the
USA and Mexico by the year 2010. The
annexation is underway now, being implemented by a
series of confidential working groups. You will
recognize names like Anne MacLellan,
John P. Manley, Pierre-Marc Johnson
— the latter being a former "separatist" Premier
|CNN : NO
Click here to
watch a streaming news extract from CNN
Here is a CNN text transcript of that
broadcast. Scroll down about mid-way for the text
of this segment. It starts with the words "DOBBS:
Border security is arguably the critical
9 June 2005 broadcast date.
CNN: BILL TUCKER: Now, the apparent contradiction in OBAMA's words and actions has activists on another front worried. Last February  OBAMA pledged that he would RESUME the Security and Prosperity Partnership talks between Mexico and Canada that President Bush initiated.
|CNN: OBAMA continues NAU "policy" (02-2009)|
Under continental union, the
populations of Mexico and the United States will
have full mobility rights in Quebec and Canada.
The border will be gone.
Quebec will be the
main destination for Mexicans for two reasons.
First, because Spanish is very similar to French,
thus aiding in their re-settlement. Second,
because the two ends of the urban corridor of
NAFTA bring Montréal, Canada to within a single
day’s journey by highway from Mexico. This
corridor passes through the industrial stronghold
of Canada and its largest market. In addition, a
NAFTA super-corridor called NASCO (being built now)
will add a highway four football fields wide
linking Mexico with
Montreal will therefore be the
preferred entry point into Quebec for Mexicans. Do
you remember the film, "Titanic"? Well, go fetch
the orchestra: because not only Canada, but French
Canada, will vanish under the inrushing tide when
there are "NO MORE BOUNDARIES".
United States: 320,000,000
SPECIAL NOTICE: From at least 2002 to 2008, the Quebec Government web site was trilingual, in French, English and Spanish.
I wrote the segment below on that basis. However, as of 2009, those detaining my Quebec Government have apparently backed off and removed the official third language of Spanish. Instead, they have shifted Spanish to their international page. I would like to think that my web site had something to do with forcing them to back off, even if the retreat was only camouflage for the North American integration that they are really up to. I sent my web site to the most virulent separatists I could think of, expecting that they would be enraged by this evidence of planned betrayal, and the pressure they would bring to bear would force the Government to begin to back off.
at least 2002, the Quebec Government has been
offering a Spanish version of its
Not one of the
numerous linguistic communities living in Quebec
for generations has had the honour of having its
language recognized as a
So, why Spanish,
Here's a guess: if in
it is not secession but annexation
that our "separatist" parties have been aiming
at—then the "constitutionalization" of
Spanish by the Government of Quebec as a
third official language must mean that continental
union is well underway.
It must also mean
the divisive French-only language "war"
mounted for the past three decades was largely a
political pretext to empty the "NO" vote out of
Quebec while consolidating a "YES", because
annexation cannot be completed without secession.
Should we recall that NAFTA's Brian Mulroney gave
us Lucien Bouchard, who gave us the 1995
Referendum and 86,000 spoiled "NO" ballots never
accounted for at law.
Remember that the plan for the
annexation of Canada to the United States and
Mexico entitled "Building a North American Community entails the removal of the Canada/US border and full mobility for citizens of the United States and Mexico up here, north of our 49th parallel.
Click here to visit the
Spanish-language version of the official
web site of the Government of Québec.
Click here to visit the Spanish-language version of the Quebec Provincial Library web site, which now offers not a mere "Declaration of services to citizens," but a "Declaración de Servicio a los Ciudadanos". Do we have "Ciudadanos" in Canada?
No, we do not. We have Canadians, we have
canadien(ne)s, we have citizens and
citoyen(ne)s, but we do not have
"Ciudadanos," any more than "tacos" is a
national dish of Canada. Are the "Ciudadanos" a
founding people of Canada? No, not at
all. Therefore, this is all part of the
hijacking of Canada by the North American Union
We need an immediate moratorium on Spanish-speaking immigration before the Canadian identity and
Constitution are damaged beyond recognition by
this "stealth" Mexican invasion.
here to read section 133 of the
Constitution of Canada, a section the Courts have
interpreted very strictly since 1867 to
protect the French and English languages in
Here are the opening
words of the Press Release of 23 May 2005
grandly entitled: "A North American Parliament
The first North American
parliament will be held at the Canadian Senate on the
initiative of the North American Forum on
Integration (NAFI). Seventy university students
from Canada, the United States and Mexico will
take the political front seat and simulate a North
American Parliament, which does not yet exist.
From May 23 to 27, participants will recreate the
intense atmosphere of negotiations proper to
parliaments as legislators of a federal or
By "federal state," they
don't mean the federated States of the American
Union, or the federated Provinces of Canada.
Canada, as the federal government of the
provinces, will no longer be needed once its
"NAFI" is based in Montreal. You
might like to drop in and visit your new model
NORTH AMERICAN FORUM ON
Sainte-Catherine Est Bureau V-3110
Canada H2X 1L2
Fax : 514-987-0347
"Triumvirate," the 2008 model parliament for North America is being hosted at Montreal City Hall, thus placing current Mayor, Gérald Tremblay, squarely
in the camp of the annexationists.
given to the new North American Parliament. Canada
as we know it will therefore cease to exist. It
will be reduced to parts, which will be
re-federated under the new central Parliament and
Government of the North American Union. As for
Quebec, it won't retain any of its new "imperial"
powers in the event of secession because,
obviously, the "separatists" intend to re-federate
Quebec in the North American Union. All told, the
Clarity Act was designed to "release"
all the provinces, not just
I think we now know why the 1980
referendum question was so "unclear". They were
not aiming for the independence of Quebec, they
were trying to plant the "European Union" in
embryo on this continent.
Minister Jean Chrétien's nephew, Raymond Chrétien, is the
Honorary President of the new model Parliament
which they had the gall to dry-run in the Canadian
Senate! So much for the Unity Fund and
"Plan B". Raymond Chrétien's credentials
at his law firm's web site state that he is a
"Member of the Trilateral Commission".
South American Union|
signed 23 May 2008 !
CANADA, USA AND MEXICO ARE NEXT !
WILL CREATE A
CBS News: "South American Leaders Form Regional Union"
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) - A new South American union was born Friday as leaders of the region's 12 nations set out to create a continental parliament.
Some see the new Union of South American Nations, known as Unasur, as a regional version of the European Union. Summit host Brazil wants it to help coordinate defense affairs across South America, and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez calls it a counterweight to the United States.
HCC: The official propaganda sets up South American Union as a foil to US aggression. This is a cover for the fact that the European Union is spreading world-wide, with intent to engulf all sovereign nations.
These "continental parliaments" will eventually be merged to form a one-world government.
This is the planned end of Canada, of the United States, and of all self-ruling nations.
These advances toward a global merger are not happening by accident. They are not the natural progression of affairs. They are not democratic in character.
They are being driven by supranational forces behind organized business. If they reach their goal, self-government everywhere will cease to exist.
There shall be|
Part IV, Article 17, Constitution Act, 1867
A few words from the Constitution of Canada will suffice in a competent Court to terminate the bogus model parliament for North America and consign its organizers on Montreal soil to jail for high treason.
The Canadian Constitution was called the British North America Act, 1867 and was re-named the Constitution Act, 1867 in 1982. In Part IV, entitled Legislative power, we have Article 17 under the subtitle "Constitution of Parliament of Canada". The text of Article 17 reads as follows:
17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
The word "One" was employed for a reason: it doesn't mean "two". Moreover, Article 17 both establishes and defines Parliament. It limits the exercise of the "Powers of the Parliament" to the Queen, the House of Commons and the Senate acting as the One Legislative Authority for Canada. The legislative powers of the nation of Canada are found at Section 91, which reads, in part, as follows:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada [...]
The language of Article 17 is construed as follows: "shall" in statutory interpretation is "imperative", meaning it's a command. The provision subject of this command is compulsory. In other words, it is mandatory that there be ONE and only ONE Parliament for Canada.
The command effectively prohibits as expressly illegal, any other structural unit, internal or external to Canada, and of any composition other than "Queen, Commons and Senate" from usurping or exercising the powers of a Government, Cabinet, Privy Council and "Parliament" for Canada.
There is "ONE" Parliament for Canada because Canada is legally ONE. Article 3 of the British North America Act, 1867 established and defined Canada as ONE inseverable nation. Section 3 transformed the founding colonies, which had been separate, into ONE at the Union. Being thus formed into ONE, they are inseverable from one another and from the UNION:
Declaration of Union
3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
That is the legal nature and character of Canada. Its nature is that it is ONE indestructible Union, designed to be a permanent, self-governing nation. Whenever the name Canada is used, the legal definition is invoked. "Canada" means the "UNION". At law, it is a contradiction to say the "Rest of Canada". The "Rest" of Canada has no Constitutional status, no Constitiutional rights, and no powers.
Only after the founding colonies were formed into ONE, were administrative boundaries drawn onto the map of Canada, creating the first four Provinces of the ONE nation. "Province" in the dictionary is defined as "The territory occupied by one of the constituent administrative districts of a nation". Canada is not merely federal; Canada is ONE legislative nation with federal subdivisions for provincial local purposes.
A Province or district could not use its provincial (local) amending power to convert its Legislature into a competing "Parliament" vying with the "One Parliament for Canada" for equal or similar powers to govern on Canadian territory.
By the way, there is such a statute, and it needs to be judicially nullified. It was "enacted" in Quebec on Trudeau's watch at about the same time he was co-signing the patriation with Elizabeth IInd. For, a provincial "Parliament" of a fledgling independent State forming inside Canada's national boundaries, would be a Foreign Power, incompatible with the Constitution of Canada. If not disallowed, it would destroy the nation established, defined and named "Canada" at law by the Constitution Act, 1867.
Relevant case law on the subject includes Re the Initiative and Referendum Act,  A.C. 935 cited with approval by Mr. Justice Beetz at paragraph 110 of Ontario (Attorney General) v. OPSEU,  2 S.C.R. 2, as follows:
"Viscount Haldane, who delivered the reasons of the Judicial Committee, accordingly pronounced a deliberate and import- ant obiter at p. 945, reading as follows:
No doubt a body, with a power of legislation on the subjects entrusted to it so ample as that enjoyed by a Provincial Legislature in Canada, could, while preserving its own capacity intact, seek the assistance of subordinate agencies [...] but it does not follow that it can create and endow with its own capacity a new legislative power not created by the Act to which it owes its own existence."
In other words, the Constitution created the Province as a Province; the Province did not create the Constitution, and therefore has no powers other than those conferred upon it by the Constitution for purely local provincial purposes.
This is one reason why we have a federal power of disallowance at Articles 56 and 90 of the Constitution: to ensure that structures do not arise in the Provinces which threaten the unity of Canada. Any law enacted by a provincial Legislature which purports to convert that Legislature into an illegal Second Parliament on Canadian territory, would be an attempt by the Province to exercise amendment outside its local sphere to restructure the federal level of Canada. Such a law would be void and invalid, and if not properly disallowed, would be judicially nullified by a competent Court seized of the question.
To make this clearer, Article 71 of the Constitution prescribes, also in compulsory language: "There shall be a Legislature for Quebec". While the style of governance at both the federal and provincial levels is "parliamentary", and while the provincial Legislatures in shorthand have sometimes been called "provincial parliaments", legally, they are Legislatures, which differentiates them from the central national One Parliament of Canada.
Bogus "NAFI" Parliament:
Not only internal structures, but AN OUTSIDE FOREIGN STRUCTURE purporting, for example, to run "model parliaments" for North America, intent upon setting up a new level of government above the Provinces, and/or above Canada, would be a treasonous and illegal challenge to the Constitutional "One Parliament" of Canada.
The North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), which recently moved to offices at the Université de Montréal, has been running these bogus parliaments for North America in the Canadian Senate, in the Mexican Senate, at American University, and in 2008, is foisting another one on us in the municipal legislature at Montreal City Hall. This is a coup d'etat openly in planning, which is, of course, brilliant: perpetrate the most heinous acts of treason publicly, and pretend they're legal. That should fool almost everyone.
And when I say treason, I want to make clear what that means. It means treason against the people, because Parliament is the people of the nation in their political capacity. These bogus NAFI parliaments, concurred in by those detaining the federal, provincial and municipal levels, are a criminal act of assault upon the Crown of Canada, and a blatant contempt of the Constitutional right to vote, to run for office, and to be governed by those we elect, and by no others inside or outside of Canada.
The 1995 Referendum to Secede
about Quebec Sovereignty and Independence:
It was to
bring in the European
|1995 - THE PLAN :
In 1995, upon
of a majority "Yes" vote to full
sovereignty and independence for Quebec, Jacques
Parizeau intended to offer Canada a new partnership under treaty.
Parizeau's Bill 1,
|entitled An Act respecting the future of
Quebec, set out the general terms of that
treaty. The offer to Canada of an economic and political
partnership was to be based upon the three-party
agreement of 12 June 1995 among three political
parties: the Parti Québécois, the Bloc
Québécois and the Action démocratique du
Québec. The three-party agreement called for a
customs union, free movement of goods,
free movement of individuals, free movement of
services, free movement of capital, common
monetary policy, labour mobility and
|Lastly, the offer was
creation by treaty
of joint political
institutions needed for administering the partnership,
a council, a
secretariat, an assembly and a
tribunal for resolving disputes.
terms and those political institutions are not original
to Parizeau and his fellow separatist pretenders. They
are all to be found in a 1957 document entitled The Treaty of Rome, also called
The Treaty Establishing the European
Economic Community. They are also to be found in
"Building A North American Community," the next
stage after NAFTA for terminating Canada by merging it
into the USA and Mexico under a "North American Union".
This — combined with the model parliament for North
America with planning offices in Montreal — is
the basis in North America for European-Union
Lest we forget: "Mr. Parizeau indicated that he
is willing to entertain all ideas, including the PAD's
[the Parti Action démocratique] proposal for a
common parliament similar to that of the European
Union." The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 28,
1995. pg. A.8. ProQuest document ID: 1119563611.
Not only was the idea of a European-Union-style parliament "entertained" by the obliging Mr. Parizeau, it was implemented in the Tripartite Agreement of 12 June 1995, and would have been carried out following a YES vote to "secede". You can click on that link to read the Tripartite Agreement, which says, if you scroll down to "Joint Institutions," "(2) The Parliamentary Assembly": "A Partnership Parliamentary Assembly, made up of Québec and Canadian Members appointed by their respective Legislative Assemblies, will be created." This is North American Union, NOT the "secession of Quebec". This is the "associate state" status that René Lévesque had been pursuing, along with Trudeau and other pretenders, since the 1960's, as you will read further below.
Also see an article by Anne McIlroy, entitled As the referendum campaign begins in earnest..., which reads in part: "The June 12 agreement cemented the alliance of Parizeau, Bloc Québécois Leader Lucien Bouchard and Mario Dumont of Action Démocratique. It says Quebec will make an offer to Canada -- both for an economic union and a joint Parliament -- before it declares independence." ProQuest document ID: 329411971. In other words, 'destroy Canada voluntarily, or we'll destroy it for you.'
And now, an amusing anecdote: on 11 July 1995, La Presse broke the infamous "lobster" story. In a private meeting with 15 ambassadors, Jacques Parizeau said that with a YES in the approaching referendum, Quebecers would be "like lobsters thrown in boiling water" ("comme des homards dans l'eau bouillante"). And who were those ambassadors? Every single one from member states of the European Union. See 11-12-14 July 1995, all on p. A1, by Chantal Hébert; Eureka database, News Document Numbers 19950711·LA·003; 19950712·LA·002; and 19950714·LA·004.
The "Distinct Society" Scam
not about Quebec's
It was to
bring in the European
— The 1992 Charlottetown
Pretend that Canada
not a Confederation
1867, a federal union of the British North
American colonies into Provinces was chosen over a
legislative union (meaning a single country with
no provinces) not merely to "recognize" but to
constitutionalize—meaning to make permanent
basic law—the distinctness of French
Canadians... and of each and every one of
the four founding colonies, and of the
future colonies to be admitted to the Canadian
Canadian Confederation, Quebec is distinct,
British Columbia is distinct, Nova Scotia is
distinct, Alberta is distinct, Manitoba is
distinct, Saskatchewan is distinct, and so on. The
creation of provinces, therefore,
constitutionally recognized the right of
the founding peoples of Canada—and there are more
than two—to a homeland for each within the nation
of Canada as the country of all.|
demand that Canadians officially recognize the
"distinct society" of Quebec was a scam to
artificially create a grievance by substituting
the words "distinct society" for "Confederation"
to pretend that Quebecers don't have what
they have had since 1867: constitutional
recognition of their
Emblems of the
By tricking Quebecers into
destroying what they already have, by
pretending they don't yet have it, they plan to
bring in the European
As for the term "rest of
Canada," sometimes shortened to "ROC," this is
another political trick. It refuses to
recognize the "distinctness" of each of the
other provinces of Canada.
"Now, as regards the comparative advantages of a Legislative and a federal union, (...) on looking at the subject in the Conference, (...) we found that (...) any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada – if I may use the expression – would not be received with favour by her people. We found too, that (...) there was as great a disinclination on the part of the various Maritime Provinces to lose their individuality, as separate political organisations."
-- John A. Macdonald, p. 29, Canada. Legislature. Parliamentary Debates on the subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3rd Sess., 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada. Quebec: Hunter, Rose & Co., 1865.
conflict set up between these "two" artificial
groups, Quebec and "ROC", hides the fact that
all the provinces are "distinct," including
Quebec. Without the false conflict, they'd have no
reason to promote the break-up of Canada. By
artificially reducing all of Canada to "two"
nations, the battle is easier to set up and
necessarily ignore, as if non-existent,
the "distinctness" of each and every one of the
other provinces and territories. They reduce these
diverse provinces and their "distinct"
peoples to one imaginary "people" in one imaginary
place called the "ROC", with one imaginary
This is a blatant fraud on the
Constitution of Canada, which was designed to
constitutionally guarantee and preserve for all
time the "distinct" nature of each of the
The 1980 Referendum to Secede
not about Quebec Sovereignty and
a smoke-screen for bringing in the European
- THE PLAN :
government of René Lévesque was elected in
November 1976. Its program consisted in holding a
referendum in Québec to address its issue of a
Sovereignty-Association "project" with
Sovereignty-Association project sought
Québec accession to political sovereignty within
the framework of a new agreement for economic
association with Canada. This meant establishing a
new relation between Canada and Québec where both
parties would be international entities and
relations between them would no longer be
governed by a constitution, but rather by a treaty
of association. However, they would continue
to have a single tariff and a single currency. The
nature of the proposed association would be that
of a monetary
addition, the creation of certain common
Québec-Canada institutions was considered,
institutions that would be admin-
this respect, the project included the creation of
a Community Council, a Commission of
Experts, a Court of Justice and a
Monetary Authority (a parliamentary
assembly could have also been examined without per
se being included in the
Whether they call it a
"customs union" as in 1995, or a "monetary
union" as in 1980, they are just shuffling
the deck. It comes down to the same thing: the
European Union in embryo on this continent. This
is the end of Confederation, and of Canada, and of
the federal central Parliament and government
created by and for the 1867 Union of
The annexationists who are posing
as separatists want to re-federate the provinces
as states, under new "institutions". They
intend to re-federate the states of Mexico, the
states of the United States, and the Provinces of
Canada under a new, so-called "parliament". In
effect, North American Union is
And so, we see that
Quebec's alleged wish to secede to have "unique
institutions" for its culture, or "more"
sovereignty for itself, is untrue. By secession,
those controlling Quebec and Canada hope to impose
"identical" EU-style institutions on all
the provinces, which will ultimately deprive
them of all their sovereignty. This is
happening right now to member states of the
In the European Union,
there is less sovereignty for each state,
not more. Here is Pierre Elliott Trudeau—in the
course of extolling the EU—in 1991: "Well, look at
the European Community. Take France,
for instance; in the Parliament of the
Community at Strasbourg, it [France]
is retaining something like 18 per cent of its
sovereignty. The rest of it is shared with
Germany and Italy and the rest of the Community."
Source: Will Canada Survive? Federalism
in Peril, Edited by A.R. Riggs and Tom Velk,
Fraser Institute, 1992.
As for Britain,
signed on to the EC Treaty in 1973, they have
already lost 100% of control over their
environment, fishing, farming, and trade—all of
which are now completely subject to the
dictatorship of unelected officials at the
European Union Commission in Brussels. This is
what stands to happen to Canada, the U.S. and
Mexico if the planned attachment in 2010 goes
To understand how membership in
the European Union progressively destroys the
individual states, view the following video
entitled "The Real Face of the European
Even more importantly, view
the following video by Russian Presidential
candidate, Vladimir Bukovsky, entitled "The European Union - the New Soviet
Want to copy these videos?
Fidel Castro: Founding Father
Quebec Liberation Front* (FLQ)
Belgian Immigrant to Montreal GEORGES SCHOETERS
a terrorist trainer
|CASTRO 1959 :|
visit to Montreal
takes first step toward
founding the FLQ:
Fidel Castro in
De-classified letters of the
at the time
to Montreal in
"Fidel Castro and the Revolutionary
indicate a fear that
and his revolutionary
Logo of the
"Patriotes" behind the chosen logo of the
FLQ are described by François Xavier Desève in his
eye-witness account of the "rebellion" as it
unfolded at Saint-Eustache in 1837: Journal
historique des événemens arrivés à Saint Eustache,
pendant la rébellion... par un Témoin
description given of the originial
René Lévesque, ace reporter
for Radio-Canada, interviews Castro in Montreal on
26 April 1959, the day Castro will found the FLQ
with Georges Schoeters.
British Trade Commissioner James
Cross, held by FLQ terrorists in the hope of
ransoming their compatriots:
all made possible
in a car-trunk
DICTATOR: shown at left on 26 April 1959, on a
visit to the Jeune Chambre de Commerce de
Montréal, by invitation. It has been three
short months since Castro's military overthrow of
the Cuban Batista regime.|
in Montreal on this date will result in War
Measures in Quebec in 1970, and the emergence of a
hardline so-called "separatist" movement to alter
the political and legal structure of Canada to
that of the European Union.
The two main
efforts in Quebec, in 1980 and 1995, led by the
Parti Québécois—thickly populated by
Castro-trained former FLQ terrorists returning
from jail or self-exile—were disguised as a demand
for independence for Quebec. However, in both
cases, the Quebec "independence" platform involved
a new political structure for Canada
tantamount to the EU.
The referendums in
Quebec have been arranged to exclude Canadians, on
the pretense that the "peuple Québécois"
alone has a right to decide its own destiny. But
clearly, this is a scam to manipulate Quebecers
into disposing of Canada's destiny,
leaving the majority of Canadians with no vote,
except to ratify a "yes" in Quebec.
the collapse of the Soviet Union, the European
Union has become Castro's biggest trading
* Front de Libération du
enjoy a sing-along.
Castro at Trudeau's funeral
PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU,
speaking of the election to power of the Parti
Québécois on 15 November 1976 (a party thickly
populated with Castro-trained former FLQ
then, there you have it, in this enormously
changed country, the events of 15 November
[separatists elected!] oblige us to make a choice.
And for myself, I find that not only excellent, I
find that practically thrilling... The premier of
Quebec asks us the question: do you want Canada,
yes or no?... We must have the courage to ask
ourselves this question... We must not fear either
winning or losing the battle... I think we will
win. But I have to accept the game rules...
There aren't many countries that would give
democratic freedom to a party whose goal is to
destroy that country.”
La Presse, Éditorial, jeudi 15 août 1991, p. B2,
Le droit à la libre disposition du Québec a été
reconnu par P. Trudeau, Adam, Marcel.
Did Mr. Laporte die
Without the FLQ,
organized and trained through Georges Schoeters by
Fidel Castro, there would not have been War
Without the FLQ and War Measures,
would the Parti Québécois have risen to
power on a platform of "Sovereignty
Association"—alleged "independence" for
Quebec—which was, in fact, a trick to replace the
Constitution of Canada with the political and
legal régime of the European Union. Prime
Minister Pierre Trudeau scheduled that first
referendum, and the second one. See
After the death of Mr.
Laporte, British Trade Commissioner James Cross
was located, alive. Trudeau's federal govern- ment
"negotiated" for the release of Cross by giving
the FLQ who were holding him a free Cuban holiday
with Fidel Castro, who, in 1959, had founded and
trained the initial team of terrorists. Some time
later, Trudeau announced that Canada had no plans
to extradite FLQ terrorists who had left Cuba, and
were known to be in Paris. Trudeau and Castro
remained best friends all their
Prime Minister Trudeau schedules
referendums: 1980 and
Now, that's showing the
Minister Trudeau, speaking to the Quebec Chamber
of Commerce Jan. 28  in Quebec City,
challenges Premier Réne Lévesque to hold a
single, binding early referendum on
Quebec's separation." Mr. Trudeau is also
reported to have said: "The choice must be
definitive and final.|
If the referendum is
lost, it should not be reopened
years." Source: Reports on Separatism, Vol.
It should be noted that
"definitive and final" is the opposite of
"reopened". And, indeed, it was
reopened in 1995 as forecast by Trudeau in
Trudeau, having called for both the
first and the second referendum, set the stage for
the first in 1980 by intro- ducing, on April 4,
1978, Bill C-9, entitled "An Act Respecting
Public Referendums in Canada on Questions relating
to the Constitution of Canada".
how the Trudeau government represented the
impending Bill to the press in late 1977:
"Referendum bill due next
session: Lalonde. Montreal PQ—MONTREAL
(CP) - Legislation to set up a federal
referendum on national unity will be
introduced during the next session of
Parliament, Marc Lalonde says. [Lalonde is
Trudeau's Minister of Federal-Provincial
Relations, and this is his Bill.] But the
Minister [...] did not reveal any more details
about the legislation during a speech to a
pro-federalist group in suburban Pierrefonds.
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau
said last week the referendum, which he says
would be legally binding on Ottawa, might be
conduct- ed only in
Source: The Globe and
Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Dec 1, 1977. pg. P.2.
ProQuest document ID: 1097343111.
First reading of the Bill was
October 18, 1978.
It was never enacted. It
was therefore never judicially reviewed,
most notably in terms of the ability of Parliament
or any Legislature of this country to attempt to
terminate this country by referendum. Trudeau's
statement to the national press that Ottawa would
be legally bound by a YES in Quebec, was
never judicially tested.
Here's another excerpt from Reports on Separatism, Vol. 1, No. 5, p. 34, 20 February 1977:
Premier Lévesque said after the meeting that it was time for the party [Québécois] to establish a referendum committee because the federal government had already begun setting up its own organization for the referendum campaign. 'Groups linked to ministers' offices have been set up,' he said. 'I know at Mr. Trudeau's they are organizing things.'
He said his government did not have a mandate to decree independence but it did have a mandate to consult the people through a law passed by parliament.
Mr. Trudeau's Office was clearly leading the Referendum preparations three years early. Bill C-9, the "law passed by Parliament" to "authorize" the Quebec Referendum, was never enacted. Had it been, the Courts would likely have been asked to determine if there was a federal power either to destroy the country, or to authorize a province to secede, or even a power to ask the people if they'd like it to be destroyed.
The Court would have been looking at Article 91 of what was then still called the British North America Act of 1867. But, Canada could not have been destroyed, because the object of the BNA Act was "... the Union of Canada..." and "Purposes connected therewith".
However, the mere fact of Marc Lalonde's announcing the Bill, from the Prime Minister's Office, must have given it the aura of legality.
don't know this man.|
His name is Paul
and he has brought
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Brian
Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, and Paul
Martin, to name just a few.
before you "voted" for
them in campaigns
financed largely by
That means that Paul
has brought you Free Trade, NAFTA,
and North American
|1970 - THE PLAN :
in all its
"On April 19, 1970, a handful of Canada's most powerful businessmen—ram-rod federalists, every last one—met privately at the elegant Montreal home of financier Paul Desmarais.
What brought them together was the worrying rise of the
Parti Québécois, a growing force in the
Quebec provincial elections that were about to be
held."THE DESMARAIS GANG MEETS THE "SEPARATISTS"
[...] it is safe to say that collectively, Desmarais and his guests managed billions of dollars in assets [...].
Within days of the gathering, a
secret anti-separatism fund was up and running. It
was controlled by a trusted Liberal Party
bagman. And it was underwritten by business leaders identified as having been at the meeting and others. The fund came to light more by
accident than design — as a result of theft
charges laid against the bagman. It briefly
illuminated a usually murky side of Canadian
politics — how confidential pools of money are
(often legally) raised, laundered, and spent."
[...] The $55,000, all of which had come from special company accounts, was a hefty sum in the days before the inflationary ravages of the late seventies and early eighties.
Most of the payments and their destinations were recorded only vaguely in the companies' books. Significantly, too, they were personally made by the heads of corporations themselves and handled "in a special way" by company accountants, recalls Rod Stamler, the then RCMP inspector who investigated the case in the 1970s. [...] Curious, too, was the fact that the money did not go directly to the separatist-fighting Liberal Party or into its regular account at Montreal Trust. Instead, the money went to veteran Liberal bagman Louis de Gonzague Giguère, Pierre Trudeau's first Senate appointment in 1968. He then deposited it into a special "in trust" account at a downtown branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia in Montreal. He was to use the funds as he saw fit; they were under his total control. Nor would any of the six businessmen subsequently ask what the money had been used for. [...]
According to Giguère, the contributions
stocked a secret fund to "fight separatism in
all its forms."
"On April 27, 1970, a
cheque for $3,000.50 went to JEAN CHRÉTIEN,
then a federal cabinet minister."
Source: Money on the Run—Canada
and How the World's Dirty Profits are
Laundered by investigative reporter Mario
Possamai, published in 1992 by Viking (Penguin Books of
Canada), with a paperback edition in 1993, and a
French-language edition in 1994.But, we're not done yet. The
"anti-separatist" fund-raiser at the
Desmarais home in April, 1970 may be open to
interpretation. Read the next
[Note: Mr. Paul Desmarais, Sr., joined David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission in at least September, 1993.]
Common project of DESMARAIS and the
Or, a big
It's hard to see how Mr.
Paul Desmarais could have been "worried" about
the rise of the Parti
Québécois. The PQ
platform in the 1980 referendum, and again in
1995—as we saw above—would have imposed on Canada
the same structures and government as those of the
But, Mr. Desmarais
is a founding member of the Canadian
Council of Chief Executives (CCCE)
which plans to impose on Canada, and on the US and
Mexico, those same European-Union
structures. They call it "Building a North American
Community," or "North American
Union". Evidently, Mr. Desmarais
and our so-called "separatists" have a great deal
in common. Could they really have spent
decades at odds with each other, not knowing they
shared the same project?
apparently had no motive to raise $55,000 in 1970
to "fight" the Parti
Québécois. The question is, then,
what was he raising it for? And why did
Jean Chrétien, then a federal cabinet
minister, get the first chèque?
Liberal Party bagman, Louis de Gonzague
Giguère, confessed to RCMP investi- gators that the
$55,000 he was holding for Desmarais was to
"fight separatism in all its forms",
perhaps that was just quick thinking on someone's
According to Possamai, nearly half the secret fund was taken out of circulation by Giguère in November 1970. That would be right after War Measures and the FLQ October Crisis. Would not those kidnappings and the slaying of Mr. Laporte, a Liberal Deputy Premier of Quebec, have been a particularly virulent "form of separatism" worth expending every last penny of that secret fund?
However, by November, Castro and his FLQ, and Trudeau's War Measures, had done their work.
The world now imagined that Canada, like Humpty Dumpty, was about to crack. And, had it cracked in 1980, or in 1995, the pieces would have been re-federated under EU-style institutions of the kind planned right now for all of North America by Mr. Desmarais' very own Canadian Council of Chief Executives.
The short history of the Council is that it existed for at least fifteen years as an informal gathering of businessmen before it was founded in 1976 (the year the Parti Québécois was elected) as the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI) by the CEOs of US-based Imperial Oil and Noranda with Desmarais and other CEO's as founding members. The organization took on its current name in 2001, and has had an increasingly intimate relationship with successive Canadian "Desmarais" governments.
For example, in 1976, Thomas d'Aquino became the "permanent president" of the BCNI—later renamed the CCCE. However, during the period of the Council's informal existence, Mr. D'Aquino served as Special Assistant from 1969-1972 to Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mr. d'Aquino was therefore in the Prime Minister's Office when Trudeau's boss, Desmarais, raised what Giguère called the secret "anti-separatist fund" in April of 1970. He was also there through the FLQ October Crisis and War Measures, all of which ultimately fuelled "separatism" and the rise of the Parti Québécois.
And now, with North American Union planned and scheduled for 2010, we find the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the "separatist" Parti Québécois have, after all, discovered how much they share in common: they both actively support the new North American Parliament being set up at NAFI, on Montreal soil, by an ex-employee of the Quebec "separatist" government, Christine Frechette, under the Chairmanship of American citizen Robert Pastor. In 2004, Pastor wrote "North America's Second Decade" for the CFR, pointing out that NAFTA (which, as we know, was begun by Trudeau) was "merely the first draft of an economic constitution" for the fledgling continental state of "North America". In 2003, the first edition of the NAU Parliament was treasonably held in the Canadian Senate under Desmarais employee, Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien, to an opening speech by Chrétien's nephew, former Ambassador to the US, France, Mexico and Belgium, and member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, Raymond Chrétien.
Below: top row — Prime Ministers Trudeau (Free Trade),
Mulroney (NAFTA), Chrétien (Quebec UDI on his watch), and Martin (SPP to harmonize North America): otherwise known as the Paul Desmarais
"North American Union"
team.Below: second row — Parti Québécois attendees at the first NAFI Model Parliament for North America from 26-28 March 2003:
-- Premier of Quebec and Leader of the Parti Québécois (at that time) Bernard Landry, and his Ministers Louise Harel (then President of the National Assembly of Quebec and President of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie), Louise Beaudoin (then Minister of State for International Relations and Minister Responsible for La Francophonie), Pauline Marois (then Deputy Premier of Quebec, Minister of Finance and the Economy). It should be noted that the Parti Québécois "government" of Quebec offered a luncheon conference.
Below: third row — CCCE attendee at the first NAFI Model Parliament for North America from 26-28 March, 2003: Thomas D'Aquino, permanent president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and attending with him, if in spirit only, three notorious kidnap-killers from the October Crisis of 1970, who seem to have made North American Union possible.
IN HAPPY NORTH AMERICAN UNION
THE NAFI WEB SITE INDICATES THAT THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE VIRULENTLY SEPARATIST PARTI-QUEBECOIS HAVE ATTENDED AND CO-HOSTED EVENTS CONNECTED WITH THE NEW PARLIAMENT FOR NORTH AMERICA AND THE NEW EUROPEAN-UNION STYLE NORTH AMERICAN INVESTMENT FUND:
Bernard Landry; Louise Harel;
Louise Beaudoin; Pauline Marois.
(Conducted by telephone in October-November
2006 across Canada)
[These are just a few of
Frank Graves, President of Ekos
Guest speaker at NAFI,
for North America's new
Q.: JOIN1 -- I
wouldn't be too
Canada joined the
According to the EKOS web site, Mr. Graves is
"responsible for the intellectual direction of all
major studies conducted by" EKOS. That
"intellectual direction" can be summed up in three
words: North American integration. So, the
next time you answer the phone to a surveyor,
remember that Frank Graves is working to eliminate
You thought there wasn't going to be another Referendum? Why do you think they're doing these annexation surveys?
The "CLARITY" scam :
Decades of Disinforming
Through Three Referenda
bringing in the European
- "CONFUSION" :
Marc Lalonde, Minister of State
(Federal-Provincial Relations) 1977.09.16 -
1978.11.23, under Prime Minister
|Referendum bill due next session:
Lalonde. "Montreal PQ—MONTREAL (CP) -
Legislation to set up a federal referendum on
national unity will be introduced during the
next session of Parliament, Marc Lalonde says. But
the Minister [...] did not reveal any more details
about the legislation during a speech to a
pro-federalist group in suburban Pierrefonds. /
[....] / Mr. Lalonde [...] added that the
Quebec Government is trying to confuse the
independence issue by telling Quebeckers it
wants sovereignty-association and not
separation." [Speaking for the Trudeau
government:]" We see attempts to confuse the
issue," he said. / "That is how they (the
Parti Quebecois) are trying to win the
referendum. They are always changing their
slogan because they know that the
people of Quebec are not following them." Source:
The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Dec 1,
1977. pg. P.2. ProQuest document ID:
We can see today, by
comparing the PQ referendum platform of 1980 to
the 1957 Treaty of Rome
establishing the European Economic Community, that
not "independence" for Quebec, but
in fact European-Union style "sovereignty
association" was the true aim of the
1980 referendum (as of the one in
In other words, there is
association" is not a changing "slogan" of the
Parti Quebecois to mislead voters. It has,
in fact, been a fixed objective since at
least 1964, when René Lévesque was a Minister
under Liberal Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage. Réné Lévesque wanted Quebec to be
an "associate state" of Canada:
"In January 1964, he
[Lévesque] told a Laval student audience that
he believed "the time will soon come when this
national state [Quebec] will be
incorporated in a new Canadian
nation," adding, "We [in the Liberal
government] are not at all convinced of the
necessity of separatism." In May, he told a
student conference that the only status
appropriate for Quebec would be that of
an "associate state", saying that
this would have to be negotiated with the rest
of Canada "without rifles and without dynamite
as much as possible ... if they refuse
this status to Quebec, we should
This remark resulted
in vigorous criticism, and Lévesque felt obliged
to denounce terrorism and express his solidarity
with the Lesage cabinet. But in December 1964,
he told an audience in Plattsburgh, New York:
"I am not a separatist, but I could become
(Source: p. 32, René Lévesque & the Parti
Québécois in Power, By Graham Fraser and
Ivon Owen, at Google Books. Read it
Another perspective on whether Lévesque had "renounced" his approval of violence surfaced recently (February 2009) as a video posted at Youtube. I have re-uploaded it to MySpace, unchanged, and embedded it in the righthand margin of this page under the title "Crush the Crusher".
This means that European Union in
North America has been planned since at least the
early 1960's, shortly after the Treaty of Rome was
signed (1957), and right in synch with the rise of
the Castro-trained FLQ founded in 1959 by Castro (Communist)
and Schoeters (perhaps coincidentally, from Belgium: head office of the European Union).
Constitutional and international lawyers
like Oxford graduate Marc Lalonde and
Jesuit-trained Pierre Trudeau would have had to
know that "sovereignty association"
was just a synonym for the EU in
Canada, and in North America. Once introduced, its
growth would be irresistible. Those who are
stealing Canada would see to that.
when Marc Lalonde, speaking for the Trudeau
government in 1977 tells Globe and Mail
readers to look the other way, it is not
René Lévesque who is trying to confuse us, but
Lalonde—speaking for the Trudeau
Cabinet—who is trying to
"confuse" us. A closer
look reveals what they don't want us to
see: that "sovereignty
association" very clearly means the
structure of the increasingly Communist
European Union. They need us to vote for
exactly what they plan, so the structure is there,
but the name has been changed to hide what it is,
and we are urged by the Trudeau government to
ignore the reality and vote with our eyes
"far-to-the-Left" Lévesque advocated FLQ
violence to students in 1964 if Canadians
would not agree to "incorporate"
Quebec in a 'new' Canadian nation with
"associate state" status, he was describing
the "sovereignty association" of the 1980
referendum, which is the system of the European
Union. Lévesque was therefore advocating
violence, not for the independence of Quebec,
but to implement the setting up of the European
Union in place of the Constitution of
We must necessarily ask whether the
assaults on Canada by the Communist-controlled
Castro-trained FLQ, and the illegal referendums to
destroy Canada are being waged by the same powers
behind the formation and enlargement of the
European Union by forced
"Separation" has, from
the outset, from the early 1960s, been
used in tandem with the FLQ, as
a threat to get "associate
state" status for Quebec AND thus, necessarily, for all of Canada. It is not hard to see that once Quebec obtained "associate state" status, the other provinces would clamor for the same thing, and the federal level of Canada, the one Parliament that makes this country a nation, would vanish.
Authors Fraser and
Owen (René Lévesque & the Parti
Québécois in Power,) point out Lévesque's
confusing "ambivalence" about "separatism". But,
it wasn't confusing: clearly,
Lévesque did not equate "separatism" with
"sovereignty association". Separatism, for
Lévesque, was something else. It was vengeance to
be wreaked on Canada: to forcibly destroy Canada
with guns and violence in order to plant the
European Union—"sovereignty association"—on this
The "CLARITY" scam :
"Confusion", "Tricks" and a Supreme
hostage-taking of democracy
- "A Bag
of Tricks" :
Misleading and Dishonest
Stéphane Dion, Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs 1996.01.25 - 2003.12.11
under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
a "just" way to "lose" a country?
DION: "A real fraud!" We
often heard this accurate denunciation of the
convoluted question that was put to
voters during the 1995 referendum. But I’ve
actually just quoted what the leader of the No
side in the 1980 referendum, Mr. Claude Ryan, had
to say about the referendum question that was
asked in that campaign [...] "Misleading and
dishonest"; "a camouflage, de- signed
to inflate support for the Yes side," he
added. Editorialists were not to be outdone,
either: "a sidestep" is how Michel Roy
described it. And listen to this: "a bag of
tricks," wrote the late journalist Marcel
Tricks in 1980, tricks
in 1995. Well you know, ladies and gen- tlemen,
you can’t lose a country by
trickery. That would be con- trary to the
law, and contrary to justice."
Source: Media Archives of former
Ministers. From the Referendum of 1980 to
the Canada of
"You can't lose a country by
trickery," said new Liberal Leader and former
Intergovernmental Affairs Minister during the
"Secession Reference," Stéphane Dion.THE SECESSION
apparently, you can. When the focus placed by
those with the bag of tricks is on a
"clear" question and a "clear" majority for taking
Quebec out, when it should be on the
legality of asking the question, and on
the constitutional existence or not of the
executive power to take it
As I will prove in my Motion for
Habeas Corpus, the question is illegal, and there
is no power to take any Province out.
the Constitution, which is to say under the real
Rule of Law, all state action must be grounded
in a legal source. The Supreme Court's idea of the "rule of law" in the Secession Reference is that you can have a coup d'état and amend the Constitution afterwards, to pretend it didn't happen. Well, they can't spend decades
agitating to destroy the country, and then give
themselves the "legal source" when they're done.
That's backwards. All actions done without
any power in advance are null, void and
non-existent ab initio, meaning "from the
THE COURT, under former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer* in 1998, said: "It is of course true that the Constitution is silent as to the ability of a province to secede from Confederation [...]"
[-- Source: para. 84,
With that bald assertion, the NAFTA Bench, as I call it, exempted itself from examining the text of the Constitution. What they subsequently did therefore had nothing to do with judicial review, and was not legal.
The reason there is no power to secede is because the Constitution is not "SILENT"
on secession, as the Supreme Court alleged in the Reference re the Secession of
Quebec. The Constitution of Canada, the British North America Act,
1867, was designed and enacted
specifically to prevent two things: (i)
annexation of the British North American colonies
to the United States of America; and (ii)
secession of the Provinces from the nation of
Canada, as created by that Imperial
statute. That's called the "Mischief Rule," where you look for the "evil" a statute was meant to "cure". In the case of the BNA Act, 1867, the "evil" was annexation and secession, and the Constitution "cured it". It was well understood that if a Province could leave, at will, there was nowhere to go but to the USA, and that secession would lead to annexation for not just one, but all the Provinces. That is the true history of
the Constitution, not that historical lollipop fed
to us by the Supreme Court in the Secession
A number of features of the written Constitution expressly prohibit secession, and were deliberately adopted for that purpose. Those features include, without limitation:
As there is no power to secede, there is no power to take
steps towards secession, including the "step" of assaulting the Constitution with a bogus amendment to reverse its founding purpose in order to break it.
- the OATH of "true allegiance" (Schedule V, 1867) prohibits it;
- the express enumeration of provincial powers prohibits it;
- the express allocation of residual power to the central government prohibits it;
- the express power of federal disallowance of provincial legislation injurious to the whole nation of Canada prohibits it;
- the express presence of federal officers of the Dominion at the head of each of the local legislatures prohibits it;
- the express presence of federal, i.e. "section 96" courts in every one of the Provinces prohibits it;
- the express text of the Long Title, and of the Preamble, and the historically very well documented purpose of the statute to prevent annexation and secession all prohibit it;
- the express provisions of Section 31, Disqualification of Senators, prohibits it quite specifically at subparagraph (2): "The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases: [...] If he takes an Oath or makes a Declaration or Acknowledgment of Allegiance, Obedience, or Adherence to a Foreign Power, or does an Act whereby he becomes a Subject or Citizen, or entitled to the Rights or Privileges of a Subject or Citizen, of a Foreign Power."
- the form of government chosen by the founders of Canada specifically prohibits it: that being Parliament, on the British model, for not only is there ONE Parliament for Canada, but Parliament itself is ONE and indivisible. Therefore, the Federal Members from a Province cannot be removed from it by secession of a Province.
As I will prove in my
Habeas Corpus, the alleged silence of the
Constitution is a scam. For more information on
the Supreme Court fraud that is helping traitors
take this country down, read my Statement of Purpose.
am going to give you two in-depth examples from the list of prohibitions above, of why the Consitution is not
"silent" when it is properly judicially reviewed.
No States' Rights for the Provinces
As Sir John G. Bourinot observes at pp. 95-96 of his Parlia- mentary Procedure and Practice, 1903, the legislative powers were distributed between the federal and provincial levels (Articles 91 and 92 of the BNA Act of 1867) in a manner designed to secure "unity" and prevent "secession":
In the Debates on Confederation, John A. MacDonald, a founding father of Canada, refers to the American War of Secession 1861-64, as "the disruption of the United States". This war of secession was the reason for the division of powers between the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the Provinces.
"XII. Distribution of Legislative Powers. In the distribution of the legislative powers entrusted to the general parliament and the local legislatures respectively, the constitution makes such an enumeration as seems well adapted on the whole to secure the unity and stability of the dominion and at the same time gives every necessary freedom to the several provinces in the management of their local and municipal affairs. In arranging this part of the Constitution, its framers had before them the experience of eighty years' working of the federal system of the United States, and were able to judge in what essential and fundamental respects that system appeared to be defective. The doctrine of state sovereignty had been pressed to extreme lengths in the United States, and had formed one of the most powerful arguments of the advocates of secession. This doctrine had its origin in the fact that all powers, not expressly conferred upon the general government, are reserved in the constitution to the States. Now, in the federal constitution of Canada the very reverse principle obtains, with the avowed object of strengthening the basis of the Confederation, and preventing conflict so far as practicable between the provinces that compose the union."
Powers not expressly listed as given to the Provinces would expressly belong to the Parliament of Canada. This does not mean, however, that a "power of secession" was left to the central Parliament, because there is no power to secede in a Constitution whose very purpose is perpetual unity.
In this way, at no time could the Provinces of Canada invoke reserve powers or "States' rights", leading to conflict and attempts to secede. Canada was designed as a permanent union, "for all time to come".
"... we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the General Government and Legislature. -- We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States."
But when your governments and legislatures are infiltrated by annexationists disguised as "separatists," they "govern" the country to "disrupt" and to destroy it. In the case of Canada, they openly breach their oaths, declaring the oath of "true allegiance" to be a "technicality". They take a competing oath "to secede", and they run the country into the ground under this objective. There is nothing "democratic" about treason. It is an assault on all the people of the nation. It is the very dissolution of lawful government.
Traitors, disguised as "democrats" or as "legitimists" having no motive to govern harmoniously, thus find or invent pretexts for dissatifaction. They raise a hue and cry demanding "a devolution" of powers from the central Parliament.
By sedition, they create disharmony in the country, in order to encourage the people to bring it down for them. It is only common sense that enemies of the State will never govern the State "under" the Constitution, which they hold in contempt.
Chief Justice Subba Rao of the Supreme Court of India observed that every "institution or political party that functions under the Constitution must accept it; otherwise it has no place under the Constitution."
This is just another way to say: we have an oath.
In Canada, the oath of Members is made to the Sovereign. That is not because they are bearing allegiance to Great Britain. It is because by section 9 of the B.N.A. Act, 1867, the Sovereign of Canada is personally charged with safeguarding the Executive Powers of the nation. The oath of Members at investiture is a promise to the Sovereign not to abuse those powers, to bear allegiance to the person who guards them by always acting only under the limits of the Constitution.
In order to legally govern, you have to accept the Constitution which limits your exercise of powers to the purpose of that Constitution.
The first duty of the Courts is to give effect to that purpose, just as they must always give effect to the purpose of any valid law. Judges cannot make up their own law. They cannot overturn valid law. They certainly cannot overturn the Constitution. Nor, as Subba Rao made clear, can Judges aid and abet those who do not "accept" the Constitution.
Attempts to break up Canada, and the agreement of political parties of all stripes that Canada can be broken, are prima facie outside lawful powers. They are prima facie evidence of perjured oaths of allegiance, and of treason.
There are parts to a Statute, and each part has a
function. The Long Title of an Imperial
Statute (and that's what our Constitution consists
of) has the function of succinctly stating the
purpose of the Act. The
Long Title thereby restricts the content of
the Act, or in other words, what is
possible to be done under the Act by
those temporarily entrusted with
power by virtue of a valid
The Long Title of the
British North America Act, 1867 reads as
An Act for the Union of
Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the
Government thereof; and for Purposes
The Long Title states the
purpose of the BNA Act: it is
for the UNION, meaning the merging
into one of the four founding
colonies of Canada, including the original
province that was first named
language of the Long Title
comprises a formulation of the ultra
vires doctrine 1 by which
all government action that is not fairly
and reasonably incidental to and consequent
upon the provisions of a statute is deemed
to be expressly prohibited by the
absence of any reference to it. The logic here
is that you do not go on for miles of text in a
statute describing everything prohibited. You
state only what is going to be done.
words "and for Purposes connected
therewith" in the Long Title of Canada's
founding Constitution make all action illegal and
prohibited that is not "connected with" the
purpose of "Union". The Constitution is not
silent, it is very clear and specific. Secession
is illegal because it has nothing to do with an
Act of "Union".
The fact that the
BNA Act does not mention the word
"secession" does not mean that it is "silent" on
secession; on the contrary, it means that
secession is expressly prohibited as
ultra vires (beyond the power) of anyone
temporarily entrusted with power. This
would be apparent on a correct judicial
interpretation of the Long Title, and of
many other features of the Act that I
won't go into.
There being no "power" in the Constitution to secede, the Supreme Court had no power to write one into the Constitution to do so.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of
Canada in the Secession Reference
interpreted nothing. They ignored the words
of the Statute; they ignored the text, the
interpretation of which is the basis for the
legality of judicial review. No text, no
review, no legality.
Reference is illegal, and a fraud perpetrated by a
Bench composed of appointees of Trudeau, Mulroney
and Chrétien: the Paul Desmarais annexation team.
We have a very extraordinary situation here; it's
called a coup d'état. Time to wake
1Ashbury Railway Carriage Co v Riche
(1875) LR 7 HL 653
Attorney General v Great Eastern
Railway (1880) 5 AC 473
Baroness Wenlock v River Dee Co
(1883) 36 ChD 675
"CLARITY" GOES TO COURT
THE COURT, in 1998, said:
"A right and a corresponding duty to nego- tiate secession cannot be built on an alleged expression of democratic will if the expression of democratic will is itself fraught with ambiguities. Only the political actors would have the information and expertise to make the appropriate judgment as to the point at which, and the circum- stances in which, those ambiguities are resolved one way or the other."
[ Source: para. 100,
Now, as we know, the Clarity Act, which
received the Royal Assent on 29 June 2000, was
supposedly enacted, according to its Long Title
"... to give effect to the requirement for
clarity as set out in the opinion of the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession
This new "law," supposedly,
would allow the federal government to prevent a
third referendum to destroy Canada if the question
proposed by the Quebec so-called "separatists" was
not "clear". (Actually, the Constitution prevents all Referendums, for it prohibits secession. The question, "do you want to secede?" cannot, therefore, be asked. There is no power, no vires as they call it in Latin, in any government, provincial or federal, to ask it. In the absence of such a power, the question is illegal. Remember, "the UNION [...] and purposes connected therewith" limits the exercise of power. This requires the Courts, on judicial review, to restrain powers exercised to this limit, not to judicially expand the limit, in other words to judicially re-write the Constitution to provide for secession.)
The Secession Order in Council 1996-1497
No Question of "Clarity":
However, the Supreme Court was not asked the "clarity question" in the Order in Council directing the Reference. You can see for yourself that the Order in Council asks three questions, only one of which concerns domestic law. There is no question requesting the Supreme Court to pronounce on the clarity of past referendum questions, or vote results.
There are Constitutional issues with the Reference jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act) which makes it illegal, but for the moment, suppose it is indeed valid. That section empowers the Executive to ask questions. It does not empower the Court to ask questions. The Court therefore cannot answer, directly or indirectly, what it has not been asked. This is more clear from the Supreme Court in 1981 in the Patriation Reference at page 855:
"For the Court to postulate some other convention requiring less than unanimous provincial consent to constitutional amendments would be to go beyond the terms of the  References and in so doing to answer a question not posed in the References."
In the 1998 Secession Reference, the Supreme Court went "beyond the terms". That is, it went beyond the questions posed by the Order in Council. It answered questions not asked. In the absence of a question on point, it had no authority to assert a "requirement for clarity". The Secession opinion is therefore illegal as ultra vires, Latin meaning the Court exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction established by the actual questions in the Order in Council.
Had the "clarity" question been asked, the Supreme Court would have had to establish as facts whether prior referendum questions had been clear or not. It would have had to specifically examine the 1980 and 1995 Referendum questions. This would have obliged the Court to examine
all those allegations from the Prime Minister's Office in 1977 and again in 1995 that the questions were: "confusing", a "bag of tricks",
"misleading", a "changing slogan", to see if these accusations
So, how did the Court
know that "clarity" was "required" in a
get-tough move on Quebec, without first
determining, as a matter of fact, whether the
previous Referendum questions had been
clear, or not.
Perhaps the questions were clear. And perhaps, if Canadians and the world took a closer look, it would have occurred to someone that this was not, in fact, the "secession of Quebec", but clearly, European Union implicit in the question of 1980 and in the question of 1995.
However, in the Secession Reference, the Supreme Court assumed, without proving, a "requirement of clarity": it simply parroted the "clarity" discourse of three decades of federal government, alleging that the questions of 1980 and 1995 were "confusing". Therefore, even had the "clarity" question been asked by the Order in Council, the Secession opinion would be void as illegal for baldly asserting an unproved "requirement" for clarity.
Moreover, by focussing on the notion of "clarity" and pronouncing it "as a requirement" to give "legitimacy" to secession, the Court indirectly, by a back door, "legalized" illegal referendums to break up the country. Said the Supreme Court at paragraph 150:
"... a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.
In Constitutional law, legality and legitimacy are the same thing. If it isn't legal, it isn't legitimate. The Supreme Court's juggling of these two words, "legality" and "legitimacy" is a trick of Humpty Dumpty, whose goal was not to get at real meaning, but to hide meaning by shifting terms in order to be "the master". In a Constitution that prohibits secession, the real meaning is that all steps toward secession are obviously illegal.
Therefore, in the absence of fact-finding, and a judicial holding based on facts, how could Stéphane Dion and his government pretend that the purpose of the Clarity Act was to "give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference"? The only thing he was "giving effect" to was the parroted opinion of the Executive, which we have seen was a lie to cover up European Union.
There was no judicial inquiry, and thus no judicial finding of a "requirement" of clarity. The Court merely adopted the position used by politicians since Trudeau and Lalonde in 1977, and rubber-stamped it. As we have seen, that position was itself the fraud, it was itself the "trick", intended to "mislead" Canadians into NOT seeing what we were in fact looking at: the "Canadian" Treaty of Rome attached to the Referendum questions.
As in both 1980 and 1995, the real purpose of the Referendums was to impose on Canada the structures of the European Union. When the Supreme Court rubber-stamped the "requirement for clarity" as an illegal draft bill by unelected Judges to be in turn rubber-stamped by Parliament, what were they really doing? What was the Clarity Act really for? Because, it was certainly not to fill a "gap" of alleged "silence" of the Constitution which clearly enacts UNION and prohibits secession.
Here's what it was for: it was to REVERSE the purpose of the Constitution which is the UNION of Canada in order to remove the Parliament of Canada by the back door of multiple secessions, to make room for the incoming North American Parliament.
It was to illegally judicially create and give to the Executive a means to take not just Quebec, but all the Provinces out under North American Union.
The Supreme Court illegally judicially amended both the Constitution to make it self-destruct, and the amending formula itself, at Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, by imposing NEW conditions that COMPEL the Federal and Provincial Governments to negotiate to the death of Canada, failing which, the Supreme Court says, they violate the Constitution of Canada!
In determining that "negotiations" for secession were compulsory upon a so-called "clear" question and a so-called "clear" vote result, the Supreme Court judicially created a new power that has never existed before in the Constitution, and which the Constitution prohibits from existing. They created an Executive Power to Secede, and handed it to their mentors, the Executive.
In rubber-stamping the "confusion" scam, the Court, itself, joined the cover-up. For, North American Union has been planned for decades, and the referendums are a scam: the hostage-taking of democracy, in which the sole utility for the so-called "sovereign will of the people to determine their own destiny" is to affix that final rubber-stamp of bogus "legitimacy" on Executive treason.
* Chief Justice Antonio Lamer died on 24 November 2006,
and I deeply regret that he will not be present
for this legal challenge.
Canada's Un-Free Press:
Montreal Gazette Sells "Secession"
With the Fed's "Confusion" Scam
And a "silent" Constitution
Senator Fraser Enacts Her Own
9 January 1995 Lead Editorial:
On 9 January 1995, ten (10) months before the second Quebec referendum to attach Canada by stealth to the European Union, Gazette Publisher Michael Goldbloom, and Editor in Chief Joan Fraser, told their readers this:
As for the proposed referendum question, it is subject to confusion. It asks: "Are you in favor of the Act passed by the National Assembly declaring the sovereignty of Quebec? Yes or No?" Instead, it should be clear: "Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada and become an independent country? Yes or No?" Polls show there is already confusion among Quebecers about sovereignty meaning Quebec would separate from Canada.
Joan Fraser was appointed a Liberal Senator by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on 17 September 1998, less than a month after the 20 August 1998 secession opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada which supposedly "requires" clarity in the question and in the vote result of a next referendum.
The Senator's timely appointment put a further two years between her own Editorial "requiring clarity" and her next appointment as Chair of the Senate committee reviewing Bill C-20, the Clarity Bill, supposedly "to give effect" on 29 June 2000 to the Supreme Court's alleged "requirement" for clarity. But, as we can see, what the Canadian Parliament "gave effect" to was Senator Joan Fraser's own 9 January 1995 Editorial "requiring clarity" as opposed to that "confusing" question of Mr. Parizeau, to which the real truth had always been attached in the form of a draft Treaty of Rome terminating Canada.
The Constitutional Requirement of a Free Press
Supreme Court Justice Lyman Duff, in the 1938 Reference re the Alberta Press Bill, refers to the Constitution of Canada as contemplating "a Parliament working under the influence of [free] public opinion and public discussion".
Author Frank MacKinnon, in the chapter "Emergency Powers" of his book The Crown in Canada, describes one of the "remedies" for problems in our constitutional democracy: a free press.
That free press, and now, the broadcast and electronic media, and the Internet, are essential to a properly functioning true constitutional democracy. Otherwise, our vote is not democratic, it is conscripted.
Our Canadian press and media, to serve their purpose as Constitutional adjuncts, must report with ruthless integrity, uninfluenced by federal or provincial Executives, or by corporate interests or lobby groups.
But, when a newspaper such as the Montreal Gazette, conveniently parrots (like the Supreme Court after them) decades of Executive non-sense about "confusion" and "clarity" to hide the intent to replace Canada with North American Union;
And when that press itself declares the law to be irrelevant, as Gazette Publisher and lawyer Michael Goldbloom and Editor in Chief Joan Fraser did on 9 January 1995 in their Editorial;
And when that Editor who discounts the law is appointed a Senator and then chairs the committee which enacts her Editorial, and calls it the Clarity Act;
Then we evidently have an unfree press run by corporate interests such as the Bilderberg, and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, whose 150-odd multinationals own the Canadian press and media which are raising no cry and no objection to North American Union, which is nearing completion with a deadline of 2010.
We have thus arrived, blindly and in ignorance, at a one-party system no different from that of the former Soviet Union under Kruschef, where there was only one way to vote, for only one party policy; and that is not democracy. This is fascism that we are now living in.
"The people never give up their liberties
but under some delusion." — Edmund Burke
COUNTDOWN TO NORTH AMERICAN UNION,
PLANNED END OF CANADA: 1
Image: Peter Bruegel, the Elder, [ca. 1525 –
1569], Tower of Babel
Would you like this countdown script for
your web site?
It's available here:
BUT CITIZENSHIP, and
the rights and duties that inhere in it are
relevant not only to state concerns for the proper
structuring of the economy. It defines the
relationship of citizens to their country and the
rights that accrue to the citizen in that regard
[...] Citizenship and nationhood are correlatives.
Inhering in citizenship is the right to reside
wherever one wishes in the country and to pursue
the gaining of a livelihood without regard for
provincial boundaries. [...] Like other individual
rights guaranteed by the Charter, it must be
interpreted generously to achieve its purpose to
secure to all Canadians and permanent residents
the rights that flow from membership or permanent
residency in a united country. — The judgment of
Dickson C.J. and Wilson and La Forest JJ.,
delivered by LA FOREST J. in Black v.
Law Society of Alberta  1 S.C.R. 591,
research and writing of the procedures;
photography, design, writing and building of this
web site, by Kathleen Moore.
© 2007, All Rights
ALICE IN REFERENDUMLAND
Free Sample Chapter
By purchasing one of my
framed photographs, you can help me to cover the
basic expenses while I complete the research and
drafting of Habeas Corpus Canada.
Whisper (Part II): EL TERRORISMO
(WE WARN YOU)
Video of Castro five months after Trudeau's state visit for the sing-along.
"Crush the Crusher" : René Lévesque on Canada in 1964