for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus and for
Last updated: Monday, 27 August 2007 at 4:13 a.m.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
MONTREAL, CANADA : 26 AUGUST 2007
MY name is Kathleen Moore, and I am a Canadian poet, translator and photographer turned activist. I have a special interest in Constitutional law of Canada, and am preparing legal proceedings in Habeas Corpus to halt the annexation of Canada to the United States and Mexico to form a continental union.
I am also a former legal secretary with Paul Martin's law firm long before he was Prime Minister of Canada. I was a floater there, working in different departments, replacing secretaries, taking on overload, doing emergency jobs, and I was frequently requested, by name, by the senior partners.
My areas were mostly commercial and real estate with some litigation (factums). I am now 54.
I have been studying Constitutional Law of Canada independently, day and night, 365 days a year for nearly four years now, ever since I found out the Constitution is gone. I mean that literally, not metaphorically. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his entourage nullified it effective 28 February 2001 with a legislative scheme to judicially create an Executive power to secede, because there is none in the Constitution.
No Court of this country has any power to write the Constitution, or to re-write it to make it self-destruct. Yet, in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada did just that.
In the Reference re the Secession of Quebec directed by Order in Council, the Supreme Court of Canada presumed, without inquiring, that secession in Canada was legal if not "unilateral", and proceeded to judicially craft a set of bogus "principles" to lay down the game rules for the destruction of my country.
It is noteworthy that the term "unilateral secession" is a euphemism for coup d'état. It is therefore questionable why the Supreme Court of Canada had to be asked by the federal government whether a coup d'état was legal.
The Supreme Court said that these bogus "principles," which I will show you presently, are from the foundations of the Constitution of Canada, which go back beyond 1867. [See the Secession Reference, paragraph 82.] They lied.
Not only did the Court itself not discover these bogus principles in the text of the Constitution of Canada, they cribbed them out of an article in a law journal penned by a former Cabinet speech writer in 1997, and simply failed to footnote and acknowledge the source: Robert Lloyd Howse and Alissa Malkin, "Canadians are a Sovereign People: How the Supreme Court Should Approach the Reference on Quebec Secession," (1997), 76 Can. Bar Rev. 186. Mr. Robert Lloyd Howse is the former speech-writer. He also writes for Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which has co-sponsored the "Building A North American Community" plan to annex Canada to the US and Mexico. [See my Grounds page.]
The Constitution of Canada has therefore been slated for demolition on the strength of a single article in the Canadian Bar Review, proposing this particular set of "principles" which has no pedigree in the Constitutional law of Canada, but would give "legitimacy" to the overthrow of Canada.
According to the Canadian Bar Review, in print and online, "This article, and its companion, were commissioned by the CBA as contributions to the questions raised presently  in the constitutional Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada."
Howse's co-author, Alissa Malkin, was a Masters of Law student in 1998, and wrote her thesis on the Secession Reference. It must have been quite a thrill for a young law student, on the arm of a former Cabinet employee, to have her theories used by the Supreme Court, regardless that the Supreme Court did not credit her. Ms. Malkin is now a lawyer in the Constitutional law division of the Justice Department of Canada, no doubt eagerly awaiting the opportunity to see more of her "theories" implemented.
Not only did the Supreme Court of Canada plagiarize the bogus principles from the Canadian Bar Review, but the authors from whom they cribbed them did not originate them.
Here's how the Supreme Court of Canada in the Secession Reference describes the bogus principles, and I want to underscore that this is from a non-judicial, non-binding opinion that was only given "legal effect" by a combination of the Clarity Act and a controversial law-suit (Lalonde v. Ontario) apparently designed for the purpose.
"[From the head notes of the Secession Reference:] The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading. It is necessary to make a more profound investigation of the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution, including the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Those principles must inform our overall appreciation of the constitutional rights and obligations that would come into play in the event that a clear majority of Quebecers votes on a clear question in favour of secession."
In fact, the Court made no investigation. But, had there been one, the opposite of their bald assertions would have been demonstrated.
Now, here's the real source of this particular set of bogus principles, as documented in Europa Glossary:
Accession criteria (Copenhagen criteria)
Any reference to ‘the European Constitution’ is suspended until a new reform treaty has been adopted to replace the draft Constitutional Treaty.
Any country seeking membership of the European Union (EU) must conform to the conditions set out by Article 49 and the principles laid down in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union. Relevant criteria were established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and strengthened by the Madrid European Council in 1995.
To join the EU, a new Member State must meet three criteria:
stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law,
human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
economic: existence of a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union;
acceptance of the Community acquis: ability to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
For the European Council to decide to open negotiations, the political criterion must be satisfied.
Any country that wishes to join the Union must meet the accession criteria. The pre-accession strategy and accession negotiations provide the necessary framework and instruments.
Here are the Copenhagen Criteria in PDF format at the European Union web site:
The perversity of the Copenhagen Criteria is this: if you use these "political principles" to destroy your country, the ruined remains are automatically entitled to commence negotiations for their admission to the European Union.
The Reference re the Secession of Quebec not only illegally judicially created a formula to destroy the Constitution and Canada for annexation into North American Union, it did so while harmonizing the future remains for admission to the expanding and increasingly Communist super-state of the European Union, thus throwing a bridge for the EU onto this continent.
At paragraph 54 of the non-binding Secession Reference, the Supreme Court of Canada tells us that:
"The principles are not merely descriptive, but are also invested with a powerful normative force, and are binding upon both courts and governments."
So, the ultimate "guardian" of our Constitution found "binding, normative force" in unwritten principles to compel both Courts and Government to overthrow the Constitution as a mere matter of alleged "minority rights," thus depriving the majority of 32 million Canadians of their most fundamental human right, the right to remain in their country.
In his powerful dissent in the Provincial Judges Reference, a 1997 case parallel to the Secession mock-trial and hearings, and in which the notion of these "underlying" principles was first taken for a spin, Supreme Court of Canada Justice Gérard V. La Forest concluded that "The express provisions of the Constitution are not, as the Chief Justice contends, “elaborations of the underlying, unwritten, and organizing principles found in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867” (para. 107). On the contrary, they are the Constitution. To assert otherwise is to subvert the democratic foundation of judicial review." [Paragraph 319]
Justice La Forest retired from the Bench three years early and 12 days after publication of the Provincial Judges opinion, and precisely on the one-year anniversary of the Order in Council directing the Secession Reference.
And this is just the tip of the globalist iceberg.
FN  The Lalonde suit arose in tandem with a major "protest" (SOS Montfort) in 1996 just a few months before the Secession Reference Order in Council. The SOS Montfort campaign was minted largely from the pen of yet another former Cabinet employee, in this case Mr. Michel Gratton, press secretary to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Gratton's aunt, former mayor of Vanier in Ontario, Gisèle Lalonde, is the "Lalonde" in that suit, which served to rubber-stamp an air of substance into the bogus "minority" principle, evidently intended to bolster the break-up of Canada following a future "yes" vote. Ms. Lalonde received the Order of Canada for her efforts. In any event, the Prime Minister's Office, their employees, friends and family, appear to be very directly "invested" in the take-down of Canada. There are additional connections which I won't go into here.
WHILE I appreciate the terrific work being done by the many groups trying to raise social awareness of the impending forced unification of this continent, I have chosen to aim directly for those in Canada who are illegally causing it. Their attempts to attach Canada to the United States and Mexico are unconstitutional, illegal, and a violation of their oaths of office and allegiance, which in our law renders them self-discharged from office.
They are therefore conducting not political or trade business on behalf of Canada, but a coup d'état on this country. In Canadian law, there is, fortunately, one individual above government who is personally responsible for the abusive exercise of power, and that is the Sovereign.
By instituting proceedings in Habeas Corpus for Canada with Her Majesty Elizabeth II as the personal respondent, I intend to oblige a competent Judge to compel Her Majesty to come to Canada, to stand on this soil and to explain Herself. For there was no Constitutional power in the Crown to assent to the Clarity Act, by which the Supreme Court of Canada assisted the Executive in "harmonizing" Canada for admission to the EU while manufacturing an executive power to permit a Province to secede. Such a power simply does not exist in the Constitution of Canada, either at s. 92 of the BNA Act of 1867, or at s. 91 in the "Peace, Order and Good Government" power of the federal government, and is contrary to the purpose of the Imperial Statute which founded Canada.
COUNTDOWN TO NORTH AMERICAN UNION, THEPLANNEDENDOFCANADA:
1 JANUARY 2010
Image: Peter Bruegel, the Elder, [ca. 1525 – 1569], Tower of BabelWould you like this countdown script for your web site?
It's available here: HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
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.