CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union: Constitutional Law 101 (First Instalment)

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Constitutional Law 101 (First Instalment)

What neither side quite acknowledges is that the seat of sovereign power is not to be discovered by looking at Acts of any Parliament but by looking at the courts and discovering to whom they give their obedience.
— H. W. R. Wade, "The Basis of Legal Sovereignty", [1955] Cambridge Law Journal 172, 196.

By Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada
To my followers in YouTube and elsewhere:

Montreal, Tuesday 24 November 2009 15h27

Re: Constitutional Law 101 -- and Stephen Harper's current political campaign to the Jewish Community

Hello, everybody. I recently sent you news of a political campaign flyer circulating in Montreal and featuring a voting ballot. I have finally been able to access a scanner and have placed the bilingual document online:


I could be wrong -- but it seems to me that this voting ballot suggests that the Harper government may be anticipating yet another federal election in the near future. Please tell me if I'm wrong, I would appreciate all views on the subject.

N.B.: I am attaching my short vid of Stephen Harper speaking French (I've added English subtitles) on the day of the "NO" to the 1995 Quebec referendum to "secede".

I would remind my viewers of a little known fact -- that STEPHEN HARPER tabled the first known draft of the Clarity Act in 1996 when he was a mere member of Parliament. The Clarity Act purports to be a statute of the Federal Parliament of Canada enacting the terms and conditions on which Canada may be terminated in the event of a YES to "secede" in Quebec.

In this particular video, HARPER declares that 'he prefers to build a NEW FEDERATION'. In other words, Stephen Harper would be entirely ready to scrap Canada. But then, so was Trudeau; and Chrétien after him.

However, under the Constitution of Canada, elected and appointed representatives have NO POWER to scrap Canada. Quebec's phony referendums to "secede" in 1980 and in 1995 were illegal, as there is no power to secede under Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 -- and here's a nice old bilingual version of the British North America Act, 1867 (the original name of the Constitution) with French and English face-to-face as well as quite rare indexes of terms in the document -- don't be afraid of the French title, open it up and there's English in there as well:


Moreover, the provincial "residual" power at Section 92(16) is limited to "local purposes" only. No province may undertake any measure, whether political or legislative, which substantially affects any other province, let alone all of Canada, as is well known throughout the entire Constitutional jurisprudence of Canada up until the traitors got their hands on our governments.

(Provincial residual power) Section 92:

16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

In the same vein, the Federal government and Parliament of Canada and the Crown of Canada have no power under the Constitution of Canada to dispense with Canada.

The Crown simply has has NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to assent to an unconstitutional law or measure.

The Constitution is a guarantee of the CONTINUANCE of Canada. The only thing DISCONTINUED are elected governments, on a regular timetable, and the continuance of this timetable is a part of the guarantee of the PERMANENCY of Canada and of the TRANSIENCY of our elected representatives, which is express in the Constitution in order to prevent the advent of a permanent self-appointed government, or a one-party system, i.e. TOTALITARIANISM.

(Guarantee of transient government) Section 50 (BNA Act, 1867)

50. EVERY House of Commons SHALL continue for FIVE Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

As will be more clear below, this express wording EXCLUDES all prospect of ANY government making itself PERMANENT, or of making itself the LAST government by terminating Canada. The word "SHALL" is imperative, meaning it can't be side-stepped. The word FIVE means that after FIVE years at a maximum there MUST BE NEW ELECTIONS under the EXISTING Constitution. No government can TERMINATE the Constitution. It has to get out and give way to the next government and Executive.

The inability of the Federal Parliament to terminate Canada is more apparent from the well known formula for law-making at Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, which is called the "Peace, Order and Good Government" power, or "POGG" for short in the legal literature.

(Federal POGG power) Section 91:

"91. 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, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces"

The "statutory construction" of the words "FOR the Peace, Order, and good Government OF Canada" make it apparent that the Federal government and Parliament have NO POWER to legislate or to institute ANY measure or law that is NOT "FOR" the governance "OF" "Canada"; moreover, "Canada" for the purposes of the POGG power and every other power under the Constitution, is defined at Sections 3 and 4 of the BNA Act, 1867:


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 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.

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

It was well known at the time of Confederation and throughout the history of Canada's constitutional jurisprudence up to the time of Trudeau (who with René Lévesque hijacked the Constitution) -- that "UNION" means the CONFEDERATION of Canada, and that this word being express and stipulated in the Constitution Act means that DIS-union is prohibited. This is more clear from the Long Title (legal tool) of our Constitutional statute which sets out and expressly limits the PURPOSE of the Constitution:

"An Act for the UNION of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes CONNECTED THEREWITH."

The state of "UNION" of the four founding provinces extends to the other provinces which subsequently joined the "UNION" and are bound by the same Constitutional "purposes".

It is expressly written and clear that the PURPOSE of the Constitution of Canada, that is, of the British North America Act, 1867, is the "UNION" and "PURPOSES CONNECTED" with the UNION. In constitutional and statutory construction, one of the legal tools of analysis is the Latin maxim:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others) i.e., items not mentioned are assumed NOT to be covered by the statute, i.e., they are assumed to be EXCLUDED, i.e. PROHIBITED.

Here's a Webster definition of "maxim":

"a general truth, fundamental principal or RULE OF CONDUCT"

In other words, it is a RULE OF CONDUCT of Judges when interpreting the EXPRESS words of legislation to EXCLUDE all that these words themselves, by definition, exclude.

The restriction of the Constitution of Canada to "PURPOSES" "CONNECTED" with the "UNION" of the Provinces is a very clear and express statement against DIS-UNION, i.e., against SECESSION. Therefore, when the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 in the Secession Reference stated at paragraph 84: "It is of course true that the Constitution is silent as to the ability of a province to secede from Confederation", they LIED. They then proceeded to DEVISE a FORMULA TO DESTROY CANADA, (which the other traitors purported to pass into LAW as the Clarity Act) thus perpetrating blatant, outright TREASON.

This is more apparent from an Australian case (their Constitution, like ours, is on the Westminster Model and is interpreted in a similar fashion — Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd. ("Engineers' case") [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920), where Justice Isaacs said:

"The non-granting of powers, the expressed qual­i­fi­ca­tions of powers granted, the expressed retention of powers, are all to be taken into account by the Court."

Again, as Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor said, when sitting on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom during the constitutional maturation of Canada:

“Useful as decided cases are, it is always advisable to get back to the words of the Act itself and to remember the object with which it was passed.”

— Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor, In re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada [Privy Council] [1932] AC 54, 70

You can see that case online here at calameo:


Moreover, in considering the POWERS of the Provinces under the Constitution of Canada, Judge Cartwright of the Supreme Court of Canada (in better days) declared:

“The power of the legislature to enact such a law, if it exists, must be found in s. 92 of the British North America Act.”

— Judge Cartwright in McKay et al. v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 798, 804 (later, Chief Justice)


On glancing down the 16 "subject matters" of Section 92 of the BNA Act, 1867, it will be fully apparent to you that THERE IS NO POWER TO SECEDE; and that since 92(16) restricts all measures not specifically listed in 1-15 to PURELY LOCAL purposes. indeed there could never be a power to secede, because it would AFFECT all the other provinces, as well as Confederation itself.

Writing in the Cambridge Law Journal of 1955 at page 196, Sir H. W. R. Wade set forth a warning that all Canadians would do well to heed:

"What neither side quite acknowledges is that the seat of sovereign power is not to be discovered by looking at Acts of any Parliament but by looking at the courts and discovering to whom they give their obedience."

The Supreme Court of Canada in the 1998 Secession Reference gave its obedience NOT to the Constitution of Canada, but to our traitorous Executive who directed this phony reference to them on the pretext that they had NO IDEA SECESSION IS ILLEGAL IN CANADA.

There is no possibility of their not knowing it. The Secession Reference was a SCAM by which the Executive employed their appointed agents on the Bench to control the minds of Canadians and to alter our behaviour to MAKE US THINK that the Clarity Act was lawful; and that the destruction of Canada was lawful. And that 50 years of battering us with phony "separatism" and two fraudulent referendums to "secede" were LAWFUL. There is only one possibility, and that is COLLUSION between our High Court and our Executive to criminally and illegally destroy our nation.

Moreover, as the Supreme Court of Canada is normally deemed the "court of last resort" whose decisions are not subject to further appeal, the traitors detaining our governments and colluding in this at both the federal and provincial levels believed they would get off scott free. However, they were and are sadly mistaken, as I will challenge the Supreme Court by lawful jurisdictional routes and THROW THEM OUT, along with their PHONY "secession" opinion.

No Judge of any Court has ANY POWER to alter the Constitution in order to destroy it. But the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 REVERSED the very PURPOSE of the Constitution of Canada by criminally and unlawfully reading into it a POWER TO SECEDE that does not exist at either Section 92 (provincial powers) or Section 91 (federal powers) and is prohibited by the PURPOSE of the Constitution FROM existing. Another word for the "purpose" of a constitution is its "grundnorm" -- meaning the PIVOT around which the entire law is built, and the OBJECT it is designed to achieve. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada GUTTED the Constitution of Canada to reverse the grundnorm, the very OBJECT of permanent unity that the Constitution was DESIGNED to achieve. That act itself by the Supreme Court in 1998 was an act of High Treason.

Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217:

This is an HTML version of the BNA Act, 1867 that you might like to look at, complete with well done annotations at


It is a principle of constitutional law that no Parliament and no Legislature may bind a future Parliament or Legislature of Canada or of the provinces. The outrageous proposition by those detaining the provincial Legislature of Quebec, and the federal Parliament of Canada that THEY have the right and power to terminate Canada (with the connivance of the Supreme Court in 1998) in order to replace Confederation with something else is an utter fabrication and outright treason.

Such an act would constitute a BINDING measure terminating even the prospect of a future Parliament or Legislature ever again convening. It would be tantamount to the permanent hijacking and disposal for all time of all political and legal powers entrusted TEMPORARILY to elected and appointed officials at the time of swearing-in after valid elections.

The foregoing points of interpretation are by no means the only ones available to prove that in 1998 the Supreme Court LIED, and that the referendums of 1980 and 1995 in Quebec are ILLEGAL. I have a couple of hundred pages of notes which I am sure you would not like to read in an email.

Thanks for your time. Have a great day.


Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

My own videos:

My new document site:

P.S. You will note that I have switched from scribd to calameo for my document storage due to various technical problems at scribd. I've got about 150 documents parked online at to complete with descriptions, tags and titles, and will let you know when they're done so you can go have a browse.

No comments:

Post a Comment