Canadian State of the Union

"The NDAA and the PATRIOT ACT are VOID and of NO legal FORCE or EFFECT" : 12 January 2012

2012-01-12T08:02:00.000-08:00

Images like this perversely serve to convince the American public that the President and Congress have the power to pass any law they please, and to destroy the constitution. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Disinformation from the 10th Amendment Center and countless others:

"NDAA Obliterates Large Portions of The Bill of Rights"

Source: by Harold Pease, on Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 12:09 am http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/ndaa-obliterates-large-portions-of-the-bill-of-rights/

You've got it backwards, Mr. Pease:

Unconstitutional laws are "VOID" -- in your country and in mine, and under any "WRITTEN" Westminster-model Constitution of the former British colonies, as well as in other modern constitutional nations. The fundamental principle of the INVALIDITY and VOIDNESS of unconstitutional laws is the written cornerstone of Canada's Westminster-model federal Constitution, just as it is of the American constitution:

PART VII GENERAL
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-13.html#sc:7_VII

A VOID LAW "OBLITERATES" NOTHING!

This is more clear from Mr. Justice Field delivering the opinion of the court in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). Justice Field correctly said:

"Their position is that a legislative act, though unconstitutional, may in terms create an office, and nothing further than its apparent existence is necessary to give validity to the acts of its assumed incumbent. That position, although not stated in this broad form, amounts to nothing else. It is difficult to meet it by any argument beyond this statement:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=118&invol=425

However, a pretense that a VOID law is law, and does confer "rights" (or powers upon officials) and does "impose" unconstitutional "duties" to act in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, together with misguided public behavior in accordance, based on widespread DISinformation from posts the likes of yours, Mr. Pease, would, "de facto", cause the people to ROB THEMSELVES OF THEIR RIGHTS, being falsely led to believe that the "law" had, in fact, already taken their rights from them.

The NDAA 2012 and other so-called "laws" of its kind are NOT LAW, precisely because they are unconstitutional. Such VOID laws are incapable of any valid legal effect, let alone the preposterous effect alleged by you and by others that they "obliterate" or "repeal" huge parts of the constitution!

To repeal a part of a constitution, including America’s, an amending formula must be resorted to. An amending formula “ENTRENCHES” the constitution (legal word) to protect it from alteration by ordinary legislation like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

The USA has FORMAL constitutional amending procedures. There are also likely limits to the application of those procedures. The U.S. constitution is thus entrenched and protected against implied or arbitrary “amendment” by ordinary legislation such as the NDAA and the Patriot Act:

“The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).”

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#interpret

Q.: When did the States RATIFY?

Did the Patriot Act and the NDAA pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority and then go on to the States for ratification?

If not, one would normally be looking at ordinary legislation with the NDAA & the Patriot Act, and other similar “void” laws which infringe constitutional rights and liberties.

Source: http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 in 1803, Chief Justice John MARSHALL said this of unconstitutional laws:

"If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137

America's rights were never "repealed", never "obliterated", it’s a BLUFF. Or, in other words, as attributed to Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

The NDAA and the Patriot Act are VOID laws which have NO POWER to amend the constitution by "repealing" any part of it.

What is the cause of all this lurid sensationalism around these void laws, which serves only to assist the police-state aims of those who illegally pretend to "pass" them?

Whence comes this nihilistic, suicidal orgy of public constitution shredding & burning, this extraordinary American death wish?

In referring to such void laws as "now the law of the land", and as having "obliterated" or "repealed" "huge parts" of the Constitution, people like Mr. Pease are aiding and abetting the imposition of an illusory slave-state upon the American people.

Furthermore, the self-serving LIE by politicians seeking office that these constitutionally VOID laws ARE "law" which can ONLY be reversed by political action to get themselves elected is, at best, the basest, lying political prostitution.

These VOID "laws" must be challenged in competent court immediately! The solution is LEGAL, not POLITICAL!

In addition, there is the further finely tuned question of whether there are limits to the power of constitutional amendment.

This issue arose in 1935 in Ireland in the case of State Ryan v Lennon [1935] I.R. 170

(You can DOWNLOAD that case in this zip file and read the dissent of Chief Justice Kennedy: http://www.mediafire.com/?6m6rk4b6bn46r79 – along with some notes, and some Irish and Indian case law pertinent to attempts to amend the constitution into a police state).

In Ryan, Chief Justice Kennedy dissented from the majority which had held that the amending power conferred in the Irish Constitution was unlimited.

Justice Kennedy said that a constitution has basic features, or a basic identity, beyond which it cannot be said to be “amended”.

Past such a point, one would be looking at an overthrow, i.e., an entirely new and different constitution. In the Irish case, the government was claiming to use the amending power to convert Ireland to a police state.

Could the American Constitution be lawfully amended to become a police state, even if the States did the unthinkable and RATIFIED the alleged amendments? I think this is highly doubtful, given Article IV, Section 4 of United States Constitution which declares:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

In my view, those words establish the legal identity of the U.S. Constitution; and this is the benchmark, the high water line beyond which even constitutional amendment cannot go.

This is more apparent from the words of Professor F. R. Scott (later, Dean) of the McGil Law Faculty, who in a 1948 article in the Canadian Bar Review entitled "Administrative Law", compares this feature of the U.S. constitution to a legal doctrine governing the constitution of Canada:

"Every sovereign parliament may delegate its powers to subordinate authorities. This is true of the Dominion Parliament [Canada]; whose most famous and extreme example is the War Measures Act, and of the provincial legislatures. Without such a power modern government could not be carried on. But limitations appear to exist (a) in that no legislature could abolish itself, substituting some totally different kind of body in perpetuo, and (b) in that neither the Dominion Parliament nor provincial legislatures can delegate powers to one another. Proposition (a) is hypothetical and need not detain us, though it might be a useful principle with which to oppose -- should the occasion arise -- the setting-up of some dictatorial, unparliamentary government, perhaps serving for Canada something of the purpose of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to every state of the Union a republican form of government."

Source: "Administrative Law", published in volume 26, No. 1 of the Canadian Bar Review in 1948, free download at: http://www.mediafire.com/?227a8nadudarhqd

Question: Can the U.S. Congress, by passing any and all legislation, effectually "abolish itself", as well as the State Republics, "by substituting some totally different kind of body in perpetuo", i.e. a Hitler-regime police state?

Article IV, Section 4 of United States Constitution declares:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

This would appear to be a hopeful alternative to the highly limited prospects touted by Mr. Lyndon Larouche as "THE ONLY" method of removing Mr. Obama, i.e. with Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

Cornell has annotated the U.S. Constitution, including its Article 4, Section 4. See online:

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section4

In one of its annotations of Article 4, Section 4, Cornell observes:

"the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored".

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag16_user.html#art4_hd68

At Note 331, Cornell says:

"More recently, the Court speaking through Justice O’Connor has raised without deciding the possibility that the guarantee clause is justiciable and is a constraint upon Congress’ power to regulate the activities of the States. New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 2432–2433 (1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991). The opinions draw support from a powerful argument for utilizing the guarantee clause as a judicially enforceable limit on federal power. Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1988)."

In the same annotations we learn that a letter from Madison to Randolph in April, 1787 seems to imply that what lay in part behind Article 4, Section 4, was a determination to prevent any State converting itself to a Monarchy:

"Unless the Union be organized efficiently on republican principles innovations of a much more objectionable form may be obtruded.”

Note that Madison said "innovations" plural, implying not only a limitation on monarchy but upon any "objectionable form" of government.

Surely, then, by virtue -- for example -- of the ejusdem generis rule, the guarantee expands to protect the States, jointly and severally, from any non-Republican form of government, including a Hitler-style Obama police state.

Therefore, what patriotic American would not retain appropriate legal counsel to more fully explore "the authority contained within the confines of" Article IV, Section 4?

As I said to Larouchepac on 4 Jan 2012, I am concerned that the American people are being misled on a bluff; that controlled media and people with something to gain from allowing Americans to think the NDAA and the Patriot Act are law, are just pretending that these ordinary laws have "repealed" or "obliterated" large parts of the constitution. Which is LUNACY.

What are their aims? To get themselves elected public savior? On pretense that the SOLE remedy for this alleged “repeal” and "obliteration" of constitutional rights by the NDAA and the Patriot Act is entirely political

“Vote for me and I will save you!" "Only I can restore the constitution!”

What a baldfaced LIE! These constitutional rights were never "repealed", it is a BLUFF.

Some there may be, who for lack of a sufficiently emotional and dramatic lifestyle, feel neurotically compelled to attempt to re-enact the 1776 war against King George III. Then, let me say this, my friends: Beware of NATO, and "humanitarian bombing" and the perilous fate of Mr. Gaddafi.

This is no longer the Middle Ages. There are new modes of conquest, and a "CIA destabilization", meaning a UN DESTABILIZATION to overthrow your country and mine for world government using vast BlackOps and PsyOps operations, can happen just as well at home to nullify regimes as on "Arab-Spring" foreign soil.)

Mr. Pease said:

"OUR ONLY HOPE was a promised Presidential veto which did not happen. Therefore, what follows are details on how the new law emasculates the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights. ..."

Well, then, Mr. Pease, if we were to ignore the bedrock constitutional law of centuries, if we were to believe YOU... ALL IS LOST.

Source: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/ndaa-obliterates-large-portions-of-the-bill-of-rights/

Lyndon Larouche said:

"Removing him [Obama] from office, by Article 4 of the 25th amendment, or by impeachment, is THE ONLY WAY the provisions of the NDAA can be stopped."

Source: "Obama Outdoes Hitler With NDAA Bill Signing Statement" (LAROUCHEPAC: Obamawatch,Empire, January 2, 2012 8:00AM), http://www.larouchepac.com/node/21039

To which I replied:

"Article 4 of the 25th amendment reads in part as follows:

"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President...."

Realistically, [to Mr. Larouche] do you believe Obama's entourage would remove him? Shouldn't you be searching for options that a citizen can invoke, as opposed to LIMITING options to those that are totally out of the hands of the citizens?"

Source: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/21044

Ron Paul, a man running for President, whom you'd think might be obliged to know how the constitution works, said this of the Patriot Act (@ 1 minute 12-second point):

"But almost every Bill in Congress has a title to it which is exactly opposite of what it does. This is a perfect example, because I think if it had been properly named, it would have been called 'Repeal the 4TH Amendment Act'.... and most likely, they would have had a difficult time passing that piece of legislation."

Source: Rep. Ron Paul, Presidential candidate, White House, C-Span at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQY67nn8EW8

And, again, 49 seconds of exactly the same thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDhMcvq9GTs

But, Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Field, amongst countless non-cited others, have already told us:

"If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

Whereas, people like Mr. Pease, and Mr. Larouche, and Rep. Ron Paul, and countless others each for their own gain or motives, apparently prefer that not only the courts, but the PEOPLE "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law" by pretending that the constitution is NOT obviously "paramount".

What kind of political steam would the "Campaign for Liberty" have without the alleged "repeals" of constitutional amendments by the NDAA and the Patriot Act?

What kind of steam would Ron Paul's campaign have to get himself elected if he were not able to paint himself in opposition to these non-existent "repeals" so as to get elected on a promise to reverse them? A promise to reverse "laws" that are utterly VOID and have NO SUCH "LEGAL" EFFECT, and need to be struck not at the polls, but in the courts, which are the lawful and immemorial guardians of the constitution.

When King James I accused Sir Edward Coke (pronounced "Cook") (1 February 1552 - 3 September 1634), of treason for suggesting that his (James's) sovereign power might be under (below) the law, Chief Justice Coke replied:

"Thus wrote Bracton: the king is under no man but God and the law"

As Lord Denning points out, this saying has "reverberated down the centuries" to make judges the guardians of the constitution, (What Next in the Law, pp. 311-318).

Such people are all illusionists. By repeatedly alleging that these void laws have "repealed" the Second Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or have "obliterated" "huge parts" of the constitution, they encourage national submission to these illegal and VOID acts by pure, repetitive hypnosis.

They recklessly disregard if not passively encourage the grave risk of mass rage, riot and despair that may fling the American people against each other and into irreparable and disproportionate internal conflict, conflict that may, in fact, become the pretext for deployment of these void and illegal police-state powers.

They deprive the American people of awareness that they do have legal recourse available against these illegal acts of fake legislation. And moreover, for the lack of taking immediate, appropriate LEGAL action, this crucial suppression of awareness may result in the direct but illegal imposition of the very police state these leaders claim to oppose.

They place their nation in danger, and mine that is next to it. I do not wish to be attached to a VOID and utterly mind-washed, self-imposed illusion-based hypnotic military police state.

The American people must wake up in time to save themselves before martial law is invoked by the tag-team putsch (a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force) which has taken over your government.

They must move fast to have these laws which are VOID because UNCONSTITUTIONAL legally declared VOID by a competent court before they put you all into the FEMA CAMPS!

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Blog: "TAKING AMERICA DOWN FOR GLOBALISM IN THE NAME OF PATRIOTISM"
http://canadian-state-of-the-union.blogspot.com/2011/06/taking-america-down-for-globalism-in.html

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/crazyforcanada

The Holy See, UN Reform & War for World Government

2011-11-17T23:08:00.000-08:00

This post is in response to remarks on Honduras, and the concepts of “community” and the “responsibility to protect” at the blog “Diligite iustitiam” in its post “Holy See on UN Reform”.

“Diligite iustitiam” said:

"In this context, Mr. President, my delegation would like to remember here the Honduran people who continue to undergo suffering, frustration and hardships from the already too long political upheaval. Once more, the Holy See urges the concerned parties to make every effort to find a prompt solution in view of the good of the people of Honduras. [No Vatican recognition of the legitimacy of the current Honduran government?]"

The 2009 Honduran government was not merely “legitimate”, it was lawful.

A great deal of misunderstanding about Honduras was willfully broadcast in 2009. In July, 2009, I wrote a blog to explain the legal position: there was no military coup, the coup was by Manuel Zelaya upon the Honduran Constitution, and his ouster was constitutional and lawful as ordered by the Supreme Court of Honduras:

http://honduras-not-a-military-coup.blogspot.com/

In August of 2009, the Congressional Research Service of the Law Library of Congress issued its Report For Congress, in which it analyzed other constitutional criteria, and came to the same conclusion as I did: the ouster was NOT a coup, it was lawful:

http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf

The self-appointed powers are building a world government by force. Zelaya was attempting to pave the way for a full-blown Central American Union, modeled on the EU as is UNASUR. A Central American Union is needed to link the northern and southern continents in a single EU-style western hemisphere. (It is the North American Union that I am fighting here in Canada.)

The Charter of the U.N. prohibits armed state aggression on other states.

If a nation refuses to be forced into a union and thus commit national suicide, other means are brought to bear. For example, defaming Honduras in the world press so it appears to be a banana republic or a rogue state that would benefit from "stabilization" by UN-forced submersion into a regional union on "security" grounds. See articles 52, 53 & 54 of the Charter of the UN.

Along the same lines, the "Responsibility to Protect" is another facade for launching unilateral wars of aggression on sovereign states whose political forms of government must be swept away to create or expand existing regional unions under the UN Charter.

These unions, provided for at articles 52, 53 & 54 of the UN Charter, are being used as a “ratchet” for consolidation of the world towards world government.

The extreme danger of such a policy of militarily invading sovereign states on this basis is founded in the fact that it is very easy for self-appointed powers working underground to finance and foment people-powered "revolutions" which they know a state will be virtually compelled to put down by force.

The hapless people are thus used as canon-fodder to set up a pretext for unilateral NATO or similar aggressive military action. In that light, Libya will end up attached to the EU, or to some other regional union modeled upon it, because the EU system is the basis of the incoming world government. The former SFRY has already met that fate; its "independent" remnants are obediently in line for EU attachment. As well, on the criminal use of international state recognition to destroy nation states while holding them defenceless (in this case, led by the Pontiff) see the writings of Professor Raju Thomas.

Michael Byers, writing in War Law, discusses the dangerous uses to which the so-called "Responsibility to Protect" can be applied. See his Chapter 9.

Says Byers, "most... proponents of the 'responsibility to protect' are motivated by a desire to prevent human suffering. However, by arguing for a new and largely self-judging exception to the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, they play into the hands of those who would seek exemptions for less benevolent ends."

Byers illustrates his point:

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair has provided the most worrying example of the potential for politically motivated abuse of a right to unilateral humanitarian intervention. In a speech in his Sedgefield constituency in March 2004, he explained how:

[B]efore September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance.

Byers continues:

"This passage would likely be endorsed by... well-intentioned proponents of the responsibility to protect - were its application left abstract. But Blair proceeded to apply the concept retroactively to Iraq, stating specifically and emphatically: '[W]e surely have a responsibility to act when a nation's people are subjected to a regime such as Saddam's.'

Suddenly, a highly contentious war... was being rationalized, one year after the fact, with a doctrine that had already been widely rejected by most of the world's governments. Blair's invocation of a responsibility to protect undoubtedly related back to the all-too-apparent absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it was also forward-looking. For Blair … in his Sedgefield speech ... also indicated a desire to change international law to extend the responsibility to protect to a broader range of circumstances... "

Byers continues to quote Blair:

The essence of a community is common rights and responsibilities. We have obligations in relation to each other. ... And we do not accept in a community that others have a right to oppress and brutalize their people."

As morally appealing as this may be, Blair seemed unable to grasp what it means to live under the rule of law, particularly when the community subject to that law -- the international community, in this case -- has already established clear and firm rules. In Sedgefield, he went on to say, with no apparent sense of irony:

"I understand the worry the international community has over Iraq. It worries that the US and its allies will, buy sheer force of their military might, do whatever they want, unilaterally and without recourse to any rule-based code or doctrine. But our worry is that if the UN -- because of a political disagreement in its Councils -- is paralysed, then a threat we believe is real will go unchallenged."

This is a vision of power without accountability, exercised by supposedly benevolent leaders with the best interests of their subjects in mind. At the same time, it is reminiscent of a much earlier natural law approach to international law -- one that did not require broad-based consent and was instead imposed by the so-called 'civilized'. The prime minister, by reaching for the concept of community, was in fact relying on the international law of the crusaders and conquistadors -- which, in essence, was no law at all. Were Blair truly concerned about the plight of the world's oppressed, he would have done better to focus on the other, non-military aspects of the responsibility to protect."

The Byers quotes came from his pages 105-108 in chapter 9.

A more recent illustration of the dangers of a concept of "community" coupled with a "duty to protect" is the 2006 radio speech in French by Quebec Cardinal, Jean-Claude Turcotte (who was amongst the conclave that elected the current Pope Benedict XVI, who is now calling for world government).

In no minced terms, Cardinal Turcotte himself called for establishment of a world government -- and if necessary, WAR to impose it -- while rationalizing such WAR as being conducted on behalf of the world's poor, and underdeveloped third-world countries. This is how far someone both benevolent and imaginative can stretch Tony Blair's "broader range of circumstances"

Here is a link to the French tape of Cardinal Turcotte calling for WAR to impose world government:

http://www.mediafire.com/?e3t24if5mffgdh2

Here is my translation:

Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte interviewed on 20 December 2006 by Paul Arcand:

Then, at this point, we need a world government. In order to attain this, is it absolutely necessary to make war? I don't know. I deplore it, absolutely. Instinctively, I am against it. That's obvious, eh? But even so, there are still things in the world which, in a certain way, affect the basic problem that we have.

Because these questions even have effects on poverty. And even on... the fact that some countries remainless developed than others.

So then... how are we going to... I would not say, to have a oneness, or a kind of... common identity of everyone on earth. I don't know. But, all I know is that we must have it as the goal."

Are the Cardinal and the Pope evangelizing Christ... who said "the poor you will always have with you" ... or the Bolsheviks?

In that speech of Turcotte's, we have a Blair-like approach to an implied 'responsibility to protect', while also invoking 'community' by implication, and using it to rationalize WAR which is illegal under the UN Charter.

And this is necessarily a WAR against the developed world -- or, from what I know -- those parts of it as may refuse to commit suicide and join the EU, the template of the new world-government system being promoted by the Holy Pontiff.

However, the Pope’s call for reform of UN institutions to transform it into a world government is no surprise – the U.N. was declared in 1946 to be “the basis of the world government” by Canada’s Louis Stephen Saint Laurent, addressing the U.N.:

Every act of aggression committed since that date to destroy or disintegrate sovereign countries can only be interpreted in light of the desire to liquidate and merge them into regional blocs under one new system: the system of the world government. If that is the case, then all acts of aggression prior to that date must be viewed with circumspection in the same light, as designed to set up “the basis of the world government”.

In addition, in the Turcotte tape, all is blithely said while necessarily calling for the world's peoples and nations to destroy their unique identities to facilitate this merger into a single common global identity. The very concept of Nation derives first from the race of a people; and is then applied to political arrangements.

The Cardinal’s determination to eliminate the races, which are the basis of Nations and political states, without even bothering to substantiate the philosophical purpose behind his demand for global ethnic cleansing of the peoples to whom the existing states belong, and to whom their sovereignty belongs that is being stolen, is thus highly suspect. It is also genocide in the name of God.

And that racks up two major breaches of international law in one short speech from the good Cardinal: WAR in violation of the UN Charter, and GENOCIDE in violation of the same Charter plus international convention. 'Genocide' is defined in the 1948 Genocide Convention as the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. Of course, if you can con them into destroying themselves on religious or ethical grounds, you might sidestep the charge.

Ultimately, the Cardinal desires WAR to eradicate everyone's National identity so a "global authority" (where have we heard that before) world government, can take over all power and all resources:

URBI ET ORBI MESSAGE
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
CHRISTMAS 2005

"[L]et the Child of Bethlehem take you by the hand! Do not fear; put your trust in him! The life-giving power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order based on just ethical and economic relationships."

"[L]asciati prender per mano dal Bambino di Betlemme; non temere, fidati di Lui! La forza vivificante della sua luce ti incoraggia ad impegnarti nell’edificazione di un nuovo ordine mondiale, fondato su giusti rapporti etici ed economici. "

In the pursuit to create a single world power, has the Holy See bothered to condemn the UN’s Agenda 21, a plan which necessarily includes the mass murder of 90% of the world’s population in the next 30 years? Well, it must be mass murder, unless most of that 90%, who are well under retirement age, are lifted up in a rapture, carried off by aliens, wiped out in a lab-engineered fake pandemic, or on "ethical" grounds for the "common good" volunteer for euthanasia.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

Download a free copy of the video clips in this post from MediaFire:
[1] http://www.mediafire.com/file/2uljnq4cv40oujf/Monsignor-Turcotte-20-Dec-2006-OWG-short.wmv
[2] http://www.mediafire.com/file/k2rzya0c0fpbxbd/urbi-et-orbi_2005.wmv
[3] http://www.mediafire.com/?mrhu1pcprlda7qy [1946 - Louis Stephen Saint-Laurent: World Government]

SEPTEMBER 21, 2010: JIMMY CARTER SAYS US MORE POLARIZED THAN DURING CIVIL WAR (1861-64 SECESSION)

2011-06-28T02:49:00.001-07:00

THIS PEXPANDED FROM A POST IN FACEBOOK IN SEPTEMBER 2010

“This country has become so polarized that it's almost astonishing…. Not only with the red and blue states… President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we have ever seen – even maybe than the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the war between the states.”
-- President Jimmy Carter, 21 September 2010

Mr. Carter was the 39th President of the United States (1977-1981), inaugurated on January 20th, 1977.

This clip of Mr. Carter, CFR member and Bilderberg attendee, should be viewed in the awareness that Leader of the so-called 'separatist' Bloc Québécois party in the federal Parliament of Canada, Gilles Duceppe, has been touring Canada in 2010, urging ALL the provinces to "secede".

2010 is the target year in the Council on Foreign Relation's "Building A North American Union" plan sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations of which Mr. Carter is a member, and which elaborates the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, by laying out the groundwork for the North American Union:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html

A “North American Community“ that cannot be built without dismantling Canada AND the U.S.A. –- which could only be done by a vast wave of “SECESSIONS“ ripping across the continent. Charles F. Doran of the CFR would call it “unraveling North America”, which he stated in 1996 could only conceivably be done by the secession of Quebec:

"Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes". Charles F. Doran · September/October Foreign Affairs (CFR) 1996:

Direct url: http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117903f34af45c741

In that article, the CFR’s Doran also says:

"But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could NORTH AMERICA unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of SUPRANATIONAL AFFILIATION with the remnants of Canada."

CNN, in the time of Lou Dobbs, said repeatedly that North American Union had not been submitted for Congressional approval. What Dobbs didn’t know is that it was submitted to the United States Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere in 1996, and was described by Doran in merely generic terms as a “supranational affiliation”. Read that testimony:

Testimony of CHARLES F. DORAN before the United States House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere, September 25, 1996.

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Direct url: http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179040fa50e4590c

Again: Doran of the CFR, in “Will Canada Unravel?”:

"Economic association with NAFTA, no matter how useful in trade and commercial terms, is not a substitute for this new kind of political affiliation. Except for bounteous customs rules and an elaborate trade dispute resolution mechanism, NAFTA contains no institutional structure above the nation-state that will bind sovereign entities together."

Here’s the timeline, do the math:

TIMELINE:

1996 -- "If ... separation of Quebec occurs anyway, then the United States must consider further options. One is a new form of political interaction with those fragments ... The concept is regional affiliation ... an affiliated polity could establish ties with the United States. ... Political affiliation ought to address the basic needs of people. Freedom of movement for goods, services, capital, and people ought to be at the heart of the arrangement."

-- Charles F. Doran, Will Canada Unravel ? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes, Foreign Affairs, CFR, September/October 1996. Volume 75 . Number 5

Read it: http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117903f34af45c741

September 11, 2001 -- September 11, 2001 -- In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) will impose the SAME supranational entity "in response to" 9/11 as the CFR intitially planned as a emedy for Quebec "secession". (Note: they are "imposing" it through our governments, which they clearly own, operate and control.)

The fact that North American Union is a RESPONSE to 9/11 is confirmed by Allan Gotlieb, on video, who calls 9/11 the “provocative agent” for NAU:

Direct url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oph_HsDVw8w

But, that is a lie. North American Union has clearly been planned for decades. Therefore, 9/11 could hardly be the "provocative agent" for something designed and projected long ago; rather, the globalists' need to deepen NAFTA towards a "new world order" set up on a "new international system" was the "provocative agent" for 9/11:

Henry Kissinger, writing in the 18 July 1993 edition of Los Angeles Times declared that NAFTA was no ordinary trade agreement:

"It [NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system." -- Los Angeles Times, op-ed, Kissinger, July 18, 1993

Obviously, NAFTA was always intended to be "deepened". Duceppe, himself, in the video above on The Hour in April 2010, alludes to a 'deepened' NAFTA as tantamount to the European Union system for North America. He says:

"Once, Boutros-Boutros Ghalli, the former UN General Secretary said, 'There's two main streams around, politically talking, around the world. One seeing nations giving themselves their own country, and the other one seeing those same countries getting together in large economic bodies like the European Union,' and in a certain sense like NAFTA, even if we have to do better than the NAFTA we have -- "

Henry Kissinger and Gilles Duceppe are evidently on the same page with respect to NAFTA, which is undeniably the basis of a "new international system," known on this continent as the North American Union. And the job of Gilles Duceppe, an agent of one-world government posing as a "separatist" is to force the new system onto Canada, and onto the continent by producing what the CFR's Charles Doran said could only conceivably result from the secession of Quebec: the unravelling of North America. It is no coincidence that Duceppe launched his cross-Canada tour urging all the provinces to "secede" in April 2010, target year of the CFR's Building A North American Community plan.

Moreover, writing in Foreign Affairs for the CFR, Robert Pastor -- A Director on the Board of the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) which hosts the Model Parliament for North America, calls NAFTA" the same thing the 1957 Treaty of Rome was to Europe -- "an economic CONSTITUTION for North America." (quoted from North America's Second Decade By Robert A. Pastor, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004)

2005 -- "To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American Community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. ... Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe."

-- Building A North American Community, Report of the Independent Task Force, Council on Foreign Relations, May 2005.

Read it: http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179006a6cd7ae220

And thus, the 1996 plan the CFR’s Charles F. Doran proposed to the U.S. western hemisphere subcommittee – but which MERELY expands on NAFTA – has been officially in the open since 2005 as an alleged "response to" 9/11.

And now, we have the CFR’s Jimmy Carter appearing publicly on 21 September 2010 -- target year of the CFR's Building A North American Community plan -- declaring that the USA is more polarized than at the time of Lincoln and the 1861-64 American war of secession! CFR man, Bilderberg attendee and Trilateralist, Jimmy Carter, is clearly preparing Americans for the outcome of that planned “unraveling”. He is relying on the normative tendency of the factual; he is driving home the 'reality' of the rift being wilfully escalated in the United States.

And it's easy to do it: on the one hand, establish a 10th-Amendment movement in protest against the abuse of Executive and Federal powers; and on the other hand, drive the movement by simply escalating the abuse. Eventually, you will get what you are after: you will "unravel" North America for North American Union by turning the patriotism (the expression of which is misguided in the circumstances) of the average American against them.

Meanwhile, the Model Parliament for North America — launched in the Canadian Senate Chamber in 2005, and with offices out of the University of Montreal under Christine Fréchette, with Robert Pastor of American University as her co-chair — anticipates NOT a meeting of Canada, the USA and Mexico under a continental parliament -- but the DISMANTLED states and provinces of the USA, Mexico and Canada meeting in the continental parliament.

And in this same year of 2010, we have -- both north and south of the 49th parallel, two secession movements: the 10th Amendment Movement in the USA, and the "Quebec secession" movement in Canada, preparing to rip the continent apart -- quite conveniently for re-federation into North American Union, almost precisely on schedule as per the CFR-CCCE plan. There is no possibility that this is a coincidence.

To cinch it, Gilles Duceppe sent a letter on June 9th, 2010 to 1,600 world leaders and influential figures advising them that a third and final referendum for Quebec to 'secede' is coming. Here's the letter in English (it went out in English, French, and Spanish):

"Brace for Referendum" - Ottawa 9 June 2010 - Letter to 1600 world leaders by GILLES DUCEPPE, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois federal political party

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117908d1832596065

Duceppe's itinerary also indicates he is touring the western hemisphere this Fall (2010) to follow up on his letter... he is obviously arranging the international state recognition of Quebec, which in the international arena will have the effect of DISSOLVING Canada.

See my photo blog on this for much more detail, title:

"PLOTTING A MAP IF QUEBEC SECEDES (CFR 1996)" and featuring Charles F. Doran, of the Council on Foreign Relations:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1777851356#!/photo.php?pid=213932&id=1777851356&fbid=1124372287664&subject=116430275057791&ref=mf

For details on the Gilles Duceppe "secession" tour of Canada in April 2010, read my blog, "Liar! Liar!" with videos and news articles linked:

http://gilles-duceppe-treason-tour-2010.blogspot.com/

Video of Gilles Duceppe pushing the "European Union" style of federation:

And here’s Duceppe advocating "sovereignty" (secession necessarily implied) to facilitate WESTERN HEMISPHERIC UNION, in French with my own clear English subtitles -- and I am a professional-level translator:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1777851356#!/video/video.php?v=1153731501626&oid=117511084929452

The CFR’s Doran presented the plan for the supranational affiliation to the WESTERN HEMISPHERE committee... most certainly because not only is there going to be North American Union, there is going to be hemispheric union.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Read my Blogspot:
* http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

Support the legal challenge with PayPal: habeas.corpus.canada@live.

com

TAKING AMERICA DOWN FOR GLOBALISM IN THE NAME OF PATRIOTISM

2011-06-27T23:58:00.000-07:00

SLIDE FROM THE CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL (CIC) 2010 VIDEO ENTITLED "OPEN CANADA".

Nota Bene: The links on this Blog post are being archived here, on calameo.

I want to illustrate briefly the dangers of the 10th-Amendment movement, no matter how well intentioned most of its followers.

The State of Massachusets filed a 10th-Amendment Resolution:

http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447f4600155f026

They even have a page for it in Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Massachusetts-Tenth-Amendment-Center/112152852184862

It was filed on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 by Massachusetts State Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry before the House of Representatives to protect the Founding Fathers' intent and the Constitutional protections of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Now, let's back up a bit. William F. Weld is a Former Governor of the State of Massachusetts and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney General.

More importantly, Weld is a CHAIR of the CFR-CCCE's Building A North American Union task force, and he SIGNED the Report planning the continental merger:

http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447ceb5c06ff35f

BUILDING A NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNITY (CFR, May 2005)

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Just as important, WELD is the co-author of a related, CFR-sponsored article entitled: "NORTH America The Beautiful":

NORTH AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL By John Manley, Pedro Aspe and William F. Weld (CFR.ORG, Op-Ed March 23, 2005)

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

You see the little OATH problem there? For America, and for Canada -- our former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley also signed that article.

So, while Massachusetts is busily pumping up lawsuits against the FED under the 10th Amendment, and invoking the constitution and originalism, with apparent patriotic fervor -- do you notice the same people behind that fervor opposing with equal enthusiasm the actions of former Governor Weld, who signed the death warrant of all the States?

Do they oppose any of his gubernatorial successors, who, arguably, are in the same NWO boat?

Why are they aiming ONLY at nasty old Obama and his "Council of Governors" to apparently replace the Republic:

AMERICAN REPUBLIC REPLACED BY "COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS"? republished from Judi McLeod, 12 January 2010

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

/ EXCERPT:

"(UPI.com, Jan. 11, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.). "Obama signed an executive order establishing a panel to be known as the Council of Governors, which will be made up of 10 state governors, to be selected by the president to serve two-year terms. Members will review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States, the White House said in a statement."

... but are not, I suspect, taking EQUAL aim at people of the type of William F. WELD and CELLUCCI -- who have used their public careers in Massachusetts as a springboard to advance North American Soviet Union, and thus globalism? Have there been any Tea Parties against Weld and Cellucci and their pro-NAU actions?

Surely there must be others in Massachusetts who are on board with NAU -- who have chaired and co-authored the END of America, whose REPLACEMENT actually requires Obama's likely Soviet-style council?

Now, recently Wikileaks released part of a 2005 cable to Canada from U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, in which he discusses how best to advance the NAU integration agenda for North America:

"Leaked U.S. cable lays out North American ‘integration’ strategy (National Post, 2 June 2011)"

http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447169ac10d29df

Here's that cable:

WikiLeaks Cable Confirms: NORTH AMERICAN UNION UNDERWAY (cable 05OTTAWA268, PLACING A NEW NORTH AMERICAN INITIATIVE) : U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Who's Paul Cellucci?

He ran for Governor of Massachusetts against William F. Weld (the latter who, by the way, resigned in an effort to become Ambassador to Mexico -- the narco-state to the south they are merging into the USA and Canada under Weld's little plan with Big Business and the CFR.)

Cellucci won for Governor; he then resigned to become Ambassador to Canada, that lovely little semi-socialist state to the North with whom the USA is being merged:

"GOVERNORS OF MASSACHUSETTS - COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (1950-present) (mass.gov)":

http://en.calameo.com/books/00074744744a4d1935d35

Here are a few words from Cellucci's cable to Ottawa, while he was Ambassador to Canada:

“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers.

Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both "security" and "prosperity" goals. This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the OPTIONS for continental integration. While in principle many of them support more ambitious goals, like a customs union/single market and/or single currency, most believe the incremental approach is most appropriate at this time, and all agree that it helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them."

You don't "pave the way" to something that you have no intention of doing; even less do you pretend that you are "paving" the way on the off-chance that "North Americans" might one day "choose to pursue them".

This goes to prove that CFR men who are up to their ears in continental union -- and this is very different from the Monroe Doctrine, this is not the same thing -- are easily elected to highest office in Massachusetts where they are called "Excellency" by electors unaware of their true leanings.

At the end of February, 2009, I had an exchange of comments with an American citizen who deemed himself a proponent of secession under the 10th Amendment. Here's how he expressed his views:

"If states break off, that will certainly wake the entire population of a given state up. The governor can take charge of his national guard and bring them home. The ENTIRE state will wake up and arm itself and be ready for federal encroachment.

I feel very positive about these 10th amendment bills because in my opinion it is being asserted in the manner in which it should be, "We will not allow you to do anything that is not listed in the constitution."

...The states are standing up for the constitution and ready to ignore so called "federal law" and secede if necessary.

Imagine if states did that and the people woke up and armed themselves? They may have tanks but in order to retake the land they have to put boots on the ground like in Katrina.... imagine if in the aftermath of Katrina, every cop who entered a house illegally was shot at by the resident? Imagine how many casualties there would have been. If NH secedes and decides to arrest all federal officers and kick them out or charge them with treason... imagine how galvanized the people will be... how armed they will be, how awake to the threat they will be...

Individual states standing up and saying NO is how this country was founded. This nation was born out of defiance. It's time our founding fathers had something to say on current affairs." (SimpleDan76)

I wonder if that stands for "1776". In any event, we see that this proud and defiant American (i) expects the State GOVERNOR to take charge of the troops; (ii) he equates full-scale militarization as "standing up" for the constitution; (iii) he imagines there will be plenty of casualties, the thought of murdering fellow Americans en masse doesn't seem to bother him; any day now, his neighbor employed in the FED could start to look like King George III, and if so, woe to him.

However, by the time the people "awake" to the "threat" under SimpleDan's system, their own national guard may well have been turned on them by their own Governor, working for the CFR. Imagine if mass-secessions were coordinated with another 9/11 attack, but this time, a direct hit on the White House and on Washington?

After all, what is the White House, according to the Canadian International Council (CIC), our branch of your CFR, but an "old power" "declining"; one that has to be gotten rid of -- just like our Canadian Parliament -- to "pave the way" for the new "North American" parliament.

Now, add into the mix the precedent being set today in Libya: full-scale military attack on a head of state for his use of military to resist revolution by his own citizens. Apply this to a full-blown 10th-Amendment scenario.

If CFR-controlled State Governors declare secession, and call home their national guards, could an American CFR-controlled President even attempt to resist secession of the States without incurring UN bombing raids on the White House and assassination attempts on the President?

Knowing that both the White House and States like Massachusetts are under full CFR control, how might the game unfold?

Hypothetical 10th-Amendment Scenario:

Here's one scenario: the States, having been turned against their own federal government would refuse to re-unite. The CFR-controlled Governors would propose A NEW FORM OF SUPRANATIONAL UNION to "stabilize the continent". This would involve a "deepening" of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America signed with Bush, Fox & Martin in 2005 in Waco.

There would be an early agreement (pre-arranged between some CFR-controlled States, of course), and there would also be pre-arranged dissent by others, who had always believed that secession would bring the White House to its knees, begging the seceded States to re-convene.

But instead, the CFR-controlled White House pulls a Yeltsin and declares the USA officially terminated on the grounds of multiple secessions and goodbye, Constitution. With the States all gone, there is no one to defend the Constitution. On the international scene, the mostly communist UN members rush to declare the "sovereignty" of the seceded States, and the United States of America -- which no longer has a UN seat -- is dissolved.

The States having seceded under CFR command would now be in apparent control of the situation in all of North America. A skirmish might break out, or full-blown civil war. Those States under the CFR insist upon a full-blown North American Union, while those who believed they were only "seceding" as a "wake-up" call to the federal government, now want to reunite the Republic.

As civil war rages, other events are deployed which were also planned long ago and are under CFR control: a convenient foreign power, perhaps with a long-range missile based in South America, takes it upon itself to decide the outcome. Putting an end to all discussion: they bomb the White House off the map. The States now have nowhere to go except the direction carefully prepared for them over the course of decades: for the sake of "security and prosperity", they agree to the North American Union.

Now, with the White House gone, although the Pentagon is still left standing, a new location must be found for the parliament of North America, which, in fact, will be merely a branch of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, under communist world government.

Quite conveniently, Canada's Parliament Hill has been under major renovations since 1992, and in particular since the year of the SPP signed in Waco, Texas -- 2005. But it has 308 seats -- far more than required for North American Union, but just the ticket for an assembly of representatives from all the western hemispheric nations.

OBJECT LESSON:
You do not know what CFR members, who are or have been State Governors and other officials, have done internally to Massachusetts or any other State to facilitate UN takeover under Agenda 21 and the North American merger. All this has been planned for decades, never mind the 2005 date on the CFR's "official" merger plan called "Building A North American Community". However, what is quite clear is the nature of the power and the kinds of resources they wield, thanks to electorates who repeatedly and ignorantly put them into power: including the power to declare secession and to issue commands to your own State troops.

And when they do issue those commands under the guise of "defending the constitution", will they will bring America to its Waterloo by turning its own national patriotism upon it to destroy it for North American communist union?

Now, what about Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift? She's a guest speaker for Global Conferences at the Milkin Institute:

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/gcprogram.taf?function=bio&EventID=GC08&SPID=3219

What is on the agenda of the Milken Institute: CLIMATE CHANGE:

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/events.taf?function=show&ID=173&cat=allconf&EventID=GC08&level1=why

Now, that's a dead-ringer.

The Center for Global Studies quotes the Mission Statement of the Milken Institute:

"Mission Statement

"[T]o improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity."

http://cgs.illinois.edu/content/milken-institute

Who are the sponsors of the Milken Institute?

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/events.taf?function=sponsorlist&ID=197&cat=allconf&EventID=GC08&level1=sponslist

That list includes Canada, Bloomberg and BNP Paribas.

On the subject of BNP Paribas, fellow sponsor Bloomberg has this say:

"Mr. Paul Guy Desmarais, Jr. is the Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation of Canada. He also serves as a Managing Director of Pargesa Holding S.A. Prior to joining Power Corporation of Canada in 1981, Mr. Desmarais was at S.G. Warburg & Co. and Standard Brands Incorporated. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Power Financial Corporation. He is also a Vice Chairman of the Board and Director of Pargesa Holding S.A.

http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=1680593&ticker=POW%3ACN&previousCapId=873976&previousTitle=BNP+PARIBAS

That's WARBURG and Standard Brands, two famous names in the setup of world wars and revolutions to get world government. And, BNP owns a large stake in a Power Corporation subsidiary, namely Pargesa Holdings.

Desmarais for Power Corporporation sits on the Board and on the Senate of the Canadian International Council (CIC) which is the Canadian branch of the CFR. The CIC web site features a video and report, both entitled OPEN CANADA, and both declaring that the WHITE HOUSE is an "old power declining". Here's the Report:

http://www.opencanada.org/features/reports/opencanada/

Here's the video:

URL of that video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOiw9s9Fkgc

Here's the slide from the video showing the WHITE HOUSE on its way out:

http://en.calameo.com/books/00074744753a3a1c01ee1

Like his father before him, Desmarais for Power Corporation sits on the CCCE which authored the Building a North American Community task force plan to merge North America post-9/11.

In addition, late last year, the RHODES Scholarship committee which doles out the prizes for Quebec convened at the Montreal offices of Power Corporation:

"The Quebec Committee for Rhodes Scholarships convenes at Power Corporation (Peggy Curran, Montreal Gazette, November 26, 2010)":

http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447ae3bf6bae5ee

It is now well known that Rhodes Scholarships are conferred on students seen not only as able to advocate for a world government, but to actually help implement it by returning to their communities in various capacities so as to give effect to their free indoctrination at Oxford.

On the committee that year, we find at least one (Peggy Curran) -- but most likely two connections to The Montreal Gazette. By this, I mean Michael Goldbloom. I wrote to Ms. Curran in regard to her Rhodes article, but she ignored my request to know whether Michael Goldbloom, former publisher of the Montreal Gazette, our only major English newspaper, was still a member of the Rhodes selection committee, as he was said to be in 2006:

"MICHAEL GOLDBLOOM TAKES ON CRITICAL ROLE AT McGILL (31 October 2006)"
http://en.calameo.com/books/0007474474449ecfa0cb7

"Goldbloom has a distinguished record of community leadership...He also served... as a member of the Quebec selection committee for the Rhodes Scholarship."

We all have our opinions of what constitutes "community" leadership. In Goldbloom's case, that would have to be defined specifically as the same "North American Community" under construction by the CFR.

World government requires the dismantling of Canada, being done by fake secession, which in turn requires fake news, not to mention sedition. Michael Goldbloom has been ideally positioned to generate fake news, and sedition, both of which feature prominently in the January 9th, 1995 Montreal Gazette Editorial of which he is one of the signatories:

Scroll down here for the Editorial entitled "Legalities of separation important but more crucial questions are being glossed over... ":

http://en.calameo.com/books/00074744725535c0d781c

Notice from the title of that Editorial that there is something more crucial than the LAW for lawyer-publisher Michael Goldbloom.

At the Grounds page of my web site, HabeasCorpusCanada.com, I prove that the Montreal Gazette, its former publisher Michael Goldbloom, and his former Editor-in-Chief Joan Fraser (now, a Senator) are up to the neck in sedition and fraud to bring down Canada for NAU through the phony secession of Quebec.

Future senator Fraser will chair the Senate Clarity Committee whose job it is to rubber-stamp the Supreme Court of Canada's treasonous, non-binding Secession opinion, which purports to legalize the illegal secession of Quebec.

But, back to Massachusetts. There is NO way that Power Corporation, its ties and allies, would SPONSOR the Milken Institute, and no way that Jane Swift would lecture there, unless all was in proper order in terms of the NAU agenda.

More importantly, in a secret committee of Power Corporation in Quebec in 1967, a committee of which Pierre Elliott Trudeau and numerous other "federal" Members of Parliament from Quebec were a part, it was decided to create a "separatist party":

THE SECRET COMMITTEE:

"IN THE EYE OF THE EAGLE - THE "SECRET COMMITTEE" AT POWER CORP. (1967), by Jean-François Lisée (Toronto: Harper-Collins Publishers Ltd., 1990)"

http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447d8d4b4a9f7f2

That book chapter is based, in part, on American diplomatic notes and telegrams involving names such as Walt Whitman Rostow, Dean Rusk, Walt Butterworth, Ed Ritchie.

The "separatist party" that was created is a FAKE, a fake known as the PARTI QUEBECOIS, whose agenda was (and still is) to impose the European Economic Community system on Canada in 1980 disguised as a "referendum to secede". But, it was really a referendum to get a mandate to NEGOTIATE the new system, disguised as "keeping Canada together", while using a threat of UDI by Quebec as blackmail to impose it.

The same fake political party tried again in 1995 and failed. At that time, as the materials indicate, which I won't go into, there were plans for a military coup in the event of a YES to the fake "secession". The two attempts to impose the EEC-EU system (the basis of North American Union to have commenced with Canada) having failed twice, 9/11 was done, and NOW they are imposing it disguised as the SPP.

And, as I have said in another post, the purpose of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is to forge ahead with North American INTEGRATION, while leaving the political dismantling till the end, i.e., we are now up against BOTH:

[a] the phony secession of Quebec into North American Union, to trigger the unraveling of Canada and North America; and

[b] the phony secession of the States of the Union under the 10th Amendment, perfectly timed to achieve the same thing, but hidden behind the mask of American patriotism, and operated out of states like Massachusetts, which is clearly fully enrolled in the globalist agenda.

Now, what about former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney? Here's a page with a few words:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-102076-.html

"The people that believe Mitt Romney is a Washington outsider are falling for a campaign ploy that has been used for a hundred years. Mitt Romney, as well as all the major candidates, have surrounded themselves with the same campaign handlers that have been involved in all the Presidential elections in recent memory.

They all have ties to George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The other thing they all have in common is the Council on Foreign Relations.

All past Presidents and no doubt our next President, with the exception of Ron Paul, will pick their cabinet from the membership of this elitist group. The stated purpose of the CFR is “to bring about a New World Order through the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and relations and through international economic interdependence.” These are people that believe in developing a world government in incremental steps. They believe in diluting national sovereignty by merging countries together into economic regions (the European Union, the North American Union)."

Jimmy Carter Says US More Polarized Than During Civil War (1861-64 Secession)

The web site, LAW.COM, run by lawyers, picked up my YouTube re-publication of the Carter statement above, complete with my video description, literally within seconds after I posted it early morning on September 22, 2010:

URL (PDF) OF LAW.COM RE-POST: http://en.calameo.com/books/00074744734a213a271ff

Jimmy Carter Says US More Polarized Than During Civil War (1861-64 Secession)

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

LAW.COM, quoting me writing about President Jimmy Carter and the two secession movements in Canada and USA:

"Former President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter (CFR member and Bilderberg attendee), speaking on Tuesday, 21 September 2010:

"This country has become so polarized that it's almost astonishing.... Not only with the red and blue states... President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we have ever seen -- even maybe than the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the war between the states."

Mr. Carter was the 39th President of the United States (1977-1981), inaugurated on January 20th, 1977.

This clip of Mr. Carter should be viewed in the awareness that Leader of the so-called 'separatist' Bloc Quebecois party in the federal Parliament of Canada, Gilles Duceppe, has been touring Canada in 2010, urging ALL the provinces to "secede". 2010 is the target year in the Council on Foreign Relation's "Building A North American Union" plan which elaborates the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, by laying out the groundwork for the North American Union. Meanwhile, the Model Parliament for North America, launched in the Canadian Senate Chamber in 2005, and with offices out of the University of Montreal under Christine Frechette, with Robert Pastor of American University as co-chair, anticipates NOT a meeting of Canada, the USA and Mexico under a continental parliament -- but the DISMANTLED states and provinces of the USA, Mexico and Canada.

And in this same year, we have north of the 49th parallel and south of the 49th parallel, two secession movements -- the 10th Amendment Movement in the USA, and the "Quebec secession" movement in Canada, preparing to rip the continent apart -- quite conveniently for re-federation into North American Union, almost on schedule. To cinch it, Duceppe sent a letter on 9th June 2010 to 1,600 world leaders and influential figures advising them that a third and final referendum for Quebec to 'secede' is coming. Duceppe's itinerary also indicates he is touring the western hemisphere this Fall to follow up on his letter... clearly, he is arranging the international state recognition of Quebec, which in the international arena will have the effect of DISSOLVING Canada. Here's the letter in English (it went out in English, French, and Spanish):

http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117908d1832596065"

And: http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447e893abfb02bb

For more on the Carter announcement of 21 September 2010, see my blog post here:

http://canadian-state-of-the-union.blogspot.com/2011/06/september-21-2010-jimmy-carter-says-us.html

But, what about Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick?

"Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to push in-state tuition for illegal immigrants"

http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447448f745798ee

Now, that ought to help the North American merger.

Given these facts, is the filing of a 10th-Amendment State-sovereignty resolution under the Constitution of the United States of America really consistent with the Governors of the State of Massachusetts embracing North American Union? Unless the purpose of the Resolution is to lay the basis of a real "secession", controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations through State and Federal officials they thoroughly own and operate.

In my view, Massachusetts is a key candidate for triggering mass-secessions in the USA under its 10th Amendment Resolution, to dismantle North America if Quebec fails to "secede" so as to do it.

Ultimately, to complete the North American Union, both must do it.

There may be other States equally qualified to pull the ripcord.

I think you can see my point. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.

Kathleen Moore

HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com
Facebook . Calameo . Blogspot . CrazyforCanada on YouTube.

THE SOCIALIST MODEL PARLIAMENT FOR NORTH AMERICA

2011-06-14T14:32:00.000-07:00

FIRST POSTED IN FACEBOOK ON 20 APRIL 2010 AT 8:21 A.M.

MODEL PARLIAMENT "FOUNDER" IS ALSO A CHAIR OF "CERIUM" AT U OF MONTREAL. CERIUM IS PUSHING ANTI-CAPITALIST, PRO-SOCIALIST, PRO-GLOBALIST "STUDIES" FOR STUDENTS AND "CONCERNED" MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ALIKE.

This past weekend, on my way down the hall toward the law library at the Université de Montréal, I noticed a small poster stapled to the cork board, and I acquired it. It's in French, I have scanned it :

The English version of the poster’s contents may be found online here:

Original url: http://www.cerium.ca/Capitalism-in-crises

Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790e32f2ce7eb55

The title of the poster poses a question (I'm correcting the English): "Capitalism in Crisis?" and goes on to announce a 6-day "intensive" summer school course, open to "the concerned citizen" as well as to students, and purporting to review capitalism from its birth to the current "crisis". After a short few bullets of sub-topics, the subject veers rapidly to the question: "Toward another model: the rise of economic socialism and solidarity?" And another bullet, "Propositions for the reform of capitalism", and then "Reforms since the crisis - Advances and insufficiencies" and then "the anti-globalists - have they any realistic answers ?" That last bullet seems to imply that globalism is not a wholly autonomous phenomenon…

The blue footer of the "CAPITALISM IN CRISIS" poster declares in French :

"The planet is changing. Eighty experts tell you why and how."

This summer school is apparently designed to portray capitalism as a failure, and globalism and socialism as the solution to the "crisis of capitalism". The department of the Université de Montréal which is sponsoring this summer school is called CERIUM (Le Centre d'études et de recherches internationales) – (Translation : Center for International Studies and Research).

The summer school (and no doubt the variety of other topics on the menu at CERIUM) is of interest for at least two reasons:

(a) because Jean-François LISEE is on the board of CERIUM, and in 1995 he was paid by the Quebec government to advise Premier Jacques Parizeau on "strategy" for the 1995 referendum to break up Canada for the so-called "secession of Quebec".

My nearly seven years of research (to date of this current posting) into the Constitutional law and history of Canada, and of these referendums shows that the secession of Quebec is and always has been a scam to impose the EEC-EU system on Canada, using a threat of secession by Quebec as blackmail to force Canadians to accept the "negotiations" to destroy our own country, contrary to the Constitution which was designed in 1865 to prevent secession and annexation.

(b) The second reason why CERIUM and its anti-capitalist summer course is interesting is because CHRISTINE FRECHETTE is also on the board of CERIUM. Fréchette is the so-called "founder" of the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) which runs the model parliaments for North America with Robert Pastor. NAFI moved its offices from downtown Montreal to the University campus a couple of years ago. We thus have a direct academic correlation between Jean-François LISEE advising strategy in an effort to destroy Canada in 1995 by the phoney secession of Quebec, and CHRISTINE FRECHETTE, leading the model parliament intended to replace the Parliament of Canada – and the Congress of the USA and the parliament of Mexico. Here is LISEE’s short bio from a page in CERIUM :

Jean-François Lisée

Directeur exécutif du Centre d’études et de recherches internationales de l’Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM), l’auteur fut conseiller diplomatique des premiers ministres indépendantistes du Québec , Jacques Parizeau et Lucien Bouchard.

TRANSLATION (by Kathleen Moore for Habeas Corpus Canada):

Jean-François Lisée is Executive Director of the Center for International Studies and Research at the Universite de Montreal (CERIUM). He was diplomatic adviser to separatist Premiers of Quebec JACQUES PARIZEAU and LUCIEN BOUCHARD.

It should be noted that Jean-François LISEE is also the author of IN THE EYE OF THE EAGLE, a non-fiction research account of Canada-US politics in the latter half of the last century with a focus on Quebec. I based my video WHISPER (Part I) in part on LISEE’s research (founded on American diplomatic notes of the time) and disclosing the secret committee of Power Corporation of Canada involving Pierre Elliott Trudeau and others in escalating radical separatism by infiltrating French-Canadian organizations :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFMzhuRpDew

That particular book chapter is scanned and online here :

http://calameo.com/books/000111790f1bc6388c506

Now, here is a CERIUM page from 2010 featuring Christine Fréchette; my translation of her two-line bio follows below.

Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790fc34cf4bfa25

Original url: http://www.cerium.ca/Dilemme-budgetaire-pour-Obama

Christine Fréchette

Christine Fréchette est coordonnatrice de la Chaire d’études politiques et économiques américaines et de la Chaire d’études du Mexique contemporain du CÉRIUM. Elle dirige également le FINA et agit régulièrement comme analyste de la politique américaine dans les médias.

TRANSLATION (by Kathleen Moore for Habeas Corpus Canada):

Christine Fréchette coordinates the Chair in American political and economic studies and the Chair of studies of contemporary Mexico at CERIUM. She also directs NAFI and on a regular basis, acts as an analyst of American policy in the mass media.

It would thus be reasonable to conclude that the model parliament for North America being shepherded by the self-appointed Ms. Fréchette is an institution of the post-capitalist "crisis" -- in other words, a full-blown socialist-communist rubber parliament designed solely for the sake of "democratic" appearances.

Kathleen Moore

HABEAS CORPUS CANADA

The Official Legal Challenge

To North American Union

www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/crazyforcanada/

Blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

Blog: http://canadian-state-of-the-union.blogspot.com/

Blog: http://northamericansovietunion.blogspot.com/

FACEBOOK . CALAMEO . BLOGSPOT . HCCANADA & HABEASCORPUSCDA in ESPACECANOE (my French channels)

HAS THE FAR-LEFT HIJACKED THE QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT?

2011-06-12T20:59:00.000-07:00

TRANSLATOR'S FOREWORD

Those who follow my posts and blogs will know that I am a proud Canadian. If I have chosen to translate an important document on the infiltration of the Quebec sovereignty movement by communists, written by a fellow Canadian who wrote it plainly as a sovereigntist, it is in part because true patriotism does not exclude an understanding of the patriotism of others. It is also because the well-being of my fellow French Canadians is inextricably linked to the well-being of all of us.

In a culture of freedom, infiltration is the most base treachery. It may rise to treason. The very notion that communists have been able to invade and deform patriotic sentiment in Quebec, or elsewhere in Canada, is an appalling assault upon the right to be a patriot. In honor of freedom, and of true patriots, I dedicate this translation of a report by an author who remains anonymous.

-- Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada, 16 June 2011

_________

* The original French title of this piece is « L'Extrême gauche responsable de la déroute du mouvement souverainiste ? » The author is anonymous.

HAS THE FAR-LEFT HIJACKED THE QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT?

The following document will attempt to demonstrate the influence of the far-left at the heart of the Quebec sovereigntist milieu, and to explain the recent crushing electoral defeat of the Bloc Québécois in favour of Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party.

GILLES DUCEPPE

Youth

Born in 1947, Gilles Duceppe grew up in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve working-class district of Montreal, in accommodations that his family shared with his two grandparents, an uncle and an aunt. He still lives in the area.

His father, the popular actor, Jean Duceppe, had always been involved in politics and trade unionism. During his studies, Gilles will follow in the steps of his father.

His father, Jean Duceppe

Jean Duceppe, the father of Gilles Duceppe, is a founding member of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) led by Jack Layton today.

A popular actor, Jean Duceppe was always involved in politics and trade-unionism. The father, like his son, was exceedingly influenced by the ideology of the far-left, to such a point that he was a founding member of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1961.³ The NDP is that party farthest to the left on the Canadian political chessboard; we will return to it later.

Political Career

In 1970, at the age of 23, Gilles Duceppe becomes a member of the Parti Québécois, where he rises rapidly through the ranks to work as political organizer and secretary to candidate Robert Burns, one of seven Parti Québécois nominees who will be elected in April of 1970.

Robert Burns^[a] comes from the left-wing of the Parti Québécois and has worked as a technical adviser to La Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux (CSN) ^[b]. In 1966, he is promoted to management of legal services for that trade union.

One can therefore understand why Robert Burns should be the one to take Gilles Duceppe under his wing.

In 1973, three years after joining the Parti Québécois, Gilles Duceppe, who is now 26 years of age, allows himself to be tempted by the radical far-left, first within the newspaper En lutte !^[c], (literally, Struggle), then in the Marxist-Leninist Communist League, and then again in the Communist Workers’ Party (PCO).

Françoise David also campaigned at the side of Gilles Duceppe within the En lutte! newspaper (see the section on Québec Solidaire^[d]).

In the 1980 referendum, Gilles Duceppe, who was 33 years of age at that time, did not vote “Yes”, because to do so was interdicted by the Communist Workers’ Party (PCO).⁶ When it came to a choice between the far-left and the independence of the Quebec people, we can therefore see which one took precedence with Gilles Duceppe, and this at an age when his choices cannot be attributed to youthful indiscretion.

From 1983 to 1990, Gilles Duceppe became a union adviser and negotiator at the CSN; this was during the same period as Gérald Larose^[e] of the Conseil de la Souveraineté du Québec (CSQ) (i.e., the Quebec Sovereignty Council).⁷ It was even the same union local as Robert Burns, the man for whom Gilles Duceppe had worked at the Parti Québécois when he was 23.⁸

COOPERATION BETWEEN THE FAR-LEFT
AND THE SOVEREIGNTIST PARTIES

Very few people know that for a long while there has been cooperation between the Parti Québécois and the far-left; in fact, this goes right back to the PQ's early beginnings. For example, there was a Conference of the Quebec Left in Montreal on the 20th and 21st of November 1981 which reunited not only none other than the CSN union locals (i.e., Robert Burns), the F.T.Q. and La Centrale des Enseignants du Quebec (C.E.Q.) (i.e, the Quebec Teachers’ Union), but also the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Parti Québécois, and the Communist Party of Québec.⁹

As concerns the C.S.N., from 1983 to 1999, Gérald Larose, who is president of the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec, had for some time been president of the Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux (CSN).

The links between the sovereigntist milieu and the communist-style far left are still current news because the Communist Party of Québec called upon its sympathisers to massively support the Bloc Québécois during the recent federal elections of May 2nd, 2011:

[TRANSLATION:]

“The Communist Party of Québec calls for a massive vote for the Bloc Québécois, except in the ridings of Outremont (where the Bloc Québécois has no chance of taking it and where the NDP Member, Thomas Mulcair, deserves to be re-elected); the same goes for the riding of Gatineau-Aylmer where Nicole Turmel, who for many years was a respected union manager, and who, in the last provincial elections had also called for a vote for Québec Solidaire, is also running for the NDP. In these particular federalist ridings, the CPQ would rather call for a vote for the NDP."¹⁰

The Communist Party of Québec (CPQ) does publicity for the newspaper Le Québécois, which is run by Patrick Bourgeois.^[f] André Parizeau, leader of the Communist Party of Québec^[g], was present at the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the newspaper. There is also a link to the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (RRQ) at their web site.¹²

Why establish such ties of cooperation if the sovereigntist organizations have no ideological links with the far-left? Who would wish to run the risk of associating himself with an ideology responsible for millions of deaths across the world unless he has the same ideas and goals?

AND THE NDP IN ALL THIS?

As mentioned above, Gilles Duceppe’s father, Jean Duceppe, was a founding member of the NDP; so was Philippe Vaillancourt, honorary president of the Fédération des Travailleurs et Travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) in 1956.¹³

Today, the NDP is a full member of the Socialist International,¹⁴ a globalist political association which brings together socialist and communist parties of all stripes. The Socialist International moreover congratulated the NDP and its leader Jack Layton on their performance during the May 2nd, 2011 federal elections.¹⁵

A provincial branch of the NDP has already existed in Québec. The NDPQ (New Democratic Party of Québec) was founded in the 1960s as the result of a concerted effort by the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ), one of the principal workers’ trade union locals in Québec at the time.¹⁶

On June 30th, 1963, a provisional organizing committee of the NPDQ was elected, composed of none other than Charles Taylor.^{17, 18} One and the same Charles Taylor of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on "reasonable accommodation". Quite a coincidence, no?!

The NDPQ was later merged with the Communist Party of Québec which in turn merged with the Union des Forces Progressiste (UFP) to finally merge with none other than Québec Solidaire.¹⁹ Charles Taylor makes no effort to hide it: he had run for the NDP "since the Middle Ages," to borrow his own expression. The Professor wore the NDP’s campaign colors four times in the 1960s. In 1965, he ran for the Liberals, finishing second behind Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the riding of Mount-Royal.²⁰

Without a doubt, politics makes strange bedfellows!

To top it all off, the mysterious NDP constitution is not easily accessible to the public. According to a number of contemporary commentators, journalists and politicians, it is emphatically Marxist-Leninist in inspiration.^{21, 22, 23, 24}

QUÉBEC SOLIDAIRE

As was said before, Québec Solidaire emerged from a fusion of the New Democratic Party of Quebec and the Communist Party of Quebec.

Amir Khadir, moreover, declared that the rise of the federal NPD was hoped for by a number of "progressive" sovereigntists:

[TRANSLATION:]

"A strong ascent for the NDP was desired by a number of progressive sovereigntists, including me. But not at the price of sweeping out the Bloc Québécois. Québec Solidaire had moreover called for a vote to support progressive candidates, whether bloquist or new-democrat."²⁵

We are thus not far here from the official position of the Communist Party of Quebec, as cited above.

Does Québec Solidaire have sovereignty at heart, or the promotion of far-left “progressive” ideas?

Also, Françoise David was an activist with the Marxist-Leninist organization, En lutte! from 1977 to 1982.²⁶ The same organization as Gilles Duceppe, and during the same time-frame!

Amir Khadir confirmed his past support for l'Organisation des Moudjahiddines du peuple iranien (OMPI), an Islamic socialist organization devoted to the overthrow of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.²⁷ He also ran under the banner of the Bloc Québécois in 2000.²⁸ If a politician as far left as Amir Kadhir felt so at ease with the Bloc Québécois, there must be a good (ideological) reason?

A number of the adjutants of Québec Solidaire entertain questionable links with far-left microgroups such as anarchists and communists, certain of which are very active in Quebec community groups and college and university student associations.

One of these is Simon Tremblay-Pépin, seen in the photo below in company of Amir Khadir.

Simon Tremblay-Pépin is a strategy adviser of Québec Solidaire (QS) and presented by Françoise David as a pillar of the party.²⁹

Url: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=547712075

In addition to his involvement with Québec Solidaire (QS), Simon Tremblay-Pépin took his doctorate in political science at York University and his journalism degree at UQAM. He was co-editor-in-chief of the satirical newspaper Le Couac, in charge of the political committee of Québec Solidaire, and student representative on the Board of Directors of UQAM. He was a researcher at the Institut de Recherche et d’Information Socio-économique (IRIS) (i.e., Research and Socio-Economic Information Institute).

His militancy does not end with his involvement in Québec Solidaire; Simon Tremblay- Pépin routinely collaborates with extreme-left microgroups, including:

L’Union communiste Libertaire (UCL)
(“The Libertarian communist Union”)

The UCL has its tentacles into a number of regions in Québec, with chapters mainly in Montréal, Québec, and Saguenay. The UCL disseminates its own magazine, Cause Commune, (i.e., Common Cause) promoting communist and anarchist ideology.³⁰ The following collectives, Le Collectif Emma-Goldman and Voix de Faits, are two groups affiliated with the Union communiste Libertaire (UCL).³¹

The Voix de Faits collective (UCL-Québec)

On March 18, 2011, Simon Tremblay-Pépin took part in a radio conference organized by the Voix de Faits collective, press arm of the anarchist collective La Nuit, the latter an affiliate of the UCL in Québec City.³²

Le Collectif Emma Goldman (UCL-Saguenay)

On 21 October 2010, Simon Tremblay-Pépin acted as a panelist at a conference entitled "Liberal Budget: how to make the government retreat?" organized by Le Collectif Emma-Goldman.³³

During the conférence organized by Le Collectif Emma-Goldman, in which Simon Tremblay-Pépin took part with other interlocutors plainly affiliated with groups from the extreme-left, we find a certain Étienne David-Bellemare, President of the Syndicat des Étudiants et Étudiantes syndiqué(e)s de l’Université du Québec à (Chicoutimi SEEE-UQAC), and spokesman for Le Collectif Emma-Goldman, both affiliated with the group UCL-Saguenay.^{34, 35}

In addition to his trade union and communist activities, Étienne David-Bellemare is a research assistant with the Canada Research Chair on Democracy and Sovereignty at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. He organized the most recent conference entitled "Secularism and cultural and religious pluralism in Quebec society" which took place from March 29th to 31st, 2011 at UQAC and in which Gérard Bouchard of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission was an invited guest speaker.^{36, 37}

Étienne David-Bellemare is none other than the son of Françoise David of Québec Solidaire.³⁸ Françoise David had her son Étienne by a first spouse from whom she separated a year after the child's birth.³⁹ It is also interesting to note that Étienne, more radical in his ideas than some of his "comrades in arms," took issue with Patrick Bourgeois, qualifying the latter as a xenophobe promoting primary nationalism.⁴⁰

As if that were not enough, Simon Tremblay-Pépin and Étienne David-Bellemare are connected in the social network, Facebook:

Ultimately, our research on Simon Tremblay-Pépin led us to discover that he maintains serious links on the social network Facebook with radical groups such as UCL-Québec, UCL-Montréal, Collectif Rebelles (i.e., Rebels Collective), Ya Basta ! (Spanish, roughly meaning "Enough is Enough!"), etcetera. It is impossible to know whether these groups are part of his list of friends, or are merely contacts…

What is Le Collectif Emma-Goldman?⁴¹

They define themselves as follows:

[TRANSLATION:]

"The Emma Goldman anarchist collective is a political organization active in the Saguenay region since 2008. We militate in favour of social combat movements and the emergence of an open and broad libertarian Left. We are affiliated with the Union communiste libertaire (UCL).

The collective seeks to advance the emergence of a radical and incisive fighting Left. We refuse to be defenceless victims! The flaccidity of the reformists plays the game of the populist right. The era of courtesy is at an end. It is necessary to intensify the criticism of Populism, to assert our rejection of the moral order, of security discourse, of nationalism and militarism. The values of liberty, equality, of sharing and of solidarity must serve as the counterpoise. The status quo is not an option, we should no longer hesitate to act and to be revolutionary and libertarian."

What is the Voix de Faits collective?⁴²

They define themselves like this:

[TRANSLATION:]

"Voix de faits is the media arm --web and radio-- of the anarchist collective La Nuit (UCL-Québec). Become a fan and follow our Blog with Facebook... [We never cease to forge ahead].

'Voix de faits’ seeks to advance the emergence of a radical and incisive fighting Left. We refuse to be defenceless victims! The flaccidity of the reformists plays the game of the populist right. The era of courtesy is at an end. It is necessary to intensify the criticism of Populism, to assert our rejection of the moral order, of security discourse, of nationalism and militarism. The values of liberty, equality, of sharing and of solidarity must serve as the counterpoise. The status quo is not an option, we should no longer hesitate to be anti-system, révolutionary and libertarian. The libertarian resistance must give itself the means to achieve its ambitions. By implementing a daily political intervention, ‘Voix de faits’ is marching in that direction."

Those are quite the connections for a political party which claims to align itself with the national aspirations of the Québécois! Microgroups that totally reject Nationalism and the Moral Order...

Are we dealing with a single political party that is acting on a number of fronts? In other words, an initial front which consists of allying itself with nationalist movements on the one hand while on the other hand opposing and denouncing the concept of nationalism and its virtues? Are we dealing with a party whose fundamental business is the political infiltration of that to which it is fundamentally opposed?

Finally, Québec Solidaire recently affirmed a wish to marginalize its own "radical left". This is far from being a done deal; worse still, it seems to be part of a strategy of trivialization of their radical wing.⁴³ A number of journalists have come to the same conclusion: Amir Khadir and Françoise David, and their acolytes, are fanatics of the far-left.^{44, 45, 46, 47}

GÉRARD BOUCHARD ET CHARLES TAYLOR

Although not directly involved in the sovereigntist milieux, Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor are close to some of the major players directly or indirectly linked to various parties or movements of the far-left.

As said before, Gérard Bouchard co-chaired the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, besides being a professor of sociology at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC), the same University where Étienne David-Bellemare had organized the conference on "Secularism and cultural and religious pluralism in Québéc society" with Gérard Bouchard as a guest speaker.⁴⁸ This raises serious questions concerning the possible links that may be fostered by these two people in the same establishment.

Is it possible that Étienne David-Bellemare has been taken under the wing of Gérard Bouchard? The question can be seriously posed when one knows that Étienne is the son of such a well known political personality.

As well, it is interesting to note that Gérard Bouchard does not hide his political preference for Québec Solidaire, for during the lecture at McGill University as part of the prestigious "Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton Lecture 2010", he said that throughout the debate on "reasonable accommodation," Québec solidaire was the most "straightfoward" party, thus being the "best behaved" of all Québec's political parties.⁴⁹

As well, Québec solidaire, through its two spokespersons, approved the full content of the Bouchard-Taylor report the same day of its publication… Could that be just a coincidence?⁵⁰

And what are we to make of the declaration of Gérard Bouchard to the effect that we must "all together, throw OUR roots onto the next Saint-Jean Baptiste bonfire"?⁵¹ It is no secret to anyone that Mr. Bouchard conducted himself like a good "Soviet commissar" during the Commission on reasonable accommodation, dictating to the participants what to say and what to think instead of giving ear to the public's anxiety.⁵²

Moreover, is it possible that Mr. Gérard Bouchard could endorse the militants and ideas of the far-left, notably when we know that the principal organizer of the Symposium comes from such a radical sphere of influence?

Besides, as was said before in the section on the NDP, Charles Taylor was a member of the New Democratic Party of Quebec (NDPQ) and an NDP candidate during the 1960s.^{53, 54} In fact, Charles Taylor is the political guru of Jack Layton, leader of the NPD.⁵⁵

During the 2008 federal election campaign, Charles Taylor showed up to support Thomas Mulcair, NDP candidate in the riding of Westmount-Ville-Marie. We see him in this photo beside Julius Grey, a Montreal lawyer renowned for representing a diverse range of legal causes in large part linked to "reasonable accommodation" of a religious nature.⁵⁶

Are we to deduce that the NDP, like Québec Solidaire, is a party which defends and promotes "open secularism," which consists in supporting religious causes other than Catholic? It is very strange that ex-commissioner Taylor could have been portrayed as an impartial person to act as commissioner, when the NDP party for which he has already run and which he still supports today, is far from promoting "open secularism" for all. . .

Which also leaves substantial room for doubt as to the political preferences of Charles Taylor… who, all in all, never had the impartiality necessary to chair such a commission on "reasonable accommodation".

Finally, it is quite ominous that both leaders of the Bouchard-Taylor commission are so closely involved with the anti-nationalist far-left and with political parties like Québec solidaire and the NDP which promote "open secularism". Can we really count on them to settle the debate on national identity, secularism and reasonable accommodation? The answer is no.

THE CREATION OF THE CÉGEPS: INTENSIVE FAR-LEFT
"PROGRESSIVE" EDUCATION

The CÉGEPS were created in 1967 with the passage of Bill 60 in the Quebec National Assembly.

It was also a time of rapid expansion of the Quebec university and college network. The social studies faculties were quick to embrace a vulgarized version of French university Marxism from the 1960s, recycled through countless professors recruited in Europe or via mass-hiring of Quebecers fresh from the mould of their studies in France. This is how an entire generation of young Quebecers was initiated to "Marxism", to "communism" and to "anarchism" through "philosophy" courses dispensed in our collegiate and university institutions.^{57, 58}

It is also interesting to note that the former Centrale des Enseignants du Quebec (CEQ), (i.e., Quebec Teachers Union), the principal union of teachers of that era which had participated in the famous "Conference of the Left"⁵⁹ with the C.S.N. (i.e., Gérald Larose), the F.T.Q. (i.e., the NDPQ), the NDP, the Parti Québécois, and the Communist Party of Québec. As one example of the influence of the far-left in the school system, there was a recent workshop on an introduction to libertarian communism at the Cégep in Alma, Québec with the permission of school management.^{60, 61} " We never cease to forge ahead. . ."

Quebec universities have not been spared. We can cite one example, the case of David Bellemare, President of the Student and Employees Union of UQAC and Research Assistant for the Canada Chair on Democracy and Sovereignty at the University of Québec at Chicoutimi.⁶²

CONCLUSION

Considering the political origins of Gilles Duceppe, we are entitled to wonder if the fall of the Bloc was not entirely orchestrated by the Bloc itself with a view to extending the influence of the far-left over English Canada by delivering the keys to political power to the NDP, of which his own father was a founding member. A kind of return to one's sources?

The doubts grow considering the intention to form a coalition with Jack Layton's NDP, a man whom Gilles Duceppe ironically called a "dangerous socialist".⁶³ When one looks at the facts, as Dawson College Professor of History Frédéric Bastien said: "we can better understand the extent to which the Bloc itself sawed off the branch it was seated on".⁶⁴ Perhaps it's even easier to saw it off by pre-arrangement?

And this, without even taking into account the involvement of the various players, near and far, linked into the sovereignty and independence movements.

In light of all the facts, it becomes hard to think that the far-left and its worthy representatives have been unable to exploit the sovereignist movements at every level of the political classes, by infiltration.

Today we have the sad evidence. . .

_________

FOOTNOTED DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN PDF FORMAT:

Or click here to download the PDF'd Footnotes in a ZIP file (25MB unpacked).

Footnotes

¹ CBCNews.ca - Canada Votes 2008, Leaders, Gilles Duceppe, elegant separatist (Original url: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/leadersparties/leaders-duceppe.html)

² CBC News - Canada Votes 2006, Leaders, Gilles Duceppe, Bloc Québécois (Original url: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavo tes2006/leadersparties/leaders/bio_duceppe.html)
³ Jean Duceppe - Wikipédia (Original url: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Duceppe)

⁴ Le Jeune Militant, Radio-Canada Nouvelles 2007-05-10 (Original url: http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/20 07/05/10/005-bio_duceppe_militant.shtml)

⁵ Robert Burns (homme politique québécois) Wikipédia (Original url: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Burns_(homme_politique_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois)

⁶ Le Jeune Militant, Radio-Canada Nouvelles 2007-05-10 (Original url: http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/20 07/05/10/005-bio_duceppe_militant.shtml)

⁷ Gilles Duceppe : L'homme qui détestait l'improvisation, Cyberpresse.ca, Le Soleil, Raymond Giroux, 2011-04-01 (Original url: http://en.calameo.com/books/0007474475c7cda79c43c
Original url: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/dossiers/elections-federales/201104/01/01-4385767-gilles-duceppe-lhomme-qui-detestait-limprovisation.php)

⁸ Gilles Duceppe, un homme blessé, L'ex-chef du Bloc envoie un message au PQ: sous-estimer la défaite serait une erreur, Guillaume Bourgault-Côté (Le Devoir 14 mai 2011) (Original url: http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/323373/gilles-duceppe-un-homme-blesse)

⁹ Colloque de la gauche québécoise par Claire Sasylva (COMBAT, 25 septembre 1981, p. 4) (Original url: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dwpOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c60DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4577%2C1162941)
¹⁰ Positions du PCQ sur les prochaines élections fédérales (2 mai 2011) par Gabriel Proulx, co-porte parole du PCQ (Original url: http://www.pcq.qc.ca/Dossiers/Modeles/index.html?id=Accueil/page_article.htm?article_id=758&table_de_l_application=articles&lang=fr )
¹¹ Le 14 mai dernier (2011): une soirée réellement motivante par Gabriel Proulx, co-porte parole du PCQ (Original url: http://www.pcq.qc.ca/Dossiers/Modeles/index.html?id=Autres/Archives/page_article.htm?article_id=812&lang=fr)

¹² Positions du PCQ sur les prochaines élections fédérales (2 mai 2011) par Gabriel Proulx, co-porte parole du PCQ (Original url: http://www.pcq.qc.ca/Dossiers/Modeles/index.html?id=Accueil/page_article.htm?article_id=758&table_de_ l_application=articles&lang=fr)

¹³ Fonds d’archives Philippe Vaillancourt ( 127P ) Service des archives et de gestion des documents, Université du Québec à Montréal (Original url: http://www.archives.uqam.ca/pages/archives_privees/genere_rdaq.asp?varcote=127P)

¹⁴ Partis membres de plein droit, Internationale socialiste, XXIII Congrès de l’Internationale Socialiste, Athènes, Solidarité mondiale : Le courage de faire la différence, 30 juin-02 juillet 2008 (Original url: http://www.internationalesocialiste.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=1269)

¹⁵ Résultats sans précédent pour les Nouveaux Démocrates Canadiens ( 06 mai 2011) Internationale Socialiste (Original url: http://www.internationalesocialiste.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2111)

¹⁶ Nouveau Parti démocratique du Québec, Wikipédia, L'encyclopédie libre (Original url: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_Parti_d%C3%A9mocratique_du_Qu%C3%A9bec)

¹⁷ Nouveau Parti démocratique du Québec, Wikipédia, L'encyclopédie libre (Original url: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_Parti_d%C3%A9mocratique_du_Qu%C3%A9bec)

¹⁸ La Presse, 2 juillet 1963 (citée dans R. Denis, 1979) : Roch Denis, Luttes de classes et question nationale au Québec, 1948-1968, Presses socialistes internationales, Montréal, Études et documentation internationales, Paris, 1979, ISBN 2-89136-000-1, à la page 269, 2ième Référence.

¹⁹ L'Union des forces progressistes (UFP), Wikipédia, L'encyclopédie libre (Original url: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_des_forces_progressistes)

²⁰ The NDP's missing constitution, by Leslie MacKinnon (CBC News, April 27, 2011 6:00 PM)
(Original url: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-ndps-missing-constitution.html)

²¹ Terence Corcoran: Jack Layton’s hidden agenda (NDP’s hidden constitution opposes profits, backs ‘social ownership’) Apr 29, 2011 – 8:28 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 29, 2011 8:35 PM ET (Original url: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/29/terence-corcoran-jack-layton%E2%80%99s-hid den-agenda/)

²² Terence Corcoran: Jack Layton’s hidden agenda (NDP’s hidden constitution opposes profits, backs ‘social ownership’) Apr 29, 2011 – 8:28 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 29, 2011 8:35 PM ET (Original url: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/29/terence-corcoran-jack-layton%E2%80%99s-hid den-agenda/)

²³ «L'inamovible WAC Bennett», Radio-Canada archives. «Aux élections du 27 août 1969, William Andrew Cecil Bennett, surnommé WAC Bennett... chef du Crédit social traite ses principaux adversaires, les néo-démocrates, de marxistes-leninistes.» (Original url: http://archives.radio-canada.ca/politique/elections/clips/11325/)

²⁴ «Charles Taylor analyse la défaite du NPD.» Radio-Canada. Date de diffusion : 12 décembre 1975. Le politologue Charles Taylor commente le résultat des élections de 1975 en Colombie-Britannique. (Original url: http://archives.radio-canada.ca/politique/elections/clips/11335/)

IF 50%+1 IS BINDING, THE "NO" WON IN 1995 !

2011-06-08T13:59:00.000-07:00

All that changes is the name. But it all means NORTH AMERICAN UNION.

"In both 1980 and 1995, Quebec showed a willingness to negotiate ... an association or partnership agreement with Canada once it became a sovereign state so that people, goods and capital could circulate freely between the two countries."

Source: "Brace for Referendum" - Letter to 1600 world leaders by GILLES DUCEPPE, Leader of the Bloc Québécois federal political party (Ottawa, 9 June 2010) http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790f2e34849cf5b

In the Huffington Post of 27 May 2011, Liberal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Pierre Moreau is reported as saying that 50% + 1 vote is a binding outcome for the YES in a referendum for Quebec to "secede".

Layton Attempts to Clarify 50 + 1 - Quebec Referendum to Secede (Huffington 27 May 2011)

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Moreau is no doubt referring to the "statute" linked here, which some call simply Quebec's "referendum law". It's NOT really a "referendum law," but let's pretend it is.

An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State R.S.Q., chapter E-20.2

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Its section 4 states:

"4. When the Québec people is consulted by way of a referendum under the Referendum Act (chapter C-64.1), the winning option is the option that obtains a majority of the valid votes cast, namely 50% of the valid votes cast plus one."

If 50%+1 is binding for the YES, then obviously, fairness dictates that it's binding for the NO. If it's binding NOW, it should always have been binding -- otherwise, it wouldn't be "fair", right? It would not be fair for a sore loser to constantly change the rules to WIN, right?

Well, in 1995, the NO was 50% + 54,288 votes, not counting over 86,000 NO ballots that were maliciously spoiled by election workers. That means, that if the referendums are legal (denied), the 1995 NO is BINDING, and Canada WINS.

According to CBC archives online:

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/federal_politics/topics/1891-12469/

"In the end, 50.58 per cent of Quebecers voted against the sovereignty question, or a total of 2,362,648 votes. The Yes side garnered 49.42 per cent, or a total of 2,308,360 votes.

• Just 1.16 per cent of the total vote - or 54,288 votes - separated the two sides. That's less than the capacity crowd for a CFL game at Montreal's Olympic Stadium."

Therefore, in 1995, the NO vote was binding and WON by NOT just the razor-thin 50% + 1, but by 50% + 54,288, which is 54,287 MORE than required by the QUEBEC referendum "law" to PUT A PERMANENT STOP TO THE ILLEGAL REFERENDUMS !!!

However, these illegal referendums are NOT about Quebec "seceding", they are about dissolving Canada for North American Union. On 30 April 2011, a few days before the May 2nd federal election, citizen-journalist ERIC GRANGER and camerawoman SOPHIE LE PAVOUX, captured GILLES DUCEPPE voluntarily admitting that what he wants for Quebec and Canada is a North American Union, based on "a good treaty" like they have in Europe:

Video: GILLES DUCEPPE WANTS A NORTH AMERICAN UNION (French with English subtitles)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-mIN7GMQdI&feature=channel_video_title

However, as we know, North American Union has been openly underway since after 9/11 under the names of "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and "Building a North American Community -- which former Ambassador to the USA Allan Gotlieb declared was the "provocative agent". Gotlieb said that prior to 9/11, nobody had "thought" of creating a North American Union. He was lying.

The Quebec referendums to "secede" have ALWAYS sought mandates to "negotiate" an EEC-EU-style UNION. René Lévesque called it "The Canadian Union" and "The Canadian Community", just as we now call it "The North American Union" and "The North American Community". The only thing that changed with Parizeau in 1995 was the NAME of the game. He called it "Sovereignty Partnership" -- which is more like the "Security and Prosperity Partnership". But they all come down to the same thing. The Quebec referendums to "secede" are a seditious and illegal scam to force Canadians to accept the EU system in place of Confederation, using a threat of Quebec "secession" as blackmail to get the job done.

When both the 1980 and 1995 phony referendums to "secede" had failed, 9/11 happened, throwing a US-controlled military perimeter around Canada, to begin the long-delayed vertical integration of Canada into the USA -- which would have begun a great deal sooner had those controlling the illegal referendums had their way. Faced with repeated failures to force Quebec to 'secede' into the EEC-EU system, it was the elites' desire for North American Union that became the "provocative agent" for 9/11.

The supranational elites and the multinational corporations have ALWAYS exploited Quebec as their intended "wrecking ball" to take down Canada for a regional continental union modeled on the EU. There are EU-style unions forming on all the continents -- conveniently spreading the same laws, the same form of government, the same trade and monetary policies, and the same non-democratic controls -- ALL IN THE SAME TINY CIRCLE OF ELITE HANDS -- all across the world.

This is world government forming, and they will not stop hammering on Quebec because they need Quebec to trigger the political dismantling of Canada, and thus of North America, to complete the structural integration that began with Free Trade and NAFTA, which were BOTH responses to the FAILED referendum to "secede" of 1980. In other words, when the referendums fail to integrate the EEC-EU horizontally across Canada at a single blow, VERTICAL, continental integration proceeds via fake accords like Free Trade and NAFTA, pending a final referendum to "secede" in order to complete the continental union.

That union, sought since well before 1980, and planned since well before the Treaty of Rome was signed in Europe in 1957 -- see the 1941 Gomberg map of world unions (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=116430275057791&topic=219) was fast-tracked by the SPP on the pretext of 9/11.

Quebec secession + 9/11 = North American Union . . .

. . .and WORLD GOVERNMENT.

In the Brussels Journal of 27 February 2006, former Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, pointed out that member nations of Europe had been forced to vote repeatedly for the Maastricht treaty. He said, "The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting." Said Bukovsky of the referendums, "It is a trick for idiots."

(Brussels Journal, 27 February 2006)

Vladimir Bukovsky on EU Referendums: "It's a trick for idiots" (Brussels Journal, 27 February 2006)

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Well, now. If YES means "Quebec is a country" and then we stop voting, the NO has to mean "Canada is a country" and we also stop the voting.

I am hereby serving notice on the Quebec referendum riggers: WE ARE NOT IDIOTS.

The NO has won twice in illegal plebiscites in 1980 and 1995 to convert Canada by "treaty" into the basis of a North American Union. The NO is final. BOTH TIMES. Not because it's "democratic," but because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL and high treason by parties attempting to use the public to cover their own acts of disloyalty and treachery.

Nor will NDP's Jack Layton trick us into "amending" the Constitution à la Charlottetown to get the same thing: "associate state" status to eradicate the Canadian provinces for the Marxist North American Union of the Rockefellers, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Soros, the Trilaterals, Bilderberg, and the Rhodes network including Power Corporation, the CFR, the CIC and the Queen-sanctioned RIIA in London, all working so hard for a one-world government. Kiss it goodbye, folks!

Canadians are onto the scam, and Habeas Corpus Canada is waiting for you.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Main blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

FACEBOOK . CALAMEO . BLOGSPOT . YOUTUBE - CRAZYFORCANADA
.

NAFTA, NORTH AMERCAN UNION & THE "NEW EUROPEAN SOVIET" -- VILIUS BRAZENAS, September 6, 2004

2010-10-12T20:51:00.000-07:00

Blogger's Note: I have altered the title a bit to attract the reader who might otherwise pass by.

_______________

The "New European Soviet": the European Union is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. Under NAFTA and the proposed FTAA, U.S. policymakers have adopted the same socialist EU program

by Vilius Brazenas | Sept 6, 2004 | The New American

I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.

Vilius Bražėnas - Kad tiek kovų nenueitų veltui (1-ma dalis)

VideoLife Uzerinden Izle
[If anyone can understand... I presume this is Lithuanian he's speaking... this is the man, Mr. Vilius Brazenas. There are a number of other videos of him at this source page: http://www.videolife.tk/video/z9r64XbiUm8/Vilius-Bra%C5%BE%C4%97nas-Kad-tiek-kov%C5%B3-nenueit%C5%B3-veltui-1-ma-dalis.html]

Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen--both American and Lithuanian--about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective--to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate--the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as "the new European Soviet." He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a "common European home" stretching "from the Atlantic to the Urals," as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, "I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal." On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, "I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world." He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: "I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a 'common European home' finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe...."

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a "common European home" and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn't the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

A Revolutionary Coup d'Etat

In their powerful expose, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as "a slow-motion coup d'etat: the most spectacular coup d'etat in history." In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about. It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTA-FTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d'etat in the Americas.

The "European project," as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a "free trade" agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, "slow-motion" political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as "Mr. Socialist," was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that "the most effective way to disguise their project's political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a 'common market.'"

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, overarching "community" independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as "integration," "harmonization," and "convergence." In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain's major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. "Twenty years ago, when the process began," he wrote, "there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation."

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press--which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

* Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU's newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.

* Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction--from the member states to the central government.

* Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with overriding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.

* Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens--including terrorists--to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe--much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.

* Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.

* Destroying agriculture. The EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.

* Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to "impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable." That means direct taxes on individuals.

* Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional "common market" for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union." At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the "ensemble of connections" while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the "new world order" Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU--"integration," "harmonization," "convergence"--to describe their "American project." They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan--or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the "new American Soviet."

________________

________________

Originally published: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/4826-the-qnew-european-sovietq

Re-published: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_18_20/ai_n25095870/

UPDATE ON THE AUTHOR:

Few other human beings were eye witnesses to, and participants in, events of the 20th Century as was Vilius Brazenas. A survivor of wars, revolution, plague, famine, foreign military occupations and forced deportations, he became a tireless champion of freedom and unyielding foe of totalitarianism in all its forms. Mr. Brazenas passed away at the age of 97, in a hospital in Vilnius, Lithuania, on October 3 following complications from a recent fall.

"Vilius Brazenas: Lithuanian-American Freedom Fighter Extraordinaire"
The New American, Friday, 08 October 2010 18:00
Written by William F. Jasper

Url: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/4823-vilius-brazenas-lithuanian-american-freedom-fighter-extraordinaire

________________

A light has gone out, but his flame still burns bright in our darkness.
Thank you, Mr. Brazenas.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Faire sécession vers l'Union nord-Américain

2010-09-02T14:54:00.000-07:00

Les sentiments des Québécois français sont impitoyablement exploités afin de créer une fausse association de «l'indépendance» à la question référendaire trompeuse qui demande en realite qu'un « mandat de négocier souveraineté-association.»

« Souveraineté-association » (1980) à savoir « souveraineté-partenariat » (1995) n'est pas l'indépendance, c'est le système de gouvernement de l'Union européenne, et il supprime la souveraineté par degrés, en ne laissant rien à l'État-membre.

Ce système conduit à l'érosion de la démocratie, et à la perte complète de la souveraineté nationale.

Le but du système est de transférer progressivement la souveraineté nationale à un niveau supranational.

A ce niveau supranational, les décisions sont prises et des lois sont adoptées sans aucune préoccupation de l'opinion du peuple.

Dans son autobiographie écrite en 1985 et publié en 1986, René Lévesque a admis qu'il était un fédéraliste mondial. Un mondialiste.

Les mondialistes soutiennent l'idée d'un gouvernement mondial qui dicte toutes les valeurs et qui contrôle toutes les ressources.

Dans son autobiographie rédigée en 1985 René Lévesque a dit, «Je suis fédéraliste» et «l'État-nation a fait son temps». Par conséquent, il faut se demander ce qu'il a vraiment essayer de créer avec son référendum de 1980. Car il essayait de créer la «souveraineté-association» -- le système de l'Union européenne qui prive les peuples de leur contrôle et conduit à un gouvernement mondial.

Afin de transférer le contrôle des ressources au niveau supranational, il doit y avoir «un peuple» à qui seul appartiennent ces ressources, ainsi qu'une « nation » reconnue en droit international public capable de diriger ses propres affaires internationales afin de transférer légalement le plein contrôle de ses ressources par voie de traité.

Il n'y a rien de poétique ou romantique d'être dépouillé de ses ressources par des Joueurs de flûte de Hamelin qui nous vendent notre souveraineté sur leurs propres conditions et stratégies. Ils formulent la question afin de recevoir la réponse dont ils ont besoin.

Dire «OUI» au «mandat de négocier» est de nous faites voler de botre souveraineté et de nos ressources par la force.

Va-t-on tomber pour cela ?

* * *

Lors du spectacle de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste de 1975 sur le Mont-Royal, Gilles Vigneault met temporairement un terme à une période sabbatique en créant la chanson «Gens du pays» qui deviendra l'une de ses plus célèbres compositions.

Cette chanson, dont chacun connaît l'air et le refrain, est chantée lors des anniversaires québécois sous sa version «Mon cher ____, c'est à ton tour». Elle est devenue l'hymne non-officiel du Québec.

-- Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
La Contestation Judiciaire Officielle
à l'Union nord-Américaine
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Billet : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine »
http://espace.canoe.ca/habeascorpuscda/blog/view/38581

Billet : « Sarkozy Scamming Quebec's Hoodwinked Separatists »
http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

SECEDING INTO NORTH AMERICAN UNION

2010-09-02T14:49:00.000-07:00

The sentiments of French Quebecers are being mercilessly exploited to create a false association of 'independence' with the misleading referendum question seeking a 'mandate to negotiate sovereignty association'. "Sovereignty Association" (1980) is not independence, nor is "Sovereignty Partnership" (1995); it is the system of government of the European Union, and it removes sovereignty by degrees, leaving the member state with nothing.

This system is leading to the erosion of democracy, and the full loss of sovereignty.

The purpose of the system is to gradually transfer national sovereignty to a supranational level.

At this supranational level, decisions are made and laws are enacted without any concern for the views of the people.

In his autobiography written in 1985 and published in 1986, RL admitted he was a world federalist. A globalist.

Globalists support the idea of a one-world government which dictates all values and controls all the resources.

In his autobiography, René Lévesque said, "I am a federalist" and "the nation-state has seen its day". Therefore, ask yourself, what was he really trying to create with his 1980 referendum? He was trying to create "sovereignty-association" -- the European Union system which deprives nations of their control and leads to a one-world government.

In order to transfer control of resources to the supranational level, there must be a 'people' to whom alone these resources belong, and a 'nation' capable of international affairs (at international public law) to legally hand control over by way of treaty.

There is nothing poetic or romantic about being robbed of your resources by Pied pipers selling you your sovereignty in order to take it from you. They formulate the question in order to get from you the answer they need.

Saying "YES" to a "mandate to negotiate" is agreeing to be robbed of our sovereignty and of our resources by force.

Are we going to fall for it?

* * *

When performing at the Saint-Jean-Baptiste celebrations of 1975 on Mount Royal in Montreal, Gilles Vigneault put a temporary end to his sabbatical in order to create the song "Gens du pays" (people of the nation) which became one of his most famous compositions.

This song, to which everyone knows the tune and the refrain is even sung at birthday parties in Quebec as the version 'Dear ____, it's your turn'. "Gens du paus" has become the unofficial anthem of Quebec.

-- Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Blog : "Sarkozy Scamming Quebec's Hoodwinked Separatists"
http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

Blog : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine »
http://espace.canoe.ca/habeascorpuscda/blog/view/38581 (in French)

"PLOTTING A MAP IF QUEBEC SECEDES" (CFR 1996)

2010-09-02T14:46:00.000-07:00

PLOTTING A MAP IF QUEBEC SECEDES (CFR 1996)

"But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could North America unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of supranational affiliation with the remnants of Canada. ... ... This new form of affiliation should be aimed midway between the fragility of a treaty and the rigidity of statehood."

-- Will Canada Unravel ? Plotting a map if Quebec secedes, Charles F. Doran, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1996, Volume 75 . Number 5

* * *

Six years before the events of September 11th in the USA, CFR member and author Charles F. Doran wrote these words in the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs:

Plotting A Map if Quebec Secedes

"But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could North America unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of supranational affiliation with the remnants of Canada. ... ... This new form of affiliation should be aimed midway between the fragility of a treaty and the rigidity of statehood."

Doran was writing at a time when the second attempt to force Quebec to "secede" into an EU-style "supranational affiliation" with the "rest of Canada" in 1995 had recently failed. In proposing a "remedy" in the event of a future success, Doran appears to be attempting to fast-track the North American Union that had been planned decades ago, in embryo, as the "Canadian Community" or the "Canadian Union", which René Lévesque used to call it. For, the phony "secession of Quebec" is and always was a scam to impose the EU system on this continent.

The 1995 attempt having failed, the clever CFR immediately proposes the very same thing as the "remedy" for its future occurrence, but applies the secretly looked for "supranational affiliation" of Rest-of-Canada-Quebec to ALL of North America.

In order to get this fast-track done the next time around, Doran "predicts" that not just the USA, but "North America" could "unravel" if Quebec "secedes". Therefore, so as to stabilize the continent, it must ALL be merged under the very supranational institutions Trudeau and Lévesque failed to impose on Quebec and "the rest of Canada" in 1980.

Had they not failed then, and again in 1995, Canada would now be long gone, and NAFTA would have linked the USA and Mexico into the "Canadian Union"... on the way to full-scale North American Union, which is emerging now through a series of other measures.

While Europe had been put through its paces at a steady gait with the advancement of European integration by successive treaties modifying and intensifying the initial treaty of association, the CFR's North America was flailing sovereignly in the grand European wake... a continent still yet to be "harmonized" with Europe.

Plans for global continental integration and world government have evidently been slightly delayed. However, South America was "harmonized" successfully on 3 May 2008, and CAFTA-ALBA is attempting to bring in Central America to link up the western hemisphere with the Johnny-come-lately merger of North America.

Interestingly enough, 9/11 seems to have sped the CFR's plans up. For, the system being imposed now via the CFR's "Building A North American Community" plan of May 2005, which adds flesh to the bones of the March 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agreed among Vicente Fox, George Bush of 9/11 fame and Prime Minister Paul Martin, was always intended to emerge as a result of Quebec's phony "secession" into the EEC system. Instead, it is now being done on a fast-track under the auspices of 9/11 as the pretext. And this, without any independent inquiry in Canada into the "freefall" events of September 11th.

If 9/11 was an inside job, and "security" is removed from the SPP and the Building A North American Community blueprint of the CFR, is it reasonable to imagine any self-respecting stable and independently wealthy sovereign nation willingly annexing itself to one or two other states on the mere pretext of "trade" or staunching the flow of illegal aliens?

In effect, 9/11 is doing to North America what the phony "secession" of Quebec has not been able to get done. According to my research, however, the secession of Quebec will be attempted once again... at which point, Charles F. Doran may pen yet another self-serving update for the CFR and Foreign Affairs.... on how "lucky" North America was to have been "secured" and "integrated" in advance of Quebec "secession", so as to prevent the continent from... "unravelling".

With North America under "deep integration", what's the purpose now of Quebec "secession"? Why, to cover up decades of treason, and to make Canadians believe they were fortunate to have fallen by chance into NAU as a "remedy" against post-secession Balkanization.

Last month, Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, which is planted illegally in the federal Parliament of Canada, toured Canada urging all the provinces to "secede". Meanwhile, the Americans have a 10th Amendment movement, which is urging all the US States to do the same thing. Could these two parallel movements be a coincidence? Or, are they evidence of superlative timing and counter-planning by the infamous CFR?

See my Gilles Duceppe FB group: Canada Tour 2010 - Treason Rally (still in development):
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=117511084929452&ref=ts

You can read the whole Doran article here:

"Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes". Charles F. Doran · September/October Foreign Affairs (CFR) 1996

* http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117903f34af45c741

For a better view of the "plan" back in 1979, read Lévesque's "white paper" on his desire to replace the Confederation of Canada with a Treaty of Association similar to that of the EEC as it then was:

Québec-Canada: A New Deal. The Québec Government Proposal for a New Partnership Between Equals: Sovereignty-Association

* http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790dfe2654ed468

For more discussion of the scam, as I unravel it, see my blog:

http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

NB: Must see my VIDEOS in this FB group "Habeas Corpus Canada".

"SECEDE FOR THE VATICAN"

2010-09-02T14:39:00.000-07:00

"SECEDE FOR THE VATICAN"

Canada apparently has many enemies, the Roman Catholic Church among them. The Vatican, that is, the Pope, was instrumental in the destruction of the sovereign nation of SFRY Yugoslavia by using the "nation-state" status of Vatican City to "internationally recognize" a rebel component of the SFRY as a state. See:

"In 1993, the Pope Openly Embraced Kosovo Secession"
http://emperors-clothes.com/medal.htm

The Church is apparently deeply involved in the phony "secession" of Quebec. During 1997 "hearings" on the "Reference re the Secession of Quebec", amicus curiae (friend of the court) Joli-Coeur, tabled public statements of Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte. Some of those statements are mentioned in Hansard.

We know that the phony secession of Quebec is and has always really been intended to impose the EEC-EU system of government on this continent, a step toward world government. Can the Vatican be unaware of this scam? Hardly. Therefore, reasonable observers would have to think that the Vatican must be abusing French Canadians, as our politicians are, using them to destroy Canada for NAU and world government.

There have apparently been "Pope sightings" on the guest list of the Bilderberg. What is the Catholic Church planning to gain in the long-term from the wrack and ruin of the international system of nation states?

Here are a few examples of the Catholic Church pushing Quebec secession:

Source: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2332761&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1

/ Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ):

/ 1035

However, Quebeckers have understood what is at stake. In the last several weeks, we have seen and heard men and women from every political background condemn the government for what it is trying to do. Since I have little time left, I will name only a few of them. Claude Ryan, chairman of the no committee during the 1980 referendum and former Leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; Daniel Johnson, leader of the no committee in 1995 and present leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; some senators, and among them Jean-Claude Rivest; former Conservative ministers, among them Monique Vézina; reporters who are not always on our side but who have vigorously condemned what the federal government is doing. There were also members of the church hierarchy, namely Mgr Blanchette, bishop of Rimouski; Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, who delivered the same message, namely that "It is for Quebeckers to decide their own future."

[ ... ]

/ Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ):

[...]

/ 1225

Other key figures like Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archbishop of Montreal, and Monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archbishop of the diocese of Rimouski, have said that the Supreme Court should not decide the future of the Quebec people, thus echoing the position taken by the bishops of Quebec and Canada in favour of self-determination, at the centennial of Confederation in 1967.

/ Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

/ 1355

Think about Jean-Claude Rivest, Conservative senator and former special advisor to the Liberal premier, Mr. Bourassa, a federalist, who said at one point that never again would Quebec go through what it went through after Charlottetown. Think about André Tremblay, special constitutional advisor to Robert Bourassa in Charlottetown in 1992. Think about Cardinal Turcotte—and that tops it all—who, despite his very delicate functions, has had the courage to take a stand in this debate, knowing what kind of criticism he would draw because of that. Where does the Liberal Party of Canada stand in Quebec at this moment apart from the support it gets from Alliance Quebec? I would like my colleague from Beauce to respond to that.

This old Hansard, and in particular Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte's public statements supporting the illegal referendums "to secede", has inspired me to create some images on the subject.

My goal is to expose the essential hypocrisy, and cruelty of the Church urging French-Canadians to liberate themselves to destroy Canada for some blood-chilling share of power the Church may have in store for itself under a one-world government.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

« FAIRE SÉCÉSSION POUR LE VATICAN »

2010-09-02T14:27:00.000-07:00

Le Canada a apparemment beaucoup d'ennemis, l'Église Catholique Romaine parmi eux. Le Vatican, c'est-à-dire, le Pape, était instrumental dans la destruction de la nation souverain de l'ex-Yougoslavie (SFRY) en utilisant le statut d'état-nation du Vatican afin de « reconnaître » internationalement un composant rebel du SFRY comme un état.

« In 1993, the Pope Openly Embraced Kosovo Secession » (« En 1993, le Paper ouvertement embrassé la sécession de Kosovo »)

http://emperors-clothes.com/medal.htm

L'Eglise est apparemment profondément impliquée dans l'escroquerie de la « sécession » de Québec. En 1997, pendant les « audiences » sur le « Renvoi relatif à la Sécession de Québec », l'amicus curiæ (« ami de la cour ») Maître André Joli-Cœur déposa devant la Cour suprême du Canada quelques déclarations publiques de Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte. Certaines de ces déclarations sont mentionnées dans Hansard.

Nous savons que le vrai but de la sécession de Québec est -- et toujours a toujours été -- d'en imposer par « traité » le système juridique et politique du CEE-UE, une étape vers un gouvernement mondial. Le Vatican peut-il nier toute connaissance de cette escroquerie ? À peine.

Donc, les observateurs raisonnables devraient penser que le Vatican manipule les Canadiens français, tout comme le font nos politiciens, afin de détruire le Canada au profit des élites qui poussent l'Union Nord-Américaine, étape vers un gouvernement mondial.

Les noms de quelques Papes ont été vus sur les listes d'invité de Bilderberg.

Qu'est-ce que l'Eglise catholique a l'intention de gagner à la long terme de la ruine du système international d'états-nation ?

Voici quelques exemples de l'attitude de l'Eglise catholique à l'appui de la «sécession» de Québec :

À voir : Source: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2332761&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1

/ M. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ):

/ 1035

Cependant, au Québec, on a compris l'enjeu. On a vu et entendu, au cours des dernières semaines, des hommes et des femmes de tous les horizons politiques dénoncer le geste que tente de poser le gouvernement d'en face. Je vais en nommer quelques-uns, compte tenu du temps qui m'est alloué: Claude Ryan, président du comité du non lors du référendum de 1980 et ancien chef du Parti libéral du Québec; Daniel Johnson, président du comité du non en 1995 et chef actuel du Parti libéral du Québec; des sénateurs, en autres, Jean-Claude Rivest; d'anciens ministres conservateurs comme Monique Vézina; des journalistes, qui ne sont pas toujours de notre côté, mais qui ont dénoncé vigoureusement les gestes que le fédéral est en train de poser. Il y a même des gens d'Église, dont monseigneur Blanchette, évêque de Rimouski et le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, dont le message était unique, dont le message était le même: «C'est au peuple québécois de décider de son avenir».

[ ... ]

/ M. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ):

/ 1210

Je conclus, dans la minute qui me reste, en disant que le Bloc québécois n'est pas tout seul à dénoncer cette situation. Je n'aurai pas le temps de vous lire toutes mes citations, mais je vais vous nommer des gens qui disent la même chose que nous: le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte; M. Claude Ryan, l'ancien chef du camp du non des fédéralistes, en 1980; M. Daniel Johnson, l'ancien chef des fédéralistes du camp du non, en 1995 et qui, jusqu'à preuve du contraire, est encore chef du Parti libéral du Québec, ce serait donc encore lui le chef des fédéralistes au Québec; M. Lucien Bouchard; M. Alain Dubuc; le député de Sherbrooke; le député de Laurier—Sainte-Marie, chef du Bloc québécois; M. Alain Pellet, président de la Commission du droit international des Nations unies; M. Gordon Wilson, conseiller constitutionnel du premier ministre de la Colombie-Britannique. Il y a beaucoup de gens. Il y a un consensus qui est même plus que québécois, qui est en train de se faire ailleurs qu'au Québec, même sur la scène internationale.

/ Mme Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ):

[...]

/ 1225
D'autres personnalités, comme le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archevêque de Montréal, monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archevêque du diocèse de Rimouski ont souligné que la Cour suprême n'a pas à décider de l'avenir du peuple québécois, reprenant en cela la prise de position des évêques du Québec et du Canada en faveur du principe de l'autodétermination lors du centenaire de la Confédération, en 1967.

/ Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

/ 1355

Quand on sait que M. Jean-Claude Rivest, sénateur conservateur et ancien conseiller spécial du premier ministre libéral, M. Bourassa, qui était un fédéraliste, s'est tenu debout et a dit, à un moment donné, que jamais plus le Québec ne vivrait ce qu'il venait de vivre au lendemain de Charlottetown, que M. André Tremblay, conseiller constitutionnaliste spécial de M. Robert Bourassa, à Charlottetown, en 1992, et que le cardinal Turcotte—c'est la cerise sur le sundae—, malgré des fonctions très délicates, on le sait, a le courage de prendre position dans le débat sachant la hargne dont il serait victime, où est le Parti libéral du Canada au Québec actuellement si ce n'est avec Alliance Québec, tout simplement, comme appui? J'aimerais connaître la réplique du député de Beauce.

* * * * *

Cet ancien Hansard, et plus notamment les déclarations publiques du Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte à l'appui des référendums illégaux m'a inspiré à créer des images sur le sujet.

Mon but est de démasquer l'hypocrisie essentielle, et la cruauté de l'Eglise qui exhorte les Canadiens-français qui ne sont carrément pas emprisonnés à «se libérer» afin de détruire le Canada pour gagner sa part du pouvoir sous un éventuel gouvernement mondial construit à partir de la fusion des unions continentales y compris l'Union nord-américaine.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
La Contestation Judiciaire Officielle
À L'Union Nord-Américaine
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Blog : http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

Billet : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine »http://espace.canoe.ca/habeascorpuscda/blog/view/38581

Project of the Century: Bullet Train for North American Union

2010-03-30T11:02:00.000-07:00

Obama Pushing Canada-USA Merger With Bullet-Train - Project of the Century: North American Union (March 2010, La Metropole)

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117902912e63de7f8

“As a member of the Canadian Legislature, I pledge my best support to help this enterprise [...] and I hope to see growing a Canadian Empire in North America connected and linked together by this Intercolonial Railway, that may hold a position able to counterbalance the grasping power of the United States on this continent.”

— His Honor the Speaker, the Honorable U.J. Tessier, at a public meeting held in Quebec in 1858, when three delegates were in England pressing for Confederation.

VERTICAL (NORTH-SOUTH) INTEGRATION OF CANADA INTO THE USA
IS PROHIBITED BY CONFEDERATION

Annexation is Unconstitutional and thus Illegal

I like to start my Constitutional law research with an historical view of what happened in similar circumstances. In other words, I begin with a search for precedent. The current issue of President Obama's high-speed bullet train, which he intends to deliver direct to Montreal, bypassing the US-Canada border and without any customs facilities, is broached in terms of railways and the Canadian Constitution. For, of course, the building of the Intercolonial, that is, the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) -- a ribbon of steel which would finally unite Canada from coast to coast, was a condition upon which the Maritime provinces agreed to join Confederation; it was also a pledge offered by Macdonald to secure the addition of British Columbia to the Canadian Union.

Or, as the Hon. Mr. George Brown said in the 1865 Debates on Confederation (page 103), “the Intercolonial Railroad has been made an absolute condition of the compact”. George Brown also underscored the "military" nature of Confederation, as a defence against U.S. annexation, when he described that threat as follows:

[T]here is no better mode of warding off war when it is threatened, than to be prepared for it if it comes. The Americans are now a warlike people. They have large armies, a powerful navy, and the carnage of war has to them been stript of its horrors. The American side of our lines already bristles with works of defence, and unless we are willing to live at the mercy of our neighbors, we, too, must put our country in a state of efficient preparation. War or no war-- the necessity of placing these provinces in a thorough state of defence can no longer be postponed. Our country is coming to be regarded as undefended and indefensible-- the capitalist is alarmed, and the immigrant is afraid to come among us. Were it merely as a measure of commercial advantage, every one of these colonies must meet the question of military defence promptly and energetically. And how can we do this so efficiently and economically as by the union now proposed ? (Hear, hear.) I have already shown that union would give us a body of 70,000 hardy seamen ready and able to defend our sea-coasts and inalnd lakes ; let us now see what would be the military strength of the Confederation.

Further in the same Debates, it was said: “[...] the Intercolonial Railway [...] as a work of defence [...] has [...] many advocates ; but, if the union of the provinces is to go on, it is an absolute necessity...”

In effect, the statututory and constitutional purpose of the British North America Act, 1867 was to be Canadian, and not American; emphatically and permanently to retain our independence and our control over our own territory and our different destiny. However, on the very eve of Confederation, open threats were still incoming from the Americans:

Horace Greeley's New York Tribune of May 10, 1867 sneeringly declared:

"when the experiment of the 'dominion' [referring to the imminent Confederation of 1867] shall have failed – as fail it must – a process of peaceful absorption will give Canada her proper place in the great North American Republic."

The Tribune was joined in chorus by the New York Herald in proclaiming the ultimate American acquisition of the British Colonies. Other American papers, including the New York Times and the New York World, differed from the Tribune and the Herald in degree but not in substance. Anthony Trollope in his journey around the United States and Canada in 1861 and 1862 remarked how Canadians constantly heard they are to be invaded, and translated into citizens of the [American] Union."

“The [American] Civil War would end sometime, and when it did, the whole western half of British North America, from Lake of the Woods to Vancouver Island, would be in imminent danger of being absorbed by the United States, in the same inexorable way that Oregon had been swallowed up only eighteen years before.” (Life and Times of Confederation 1864-1867, P.B. Waite, University of Toronto Press, Canada 1962, p. 118)

On June 24, 1864, as the Civil War was drawing to its conclusion, the New York Herald editorialized that soon "… four hundred thousand thoroughly disciplined troops will ask no better occupation than to destroy the last vestiges of British rule on the American continent and annex Canada to the United States." (Manifest Destiny and Western Canada, Chapter I, A Tale of Two Countries, Todd Sauvé: http://www.dickshovel.com/two.html)

The Hon. Mr. McGee, at page 132 of the Confederation Debates warned his fellow representatives of the acquisitive Americans: "They [the Americans] coveted Florida, and seized it; they coveted Louisana, and purchased it; they coveted Texas, and stole it . . . . The acquisition of Canada was the first ambition of the American Confederacy, and never ceased to be so. . . ."

Founding father of Canada, the Hon. George-Etienne Cartier, speaking in the 1865 Debates, underscored for the Hon. Members the true nature of the long-time ambitions of the American state when speaking of the former Province of Canada:

"The absorption of this province [Upper and Lower Canada] into the United States had long been contemplated, as would be seen from the 7th article in the original draft of the American Constitution, which he would read. It was as follows: " Art. 7. Canada, according to this Confederation and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union; and shall be equally with any other of the United States, solemnly bound to a strict observance of, and obedience to, these articles ; as shall be also any other colony which shall be admitted into this Confederacy. The eleven votes in Congress shall be increased in proportion as the Confederacy is extended. But, except Canada, no other colony shall be admitted into the Confederacy without the assent of eleven or more votes, as the case may require, by the Confederation being extended." By that article, no new state could go into the union except by the vote of the number of states required to admit a new partne. But, as regarded Canada, no such assent was required ; on knocking at the door of the union, she would, as a matter of course, be admitted.”

Confederation, it was declared at p. 24 of the Debates of 1865 "by contrast with other forms of defence, was both cheap and simple. That was the principal reason for the unequivocal backing it received in London. Confederation cost Britain nothing but the trouble of despatches and the occasional juggling of colonial governors; ultimately, it would save eight colonies by making them one."

The military danger to Canada from the Americans was clearly expressed at page 32 of the same Debates: "The huge union armies and the truculence of the government that controlled them were dangers enough, but the basic indefensibility of Canada was worse."

It was a desire not to be annexed to the United States of America which animated preparation of the Constitution Act of 1867. That refusal to be annexed is the "mischief" or the "evil" under the mischief rule which determines the purpose of a statute, including that of a constitutional statute. The mischief of annexation to the USA was the "evil" which the Imperial statute of 1867 was passed to remedy "for all time to come".

That purpose is not spent; today, as in 1867, it forms the permanent core of the Constitution of Canada. And today, under threats of North American Union, more than ever, that purpose lives and speaks, and must be given its full and unremitting Constitutional effect.

Every court in this country, every government, and every Legislature and Parliament is duty bound under sworn oath of allegiance to give effect to that purpose; otherwise, they have no right to exercise elected or appointed office.

The permanency of the Canadian union -- its permanent exclusion of annexation -- is clear and unequivocal from the intent of the founders:

In the 1858 parliamentary session of the Province of Canada, -- [Alexander] Galt urged federation not only as a cure for the distresses of Canada, but as a great constructive scheme. The Canadian ministers professed to feel that the time had arrived for a general constitutional discussion. The British North American colonies were like isolated and weak foreign states, a condition which was 'considered to be neither promotive of the physical prosperity of all, nor of that moral union which ought to be preserved in the presence of the powerful confederation of the United States'. The imperial government was requested to authorize a meeting of delegates from all the colonies and from the two divisions of Canada to consider a federal union and to discuss the principles on which it could be based .... for ever removing the fear that these colonies may ultimately serve to swell the power of another nation'. [....] The whole scheme aimed at creating a stronger union than that of the United States ..." (W.P.M. Kennedy, The Constitution of Canada 1534-1937, New York, Russell & Russell, [first published 1922] at pages 286-7)

It is further clear from the words of the Hon. Mr. Alexander Campbell, Commissioner of Crown Lands [Cataraqui], on Monday, February 6, 1865 at pages 21 and 22 of the 1865 Debates, where he declares that: "The Conference [of delegates to prepare Confederation] acted upon the conviction that they were not building a structure for a temporary purpose, but, as they hoped, for centuries."

Canada was built in 1867 to last "for centuries", but 150 years later, Barrak Obama presumes to aim his BULLET train into the very heart of Canada which even General George Washington in 1775 was unable to claim with his bald attempt to seduce the French Canadians into U.S. annexation:

"Come, then, my brethren, unite with us in an indissoluble union; let us run together to the same goal." (Washington to the Inhabitants of Canada, in John Joseph Henry. Account of Arnold's Campaign Against Quebec: And of the Hardships and Sufferings of that Band of Heroes who Traversed the Wilderness of Maine from Cambridge to the St. Lawrence, in the Autumn of 1775, Albany: Joel Munsell, 1877, pages 5-6)

The American Civil War of secession from about 1861-64 inspired the founders of Canada to protect us from annexation, because:

(i) the Americans had brutally slaughtered or injured well over a million of their own fellow citizens over the secession issue, and we were determined never to fall into that pit: "And it was a liberal regime, the United States under Abraham Lincoln, that broke with the European code of civilized war by demanding unconditional surrender and launching total war against the civilian population of the South, resulting in 1,500,000 killed, missing, and wounded." (Secession and The Modern State, Donald W. Livingston, PhD., Department of Philosophy, Emory University, December 1996)

(ii) our ancestors did not wish to be annexed, and were determined to retain not only their individuality as British colonies developing on new soil, but to retain their independence from America;

(iii) early Canada was faced with grave hazards including the Irish-American Fenians, many of whom were "battle-tried" veterans of the Union Army, wished to seize Canada for the USA in vengeance for British rule in Ireland; and by Americans determined to annex Canada as the "divine" right of the USA under the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny".

(iv) In addition, the BNA colonies prior to 1867 were already losing immigrants to America because of a dearth of available arable farmlands here at that time;

(v) Americans in the north perceived the BNA colonies over the 49th parallel as in sympathy with the southern war of secession (though this was an exaggeration) and were threatening to cancel the Reciprocity Treaty by which the BNA colonies were able to use American rail and other routes into the USA and out to the sea coasts for the purpose of trade and shipping;

(vi) hard-core American secessionists were eyeing the west and north-west of the continent, and could have made decisive moves at any time to seize them, thus cutting off the BNA colonies on those two sides, and making it easier to finally absorb them.

In the context of all this, the British North America Act, 1867 was passed, including express plans for HORIZONTAL integration of the BNA provinces and territories. The chief means of integration would be the Canadian Pacific Railway, a "ribbon of steel" binding the founding provinces together into one consolidated nation.

The “Intercolonial Railway“, later named the Canadian Pacific Railway or CPR for short, was anticipated not only in the 1858 speech of Speaker Tessier, but provision was made for it in the 1864 Quebec Conference as reflected in the “72 Resolutions"; which were then debated in the Provincial Parliament of Canada in 1865; refined in London in 1866, and passed into Constitutional law of Canada by the British North America Act, 1867, (30 & 31 Vict.) C A P. III. This "constitutional" railway was a work of defence to protect Canada from annexation to the U.S.A., and not merely a commercial venture in view of trade. The horizontal nature of the Canadian Union required horizontal integration, and the railway was its chief tool.

Attorney General John A. Macdonald, speaking in the Confederation Debates on Monday, February 6, 1865 (page 32), made clear the defensive nature of both Confederation and its integral railway when he said: "If we are not blind to our present position, we must see the hazardous situation in which all the great interests of Canada stand in respect to the United States."

In 1881, the CPR was commenced by ratification in Parliament of the contract to have it built. Section 15 of that contract prohibited the building of branch lines from anywhere along the CPR down toward the US border, i.e., in a southerly or south-westerly direction.

Throughout the 1880s, countless provincial laws chartering private firms to build precisely such branch lines, but outside the CPR contract, were disallowed by the Governor General in Council of Canada because they contravened the "settled policy"(FN 1) of the government: meaning that despite these laws being otherwise valid(FN 2), they tended to VERTICALLY integrate the fledgling nation of Canada into the USA, thus delivering our trade down south to the USA to the profit of their own rail lines, whereas we needed to keep our trade at home:

(i) to the profit of our own lines (including the CPR, which involved a huge investment in borrowing by the federal government of Canada);

(ii) and because we needed to consolidate the country horizontally to a position of strength before it would be SAFE for us to build rail lines to the USA.

As a particularly apt illustration, Manitoba(FN 3) planned to charter rails and tramways that would have touched points along the Minnesota border. That was the home territory of the most virulent, hard-core US annexationists who were determined to seize all of Canada:

"Indeed, a single bold military thrust into this region from Minnesota, the epicentre of annexationist passion, (under governors Alexander Ramsey, Henry H. Sibley and William R. Marshall), would have gained them the entire western portion of the continent."

A rail line from Winnipeg to Minnesota would thus have given U.S. troops or mercenaries a free ticket to ride into the heart of western Canada for the takedown of Canada.

Our constitutional history therefore shows that Canada was intended to be horizontally integrated to PREVENT annexation to the USA; and that laws of provinces involving the building of rail lines were routinely DISALLOWED when Canada was felt to be still too vulnerable to attack from annexationists.

Today, the Obama bullet train is touted as the pretext for removing the very national border along the 49th parallel which our founders sought to protect both by building the CP Railway into the Constitution Act of 1867, and by repeatedly disallowing otherwise valid provincial laws to prevent the ANNEXATION OF CANADA to the USA.

The bullet train is a bald assault on the absolute sovereignty of Canada; and a sham and a pretext for attempting to oblige us to remove the national border as if this is required to make the high-speed trains work. One might as well say we need to remove customs offices from our airports to make THOSE work. It simply doesn't make sense, it's part of the scam of psychological intimidation to make us feel that removing the border and cancelling Canada are "required" and thus "inevitable".

That's a pretty good summary of my research on this point up until now. On the other hand, I already also know that the Provincial legislatures of Canada are LIMITED to measures for LOCAL purposes only; they cannot act in a way that substantially affects either another Province, or all of Canada. (Which is one reason why the (phony) referendums to "secede" in Quebec of 1980 and 1995 were utterly illegal, as they were MEASURES of supposed "government" which would obviously have substantially affected all the Provinces and the entire Constitution of Canada, powers the Provinces simply do not have.

The Quebec Legislature might have power to charter rail lines; however, it has no power to remove the NATIONAL border between the USA and Canada, even that portion coinciding with its own soil. In other words, it has no power to VERTICALLY INTEGRATE any part of Quebec into the USA with a view to annexation of Quebec or, by the domino effect, all of Canada.

Moreover, the Parliament of Canada has no power to remove the national border because those we elect do not own the Constitution, and have no right to REMOVE the national border, thus causing half a billion Americans and Mexicans to flow north, unsettling Canada.

The sole power of the Parliament of Canada is concentrated into one word: "GOVERN"; meaning they must ALWAYS govern, they may never CEASE to govern; and the jurisprudence indicates that the word "govern" is only meaningful in relation to those who ARE to be governed, meaning CANADIANS; not Americans and not Mexicans on our soil. And certainly not that mythical hybrid (or tribrid) creature, Robert Pastor's so-called "North American".

The full name of this power is found at Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867: the “PEACE, ORDER and GOOD GOVERNMENT” (or POGG) power:

There is no legal, constitutional way to get around this, including a stab at constitutional amendment, because this would not BE an amendment, but the overthrow of the country disguised as amendment.

Moreover, the jurisprudence is clear, not only in Canada but the other BNA dominions and former colonies: you may not use a LIMITED POWER to create a larger power. The LIMITS imposed by the POGG power at s. 91 mean that it cannot be used to do ANYTHING, whether pass a law, or pass an amendment, in order to EXPAND that power to do what the Constitution currently prohibits as part of its founding purpose, which is judicially enforceable: that is, to PREVENT THE ANNEXATION of Canada to the United States of America, and to prevent the Secession of any province.

_______________

(FN 1) The precise text of Clause 15 in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract is quoted in this excerpt from a letter of Justice Minister A. Campbell, recommending disallowance of British Columbia Acts chartering rail lines going south and touching the U.S. border:

“The policy of the Government in this behalf, confirmed by Parliament, was given expression to in the following clause of the contract between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, dated October 21st, 1880.
15. "For twenty years from the date hereof, no line of railway shall be authorised by the Dominion Parliament to be constructed south of the Canadian Pacific Railway from any point at or near the Canadian Pacific Railway, except such line as shall run south-west or to the westward or south-west ; nor to within fifteen miles of latitude 49, and in the establishment of any new Province in the North-West Territory, provision shall be made for continuing such prohibition after such establishment until the expiration of the said period.
For these reasons, which the undersigned has had occasion previously to state more fully than it is now necessary to do, he respectfully recommends that the said Acts-- chapter 26, "An Act to incorporate the Fraser River Railway Company," and chapter 37, "An Act to incorporate the New Westminster Southern Railway Company,"-- be disallowed.

SIGNED: A. Campbell, Minister of Justice.”

Source: Sessional papers of the Dominion of Canada : volume 10, third session of the fifth Parliament, session 1885; Ottawa : MacLean, Roger, [1885] ; Sessional Papers (No. 29), page 80

(FN 2) Below are two excerpts from a discussion in which Manitoba is fiercely contesting the federal disallowance of provincial legislation it had a right to pass in view of the subject matters at Section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867. However, despite Manitoba’s undoubted right to legislate in order to charter railways, the effect on the entire Dominion of Canada was national in its implications, and because of the general risk to the fledgling nation, these otherwise valid statutes were disallowed to assure the consolidation of Canada, and inherently to prevent annexation to the U.S.A.

"Your address refers to the question of disallowance, and the elections which have recently occurred and the discussions to which they have given rise have added additional interest to the question. As you are aware, the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway in no way interferes with the right of the Legislature of Manitoba to grant charters within the boundaries of the Province as they existed at that time. This was very clearly pointed out during the debate in Parliament, when the contract with the Syndicate and the charter to the Company were granted. It was important, however, on every ground, commercial as well as national, that the Canadian Pacific Railway should be an all-through line on Canadian territory, and that we should not be dependent in any way upon American lines for our traffic with Manitoba and the North-West."

Source: Sessional Papers (No. 21), p. 232

-and-

“That after the passing of said Canadian Pacific Railway Act the Legislature of the Province did, according to its undoubted right (as heretofore referred to) by Acts of the said Legislature, charter divers railway companies for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating lines of railway wholly situate within the Province as before defined, yet all of such Acts as chartered a line of railway to be constructed or operated to any point within fifteen miles of the international boundary line have been disallowed and vetoed by the Governor General of Canada in Council, and as the said Canadian Pacific Railway was then incomplete, such disallowance was submitted to rather than in any way impede the completion and rendering permanent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the same being a national highway.”

Source: Sessional Papers (No. 21), page 230.

What is important is that the Canadian Pacific Railway is described as “a national highway” for Canada. Today, the all-too-familiar blue, pink and yellow North American Union map transected by multi-modal corridors of rail, highway and other infrastructure piercing north into Canada to merge the continent, is an attempt to do for North America what the Canadian Pacific Railway was designed to do for Canada: fuse it into a “nation”. KM

(FN 3) "The act of the Manitoba legislature, incorporating the Winnipeg South-Eastern Railway Company, was disallowed because it conflicted with "the settled policy of the dominion, as evidenced by a clause in the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway," which was ratified by parliament in the session of 1880-81 ; which clause is to the effect that "for twenty years from the date hereof

/ 113

no line of railway shall be authorized by the dominion parliament to be constructed south of the Canadian Pacific Railway, from any point at or near the Canadian Pacific Railway, except such line as shall run south-west or to the westward of south-west, nor to within fifteen miles of latitude 49. " The government of Manitoba contended at the time that the act was "strictly within the jurisdiction of the legislature of the province."(1)

These cases show the large power assumed by the dominion government under the law giving them the right of disallowing provincial enactments. The best
_______________

/ 114

authorities concur in the widsom of interfering with provincial legislation only in cases where there is a clear invasion of dominion jurisdiction, or where the vital interests of Canada as a whole imperatively call for such interference. The powers and responsibilities of the general government in this matter have been well set forth by a judicial authority: "There is no doubt of the prerogative right of the Crown to veto any provincial act, and to apply it even to a law over which the provincial legislature has complete jurisdiction. But it is precisely on account of its extraordinary and exceptional character that the exercise of this prerogative will always be a delicate matter. It will always be very difficult for the federal government to substitute its opinion instead of that of the legislative assemblies, in regard to matters within their jurisdiction, without exposing itself to be reproached with threatening the independence of the provinces." [...] And in any case, "under our system of government, the disallowing of statutes passed by a local legislature after due deliberation, asserting a right to exercise powers which they claim to possess under the British North America Act, will always be considered a harsh exercise of authority, unless in cases of great and manifest necessity... "(1)
__________
/ (1) Can. Sup. Court R., vol. 2, Richards C.J., p. 96; Fournier J., p. 131.

Source: A Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada from the Earliest Period to the year 1888 by John George Bourinot, 1888. Now scanned and online at Google Books:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=JVVxttlf6jQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bourinot,+1888&source=bl&ots=3TGljCodPE&sig=oM2QjrCXC9iPcRikp8gf5qIN6Vc&hl=en&ei=7FKyS4eWBcP68AbDuODyBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Notes: Who is John George Bourinot? Read about him here, in the Canadian Parliamentary Review:

Sir John George Bourinot: Vistorian Canadian-His Life, Times and Legacy, McGill-Queens University Press, 2001.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=80&art=229

BLOG COPYRIGHT:
Feel free to use this material online, or in print or in video, as long as you credit the source.

You can also use my English translation from the CALAMEO:
http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117902912e63de7f8

CALL FOR DONATIONS TO SUPPORT THE LEGAL WORK:
I'm very happy when other people take my work and develop it, because I'm up to my ears with the very fine details of the main legal proceeding to halt North American Union, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA, which I am always working on.

I am now in YEAR SIX of this project, which I started when I was 50, I'll be 57 this summer; I haven't taken a break or a holiday, and I have frequently worked under extremely constrained circumstances, including having my law books and notes stolen out of my apartment.

I now have a laptop that I carry around with everything in it. However, I am short on resources and equipment. Today, I priced 3 factums on file at the Supreme Court of Canada in a fundamental case for Habeas Corpus Canada: $39.00 to get them.

I have not worked in the past six years while doing this, so it has to come out of the miniscule budget after rent is paid. Anyone who would like to support the research and preparations would be welcome to assist via Paypal (habeas.corpus.canada@live.com), anything from $1 up will be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

Have a great day.
Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com
Blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com
Videos: http://hccvideocatalog.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://te-in.facebook.com/people/Kathleen-Moore/1777851356
Join my new Facebook group: "FOUNDING CANADIANS 1867" and link your Canadian family tree to the group.

DOWNLOAD the article that this current Blog is a reply to:

Obama Pushing Canada-USA Merger With Bullet-Train - Project of the Century: North American Union (March 2010, La Metropole)
http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117902912e63de7f8

Two Communists & One Anarchist Demand Canada's Immediate Ouster From The Commonwealth For Its Genocidal "Carbon Footprint"

2009-11-27T23:47:00.000-08:00

Leaders of Greenpeace may indeed support the goal of a WORLD GOVERNMENT, which is also a Soviet goal. The February 1990 issue of World Marxist Review, policy journal for the Communist Parties throughout the world, featured an interview with David McTaggart, chairman of Greenpeace International. He described his efforts as “helping to erase the borders between East and West, North and South.” He emphasized that “you can’t talk about the survival of your nation or your economic system or your way of life at the expense of the survival of the planet we live on.” When asked what he thought were the main obstacles to global environmentalist efforts, he responded, “To my mind, nationalism is the biggest enemy of global thinking.”

Source: FreeRepublic.com

............................................................................................................................
By Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada

TINY URL of this post: http://tiny.cc/Koy6Y

Montreal, Saturday, 28 November 2009 02h50

First, let's clear the air. Climate change is a fraud to force forward a communist world government agenda. There is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

Climate Researchers have been recently exposed for deliberate plans to falsify climate data to hide the fact that the earth is not heating up, and to make it look like it is heating up, in order to push a social (or is that "socialist"?) agenda:

The United Nations Climate Change Conference web site dated 27 November 2009 18h50 says:

"PROPOSAL TO EXCLUDE CANADA FROM THE COMMONWEALTH"

"The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies, the Guardian reports."

This "proposal to exclude Canada from the Commonwealth" pushed by Greenpeace et als is part of a lead-up to the Copenhagen climate-change conference scheduled for December 7th to 18th, 2009 -- where, according to Lord Christopher Monckton (same link as above), an agreement will be signed to formally initiate a communist world government.

Who are Greenpeace, Polaris Institute and the Anarchiest World Development Movement?

1 - Here is a poster online featuring a teach-in by the Communist Party of Canada, Polaris Institute and others (Polaris is Marxist-Leninist):

Original url: http://www.nowar-paix.ca/Posters/anti-imperialismteachinposter.pdf

Downloaded and re-uploaded here:

ANTI-IMPERIALISM Teach-in POSTER
by Communist Party of Canada
includes POLARIS Institute

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

2 - Here is a roundup of Greenpeace's communist, Soviet-backed activities using the environmentalist movement to push the free-market agenda which destroys nation-states:

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380895/posts

(That whole post is more than well worth reading, with its details of Soviet backing for Greenpeace and its attempts to destroy the economies of other developed nations through environmental campaigns.)

/ EXCERPT:

"Greenpeace presented an article in January/February of 1989 boldly stating: “Through the 1990s, pressure groups and campaigning organizations like Greenpeace will have to take the lead in promoting the shift to a new economic order.” According to the article, free market principles would be replaced by a form of socialism in which local governments would exert “ownership and control” over the economy."

[...]

"ERASING BORDERS"

"Leaders of Greenpeace may indeed support the goal of a WORLD GOVERNMENT, which is also a Soviet goal. The February 1990 issue of World Marxist Review, policy journal for the Communist Parties throughout the world, featured an interview with David McTaggart, chairman of Greenpeace International. He described his efforts as “helping to erase the borders between East and West, North and South.” He emphasized that “you can’t talk about the survival of your nation or your economic system or your way of life at the expense of the survival of the planet we live on.” When asked what he thought were the main obstacles to global environmentalist efforts, he responded, “To my mind, nationalism is the biggest enemy of global thinking.”

3 - World Development Movement (Scotland) is chaired by Anarchist philosopher Alan Carter who was a founding member of the London-based Anarchist Research Group.

"Outside of academia, Carter is Chair of the World Development Movement Scotland and is on the Board of Directors of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He is a former Board Member and a former Trustee of Friends of the Earth."

Meanwhile, in a piece entitled "Scientists Target Canada Over Climate Change," the GUARDIAN.CO.UK reports:

"Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately."

Thus alleging that Canada is promoting genocide and should be "suspended" from the COMMONWEALTH as if its "CARBON FOOTPRINT" were an international human rights violation. However, there is no global warming, therefore the very notion of a "carbon footprint" as a measure of global warming is a fraud, as is any reference to these "junk scientists" as "scientists".

And, when did Communists ever concern themselves with genocide—outside of the times when they, themselves were actually perpetrating it? For a breakdown of figures totalling:

169,202,000 actual deaths
by confirmed Communist government genocides in the 20th Century, see DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel of New Brunswick, New Jersey (Transaction Publishers, 1994): http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Conclusions:

The Pol Pot is calling the Canadian Kettle CARBON black!

So communist Greenpeace, communist Polaris Institute, and anarchist-friendly World Development Movement are pushing phony climate change (debunked in the links and videos above as CLIMATEGATE) to get Greenpeace's wish of a market economy as the precursor to socialism by (amongst other things) calling for the ouster of Canada from the Commonwealth as punishment for the "carbon footprint" of its TAR SANDS which are driving North American Union (NAU) via energy integration.

However, NAU is a step on the way to the very MARKET ECONOMY Greenpeace and the Marxists want, and a phase on the way to communist world government via a world market economy.

Greenpeace et als thus would forcibly RELEASE Canada from a vital and historical international community of NATION-STATES (which Marxists and Anarchists both hate), PRECISELY to facilitate Canada's annexation (along with its TAR SANDS) into NAU (whose backers have no intention of giving up the TAR SANDS, thus the "suspension" of Canada from the Commonwealth would certainly be permanent) on the way to a communist world government, which has no need of the Commonwealth.

And they would DEMAND this in November 2009, whereas Canada is slated for merger into the USA and MEXICO by 2010. (Although they appear to be running a bit behind schedule. Still waiting for that last phony "referendum to secede" into North American Union here in Quebec.)

Meanwhile, Canada's own media, including state-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) [Canada's Pravda and regular Bilderberg (world government tank) attendee under an oath of MEDIA SILENCE] and CTV are both slamming "monarchy" after the recent November 2009 visit to Canada of Prince Charles, and are calling for Canada to "grow up" and "dump" the Crown.

But the Crown—or the Monarch, that is—is the ONE thing that stands between the demise of Canada and the Executive abuse of powers that is currently fueling the disappearance of Canada into the North American Union. In virtue of Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 (now called the Constitution Act, 1867) The Monarch, aka the Sovereign of Canada, is personally responsible for the abuse of Executive powers:

Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Nice timing, all 'round! (For more information on THE PLANNED END OF CANADA, see my web site.)

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

My own videos: http://hccvideocatalog.blogspot.com
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/crazyforcanada
Blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com

MY UK-IRISH Y! SITE (same vids):
* http://uk.video.yahoo.com/mypage?s=6905027&public=1

MY VIDEOS THAT EVERY CANADIAN SHOULD SEE:
* 1. Whisper (Part I): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFMzhuRpDew
Supporting docs: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17583203/In-the-Eye-of-the-Eagle-The-Secret-Committee-at-Power-Corp-1967
* 1-A. Newsletter to accompany the Whisper Video:
"Pierre Trudeau: Founding Father of the Parti Québécois
1967: Trudeau's Plan to "fight" separatism: Create a separatist party, -and- Encourage separatism so radical that it becomes "shocking"
* http://habeascorpuscanada.webng.com/documents/vol1no1october2008.html
* http://habeascorpuscanada.webng.com/documents/vol1no1october2008.PDF
* 2. 1968 Press Conference of Rene Levesque to replace Canada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV-s0B0TmvY
* 3. While You Were Sleeping: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khtYGYpJPj8
* 4. Model Parliament for North America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYsHm_ly0Bs
* 5. http://nauresistance.org/2009/09/ekos-the-annexation-survey/
* 6. Whisper (Part II) El Terrorismo (Fidel Castro, Trudeau's best friend, captured on film just a few months after a Cuban love-in with Prime Minister Trudeau!
* http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=56217768
* 7. http://www.youtube.com/user/NAUresistance#p/u/7/9z4oz02xCmA - Collaboration with NAUResistance.org - "Obama: The First Year in Office & The Impact on Canada's Elite"

HONDURAS BLOGS AND COMMENTS:
http://nauresistance.org/2009/08/zelaya-ouster-not-a-military-coup reposted from:
http://honduras-not-a-military-coup.blogspot.com
* Recommended reading: http://nauresistance.org/2009/09/honduran-sovereignty-who-has-jurisdiction
* The FARC's Honduran Friends - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574340570960456550.html
* Hillary's Honduran Obsession - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html
* http://nauresistance.org/2009/08/zelaya-ouster-not-a-military-coup/
Recommended reading: * http://nauresistance.org/2009/09/honduran-sovereignty-who-has-jurisdiction/
Recommended reading: * Report For Congress, Library of Congress: Zelaya Removal Constitutional - http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf

CANADA BLOGS:
* http://canadian-state-of-the-union.blogspot.com
* http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com

CONTRIBUTOR STATUS:
* http://nauresistance.org
* http://nauresistance.org/2009/09/ekos-the-annexation-survey/
* http://nauresistance.org/2009/09/while-you-were-sleeping-canada-08-elections/

BANNERS AND SEALS:
* http://theplannedendofcanada.blogspot.com

HAVE A LAUGH: Communists and Theocratic Globalists want to "save Canada": http://canadiansovietactionparty.50webs.com
"Soviet" supporting documents for that spoof site are here: http://northamericansovietunion.blogspot.com

1941-42 COMMUNIST WORLD PLANNING MAP - CONTINENTAL UNIONS MERGED UNDER WORLD GOVERNMENT:
* http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790b4f6e810268e "1942 POSTWAR NEW WORLD MAP by Maurice-Gomberg

KATHLEEN MOORE'S HABEAS CORPUS CANADA NETWORKING SITES:
* http://twitter.com/HCCanada * http://en.calameo.com/accounts/111790
* http://www.youtube.com/user/crazyforcanada * http://www.myspace.com/393788437
* http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/habeas-corpus-canada/17/838/968

ARTISTIC ACTIVISM:
* http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=37557602
* Poems to print: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14010647/Selected-Poems-for-Kids-livelinked-Video-
* Canadian Web Award: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14009980/Selected-Poems-for-Kids-2008-Canadian-Web-Award
* http://www.youtube.com/user/brightpathwaypoems
* http://brightpathway.webng.com [Poems] (linked to Habeas Corpus Canada site)
* http://kathleenmoore.webng.com [Photography] (linked to Habeas Corpus Canada site)

GALLERY:
* http://www.imagekind.com/GalleryProfile.aspx?gid=208d0dd3-d012-4380-a2f6-cfc0e50db191

CHRISTMAS E-CARDS IN FRENCH AND IN ENGLISH (CANADIAN-STYLE!)
* http://www.joyeuxmontreal.com (send an e-card for Canada this coming Christmas and New Year)

SUPPORT THE RESEARCH - BUY A "NORTH AMERICAN SOVIET UNION" T-SHIRT:
* http://www.cafepress.com/NASUNION

Constitutional Law 101 (First Instalment)

2009-11-24T13:47:00.000-08:00

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:

"Stand up for Canada" - "Leadership pour le Canada"
Conservative Party Flyer, November 2009

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

DIRECT LINK: http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179029bcb531a052

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:

L'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique, 1867
British North America Act, 1867

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

DIRECT LINK: http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790bbf0d205fc22

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:

II. 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 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":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/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:

In re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada
[Privy Council] [1932] AC 54

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

DIRECT LINK: http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117905d0cf35346af

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)

DIRECT LINK: http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1965/1965scr0-798/1965scr0-798.html

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:
DIRECT LINK: http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998scr2-217/1998scr2-217.html

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

DIRECT LINK: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

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.

STEPHEN HARPER 1995 REFERENDUM:

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

My own videos: http://hccvideocatalog.blogspot.com

My new document site: http://en.calameo.com/accounts/111790

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 calameo.com to complete with descriptions, tags and titles, and will let you know when they're done so you can go have a browse.

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

2009-11-21T02:34:00.000-08:00

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.

............................................................................................................................
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 7:24PM BST 26 Jun 2008

The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland's referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU's 27 member states.

"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said.

"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."

"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".

Mr Giscard d'Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.

"What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.

"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."

France and Germany are putting pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum which would allow the Lisbon Treaty to come into force before European elections on June 4 2009.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing believes "there is no alternative" to a second Irish vote, a view shared by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.

Mr Sarkozy, who takes over the EU's rotating presidency next week, will use a Brussels summit on October 15 to force Ireland to find a way out of Europe's Treaty difficulties.

"Everyone agrees it has to be sorted out by the time of European elections," he said at the weekend.

Václav Klaus, the Czech President has continued to insist that the Lisbon Treaty "cannot come into force" after the Irish vote.

"The EU cannot ignore its own rules. The Lisbon Treaty has been roundly and democratically rejected by Ireland, and it therefore cannot come into force," he told El Pais newspaper.

"Any attempt to ignore this fact and make recourse to pressure and political manipulation to move the treaty forward would have disastrous consequences."

Mark François, Conservative spokesman on Europe, also insisted that it was time that European politicians started to respect the Irish No vote.

"The Irish people gave an emphatic No to the Treaty of Lisbon on a record turnout and it would be good for politicians of all countries to respect this democratic decision," he said.

"The point is particularly clear to us here in Britain as the Irish were fortunate to be given a referendum which we were denied by our Government."

An opinion poll for the newspaper Libération has shown 44 per cent of the French want Ireland to vote again and 26 per cent want the ratification process to continue without Ireland.

But a quarter of those polled want to abandon the Treaty and 52 per cent think the Irish No vote is going to dominate Mr Sarkozy's EU presidency.

ORIGINAL URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2200026/EU-Constitution-author-says-referendums-can-be-ignored.html

"LAW OF THE FUTURE" - World Law - Being Implemented NOW

2009-10-28T23:53:00.001-07:00

To a large extent, governance has become a concept that transcends borders. Despite all the far-reaching consequences (implicit or explicit, potential or real), of globalisation and the internationalisation of the domestic arena, however, it is important to realise that the national legal order is ultimately still of paramount importance. In the absence of a world government - and concomitantly a world legislature, executive and judiciary -- domestic courts must dispense justice at the only level that is currently feasible: the national level.

............................................................................................................................

Did you know that pending the arrival of "WORLD LAW," they are harmonizing our NATIONAL LAW by group-training the judiciaries of our national HIGHEST COURTS at the supranational level?

Have you heard of the I O J T ?

"Dr. Shlomo Levin, then Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Israel, who conceived the organization, proposed that it have the following objectives: - Sharing successful methods of addressing issues of common interest regarding judicial training, and - Establishing an international mechanism to enable training institutes from one country to learn from another."

{Why, Dr. Levin, we must train our own judges, thank you!}

"On March 17 - 21, 2002, following several planning meetings in South America and Israel, the International Organization for Judicial Training (IOJT) was established in Jerusalem. Over 100 educators and judges from 25 countries and the Council of Europe assembled to create the organization. Countries creating the IOJT included Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China. Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mexico, Moldova, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Togo, and the United States of America."

Source for both the above quotations:
* http://www.hiil.org/assets/233/ac2008_inventory.pdf
Same file backed up at Calameo:
* http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179068498e3c894c

United Kingdom is not mentioned, but may have been implied in the word "included", as LORD BINGHAM, Senior Law Lord, United Kingdom, was a "confirmed speaker" at the HIIL in 2008 on the general topic of:

"What is the role of highest courts in maintaining legal unity in the internationalising world of today?"

The Good Lord (freudian slip) was accompanied by Canadians including a "former judge of the Supreme Court of CANADA: Michel Bastarache.

Source: http://www.lawofthefuture.org/assets/236/ac2008_flyer_small.pdf
Same file backed up at Calameo:
* http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117905b47765dd70f

Why, I wouldn't have thought they'd have ANY "role" at all. However, the "role" they are apparently "given" which fell from the sky, because it doesn't come from our jurisdiction under a written Constitution in Canada, and under the STATUTE purporting to establish our Supreme Court of Canada -- is tantamount to HARMONIZING DOMESTIC NATIONAL LAW world-wide to advance WORLD GOVERNMENT.

That was "Workshop #1".

Worksop #2 begins from this premise that "the changing role of highest national courts will be placed in the context of the new challenges that have resulted as a consequence of the changing global environment." Sound democratic to you?

The "highest courts" of the formerly sovereign nations around the world are now engaged in supranational TRAINING sessions tantamount to HARMONIZATION OF DOMESTIC LAW across the globe. Is that "constitutional" to you Brits?

Have you heard of the "Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law" (HIIL)?

"What is HiiL?

"HiiL was born out of the recognition that globalisation and internationalisation are affecting societies profoundly and have far-reaching consequences for how national legal systems function. In today’s world, national legal systems can no longer be described as ‘autonomous’. The world increasingly faces problems which transcend national borders and cannot be resolved by national laws alone. They require international solutions. At the same time, the national level remains the most basic level at which the law operates. How can the movement towards the international and the fact that the law must work at the local level be reconciled?

HiiL encourages, initiates, facilitates, and funds research on these issues and takes an active part in the international debate.

HiiL is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. Particular events organised by HiiL have been sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and the Maison Descartes in the Netherlands."

Source: http://www.hiil.org/about-hiil/
Same file backed up at Calameo:
* http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790189a7668e7ba

TRANSLATION: "no longer be described as ‘autonomous’" = NO LONGER DERIVE THEIR JURISDICTIONS FROM THEIR CONSTITUTIONS! How extraordinary!

"The world increasingly faces problems which transcend national borders and cannot be resolved by national laws alone. They require international solutions" = the same nonsense they are flogging re Energy, Resources, Technology, and Climate Change has somehow magically descended upon our NATIONAL DOMESTIC "HIGHEST COURTS" to force our Judges to adopt HARMONIZED LAW across the planet. Did we vote for that?

"movement towards the international" = euphemism for World Government

In fact, the HIIL "inventory" document [http://www.hiil.org/assets/233/ac2008_inventory.pdf] (@ Calameo) says, at page 14 of 121:

"To a large extent, governance has become a concept that transcends borders. Despite all the far-reaching consequences (implicit or explicit, potential or real), of globalisation and the internationalisation of the domestic arena, however, it is important to realise that the national legal order is ultimately still of paramount importance. In the absence of a world government - and concomitantly a world legislature, executive and judiciary -- domestic courts must dispense justice at the only level that is currently feasible: the national level. Indeed, the continuing relevance of national legal orders within an internationalised environment is the reason that HiiL exists. Nation-states continue to bear ultimate responsibility for 'delivering the goods' to citizens. The national legal orders in which they operate retain pride of place. Both complicating factors - the decreasing autonomy of nation-states and the continuing relevance of the national legal order - lie at the heart of the HiiL research programme.[FN 4: HiiL Research Programme National Law in a Global Society (Section 3)] Despite the continued relevance of national legal orders, however, the consequences of globalisation are [italics sic] far-reaching, and this fact complicates the CORE JUDICIAL TASK of reaching decisions on concrete contentious issues before the courts."

"Complicates"? How "complicated" is it to look to your national Constitution to fulfill your "CORE JUDICIAL TASK"? There is, after all, NO OTHER SOURCE OF JURISDICTION for national domestic litigation.

"world legislature, executive and judiciary" -- why, you can just see why some of these people are ambitious. Lord Bingham, for example. How old is he? Will he live long enough for a post on the "world judiciary"? I bet some of our hoary old Canadian judges are lining up for kidney transplants to improve their chances! Who wants to be a dowdy old Canadian judge when you can have real prestige and be a World Judge!

Lord Bingham, here's the old boy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bingham,_Baron_Bingham_of_Cornhill

Born 1933. He might still have a couple of good years in him.

In other words, the HIGHEST COURTS of our (formerly) sovereign nations are to be USED FOR NOW, pending WORLD JUDICIARY, and WORLD GOVERNMENT, to dispense WORLD LAW at the domestic level, and thanks to the unheard-of function of dispensing international law at the domestic level, our own courts are therefore still (if grudgingly) "relevant".

And we have a PAMPHLET: "LAW OF THE FUTURE"

* http://www.lawofthefuture.org/assets/236/ac2008_flyer_small.pdf
Same file backed up at Calameo:
* http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117905b47765dd70f
Lord Bingham participating !

And a former Supreme Court of Canada Judge participating.

Apparently, our High Court no longer takes its "role" from our Constitution.

The I O J T was established in Jerusalem. "Jerusalem"! do you get the impression we are all being ZIONIZED?

There is the distinct ring about this of a statement by David Ben Gurion, quoted in Look Magazine in 1962:

"In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind." (Duke 2002).

Have you heard of the HIIL - Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law?

Source: http://www.hiil.org/about-hiil/
Same file backed up at Calameo:
* http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790189a7668e7ba

"What is HiiL?

"HiiL was born out of the recognition that globalisation and internationalisation are affecting societies profoundly and have far-reaching consequences for how national legal systems function. In today’s world, national legal systems can no longer be described as ‘autonomous’. The world increasingly faces problems which transcend national borders and cannot be resolved by national laws alone. They require international solutions. At the same time, the national level remains the most basic level at which the law operates. How can the movement towards the international and the fact that the law must work at the local level be reconciled?

HiiL encourages, initiates, facilitates, and funds research on these issues and takes an active part in the international debate.

HiiL is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. Particular events organised by HiiL have been sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and the Maison Descartes in the Netherlands."

According to Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich, authors of THE ANTI COMMUNITARIAN MANIFESTO (December 19, 2003), we are all having Communist Zionist "law" shoved down our throats through the United Nations:

Say Raapana & Friedrich: "As for the future, not only are American law schools teaching communitarian law (Harvard 2000) and Talmudic Law (Zacariah 2002) to American lawyers and judges, Chinese communitarian courts and the United Nations export local regulations as blueprints for overruling national laws (Miethe 2003; Veon 1998-2003). Global to local Zionist-communitarian law prevails (Wald 1998), and unnatural evolution guides us into holistic subservience to a superior, master empire.

Source: The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking, PART TWO
http://nord.twu.net/acl/evolution.html

And here is CANADA "collaborating": the "Law Commission of Canada", was created in 2007 (if the statute is valid! Ha!) has a four-fold "mandate" which includes:

1. to "focus on": "New Concepts of Law: The Commission was to work towards the development of new concepts of law and new approaches to law."

2. Efficiency and Accessibility: The Commission was to consider measures to make the legal system more efficient, economical and accessible.

3. Stimulating Critical Debate: The Commission was charged with stimulating critical debate about the law and how it operates in Canadian society. It was encouraged to forge productive networks with academic and other communities to ensure cooperation and coordination in law reform initiatives.

[Note: these would have to be those "international law reform initiatives" already established for us out of JERUSALEM, Ben Gurion's "seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind"]

4. Eliminating Obsolescence and Anomalies: The Commission was to work towards the elimination of obsolescence and anomalies in the current law.

"Obsolescence and Anomalies" = god forbid (I mean the real Good Lord) that our Judiciary, in the normal course of adjudication, should be allowed to pursue this traditional role of adjusting domestic law to suit the current state of domestic society. We now have a specialized commission RELIEVING them of this unwieldy element of their CORE JURISDICTION. Thus suggesting that those we have been so unfortunate as to elect have already abolished our Courts.

In fact, I know they have.

Source: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2006-2007/inst/cld/cld01-eng.asp
Same file backed up in Calameo:
http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790bd753eb8f0e1

I am betting our so-called "Law Commission" is working to ELIMINATE anything Canadian, that is, "democratic," and thus aid the "harmonization" of formerly Canadian law with international COMMUNIST, TALMUDIC, ZIONIST LAW.

The Law Commission of Canada Act can be found on the Justice Canada's web site at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/L-6.7 [It's 2h20 a.m., I haven't had a chance to look at that.]

In the course of its annual Report of its activities, bottom of that same page, the Law Commission states its Priority #3:

"Collaborate with the Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law on work related to Globalization and Law"

In other words, they are "collaborating" with ISRAEL in the elimination of Canadian law, to replace it with WORLD LAW.

Let's see what the Supreme Court of Canada thinks its "role" is:

"Role of the Court
The Court's Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's final court of appeal, the last judicial resort for all litigants, whether individuals or governments. Its jurisdiction embraces both the civil law of the province of Quebec and the common law of the other provinces and territories.

The Supreme Court of Canada stands at the apex of the Canadian judicial system. The Canadian courts may be seen as a pyramid, with a broad base formed by the provincial and territorial courts whose judges are appointed by the provincial and territorial governments. At the next level, there are the provinces' and territories' superior courts whose judges are appointed by the federal government."

Source: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/role/index-eng.asp

Apparently no, it stands at the icicle-pick end of dripping globalism accelerated by phoney "climate change".

Nothing on that page suggests a supranational role for the Supreme Court of Canada in creating World Government.

In any event, Michel Bastarache was not a Judge when he spoke to the HiiL Conference.

He had already retired from the Supreme Court of Canada Bench on 24 June 2008; a "role" he took up on 30 September 1997, the one-year anniversary of the Chrétien government's Order-in-Council of 30 September 1996 directing the "Secession" Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hey, what a coincidence! That was the same date noted legal scholar, the Honourable Mr. Justice Gérard Vincent La Forest, resigned (possibly in disgust). Judge Bastarache replaced the Honourable Mr. Justice John Sopinka, who died suddenly of a rare "blood disease" shortly before "hearings" were to begin on the "Reference re the Phoney Secession of Quebec" -- a scam to break up Canada for North American Union on the way to World Government.

Source: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/bastarache/index-eng.asp
Source: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/laforest/index-eng.asp
Source: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/sopinka/index-eng.asp

They are and have for decades been using "Quebec independence" as blackmail to impose the EU system of world federalism on all of Canada, but disguised as "Sovereignty Association".

For more on that, read my other Blog, Habeas Corpus Canada Comments:

http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/2009/10/sarkozy-scamming-quebecs-hoodwinked.html

CONCLUSIONS:

Given the Balfour Declaration of 1917, who do you think is behind this travesty? Anyone with the last name "Rothschild"? And then, of course, there's the 1941-42 GOMBERG MAP, with "HEBREWLAND" in the midst of a great COMMUNIST world federation that arguably resembles precisely what they are doing to us right now:

Overview of the Map: http://www.calameo.com/books/000111790b4f6e810268e

ZOOM: http://v.calameo.com/2.0/cviewer.swf?bkcode=000111790b4f6e810268e&langid=en

Note: for the BEST zoom quality, please download the PDF file in the Overview.

If you have received my links before, just to let you know, I am shifting all my documents over to "calaméo" out of scribd. This is a new Map link; I have 125 other documents to re-upload that will be back online in the next couple of days.

My best regards to one and all! Sleep tight, children, in Referendumland.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

MY OWN VIDEOS: http://hccvideocatalog.blogspot.com

Nos référendums ne sont pas de la démocratie directe - Don Rowat

2009-05-17T20:33:00.000-07:00

Bien que l'on dise souvent que le référendum tel qu'il est employé au Canada est un exercice de démocratie directe, ce n'est pas le cas en raison de l'usage confus que l'on fait du terme « référendum ». Aux États-Unis, ce terme signifie le renvoi d'une proposition législative à un vote populaire à l'instigation des citoyens. Le résultat de ce vote est exécutoire. Autrement dit, les électeurs adoptent directement des lois, sans passer par l'assemblée législative, ce qui explique que l'on parle en pareil cas de démocratie directe.

............................................................................................................................

Les référendums sont l'application à de vastes populations de la pratique de démocratie directe en usage dans les réunions de cantons suisses ou les assemblées publiques d'électeurs de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, où des lois sont encore adoptées et des impôts levés directement par les électeurs. Ce genre de référendum est un exercice de démocratie directe, en ce sens que les électeurs adoptent véritablement une loi s'ils approuvent la proposition qui leur est presentée.

L'autre signification du terme, celle qui est maintenant adoptée au Canada, est le renvoi d'une question à un vote populaire dont l'issue n'est pas exécutoire pour le gouvernement ou l'assemblée législative de qui elle émane. Un gouvernement ou une assemblée législative peut faire fi de son résultat et cela s'est souvent produit. Par conséquent, un référendum non exécutoire n*est simplement qu"un sondage d'opinion publique coûteux. On peut faire valoir que les sondages sont meilleurs, car ils sont menés aupres d'un échantillon scientifique de l'ensemble de la population adulte, alors que, dans un référendum à la canadienne, il est possible que très peu de gens votent. Par conséquent, il pourrait arriver facilement qu'un vote majoritaire ne reflète pas l'opinion majoritaire de l'ensemble de l'électorat. II serait plus juste d'appeler ce genre de référendum un plébiscite. Mais, bien souvent, ces termes sont utilisés de façon interchangeable au Canada. Par exemple, Patrick Boyer a intitulé son ouvrage de 1992 « La démocratie directe au Canada: L' histoire et l'avenir des référendums », même s'il portait surtout sur ce type de référendum. À mon avis, son titre est trompeur parce que la plupart des votes directs menés au Canada ont été de nature non exécutoire, qu'on les ait appelés référendums ou plébiscites. Par conséquent, ils ne constituent pas vraiment une forme de démocratie directe.

Il faut se rappeler qu'un plébiscite ou un référendum consultatif n'est pas un exercice de démocratie directe car c'est l'assemblée législative qui prend la décision finale.

Malheureusement, on suscite la confusion lorsqu'on emploie le même terme pour les référendums exécutoires et non exécutoires et qu'on dit dans les deux cas qu'il s'agit de « démocratie directe », car ils sont fondamentalement très différents. Dans nos discussions, nous aurions intérêt à préciser de quel type de référendum nous parlons en employant, le cas echéant, l'adjectif « non exécutoire » ou en parlant simplement de plébiscite ou de référendum consultatif, car il s'agit d'une simple consultation auprès de l'électorat.

Le genre de référendum prévu dans le projet de loi récemment soumis par le gouvernement Harris de l'Ontano ne saurait, à strictement parler, être considéré comme un mécanisme de démocratie directe. Même s'll exige du gouvernement qu'il tienne des référendums sur des changements constitutionnels ou des augmentations d'impôt et qu'il permette aux électeurs de prendre l'initiative dans d'autres dossiers, le résultat ne lie ni le gouvernement ni l'assemblée législative. Souvenez-vous que, à l'occasion d'un référendum consultatif au sujet du Toronto métropolitain, la population s'est prononcée par une forte majonté contre la fusion des municipalités, mais le gouvernement Harris a fait fi du vote et imposé la fusion de toute façon. Toute initiative des citoyens exigera qu'une pétition en vue de la tenue d'un référendum soit signée par 700 000 personnes représentant 10 p 100 des électeurs dans chacun des neuf districts judiciaires de l'Ontano. Selon les détracteurs de la formule, ces exigences sont beaucoup trop limitatives pour que les citoyens puissent s'en prévaloir fréquemment, si tant est qu'ils le puissent, pour réclamer un référendum. Ainsi, une pétition réclamant la tenue d'un référendum sur le gouvernement de Toronto exigerait l'appui de l'ensemble de la province, y compns 10 p 100 des électeurs dans un district du Nord de l'Ontano et, à l'occasion du référendum proprement dit, au moins 50p 100 des électeurs doivent voter. Par conséquent, le référendum pourrait passer avec une majonté de 25 p 100 plus un seulement des électeurs de l'Ontano.

Si nous utilisons aujourd'hui au Canada le terme référendum pour décrire surtout une consultation non obligatoire, c'est que, au début du siècle. les provinces de l'Ouest ont fait l'expérience du référendum obligatoire. La formule a été abandonnée, car la loi du Manitoba sur le sujet a été déclarée anticonstitutionnelle en 1919, principalement au motif qu'elle usurpait le pouvoir du Lieutenant-gouverneur d'opposer son véto à la loi à titre de représentant de la Couronne. Elle portait également atteinte au pouvoir du gouvernement fédéral de nommer les Lieutenants-gouverneurs et de leur donner des instructions.

Les provinces de l'Ouest avaient été influencées par l'évolution de la démocratie directe dans les États de l'Ouest des États-Unis, qui mettait habituellement en cause l'initiative des citoyens, le référendum et la révocation. Dans un quart des États environ, les citoyens pouvaient formuler une proposition et la soumettre directement à l'électorat, outrepassant ainsi complètement les assemblées législatives, dont bon nombre avaient d'ailleurs mauvaise réputation. Comme on peut le constater, l'initiative était étroitement liée au référendum obligatoire et à la révocation. Elle permettait à un petit pourcentage d'électeurs 1) de forcer l'assemblée législative à agir au sujet d'une proposition, 2) d'exiger un référendum sur une loi proposée par un ou des électeurs ou 3) de réclamer un vote sur la révocation d'un membre de l'assemblée législative. Par exemple, le projet de loi présenté en Saskatchewan en 1913 exigeait que 5 p 100 des électeurs signent une petition pour pouvoir obtenir la tenue d' un référendum. Cependant, ce projet de loi n'a pas obtenu le taux exigé de 30 p 100 d'approbation de l'ensemble de l'électorat. On peut donc dire qu'il a été rejété sur la base de son propre principe : la démocratie directe. Un projet de loi analogue a été adopté en Colombie-Britannique en 1919. mais n'a jamais été proclamé, sans doute en raison de la décision rendue par tribunal au sujet de la loi du Manitoba la même année. La loi albertaine de 1913 a contourné le problème constitutionnel en n'exigeant pas que l'issue du référendum soit obligatoire. Le résultat c'est que l'obstacle constitutionnel à la démocratie directe qui existait en 1919 existe toujours, sans qu'on puisse espérer une modification de la Constitution.

Par conséquent, les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux ont adopté des lois autorisant la tenue d'exercices qui sont essentiellement des plébiscites mais qui, dans la plupart des cas, ont tout de même été appelés référendums. Toutes les provinces, à l'exception de la Nouvelle-Écosse et de l'Ontano, disposent maintenant d'une telle loi, et on a eu fréquemment recours à ce type de référendum au Canada depuis la Conféderation. Dans son ouvrage, M Boyer dresse la liste de 60 référendums fédéraux ou provinciaux tenus avant 1992, la Colombie-Bntannique venant au premier rang avec 11. Les provinces ont également des lois prévoyant des référendums municipaux, et il y en a eu bien davantage à ce palier.

Les mécanismes de destitution des membres de l'assemblée législative n'ont pas été aussi populaires au Canada qu'aux États-Unis, peut-être parce que, au Canada, on estimait que le référendum exécutoire constituait un mécanisme suffisant de contrôle de l'assemblée législative. L'Alberta a été la seule province à prévoir la destitution, et encore, pas avant 1936. Cependant, cette initiative s'était soldée par l'embarras du premier ministre Aberhart et de son gouvernement. En effet, la seule tentative de révocation visait le premier ministre lui-même, dans sa propre circonscnption. Son gouvernement a doné précipitamment abrogé la loi sur la révocation en octobre 1937.

Les régimes autoritaires ont souvent eu recours au référendum consultatif pour faire étalage de l'approbation populaire d'une mesure arbitraire. Ces régimes truquent le vote pour être sûrs d'obtenir une écrasante majorité favorable.

Cependant, l'intérêt pour le processus de destitution a été ravivé récemment, particulièrement par le Parti réformiste. La Colombie-Bntannique en est un bon exemple. À l'occasion d'un référendum consultatif tenu en 1991, 74 p 100 des électeurs ont appuyé l'idée d'une loi sur la révocation. Le gouvernement a ensuite adopté sa Recall and Initiative Act en 1995. Cette mesure prévoit un vote de destitution exécutoire après dix-huit mois si 40 p. 100 des électeurs d'une circonscription signent une pétition en ce sens. Le mécanisme a été rapidement mis à l'essai en octobre 1997 contre deux députés de l'assemblée législative provinciale, l'un d'eux un ex-ministre du gouvernement Clark. Cependant, on n'a pas réussi à obtenir le taux de 40 p. 100 d'approbation nécessaire. L'autre tentative a pris la forme d'une pétition visant la révocation du député provincial Paul Reitsma. Le processus a été amorcé en avril 1998 après qu'il fut révélé qu'il avait écrit dans les journaux des lettres louangeuses à son endroit, qu'il avait signées d'un faux nom. M. Reitsma a démissionné par la suite. Dans l'intervalle, la B.C. Civil Liberties Association a contesté la constitutionnalité de la loi devant les tribunaux, invoquant essentiellement les mêmes raisons que dans l'affaire de 1919 concernant le référendum obligatoire.

Même si on ne peut affirmer qu'un référendum consultatif est un exercice de démocratie directe, on y a eu recours fréquemment au cours du siècle tant dans des pays démocratiques que non démocratiques, et sa popularité a augmenté. On trouve un excellent examen de la situation dans un ouvrage rédigé en 1994 par David Butler et Austin Ranney, sous le titre Referendums Around the World. On y trouve des renseignements au sujet d'environ 550 référendums importants, à l'exception de ceux tenus en Suisse et aux États-Unis, foyers de la démocratie directe, où ont eu lieu autant de référendums que dans tous les autres pays réunis. Ces cas importants sont répartis en deux catégories, les référendums nationaux et les référendums menés dans 140 territoires subordonnés, y compris ceux portant sur l'indépendance et la séparation, comme ceux du Québec. Ainsi, les lecteurs qu'intéresse le concept du « neverendum referendum » au Québec peuvent facilement s'informer sur cette situation en particulier. Dans chaque cas, la liste précise le pays, l'année, l'objet—ce qui est fort utile—le résultat du vote ainsi que la participation au scrutin. Cela est particulièrement intéressant étant donné que la participation electorale revêt beaucoup d'importance pour obtenir un vote majoritaire auprès de l'ensemble de l'électorat.

L'étude Butler-Ranney révèle que le référendum consultatif n'est pas nécessairement un outil démocratique. Comme nous l'avons mentionné, le problème tient au fait que la majorité exprimée dans un référendum peut être loin de la majorité de l'électorat. Toutefois, ce qui est plus grave, c'est que la démocratie se fonde non seulement sur la régie de la majorité, mais également sur le compromis et la protection des droits des minorités. Par consequent, un vote majoritaire peut supplanter ces droits, et c'est ce qu'on appelle souvent « la tyrannie de la majorité ».

............................................................................................................................
Source: Don Rowat, Nos référendums ne sont pas de la démocratie directe, 26 Revue Parlementaire Canadienne, Vol. 21, N^o 3, Automne 1998

Same article in English: Don Rowat, Our Referendums are not Direct Democracy, 26 Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, Autumn 1998

Au moment de rédiger cet article, Don Rowat était professeur émérite de sciences politiques à l'Université Carleton, d'Ottawa. Il était ex-président du Groupe canadien des études des questions parlementaires. Le présent article est la version révisée d'une communication présentée lors de la conférence printanière du Groupe.

Professeur Donald Rowat, qui a enseigné des sciences politiques à l'Université de Carleton pour plus de 40 ans, était l'expert académique de référence le plus réputé au Canada sur les médiateurs et la surveillance d'agences publiques. Il s'éteint à l'âge de 87 ans à l'hôpital à Ottawa le 2 décembre 2008 après une carrière longue et prolifique.

Remerciements : Le texte de base de cet article pour fins de ce blog a été obtenu en soumettant le fichier pdf au processus OCR* en ligne, service gratuit proposé par www.ocrterminal.com. Il est à noter que j'avais à relire le texte et à y ajouter les accents. Pour cette fin, je m'en suis servie de http://french.typeit.org/.

* OCR = Optical character recognition, à savoir « logiciel de reconnaissance optique de caractères »

Sur le caractère anti-démocratique du référendum - N. Lygeros

2009-05-17T17:06:00.000-07:00

En réalité, le référendum après la massification de la démocratie, représente une procédure qui permet au système d'utiliser la masse de la population pour valider une décision qui a déjà été prise. Sans la connaissance profonde du sujet la masse est manipulée via des moyens médiologiques pour aller dans le sens du système tout en étant persuadée d'avoir eu le dernier mot dans le choix.

............................................................................................................................

Dans les états qui connaissent un tant soit peu la notion de démocratie, le référendum est considéré comme l'outil démocratique par excellence. Dans cet article, à l'encontre de cette idée dominante, nous allons montrer qu'il n'en est rien et que le référendum est un processus aliéné par la massification de la démocratie.

A l'origine, le référendum qui provient de l'expression latine "ad referendum", est une demande de consultation. Dans son sens premier i.e. vote de l'ensemble des citoyens pour approuver ou rejeter une mesure proposée par le pouvoir exécutif, il est semblable au terme plébiscite, ce qui est compatible avec son équivalent grec plus ancien dont le sens est le vote du dème. Et c'est dans ce cadre qu'il prend pleinement son sens politique. En effet, dans une démocratie de type athénien, l'assemblée du dème est un représentant de la population citoyenne. Le rapport est effectivement très faible. Nous pouvons considérer un exemple plus actuel comme le cas suisse puisque le référendum est une pratique courante dans ce pays, alors qu'il n'apparaît dans aucune des constitutions de la France avant 1946. Dans tous ces cas, l'idée essentielle est que la population est relativement faible et donc que la partie votante représente une partie essentielle de celle-ci. Cela représente le cadre idéal du référendum. Les problèmes surgissent lorsque le pouvoir exécutif fait appel au référendum dans un pays dont la population est importante et surtout dans lequel le pouvoir représente une minorité très faible.

Cette fois, le référendum est manipulable beaucoup plus facilement pour le pouvoir qui agit sur la masse et du coup perd son sens originel. Car la base de la validité d'un vote, c'est la connaissance de sa nature. Pour voter, il faut savoir. Seulement dans une démocratie de masse, très peu de personnes sont au courant de toutes les ficelles du pouvoir et des répercussions d'un choix. Car la politique, en raison de la masse, est devenue de manière essentielle l'affaire de processus et de spécialistes. Pour un individu normal, le manque de temps et la taille du nombre de documents à traiter engendrent la nécessité de choisir : soit il se retrouve à plein temps dans la politique et il appartient, selon son niveau, dans cette échelle aux hommes qui prennent les décisions, soit il appartient aux autres. Cette dichotomie de facto a une autre conséquence qui concerne l'information.

Bien qu'il soit implicite, le rôle de l'information est fondamental pour le sens du référendum. Car comment voter sans savoir ? Pour pallier à cela, le système gère lui-même l'information créant ainsi une dyssymétrie dans le fonctionnement. C'est ainsi qu'apparaît un phénomène trichotomique : il y a les non-informés, les informés, et les informés qui informent. Bien sûr, par définition, l'ensemble de cette population vote au même titre. Cependant quelle est la valeur de ce vote ? En a-t-il simplement une ? Quel est le vote d'une personne normale qui n'a qu'une information partielle et partiale de l'objet du vote ? Quelle est sa part de responsabilité dans le temps ?

En réalité, le référendum après la massification de la démocratie, représente une procédure qui permet au système d'utiliser la masse de la population pour valider une décision qui a déjà été prise. Sans la connaissance profonde du sujet la masse est manipulée via des moyens médiologiques pour aller dans le sens du système tout en étant persuadée d'avoir eu le dernier mot dans le choix. Ce dernier point, n'est qu'un moyen supplémentaire pour le système de se couvrir auprès de la population qui ne peut pas le rendre coupable de sa réponse finale. Seulement nous savons bien que la réponse n'est qu'un détail dans l'art de la question. L'important ce n'est pas de répondre directement à une question mais comment la poser pour obtenir la réponse désirée. Tel est le nouveau sens du référendum et c'est en cela qu'il est anti-démocratique.

La source originale de cet article: N. Lygeros

............................................................................................................................

COMMENTAIRE :

C'est exactement la situation au Québec. Les référendums en Europe et au Canada sont un outil pour employer l'électorat tout simplement afin de valider une «décision déja prise» il y a les décennies, bien avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, bien avant la Première Guerre mondiale, de créer un gouvernement mondial au profit et sous le contrôle total des plus riches du monde. Ce gouvernement mondial ne peut pas se réaliser sans préalablement détruire les nations existantes et leurs systèmes existants par divers moyens. Par exemple, engendrer des victimes afin d'exploiter le pouvoir de la victime, car, certes, la victime par définition ne peut rien faire par lui-même. Donc, son créateur lui donne l'illusion de faire quelque chose en instituant un processus menant à un résultat pré-ordonné.

Les référendums de 1980 et de 1995 au Québec étaient tous les deux de pures prétextes pour imposer sur tout le Canada—non seulement sur le Québec—une nouvelle forme de gouvernement, celle de l'Union Européenne. Donc, la majorité de 32 millions de la population au Canada seraient soumise au même résultat planifié sans participer à l'illusion du «vote». Et on appelle ça la démocratie? Non, on appelle ça l'exercice du pouvoir illusoire de la victime de créer une classe de personnes possédant ironiquement plus de droits que tous les autres. Étant spéciale à cause de sa nature inhérente de victime elle arrivent à avoir le droit de supprimer les droits de tout le monde. Et cela c'est complètement contraire au règle de droit, ça c'est le système éternel des tyrans.

Quelle contradiction! La victime impuissante, à cause de son impuissance, a en fait plus de pouvoir que tout le monde! C'est la magie de la chimie politique! Mais cette victime n'arrive pas dans un vide. Il est créé par des tyrans et des brigands impuissants qui, souhaitant renverser la loi qui les empêche d'agir, et n'ayant pas le mandat, créent une population de victimes conçues pour leur en donner un.

Cette forme de gouvernement (de l'Union Européenne) est soviétique en son origine. Il fait partie du plan soviétique-sioniste de concert avec les traîtres de l'Ouest, d'imposer un gouvernement mondial au modèle soviétique-fasciste. Les gens sont dupés par les joueurs de flûte de Hamelin de la sécession en faux et de la souveraineté en faux afin de les forcer à se détruire.

............................................................................................................................

HABEAS CORPUS CANADA - Some of the Grounds

2009-04-22T22:41:00.001-07:00

From: www.habeascorpuscanada.com
[/grounds.html]
PDF online at: http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117902cd601fc48fe

DOWNLOAD THE PDF TO READ THE DOCUMENT

[GET THE EMBED CODE AND ADD IT TO YOUR OWN BLOG OR SITE]

View the overview page & Download the PDF:

HABEAS CORPUS CANADA - Some of the Grounds

The Real Pierre Trudeau:

2009-04-19T19:08:00.000-07:00

UNPUBLISHED, UNACKNOWLEDGED LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Sunday, 22 February 2009 stu 15h20

Re: The Real Pierre Trudeau: Father of Canada's Permissive Society
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2000/oct/001003a.html

To: editor@lifesitenews.com

On 3 October 2000, managing director of LifeSiteNews.com, Steve Jalsevac, referred to Canada's federal Charter of Wrongs, observing that "Thanks to Pierre Trudeau our Canadian democracy has been crippled by this ball and chain that will be very difficult to remove."

In that regard, I am pleased to report the following news. Mr. Trudeau's Charter is an illegal amendment to the British North America Act, 1867. It is therefore null and void. Its illegality consists in part in the fact that it alters the lawful Constitution, originally called the British North America Act, 1867, by amongst other things limiting the powers of Parliament and of the Legislatures.

Point #1: In 1931, the Statute of Westminster legally conferred independence, that is, national sovereignty, upon Canada. All that remained was for Canadians to find an amending formula to slightly adjust the Constitution from time to time.

Point #2: In 1931, the Statute of Westminster also expressly protected the Constitution of Canada, by prescribing as follows:

7. (1) Nothing in this Act [the Statute of Westminster] shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

Point #3: As a result, neither Mr. Trudeau nor Canadian Parliament had any authority or power even to ask the United Kingdom to add the Charter, which very markedly repeals, amends and alters the powers of Canadian Parliament and of the Legislatures, prescribed by the British North America Act, 1867 and therefore damages Canadian Constitutional democracy.

Point #4: In 1981, under Mr. Trudeau, the Governor in Council directed a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada known as the "Patriation reference". The questions dictated by the Trudeau government and imposed upon the Supreme Court in a political and advisory capacity having no connection with the functions of a real court, did not include the fundamental question: "Has Canada the authority and power to repeal, amend and alter the British North America Act, 1867 by adding to it this federal Charter?"

Absent this question, all other questions, including those self-servingly asked by the Trudeau government, were and are irrelevant, and the Supreme Court in answering, did nothing to legalize what is fundamentally illegal, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated assertion of a majority that the Charter, as imposed by the Canada Act, was in fact legal. Moreover, under the statutory terms of the reference, the Supreme Court, so-called, has no power to put its own questions. Therefore, that particular majority had no power to purport to answer a question that had not been asked, regardless that it should have been asked -- and that, only if the Reference jurisdiction were valid to begin with.

Point #5: The Supreme Court of Canada, when it sits on a reference, does not "rule" or "decide". It does not hand down a "judgment". It issues a non-binding opinion. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1982 Patriation reference is therefore not law; it is not a part of our Constitutional law. The voluntary adherence of government or anyone else to these mere opinions does not make them law.

The legality or illegality of the Charter as an amendment to the British North America Act, 1867 therefore remains to be determined by a competent court regularly seized of the question, accompanied by the full panoply of procedural safeguards, and subject to genuine appeal to a real appellate court.

Point #6: The reference jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada is an illegal jurisdiction not authorized anywhere in the British North America Act, 1867, which in fact prohibits it. This discovery was made but concealed from the public in the context of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1910 on the legality of the reference jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's non-binding opinion in 1910 was then sent ludicrously for yet another non-binding view to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom in 1912.

The Judicial Committee itself had no jurisdiction, as its enabling statutes did not authorize it to hear appeals from Canadian-created references, and Canadian Parliament had no power under the BNA Act, 1867 to give jurisdiction to a board of another country, albeit that of the United Kingdom.

In 1910 and again in 1912, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could find nothing in the British North America Act, 1867 which authorized Canadian Parliament to legislate into existence a judicial-ministerial board instead of the general court of appeal specifically authorized at s. 101 of the British North America Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada, despite its name, is therefore not a Court; it is a thing of a very different character combining inseverably both judicial and ministerial functions in one board. In effect, the 'general court of appeal' for Canada which s. 101 of 1867 authorized to be set up, and which is a pure court, not more, not less, has indeed never been set up.

In 1910 and again in 1912, judicial and political embarrassment were avoided when the Supreme Court of Canada (so-called) and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 'upheld' (by non-binding opinion) the non-existent Canadian invention of a judicial-ministerial, unelected and therefore non-responsible and undemocratic quasi-ministerial jurisdiction.

The Judges then blithely continued to exercise a non-existent jurisdiction under a void statute in which they had been indulging since shortly after its attempted enactment by Canadian Parliament in 1875.

Neither the 1910 nor the 1912 'opinion' was a legal ruling, judgment or decision. And, neither was the 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference in any way a final legal determination of the constitutionality and thus of the legality of the Supreme Court's reference jurisdiction, which, once again, the Supreme Court itself presumed to legalize by self-pronouncement in a mere non-binding opinion in the context of its own void jurisdiction.

The legality of the reference jurisdiction still remains to be decided by a real court regularly seized of the subject matter. The only court capable of determining with finality the legality of the reference jurisdiction, and thus of the statute which purports to establish the Supreme Court of Canada in 1875, is a true "Constitutional" court of Canada, as prescribed by s. 96 et seq of the British North America Act, 1867.

The foregoing is to say that:

(a) Trudeau's Patriation reference was not a judgment, ruling or decision, and the legality of the Charter has thus never been submitted to lawful adjudication in a real court of law.

(b) The 1998 Supreme Court Reference re the Secession of Quebec is another absolute nullity, which is not and never was a judgment, ruling or decision. This opinion being a nullity issued from a void jurisdiction, the Clarity Act which purports to give legal effect to that opinion, as a tool to facilitate multiple secessions and the end of Canada, is itself a fraud, a lie, and an absolute nullity perpetrated by enemies of Canada detaining our governments.

And, moreover, notice: we would not need a Clarity Act to "give" legal effect, if the reference opinion itself already had legal effect.

Personal Rule of Pierre Trudeau and the Reference Board

Mr. Trudeau and others before him and after him have been undemocratically governing Canada by way of personal rule with the Supreme Court reference board for many decades, exhorting Canadians to obey these opinions, dictated by government, that is, by those detaining government and controlling the questions.

By evading direct questions that are fundamental, such as "Is the Charter a lawful amendment to the British North America Act, 1967?" And "Is secession legal in Canada?" they sidestep the real Constitution, thus diverting public debate away from pertinent facts into wrong channels.

In the end, by manipulating the reference bench, and avoiding the real courts, those detaining our governments are able to impose gross illegalities in the name of 'law'.

Canada's Communist Infiltrators

As for Mr. Trudeau and his friendship with Castro, please visit my web site, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA, at www.habeascorpuscanada.com, in particular the GROUNDS page. In these paragraphs, and in three videos of mine and a newsletter attached to the 2008 Elections button, you will discover that:

(i) Trudeau, while Justice Minister under Lester Pearson in 1967, belonged to a secret committee of federal ministers and others, mostly from Quebec, run by Power Corporation.

(ii) That secret committee deliberately escalated radical separatism to break up Canada, and (iii) strategized the founding of the Parti Québécois by René Lévesque to consolidate the disparate separatist elements into a FRONT for imposing European-Union style institutions on Canada, disguised as Québec independence.

(iv) "Sovereignty Association" and its other euphemism under Jacques Parizeau, "Partnership" of Québec with the rest of Canada, is and always has been a scam to replace Confederation with an embryonic North American Union based on the European Union, which is a template for world government. There are currently EU-style unions (i.e., fledgling Soviet unions) in different stages of development on all the continents.

(v) The 1980 and 1995 referendums (illegal, by the way) to destroy Canada both failed.

Therefore, unlike Europeans, who have to some degree been acclimatized to what is coming, thanks to the progressively tightening rope around their necks, Canadians, and North Americans are about to be dragged cold-turkey and by force into a long-planned North American Union scheduled to be imposed between now and 2010.

Emergence of a Supranational Non-state Foreign Power

How could this be happening? Simply, Canada has had no lawful Constitutional government for decades. Our Prime Ministers have been and are the tools of supranational entities acting as a new kind of foreign power to dismantle our countries from within.

That supranational network includes but is not limited to: the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Prime Ministers of Canada who have been involved in Bilderberg include Lester B. Pearson, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney, and Stephen Harper. And that's not counting members of all our Provincial executives, our academic and banking institutions and our press and media, all innoculated with the One-Party Policy of the self-appointed supranationals.

This is why we are getting North American Union, a step on the way to world union and communist world government. These men (and women) have been carrying out not the democratic will of their electorates, but the dictates of a supranational gang of self-appointed elites who have sown discord among us to impose what they long ago decided to impose, a one-world communist government of merged continental unions.

Trudeau and Levesque both espoused a one-world government. I will have information on that in my next web-site update.

Playing good cop/bad cop for public consumption, both men consciously abused the national sentiment of French-Canadians, and the outrage of English-speaking Canadians to drive a fatal wedge into Canada intended to destroy Confederation.

Moreover, Canada's FLQ terrorist organization was founded by Fidel Castro, to get the ball rolling on the breakup of Canada.

FLQ Assassination Ties To Model Parliament for North American

As early as 1963, an employee of Power Corporation, journalist Paul Rochon, working for La Presse newspaper, owned by Power through its affiliate Gesca, put up a $5000 bail bond to free one self-admitted FLQ terrorist, François Mario Bachand. Bachand then promptly vanished. He was executed some years later in Paris by a bullet to the head while in the close companionship of Louise Beaudoin and her husband. What Mr. Bachand did for his mentors to warrant such a brutal execution remains to be discovered.

However, Madam Beaudoin has since then had a flourishing Canadian career in both federal and provincial government, and notably sits, with her hands charmingly folded in her photograph, in the Model Parliament for North America being run and hosted by the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) currently housed in offices on the University de Montréal campus, perhaps not coincidentally the same campus of Georges Schoeters, recruited by Fidel Castro on 27 April 1959 in Montreal to set up the FLQ terrorist group to promote the breakup of Canada.

I will be updating my web site www.habeascorpuscanada.com in the next few weeks, please keep tuning in. Most importantly, please send Habeas Corpus Canada to your entire address book. Few Canadians are yet aware that North American Union is happening and those who do are little aware of what is really behind it.

Quebec Government Site Reverts to Constitutional Bilingualism

Update: I wish to note that those detaining the government of Quebec have recently (no doubt self-servingly) withdrawn the Spanish-language version of the Quebec government web site that had been online since at least 2002 and which I had exposed at Habeas Corpus Canada.

They have now shifted Spanish to the Quebec government's so-called "international" section. It would be a shame if during the next phoney referendum, a Spanish Quebec government web site tipped off the otherwise duped electorate to the incoming North American Union with Mexico.

I hope that my exposé of this earmark of incoming North American Union had something to do with their decision to revert to the French-English web site.

Provincial "Internationalism"

It should be noted that under the lawful Constitution, no province has any right to carry out treaties or international agreements. Encouragement from those detaining the federal government has resulted in a Province like Quebec developing international ties which closely resemble a string of Quebec "national" consulates or embassies.

This is all part and parcel of the criminal dismantling of Canada to set up a series of phoney independent states in place of provinces, so as to re-federate these new 'states' into North American Union, and then into planetary union, a final step that will permanently eliminate all of them them, except as geographic place-names.

And, thus, another item needs to be fixed in order to get back the one, united nation of Canada prescribed by the real Constitution: no treaties and no embassies for the Provinces.

Some Conclusions

Ensuing from the foregoing, I intend to challenge the legality of the Charter, and of the Supreme Court reference jurisdiction in the context of my legal proceedings in Habeas Corpus for Canada. Both are inextricably linked to the planned take-down of Canada, as will be demonstrated in my future legal proceedings, which will commence in the Federal Court of Canada and conclude in a Section 96 Court.

Thanks very much for your time, I appreciate it. Have a great day.

Kathleen Moore
Montreal, Canada
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
www.habeascorpuscanada.com
The Official Legal Challenge
to North American Union

More VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/crazyforcanada

And also at: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=37557602

Charles F. Doran Testifies on the "Unravelling" of Canada

2009-02-25T21:14:00.000-08:00

[EMPHASES ADDED]

LexisNexis(R) Email Request (1842:64373708)

1182VW

Print Request: Selected Document(s): 1

Time of Request: October 05, 2005 03:28 PM EDT
Number of Lines: 109
Job Number: 1842:64373708
Client ID/Project Name:

Research Information:
Note:
1 of 4 DOCUMENTS

Copyright 1996 FDCHeMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony

September 25, 1996, Wednesday

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1776 words

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY September 25, 1996 ANDREW W. MELLON PROFESSOR OF
INTERNATION [sic] RELATIONS NITZE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATION [sic] STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS WESTERN HEMISPHERE SITUATION IN QUEBEC

BODY:

Charles F. Doran

Andrew W. Mellon Professor of International Relations

Nitze School of Advanced International Studies,

Johns Hopkins University

September 25, 1996

House Committee on International Relations

Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere

Will Quebec secede from Canada?

If Quebec secedes, will English Canada unravel?

What's the impact on

U.S.

interests of Canadian fragmentation?

How should the

United States

respond?

WILL QUEBEC SECEDE FROM CANADA?

In the Fall 1995 referendum on Quebec separation, the ruling Parti Quebecois government came within about 50,000 votes of a majority in favor of secession. Quebec separatists claim that independence is necessary to preserve Quebec language and culture. This claim has created political tension within the province of Quebec between federalists and the separatists and within Canada as a whole.

Premier Bouchard has indicated that the top priority for the PQ government is, for the present, fighting the large financial deficit and governing effectively. He argues that Quebec will not call another referendum before the next Quebec election scheduled for 1999 or earlier. But he has also and he promises that Quebec voters will insisted that separation remains on his government's agenda, he promises that Quebec voters will get another opportunity to decide this issue.

Prediction of future political events with any degree of confidence is impossible. There are many reasons, however, for believing that the threat of Quebec separation ought to be taken seriously. According to The Globe and Mail, Canada's leading English newspaper, 52.5 percent of Quebec voters currently support separation. Each generation of Quebec voters has become more supportive of secession, especially in the aftermath of the unsuccessful attempts at country-wide constitutional reform during the so-called Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Younger voters are more independence-minded than older voters, and as each generation ages, it tends to retain this profile of preference for independence.

Ottawa has made bold efforts to meet the demands of Quebec interests, while at the same time trying to satisfy the concerns of mostly English-speaking voters living elsewhere in Canada. Prime Minister Chretien's government has introduced legislation to address some of Quebec's concerns regarding the acknowledgment of Quebec as a "distinct society," regarding the creation of a veto for Quebec and other provinces over constitutional change, and regarding worker retraining. The problem is that as large a majority is against these provisions elsewhere in Canada as is supportive of them in Quebec. Hence, Ottawa has an extremely difficult time getting the changes entrenched in the constitution and unless they are so entrenched, Quebec rejects them as ephemeral.

Canada

is thus faced with a dilemma of how to meet Quebec demands without antagonizing the rest of the country and without undermining the capacity to govern effectively. Language issues, educational policy, immigration rules, and joint Federal-Provincial funding of public programs all have inflamed opinion inside Quebec between the anglophone minority and the francophone majority.

Many things can happen to affect future Outcomes in Quebec, including a return of the pro-federalist (but nationalist) Liberal Party to power, a downturn of the business cycle that temporarily could shock voters, and new policy initiatives on all sides. But the seriousness of Quebec separation remains a priority issue for Canada and indeed for all of North America.

IF QUEBEC SECEDES, WILL ENGLISH CANADA UNRAVEL?

Quebec secession is normally regarded as the only conceivable event that could lead to an unravelling of Canada. Canada enjoys nearly a century and one-half of formal integration as a confederation. Its political institutions are sophisticated and deeply committed to democracy. Consistently, Canada is ranked by Opinion Surveys as the number one polity in which to live. Despite all of these advantages, Canada would receive a sharp political jolt if Quebec decided to opt out.

English Canada undoubtedly would attempt to reconstitute itself politically after Quebec separation. The central question is whether Such reconstitution would satisfy both the voters in Ontario, Canada's largest, most populous, and richest English-speaking provinces. Quite a few hurdles exist.

First, the eastern Maritime Provinces would be cut off from Canada by an independent Quebec. Despite the best of intention by of Canada a sense of being alone and distant in geographic avoided. The Maritimes themselves might regroup politically, but loss of geographic propinquity with the rest of English Canada would not be easy to adjust to.

Second, large financial transfer payments currently pass from the rich industrial and oil-abundant provinces to the poorer, less industrialized provinces like Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Once federation collapses, the voters in the rich provinces may have second thoughts about continuing to support the less prosperous provinces. If transfer payments disappear, the "glue" that has traditionally held the country together in public policy terms might dissolve.

Third, the Canadian West has historically suffered from what analysts call "Western alienation." Some 12 percent of voters in British Columbia, for example, say they should become a separate country. This sense of alienation from the Canadian heartland has many causes, some of which like tariff inequities are either fanciful or have disappeared. Yet the sense of disenchantment with the industrial and political center of Canada lives on. A difference in electoral and party preference, combined with problems of political representation in the major governing parties, all have contributed to the feelings many Westerners have of being "left out."

Fourth, in a Canada bereft of Quebec, Ontario would tower over its neighboring provinces in terms of virtually every measure including political clout. Surely, Alberta, for instance, would demand a new Senate in which every province has equal representation. Smaller provinces would probably need to regroup on a larger regional basis. The constitution would require re-drafting. Ontario, of course, would be expected to yield substantial sovereignty and political leverage so that all of these far-reaching constitutional changes would be allowed to go forward.

The problem is that, in the end, some provinces might decide to go their own way politically. Ultimately Canada could fragment into three, four, five, or more entities, each independent, but also relatively weak and isolated. No one would consciously seek the unraveling of Canada, but

Canada

could unravel just the same, as the unintended result of a failure to overcome the fissiparousness of government action and the monumental challenge of political reconstruction.

WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT ON U.S. INTERESTS
OF CANADIAN FRAGMENTATION?

Accustomed to "peace, order, and good government" above the 49th parallel, Americans have a difficult time imagining a situation in which a number of small, disparate states would occupy the space that once was a united Canada. Should such an agent occur, the interests of the United States would be at stake. Political, economic, diplomatic, administrative, and defense concerns would emerge. What once was a coherent, friendly,and well-governed polity would become in the parlance of international politics something of a political vacuum.

Administrative interactions would become more numerous, complex, and burdensome. Coalitional arrangements might arise with non- hemispheric powers. Defense arrangements would require multiple participation by independent actors theoretically capable of vetoing policies adopted by the majority representation. How all of these innovations and changes would evolve is beyond the ability of the analyst to systematically explore and delineate.

While all of the actors undoubtedly would prefer membership in NAFTA, keeping NAFTA whole and vigorous might prove demanding. Once individual political borders arise, trade, commercial, and financial obstacles often follow. Continuation of effective trade liberalization on a regional basis is the challenge.

In short, the goal of many to see North America evolve into a broad, open liberal trade order might stumble in the face of an unravelling of Quebec and English Canada.

HOW SHOULD THE UNITED STATES RESPOND?

Canada

must be allowed to decide for itself, without interference, according to democratic principles, what political fate it prefers. Farsighted leadership in Ottawa, and in Quebec City, as well as in the other provincial capitals, may well head-off imminent break-up and create a new foundation for a united Canada in the twenty-first century. Yet enough indicators presently exist to suggest that this set of initiatives will not come easily or with large guarantees of success.

It is time for the United States to take Canada's problems seriously and to begin to consider how its own interests will be affected by an unravelling of Canada. At a minimum, the United States ought to consider various contingencies, and, without precipitating the outcome that it seeks to avoid, work out the responses that will be in the best interest of each of the polities of North America.

(1) The United States might, in the event of Canadian unraveling, offer the isolated political fragments a kind of regional affiliation with the United States. They would pursue their independent domestic policies. But they would forgo building their militia and attempting to establish unique foreign policies. Terms could be established to promote mutual security for all of North America.

(2) Difficult though the path to statehood would be both for the United States and for a Canadian fragment attempting such a venture, the United States should be prepared to consider such requests if regional affiliation proves insufficiently attractive. Proud of Canada, most Canadians rightly reject any thought of alternatives to Canadian citizenship. But if English Canada fragments, all of the political cards will have been shuffled. It is very difficult to see what preferences might then eventuate. Better that the United States keep an open mind regarding its options than to rigidly foreclose some of them now based on presently inadequate information and an imperfect understanding of what a very different kind of North America could require.

LOAD-DATE: September 26, 1996