The “Patriation” of 1982 was unlawful: the Charter is not valid law. Neither are the Part V amending formulae.
The iconic image below is a deception. The signature of the document under the hand and pen of Mrs. Elizabeth Windsor, does not make the Charter or the Part V amending formulae lawful.
At their very root and origin, the Charter and the amending formulae are unlawful, meaning prohibited by the lawful Constitution, the British North America Act of 1867.
1982: False Patriation
The Charter is void.
The “patriation” was unlawful!
The Charter and Part V contravene the specific terms of the lawful Constitution, which among other things, prohibit the federal government from laying a finger on a Province to alter its local constitution.
The Provinces cannot agree to allow the federal government or any other authority to alter the local Provincial constitutions, because the written Constitution expressly denies them the right to do so.
Therefore, no question arises of Quebec’s being “isolated” or “left out” of the 1982 “new” constitution.
That is because no amount of agreement no matter by how many “parties”, federal or provincial, could “legalize” or “authorize” what was done in 1982. Governments and Legislatures cannot get together and “consent” to violate the Constitution, and call it “legal”.
In effect, the so-called “patriation” of 1982 is void. The amending formulae are void. And Quebec was left out of nothing, except the opportunity to add its formal signature to a coup d’état.
Some Consequences
of the 1982 Coup d’Etat
Let me start with the consequences, to get you interested. And, yes, it was a coup d’état.
1. The “patriation’s” being void means that the British North America Act, 1867, is and remains Canada’s only lawful Constitution.
2. Since only governments elected under, and courts constituted under the British North America Act, 1867, are valid courts and governments, no valid courts or governments have existed since the moment of “signature” of the “patriation” documents.
3. As a result, since the 1982 “patriation”, Canada has been “run” by a series of usurpations improvised under the terms of the 1982 “new” constitution; and not “governed” by lawful governments and courts lawfully constituted under the lawful British North America Act of 1867.
“Not even the Sovereign herself can change the law,” — Claire Palley, Ph.D.; Reader in Law, the Queen’s University of Belfast, writing in “The Judicial Process: U.D.I. and the Southern Rhodesian Judiciary,” The Modern Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 3 (May, 1967), pp. 263-287
Since only validly constituted governments may make valid laws, collect tax, or supply the maintenance of a lawfully operating military force:
all tax collected since the 1982 “moment of signature” has been criminal theft for the purpose of “running” a sequence of rogue (outlaw) governments under the 1982 illegal “new” constitution, with a view to annexing Canada into the Leninist North American (regional) Union. The lawful Constitution forbids annexing Canada, in very clear terms; even the 1982 coup constitution offers no semblance of authority to do so;
all “laws” which seem to have been passed are in reality nullities (i.e. void);
and all expenditures of Canadian taxpayers’ funds outside the framework of the lawful British North America Act of 1867, have been criminally fraudulent confiscations.
Criminal acts have consequences. Those victimized have legal recourse.
To further illustrate:
all jail sentences and other penalties inflicted under the unlawful Charter to subjugate Canadians to the unlawful 1982 rogue regime, are exertions of tyranny for which the perpetrators are criminally and civilly liable.
As William and Robert Baldwin said in their anonymous ‘Letter on Responsible Government’ of 1829: “Self government being the first principle of every free constitution, nothing short of absolute necessity can be a sufficient excuse for a violation of it.”
There was no necessity whatsoever for the 1982 coup d’état, which was a power grab to eliminate the self-government of the Founding Peoples of Canada.
Consequently, upon restoration of the lawful British North America Act of 1867, only those things done under such void “laws” as affect the rights of third parties may be given their “effect” by courts under the “doctrine of necessity”.
However, in no case may such “effect” prejudice the constitutionally entrenched rights of self-government of the founding peoples of Canada which are theirs by virtue of the lawful British North America Act of 1867. Full exercise of these rights must be restored to them, undiminished.
As Dr. Glanville Williams said in “The Defence of Necessity” (1953) 6 C.L.P. 216 at p. 224:
“[T]he defence of necessity involves a choice of the lesser evil. It requires a judgment of value, an adjudication between competing ‘goods’ and a sacrifice of one or the other.”
Each of the Provincial Legislatures belongs to one of the Founding Peoples who were the majority on that soil in 1867. The Provincial Legislatures legally, are not miniature multicultural confederations. They are the permanent jurisdiction and seat of self-government for each of the Founding Peoples of Canada.
Therefore, the constitutionally secured rights of the founding peoples of Canada will not be “sacrificed” in any future adjudication of “competing” claims between them and unlawfully mass-immigrated foreigners when The British North America Act is restored.
It is obvious, by reason alone of the 1982 coup d’état that the immigration laws are void, related policy is void, and Brian Mulroney’s “Canadian Multiculturalism Act” of 1988 is de facto void. It would be void anyway, as there is no provision in the 1982 coup constitution, and certainly none in the lawful Constitution, to eradicate the Founding Peoples and Confederation from the soil of Canada by sliding a new constitution called “Multiculturalism” over a new population of immigrated foreigners.
All that said, the cases of Brad Love and Pastor Mark Harding are two that will have to be reviewed when lawful government, lawful courts and the lawful British North America Act, 1867 are restored.
For, in our so-called “free and democratic” society under the Charter, there is no more free political speech. But free speech (outside of slander) is a necessity for a functioning Parliamentary democracy on the British model.
As Albert Venn Dicey said, speaking of the British system (inherited in Canada):
“Parliamentary government may under favourable circumstances go a great way towards securing such blessings as the prevalence of personal liberty and the free expression of opinion.”
It can hardly be valid to silence men whose complaints about aspects of the mass immigration in fact translate into concerns about their own self-government on their own soil, established for them in 1867. All mass immigration, all incompatible populations, are an assault on the right to self-government established, constitutionally, in 1867.
That right belongs now as a birthright to the Founding Peoples of Canada. To label the expression of concerns such as those above as “racist” or as “hate” is a blatant attack upon the basic necessity of FREE SPEECH to the very existence of functioning Parliamentary institutions of self-government by free people on their own soil.
If you cannot, by supposed “law”, express an opinion with regard to the scope and character of immigration, which is an act of your own supposed “responsible” and “representative” government, then you have no “self” government at all, you are not free, you are a captive detainee of an oppressive, arbitrary system.
We therefore currently do not have a British Parliamentary democracy in Canada, thanks to Mr. Trudeau.
Fortunately, the Charter is void, the so-called “Patriation” being unlawful.
How Do We Know
the “Patriation” is Void?
There are many ways of knowing that the 1982 “patriation” is void. Among them, a number of evidentiary documents prove it. For example, there is the pair of 1982 “Cronkite Lectures” by one of the main architects of the coup on Canada, Barry Lee Strayer.
Barry Lee Strayer 1
These lectures were delivered by Strayer to the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan while he was Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Law) in the Department of Justice (Canada). Barely six months had passed since the so-called “patriation” of Canada’s constitution from the United Kingdom. Strayer was therefore speaking as a member of the rogue government which had just overturned Confederation. The title of his lectures was “The Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution“.
Right away, the word “Legitimacy” in the title sets off air-raid sirens. That word has been used by fascist philosophers to rationalize coup d’états. When “legitimacy” is alleged, you know “legality” is in doubt.
And that is precisely the object of Strayer’s rhetoric in these two “law” lectures, whose title puts the legality of the 1982 “patriation” immediately into question. He ultimately defends the 1982 coup d’état on Canada by reference to theories of a philosopher of law, Hans Kelsen, whose abstract notions of the origins of “law” Strayer admits have been invoked by courts faced with coups d’états and unlawful governments.
Says Strayer, in direct reference to the coup d’état on Canada which he, himself, helped to orchestrate:
“Unlike many legal philosophers, Hans Kelsen has been widely cited in the courts, particularly in countries of the Commonwealth where judges have had to cope with coups d’état, revolutions, and other legal discontinuities in government. As you can imagine, he has been a great comfort to the judicial mind when faced with the need to recognize new governments which enjoy some political legitimacy but lack legal legitimacy.
That’s what we had in Canada in 1982. Not “patriation”, but a “legal discontinuity in government”; subsequent to which, we have had nothing but a long series of “unlawful governments” working furiously to annex Canada to the USA and Mexico.
After defending the “legitimacy” of the 1982 coups d’état, but not its legality, Strayer concludes that:
“In other words, political legitimacy is essential; legal legitimacy is desirable but not necessary. Or put another way, nothing succeeds like success.”
– Barry Lee Strayer, The Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution, (hereafter, “Legitimacy“) Cronkite Lecture No. 1 (1982), page 3-2 (three dash two)
Essentially, these Cronkite Lectures are a confession, in legal language, that the 1982 “patriation” was unlawful and a coup d’état; but with the admonition of Strayer that courts will not reverse it because of the elaborateness of the “procedures” used to pull it off.
Have I got news for Mr. Strayer. He may still live long enough to spend one or two years in a federal penitentiary for high treason when the British North America Act is restored.
Millions of Canadians whose Parliament and Legislatures were hijacked in 1982 by the leftist world government crowd are going to be very unhappy with Barry Lee Strayer.
Sir Edmund Burke made a useful distinction when he said
“Government and a free government are two different things”.
Sir John Laws (United Kingdom) has said that
“Government outside law is tyranny.”
Since 1982, Canada has had a tyranny.
______
1 The up-and-coming (in this old photo) Barry Lee Strayer is an Oxford graduate, on a Rockefeller-funded Mackenzie-King Travelling Scholarship. Strayer will be the chief draftsman of Canada’s 1982 coup constitution.