The Purpose Of The Oath of Allegiance In Canada
Published on Aug 23, 2013
NAU Resistance made this video using private emails exchanged between us, without notifying me that this would be done. I do not now, nor do I ever condone using my private emails to make videos, or to otherwise publish them.
However, I stand by my statements as copied & pasted by NAU Resistance to make this video; with one exception. I am constantly doing legal research. In the 2 years since this video was published by NAU Resistance, I have determined that the so-called “Patriation” of 1982 is void.
The so-called “Canada Act” with its CHARTER and amending formula was outside the constitutional powers in the lawful Constitution of Canada, the British North America act, 1867 and the Statute of Westminster, 1931.
It could not have been done even with “unanimous consent” by the federal level and all the provinces. Consent to do an illegal act does not legalize the act.
The fact that United Kingdom Parliament purported to “pass” it cannot be relied on to legalize it, because Canada legally ceased being a “colony” in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster.
Before that, UK Parliament could pass a statute into law “to remove doubts” about acts of colonial Executives. In effect, UK Parliament could retroactively “legalize” unconstitutional acts of its Colonial legislatures and governments.
That power lapsed in 1931 when Canada legally attained FULL SOVEREIGNTY, meaning full international personality. UK could thus no longer wave its magic wand over Canada to declare illegal acts valid, as it did with the so-called Canada act, 1982.
In addition, UK Parliament took the unusual step in the Statute of Westminster, 1931 of “binding itself” as to the LEGAL procedure for making SUBSTANTIVE LAW upon the “request and consent” of Canada for the purpose of adding AN AMENDING FORMULA to our lawful Constitution.
Before UK Parliament was authorized to act on “request and consent” of Canada, it had a duty to first determine that such “request and consent” was lawfully made by duly constituted parties. It did not do so; and “passed” the Canada Act, 1982, nonetheless.
The failure to comply with its own “manner and form requirement” for the making of LAW for Canada AT Canada’s “request and consent,” VOIDS the attempt to “pass” the Canada act, 1982. This is a very serious and very rare case, the only one so far that I am aware of.
However, regardless that the Canada Act, 1982 is VOID, and we are living under an illegal Charter and an illegal Amending formula, and other complications too numerous to mention, the “immune system” of section 52 of the 1982 “de facto” constitution — which I mentioned in my email to NAU Resistance, does accurately state a principle of constitutional law.
However, although this statement at s. 52 of how constitutional law works is accurate, it does not alter the fact that the Canada Act, 1982 itself is VOID.
I will be throwing it out when I get to court in the general matter of HABEAS CORPUS CANADA.
The original of this NAU Resistance video is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnEarY…