Monday, July 20, 2009

It's NOT a "military" coup !!!


I. The Judicial Duty to Control the Executive

HONDURAS 20 July 2009: First of all, the Supreme Court of a country has the final word on the interpretation of that country's domestic Constitution. Judges are generally referred to in the legal literature going back centuries as "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).

Today, it is not King James the first, but Mr. Zelaya, who thinks he is under no man and under no law, and who brazenly accuses those who OBEY the law, of treason... to him and to his attempted personal rule of Honduras without the Constitution.

To ignore the Supreme Court of Honduras and their lawful and necessary acts to protect the Honduran constitution, denies this fundamental heritage of the Rule of Law, and denies the very raison d’être of judicial conscience and independence.

Plato wrote:

"Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state."

[Source: -- Cooper, John et al. Complete Works By Plato, page 1402 (Hackett Publishing, 1997).]
Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the Rule of Law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws." Writing in The Politics 3.16, Aristotle said:

"[I]t is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws."

This ancient concept of the Rule of Law is to be distinguished from rule by law, i.e. Zelaya-style, attempting to marshall the people to overthrow the existing Constitution for him by giving him a "mandate" to do what the Constitution forbids. That is Zelaya's rule BY his law, not the Constitutional Rule of Law.

According to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference... is that under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."

[Source: -- Tamanaha, Brian. On the Rule of Law, page 3 (Cambridge University Press, 2004)]

Albert Venn Dicey, writing in The Law of the Constitution, summed up the Rule of Law as supreme above every individual, including the head of state:

"We mean in the second place, when we speak of the 'rule of law' as a characteristic of our country [England], not only that with us no man is above the law, but (what is a different thing) that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals."

[Source: -- Source: A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution,]

Manuel Zelaya was amenable to the law of the realm, and to the Supreme Court of Honduras, as required by this ancient and venerable tradition of the Rule of Law which upholds freedom.

And yet, in the past few weeks, the world's press and media have beaten down the Rule of Law in Honduras, disparaged its high Court, maligned its military, and trampled the true democracy which the Honduran people, with great and painstaking care, had put into place in their country.

The press and media instead have upheld the tyranny of a consummate law-breaker: Manuel Zelaya, who like King James the 1st before him, wished to impose his own personal rule by law, in place of his own service under the Constitution, which is the rule of law.

It is also said in regard to a lawful Constitution that "a stream cannot rise above its source". By stream is meant all those officers occupying temporary posts to which they are elected or appointed in bodies and organs created by the Constitution and through whose ministrations power temporarily flows: Legislature, Crown, and Courts.

The Constitution is the source, the stream is merely the channel through which the officer fulfills his functions prescribed by that source. And therefore, the officer is required to swear an oath to keep his place, an oath to not rise above the source. For, if he rises above the source of his own power, he substitutes himself for the source; he replaces the Constitution with himself, and if in seeking to impose his tyranny he recruits the people, then he fools the people, for he exploits the people to overthrow not only the lawful Constitution, but themselves.

If this is the ultimate crime against democracy, then the world press and media are the ultimate co-conspirators, for they spread the ignorance which allows the traitor to overthrow the Rule of Law by abusing the people.

Those elected to office under an existing Constitution are required to swear an oath of allegiance which involves non-abuse of powers conferred by that existing Constitution.

A court is bound by the history of the common law to assert its own supremacy over the Executive. To paraphrase Lord Templeton's words in M. v. Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 @ 395, to deny this supremacy would, if upheld, establish the proposition that the executive obeys the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the [English] Civil War.

In the United States of America, the matter of judicial control of the Executive has been put in the following way:

"No one, no matter how exalted his public office or how righteous his private motive, can be judge in his own case. That is what courts are for." (United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 US 258 @ 307-309 (1947)).

Manual Zelaya preferred to be the judge in his own case. Rejecting the Rule of Law, meaning executive control by the Supreme Court of Honduras, he barnstormed the referendum boxes and purported to fire those military who obeyed the Court, refusing to collaborate in his one-man assault on the Constitution.

For the Courts to maintain the Rule of Law and assert control over the Executive requires steadfastness on the part of the judiciary. As Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court so memorably stated in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 1803:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. ... This is of the very essence of judicial duty."

It was of the essence of judicial duty when the Supreme Court of Honduras determined that Manuel Zelaya's intent to extend his term by overruling the Constitution with a referendum was illegal. The Court controlled Zelaya. Zelaya rejected that control, he raised a mob, he barnstormed the referendum boxes, he purported to fire anyone who obeyed the Rule of Law, that is, whoever enforced the lawful determination of the Supreme Court.

The supremacy of the judicial branch of government was reaffirmed by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the landmark desegregation case of Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958), where it was said (@ 25) that:

"The duty to abstain from resistance to "the supreme Law of the Land," U.S. Const., Art. VI  2, as declared by the organ of our Government for ascertaining it, does not require immediate approval of it nor does it deny the right of dissent. Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred. Our kind of society cannot endure if the controlling authority of the Law as derived from the Constitution is not to be the tribunal specially charged with the duty of ascertaining and declaring what is "the supreme Law of the Land."

Mr. Zelaya actively defied the Supreme Court of Honduras and obstructed its orders in attempting by force to conduct his illegal referendum, nonetheless.

The Court's most basic duty under the common law is to assert its supremacy over all other actors in the body politic. And so, it was also said in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) (@ 23) that:

"from their own experience and their deep reading in history, the Founders [of the United States of America] knew that Law alone saves a society from being rent by internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power however disguised. `Civilization involves subjection of force to reason, and the agency of this subjection is law.' (Pound, The Future of Law (1937) 47 Yale L. J. 1, 13.) The conception of a government by laws dominated the thoughts of those who founded this [358 U.S. 1, 24] Nation and designed its Constitution, although they knew as well as the belittlers of the conception that laws have to be made, interpreted and enforced by men. To that end, they set apart a body of men, who were to be the depositories of law, who by their disciplined training and character and by withdrawal from the usual temptations of private interest may reasonably be expected to be `as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.' So strongly were the framers of the [United States'] Constitution bent on securing a reign of law that they endowed the judicial office with extraordinary safeguards and prestige. No one, no matter how exalted his public office or how righteous his private motive, can be judge in his own case. That is what courts are for."

In his attempt to rule by mere brute power, Manuel Zelaya has brought strife to Honduras, and it is therefore particularly strange to see the man who currently occupies the American President's Office urge the lawful government of Honduras, and its lawful courts to submit to that brute.

II. A Sitting Executive Can Become an Incipient Coup

As history unequivocally shows, an elected Executive can depart from its oath to become a coup. They do this by deliberately exceeding the limits imposed by the existing Constitution, the sole source of their own power; and by demonstrating intent to exceed those limits (which is equivalent to discarding sworn oaths) by imposing or planning to impose a de facto "new" Constitution of their own devising in place of the existing Constitution under which they were elected and sworn.

A perfect example is the 11 November 1965 UDI of Ian Smith, who had served as a duly elected Prime Minister of the British self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia from 13 April 1964 until his UDI.

That UDI, that Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Southern Rhodesia by a sitting Prime Minister converted Smith and his Executive co-conspirators into traitors to the lawful Constitution. Ian Smith and his Executive rewrote, and replaced the lawful Constitution with one of their own. This is a world-famous COUP.

The fact that the Brits did not send in the troops to oust Ian Smith in 1965 does not change the fact that Smith and his Executive perpetrated a coup. Nor does it alter the fact that the Brits could have sent in troops had they wished to. Moreover, had the Brits known Smith's intentions in advance, to rewrite the Constitution and to seize power, they could have sent in the troops to prevent the UDI, just as the Supreme Court of Honduras lawfully instructed that country's Congress to send in troops to intercept Manuel Zelaya.

Therefore, it is clear that an elected and sitting Executive can indeed become a COUP.

III - Zelaya is the Coup, Not the Honduran Courts or Military

In today's case of the ouster of Zelaya, it is not the Honduran "military" who have perpetrated a "coup" on Honduras, it is Zelaya who demonstrated his utter contempt for the Constitution of Honduras, which prohibits him from extending his term of office by any means. It is Manuel Zelaya who demonstrated his utter contempt for the judicial office and for the high duty of the Supreme Court of Honduras to control the Executive, that is, to reign in Executive action to keep it under the existing Constitution and within the Rule of Law.

The Supreme Court of Honduras fulfilled, and very possibly admirably fulfilled its role as Guardian of the Constitution by intercepting Manuel Zelaya to prevent him from carrying off his demonstrated intent to recruit the people to give him "permission" to overthrow Honduras' supreme law.

It should be crystal clear to anyone who truly knows constitutional law, that the absence of a power, or the prohibition against a power, in a particular written Constitution, means complete absence of subject-matter jurisdiction.

In other words, if Zelaya has no power to extend his term of office, he indeed has no power whatsoever "in relation to" extending his term of office, including no power to ask the people to help him EXTEND HIS TERM OF OFFICE, as the Constitution was written and enacted to prohibit him from taking ALL steps in that direction. It is my understanding that the Constitution was deliberately written this way as a foil to dictators. This raises the subject of legislative intent, an essential component of constitutional interpretation.

The purpose of restrictions in the Honduran Constitution on the executive term of office was apaprently to prevent a dictator from seizing unlimited power. What would stop Zelaya from seizing the ballot boxes successively, to keep himself in office for decades, much like Fidel Castro?

In more familiar words, you can't be just a little bit pregnant. No means No; it doesn't mean MAYBE. It doesn't mean you can sneak up on the Constitution and hit it over the head with an amendment that the Constitution itself prohibits. Nor can you whack it with a referendum!

V - International Contempt for Domestic Rule of Law

The world press and media, in reiterating the blatant constitutional FALSEHOOD that there has been a "military" coup in Honduras are demonstrating their utter contempt for the Rule of Law in sovereign nations, their utter unconcern for the Sovereignty of Honduras, and for the fundamental duty of its Judiciary to uphold the Rule of Law, and above all, for the peace and safety of the Honduran people, who are the hostages in the midst of this David and Goliath struggle for justice between a tiny Central American nation and a world community that has run amok and lost its bearings.

It has been ZELAYA perpetrating the coup, and the Supreme Court of Honduras which lawfully prevented him, as that Court is required to do by the venerable tradition of centuries of the Rule of Law adopted by Honduras.

The world press and media should help to defuse the situation by obtaining complete scans and publishing the entire Honduran Supreme Court Zelaya file online: pleadings, judgment and arrest warrant, which are no doubt open public files, and then the world might begin to wake up.

These files should moreover be translated into English and many other languages to assist the world in comprehending the unspeakable horror being now inflicted on a sovereign nation and its people by world press and media and by the U.N. and member states -- blindly in some cases and no doubt wilfully in others -- concealing the fact that it was Zelaya who was planning his COUP on the Constitution, and the Honduran military who were executing a lawful warrant of the Supreme Court of Honduras to apprehend the incumbent traitor and stop him from overthrowing the true Democracy of Honduras under the existing Constitution, which is the Rule of Law.

It is a very grave situation when those who cover the news are apparently not qualified to cover it when it concerns matters of constitutional law, or constitutional law versus international law.

If other countries are similar to Canada, where we find travel-show hosts and weather girls becoming so-called reporters and journalists, and people with little or no legal knowledge covering legal affairs, these "reporters" are easily misled, they rely on others to tell them what is true and what is not. They obediently regurgitate missives from impressive looking organizations, such as the United Nations.

However, I, for one, am not impressed by the United Nations, which allowed the criminally illegal (in international law) military assault upon the sovereign nation of the former Yugoslavia in the late 1980's and of its perhaps all-too-convenient attachment to the expanding European Union which now benefits from territorial enlargement, an oil pipeline, and a waterway to the Adriatic.

Indeed, the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia was criminally assaulted and pillaged by a new international weapon disguised as diplomacy: the tool of "recognition". For, Yugoslavia was "recognized" to extinction by the international community. That same gang now attacks Honduras in retaliation for the lawful exercise of Honduran sovereignty on Honduran soil.

The international promotion of domestic lawlessness by the United Nations (fledgling if not incipient candidate for world-government headquarters, nullifying all sovereign nations and their constitutions), has encouraged a worldwide knee-jerk reaction deeming the mere appearance of Honduran military inside Honduran borders as necessarily equating to a coup against the person that military was sent to arrest under lawful warrants.

The general public in Canada is fundamentally illiterate in our Constitution and our law, which compounds the severe problem of our own law-illiterate press and media, and makes the wildfire-spread of blatant disinformation almost inevitable. The same seems to be happening now around the world in respect to Honduras, because of a fundamentally law-illiterate press and media who are attracted as well to the kind of sensationalism that sells papers and churns web pages.

Glutted with images of protests after the recent allegedly (and very possibly) fixed elections in Iran, perhaps the press and media are a bit too tempted to seek a substitute to sustain the ad-selling excitement. Perhaps the misfortune of Honduras today is that the troubles in Iran preceded the current situation in Honduras.

In addition, the U.N. regime has for decades now encouraged the notion of undistilled "democracy" as superior to everything else, including to lawful constitutions. This is tantamount to upholding insurrection over the Rule of Law, the very equivalent of what Zelaya was trying to do with his referendum: use the people to overthrow the Constitution by pretending that they can "democratically" give him "permission" to do what the Constitution prohibits. And so, the people themselves would be tricked into rising above the source.

Crass ignorance, in other words the public's deliberate dumbing-down by deprivation of a meaningful education in the Constitutions of their countries, and of the way Constitutional law works, is allowing the U.N. and its member states to run roughshod over sovereign nations.

Honduras must make a stand for sovereignty and true democracy, which is not raw democracy, but democracy integrated into a lawfully entrenched constitutional system under the Rule of Law.

The world press and media have no excuse for promulgating blatant disinformation on constitutional law and on the situation in Honduras. Indeed, it is the domestic free press of a nation on whom a Constitution is reliant to operate correctly. If the free press refuse to tell the truth, then they themselves damage the Constitution; they themselves join the conspiracy to overthrow it by helping to generate the mob which tyrants need to get the job done.

The failure of the press and media to exercise a criticial sense, and to discharge their duties objectively in this case is threatening the peace and the lives of the people of Honduras, including those who are innocent or unsophisticated.

This amounts to abuse of power by the press and media, and the consequences of this abuse can all too easily spread to other nations also attempting to uphold the Rule of Law over rule-by-the-law-of-tyrants. If one nation falls before this onslaught, then what of the others?

Surely, the world press and media have or can hire constitutional lawyers able to write cogent news releases to "popularize" (make understandable by the public) certain fundamental concepts of constitutional law, so the public can begin to understand that just because you elect a man, doesn't place him above the constitution. And that the whole point of a Constitution is to ensure the safety of the people by restraining elected officers from exercising arbitrary power, i.e. power not conferred, or power withheld by the constitution.

VI - Zelaya Self-Discharged but Wants Back In Under Void Oath of Office

In recent news, Zelaya was heading back to Honduras but had apparently "pledged" not to hold the referendum he had already very publicly decided he was going to hold. Having so acted, he had already voided his own office by perjuring his oath of allegiance under the lawful, and currently existing constitution.

Perjury is a criminal act; perjury voids the oaths of allegiance and office. If that were not the case, there would be no point taking the oath, you could step into office and do as you please. But the oath binds you to the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

If, once you get in, you attempt to exceed those limits, you have LIED to gain office; the oath which alone allowed you to take your seat as a legislator is VOID as a LIE. How can Zelaya who has voided his oath now pretend to "pledge" not to perpetrate the criminal assault on the Constitution that he fully intended to commit in the first place.

Zelaya has already become a leader of a coup; he has already very objectively demonstrated criminal intent to exceed the limits of the lawful Constitution. How, in all common sense, can a person who has demonstrated this criminal intent then be invited back into the country to resume a lawful presidency? Or to participate in any way in its government?

How can you reinstate a coup leader who has himself blatantly violated the true democratic right of the people to be governed in accordance with the lawful constitution, by simply securing his so-called "pledge" not to conduct illegal acts he originally intended to conduct and which intent resulted in his own self-discharge from elected office?

Since when does a "pledge" restore the presumed pristine character of the oath originally sworn and so clearly violated? Since when can a liar and a criminal be invited to govern a nation on condition that he now please stop being a criminal? This goes beyond illogic, it goes to lunacy.

Moreover, the international community has NO BUSINESS whatsoever dictating to the Supreme Court of any nation on that Court's interpretation of the nation's Constitution; let alone presuming to override that Court's constitutional duty to uphold and see to the upholding of that Constitution.

There is abundant case law on the obligation of a Court to apprehend and prevent the commission of anti-constitutional acts by sitting legislatures. For, once the act had been committed--for example, a UDI or the purported replacement of the lawful constitution by a new one with different provisions through a coup exploiting the PEOPLE and phony "democracy" to mask that coup--then that Court then faces the prospect of a loss of its own powers UNDER the LAWFUL constitution.

Not only Zelaya, but the COURTS of Honduras, draw their power from the Constitution. If Zelaya were to unlawfully replace the existing constitution with a new one of his own devising, which would occur even with a single alteration of a kind prohibited by the existing constitution, this would challenge the very authority and existence of the Honduras SUPREME COURT. It would be in CONTEMPT of that Court and of all Courts in Honduras that may be derived from the Constitution, because Zelaya would have REMOVED the constitution from which those Courts derive their power.

That is a COUP.

Zelaya, if he replaced the Constitution, could then challenge the Courts, declaring them the "creatures" (word used in law) of the defunct constitution he himself had overthrown. And then, instead of the Courts ordering the arrest of Zelaya for his attempted COUP on the constitution, you would have Zelaya sending the military to remove the guardians of the true Constitution, the lawful courts.

Zelaya's recent acts attempting to get public approval for his overthrow of Constitutional prohibitions has challenged the very existence and validity of the existing courts of Honduras, necessarily threatening to strip them of the source of their lawful power.

The world press and media are upholding a TYRANT against the Supreme Court of Honduras, and against the lawful interim government who are courageously defending the fledgling Honduran democracy.

Moreover, the United Nations was formed to deal with international law, not to invade domestic Constitutional law. To permit the United Nations and its member states to invade the domestic Constitutional sphere of a sovereign nation, and to use pressure tactics to overthrow the lawful conclusions of a Supreme Court which alone has a right and duty to interpret that nation's domestic law, is a form of tyranny which seeks to impose de facto rule of the UN over sovereign domestic law and cannot be allowed to be a precedent.

The Honduran Supreme Court and every Supreme Court of every sovereign nation should pronounce, proprio motu, that the actions of the international community and of the United Nations in this case were and are clear sedition, ultra vires (without jurisdiction), and a criminal assault on the sovereignty of Honduras and on the Supreme Court of that nation.

A final note: if I were a citizen of Honduras, I would immediately visit a competent court to launch ouster proceedings against Zelaya if he attempts to resume (usurp) office, and I would do this on the grounds (i) that I have a democratic right to a lawful government under a lawful Constitution; and (ii) that Zelaya was self-discharged from office by PUBLICLY AND OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRABLY perjuring his oaths of office and allegiance under the existing Constitution.

No "pledge" of Mr. Zelaya has the power to rehabilitate him from HIS very demonstrable intent to exceed the limits of Honduras' constitution, i.e., from perjury and from treason. Where an officer under a constitution attempts to use the people to give him power the Constitution prohibits, such as by recruiting them to a referendum, he is perpetrating SEDITION against the Constitution. Where there is no power in law to do an act, it is SEDITIOUS to rally the citizens against the law.

Neither can pressure from the United Nations, nor the USA, nor the international community to reinstate Mr. Zelaya, rehabilitate him from his own perjury and treason. To purport to reinstate him under a perjured oath would be not only be an act of outrageous arbitrariness, contrary to true democracy and the Rule of Law, but an act in utter contempt of the Supreme Court of Honduras.

In order to begin to understand why Zelaya's attempt to call a referendum was NOT DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, I urge you to read this article on REFERENDUMS:

Source: Don Rowat, Nos référendums ne sont pas de la démocratie directe, 26 Revue Parlementaire Canadienne, Vol. 21, No 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

And then read this excellent FRENCH article:

"Sur le caractère anti-démocratique du référendum -... " which makes the following astute observation:

"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."


"In reality, the referendum, after the massification of democracy, represents a procedure which allows the system to use the people to validate a decision which has already been taken. Without profound knowledge of the subject, the mass is manipulated by means of the mass media to go where the system wants it to go, while all along being persuaded that it is they (the mass of men) who have had the last word in the choice."

Right to the present moment, the world's press and mass media have precisely aided Zelaya and his intended coup, first by manipulating the uninformed masses to believe that there was a "military" coup in Honduras, whereas it was a constitutional coup by Zelaya himself, being lawfully apprehended by the Supreme Court.

Secondly, the mass media have obediently regurgitated disinformation and misinformation encouraging the world to mistake this lawful act on sovereign Honduran soil as the coup, and the coup as the lawful act.

Thirdly, it is obvious that ZELAYA had already decided to extend his term; the people were not to be "democratically" consulted, they were to be manipulated into believing they had the choice, they had the final word, when in fact they were simply being ABUSED by Zelaya in a bid to conceal his own lust for prohibited power.

If blood is spilled in Honduras after all these weeks of contemptuous disinformation by CNN, REUTERS, and other outlets of the world press and media, it will be the world press and media themselves who are responsible for the senseless overthrow of a lawful constitution, and for an outrageous war of sedition against a lawful Constitution of a sovereign nation, thus undermining the Rule of Law and urging the Honduran people to utterly unnecessary violence.

I wish to express all my best wishes to the people of Honduras for their safety, peace and wellbeing, and for their safeguard of the true sovereignty of their country.

It is extremely important that all Hondurans clearly understand the vital role of their own Supreme Court as the guardians of their Constitution, and that the people be unified and not divided against each other on this point, as all are fellow citizens of the same great nation.

What prompted me to write this blog?

For nearly four decades now, Canadians have been in the midst of a coup on their own Constitution, with phony referendums "to secede" held in the Province of Quebec in 1980 and again in 1995 by Ian-Smith types attempting to replace the Canadian Confederation of 1867 with the European Union system which gradually sucks the sovereignty out of member states, pumping it up to a non-elected and non-accountable level.

Canadians have been seditiously deceived and urged to "democratically" give the tyrants permission to replace the Constitution under which they were elected, just as Zelaya so recently attempted to do in Honduras.

In Canada, the legislative powers are divided between the general central (i.e. federal) government and the provinces. In 1867, the provincial powers were deliberately limited to a strict list, with the addition of a residual power for purely local purposes. A province has no power to take any measures not already provided for in the existing Constitution, by the existing limited or "enumerated" (legal word) list conferred at section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867.

There is no power to secede under section 92; that means there is no power to take any steps to secede, including asking the people in a referendum if they would like to authorize those detaining provincial government to secede, whether by UDI or on terms. As a consequence, both referendums in Quebec, in 1980 and in 1995, were unlawful, and there being no power to secede, they constituted sedition designed to turn French-speaking and English-speaking people against one another.

The Constitution of Canada was very specifically designed in 1867 to prevent a repeat in Canada of the bloody slaughter of half a million Americans by their own fellow citizens in a war of secession that had run from 1861 to 1864. Much like the Hondurans who have never had a fratricidal war, the founding fathers of the Constitution of Canada saw to an air-tight Constitution in 1867, intent upon a permanent and peaceful union, and friendship among all our citizens.

Those who are seeking the abolition of nations, and the concentration of all power in the hands of a supranational few, know that at international law the obligatory concept of jus cogens involves a co-terminous pair of co-terminous factors: for "self-determination" goes hand-in-hand with "permanent sovereignty over natural resources".

It is my sneaking suspicion that the "self-determination" too conveniently sought by Quebec, as a precedent for all of Canada's Provinces to unlawfully secede, is precisely aimed at transferring permanent sovereignty over resources into provincial hands where they can be then yielded up by our national traitors to the incoming world government.

Moreover, those detaining the presidency of the United States of America as proxies for the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and other nodes in that supranational network, plan to seize and annex Canada's land, people and resources by 2010, or thereabouts. The phony referendums in Quebec to "secede" are merely the scam to help pull it off. For it was intended decades ago, and the attempt having failed twice, there is no doubt in my mind that a third phony referendum is in the offing. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is waiting with his arms wide to receive the balkanized remains of Canada into North American Union. Indeed, the plan is found online. Simply visit: for links to all the documents.

God bless Canada. And God bless our fellow travellers in sovereign Honduras.

Kathleen Moore
Montreal, Canada - Note: this post was updated on the evening of 22 July 2009 and may be edited again in future.

* * *

Friday, 24 July 2009 - Montreal @ 12h54 noon -


I understand from comments left at my above post entitled It's NOT a "military" coup !!! that someone has been transmitting this blog to the Honduran press and media. I am delighted if anyone finds this information helpful. And in that respect, I wish to point out, the information in my blog is provided only in an anecdotal context and not as formal legal advice. It is up to the Honduran people themselves to secure pertinent formal legal advice.

The purpose of this present Notice is to hereby authorize the Honduran press and media to quote from this blog, including to quote the entirety or any part of It's NOT a "military" coup !!! on three simple conditions: (1) the English text is attributed to me, Kathleen Moore, in Montreal, Canada; (2) the blog address is given to accompany such quotation; and (3) it is published as anecdotal information, not as formal legal advice.

The whole with my sincere best wishes to the people of Honduras.

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

P.S. If anyone would like to translate It's NOT a "military" coup !!!, I would be happy to post the translation at this blog, as well. Just leave me a comment to that effect, and I'll arrange to get the translation from you. KM


  1. Brenie Matute21 July, 2009 17:25

    That is the official site of the Supreme Court of Honduras where you will find the official communication about the Constitutional Sucession that took place.

  2. I can't seem to find an e-mail address for the department of the Courthouse where I could request a price for obtaining a certified photocopy of the Zelaya court file. By any chance, would you be able to give me that email address? Thank you.

  3. Kathleen, Thank you so much for this study. I had not found a study like this before with so much detail, informative and clear as to the legal foundations for the ouster of Mr. Zelaya so well explained. I hope that it does not bother you, but I found it so good that I have been providing this link to the honduran newspapers and their comments section hoping that this study sheds some light to the existing disagreements as to who is right or wrong that currently prevails in Honduras.
    Thanks again from a Hondurenian.

  4. Thank you for your explanation! It's a shame that the international community is not paying attention to Honduras's constitution. This ought to be the most important concern. I am a US citizen currently visiting in Tegucigalpa. My Honduran relatives are frustrated with the lack of support for the legal ouster of Zelaya.

  5. Thank you very much. I hope (pray you can say) that voices like yours beging to be heard and that the world can see the truth about Honduras. It's sad to see the incredible level of media manipulation and the intentional ignorance demonstrated by governments and organizations. I'm sharing your blog link with everybody I know. Thanks again!!!!!!!

  6. This is such great information that I have forwarded to WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV Mr. President. What the chances will be of my email getting to him, NONE perhaps but, if we all start an email chain to persuade Mr. Obama of his support for Chaves, OAE and others, I am sure people around the World will see that is taking place in Honduras is GREAT example of Democracy. The People have stood up for their principles and The INternational Community turns their backs on them...SHAME on them for not having all the facts or reasons why what was done was done.

  7. i confess i didnt even read the whole thing, but u seem to be regarding law as something above all mankind, almost God-given. above the law there _is_ someone: the people as a whole, as they are the ones who define it, who own it.

    not long ago there were presidential elections in Costa Rica. Oscar Arias, an ex president, was prohibited BY LAW to run for another term. if Costa Ricans had wanted to change the law it would have been valid of course, but he skipped this part and instead asked the five magistrates to change the constitution, to which they voted against. he then arranged for his buddies in power to help him out, replacing the magistrates. all five voted in his favor this time. no one ever asked the Costa Rican people their opinion, but then again they didnt need to given the uproar among the population. no eyebrows were ever raised by the pro-u.s. oligarchs and military. Arias went on to be "elected" (long story) as the current president (precisely the one chosen by the u.s. to mediate between Zelaya and Micheletti...)

    so what happened in Honduras? well Zelaya wanted a reelection too, but not only was he going to uphold the people's dominion over the law. he proposed a referendum to decide whether there should be a vote (second referendum) to approve a modified constitution. thats three steps before actual reelection. only this time the candidate was not aligned with the u.s., had joined the ALBA-TCP, and just happend to have the southern command right on his backyard.

  8. Be very careful of how you understand the relationship of the people to the law. Law is subtle, and sadly is not taught in public schools at the elementary and secondary levels, or even in college, though it governs our lives, and as electors we cannot have an "enlightened" vote until we begin to understand it. I know this for a fact, from personal experience. The use of referendums does not automatically make that process "democratic". Masses of uninformed people can be so easily manipulated by those who control or have the ear of the mass media. They can be tricked into destroying their own country, their own constitution, only to find themselves helpless under the very junta who held the referendum, now disposing of the nation to their own ends with that nation's military to enforce their arbitrary acts over the will of those same people.

    The law, when it is well made, such as a Constitution, is intended to provide many good things for the people, including stability of democratic institutions. Constitutions often come equipped with procedures for their own amendment. Those procedures protect the people themselves against incipient coups by denying any Executive the arbitrary power to dispense with the Constitution.

    Constitutions are designed to endure for generations because human nature doesn't change much over time; and if a restriction was entrenched in the Honduran Constitution to protect the people from tyrants, then it was likely done with good reason. Again, integrity comes into play. Whoever seeks office UNDER a Constitution is naturally required to uphold it as a condition of exercising the office to which he or she is elected. To use the vote to gain power intending to overthrow that Constitution to expand one's own personal power is infamous, a sign of NO integrity. Why would anyone want to give unlimited arbitrary discretion to a person with no integrity, who lied to gain power for ends opposed to the lawful Constitution?

    It is precisely that lawful Constitution which exists because of the democratic majesty of the people. If the Constitution means so little, then why bother with one at all? Just let men rule at random, and do as they please.

    Please read the articles on Referendums that I had linked in my Blog, for more information. --Kathleen Moore

  9. Kathleen Moore: I have added a "Notice to Press and Media" to the blog, allowing them to reproduce the text in whole or in part. Anyone else who would like to use the text is welcome to do so. In particular, could you please feed this blog into twitter, etc. Thank you!

  10. You don't make a very clear statement about how a Supreme Court supersedes a poll of the public.

    From a common sense perspective, how can involving the people of a state to participate in the functioning of their state warrant the removal of a leader and the institution of a de facto government by military force?

    If what your saying is true, even if it's not a coup, it seems highly undemocratic, and therefore their laws highly undemocratic.

    Much like the Soviet Union. There was a coup to ouster Gorbachev; however, by according to the Soviet Constitution and its Supreme Court, Gorbachev's actions to dismantle the Soviet Union would violate Soviet law.

    Would you in turn claim that Gorbachev is the coup and the Soviet military simply restoring the rule of law in the Soviet Union?

  11. Very extensive post. When it comes to despots like Zaleya I say "Sic Semper Tyrannis!"

  12. You must be aware that the United Nations and the majority of the world press are mouthpieces of anti-democracy.

    The UN is little more than a huge, corrupt, money-laundering operation that extracts billions of dollars from nations to expound the most hateful, radical, anti-human, anti-liberty propaganda machine man has ever known. It's policy papers are clearly geared towards establishing a one world government controlled by specific elitist's who want the power to completely control the world's natural and economic resources thereby controlling the entire world population.

    The world press is absolutely predominately leftist and sides with every despot, dictator, and terrorist throughout the world.

  13. Kathleen Moore said: Re: United Nations leftist and world government. A few weeks ago, while viewing a video of the old Soviet communist anthem, the "International," I noticed a symbol on a Soviet street in the video. I print-screened it, and searched the net for it: it was 100% identical to the current blue & white U.N. logo, in every detail, from the globe to the grains of wheat. When my laptop is back up and running, I will post it for you. Meanwhile, can you recommend any specific reading online or off to clarify for us all that the UN is "leftist" and are bringing in a world government? I have a MAP from 1941 that you may find interesting, which I've annotated in a separate file, and looks like UN is fronting for an incoming world government:

    First, here's my main folder on the map,
    which is from the Library of Congress online:

    Now, the MAP:

    1. The 1941-42 Gomberg Map of a great world federation:

    (You can download this pdf file if you sign up to scribd, and click it to zoom in, it's very detailed and huge.)

    2. The same map with my annotations, noting first of all that Canada is gone, and the Provinces -- like Honduras and the rest of Central America -- is completely absorbed into the United States:

    The fact that today we have most of the principal continental unions which the Gomberg map indidicates as a PLAN for the future, i.e., European Union (the first model union, and the template for the "great world federation"), South American Union signed 23 May 2008, North American Union scheduled for 2010, with Central America right now sandwiched in the middle, and African and Asian (APEC) Unions underway, as well as transocean overlaps also happening, such as Asia-Pacific Union, suggests that the Gomberg Map is the genuine planning article.

    I am trying to get my hands on copies of CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) internal memoranda from 1940 which set out the resources that will be needed by the USA to fulfill CFR plans. I've located one of them, but I have to find $30 to send for it. Given that the CFR is backing the North American Union (see Building A North American Union, google it), and is very involved in the Supreme Court Reference re the Secession of Quebec, which was a complex scam to artificially manufacture a "power to secede" to release all the provinces from Confederation, and thus destroy Parliament.... it looks to me like this map, with its "SS" (Soviet Socialist?) regions, is right now coming to fruition, and we are right now on the brink of the Fourth Reich likely to be led by the current fellow in the US President's Office.

    I understand Zelaya's a leftist. What do you think his role might be at this time, since everybody EXCEPT Honduras so desperately wants him back in?

  14. Kathleen Moore said: YOU SAID: "You don't make a very clear statement about how a Supreme Court supersedes a poll of the public." -- did you READ the whole post? Did you READ the attached links to the two articles on Referendums? I believe your answers are there.

  15. Hi Kathleen!

    I am a Honduran, and I currently am an undergraduate student at McGill University, and it makes me amazingly glad to see that some people in Montreal are taking their time on the "Honduras" subject, and not only reading the Gazette, that along with the rest of the international media is biased and far from the truth and objectivity the case deserves.

    I liked your document very much, and I will try to diffuse it to as many individuals and organizations as I can.

    I would like to keep in touch with you once I get back to Montreal (since I am in Tegucigalpa, Honduras right now)

    My email is:
    Please feel free to contact me if you need more information, although you seem well equipped!

  16. Hello Madame Moore

    How are you doing? Thank you very much for your emails, I have been following very close, besides I am doing my homework spreading your blog.
    I am confidante we will get good results of this entire situation. I believe in justice and I blindly trust in the power and spirit of the law; I think it is matter of time that our beloved Honduras gets back on track and the whole world understand what really happened there, we are simple people but with strong values and we will keep fighting.
    I have some information for you but it is in Spanish, I you are am not sure if will help you. Please let me know.


  17. Hi, Maria231071, terrific to hear from you. I would enjoy any information; if it's electronic format, I will use online translation to try to understand it better. If it's a scan or a pdf, you could send it to me by opening a scribd account and uploading it. Scribd creates a url for each document that you upload. You have the choice to make a document public or private. You could then send me the url's in a comment here. Have a great day!

  18. Hello, hondurans4democracy, I'm delighted to hear from you. The Montreal Gazette is indeed not a bastion of the Free Press. I have caught them in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution of Canada while spreading disinformation about Quebec's phony referendums to "secede":

    Scroll down to:

    "Canada's Un-Free Press:
    Montreal Gazette Sells "Secession"
    With the Fed's "Confusion" Scam
    And a "silent" Constitution

    Senator Fraser Enacts Her Own
    9 January 1995 Lead Editorial"

    -- and be sure to click on the links in that segment.

    The only two-way communication possible right now is via the Comments form in the blog. All my email accounts are illicitly surveilled.

    However, I sometimes drop into McGill libraries to work on my research. Be glad to coordinate with you to have a chat in the student lounge when you are in Montreal. You can pick me out in a crowd, I'm the grey-haired student!

    Have a terrific day, great to hear from you.


    Kathleen Moore
    The Official Legal Challenge
    To North American Union

    P.S. Are you anywhere near the Supreme Courthouse that handed down the warrant for his arrest?
    I am very interested in having a certified photocopy of the court file on Zelaya, including the pleadings, any notes scribbled on the folder(s) containing the file, and the docket (we call it a plumitif in Quebec). The certification stamps would have to be on the face of each page, because I would scan them.
    I would upload them to scribd, but my goal is to study the Zelaya court file as a precedent for what a court SHOULD do in similar circumstances, and I might raise it in court in my own proceedings in Habeas Corpus concerning the illegal referendums in Quebec. There are lots of coup d'états out there, but very few courts do the right thing; in fact, I think the Fiji coup may come closest to a court acting competently; but there are some very interesting similarities between the Zelaya case and the 1995 Quebec referendum, so I would love to have it.
    My problem is being continuously broke, so depending on the price per page, I might have to limit my request to a certified copy of the judgment, and a regular copy of the warrant, which would be interesting for me to see. There could also be a possibility of getting copies without a fee, if you know anyone who has a small free-standing fax machine, or multi-functional fax-copier-scanner, who could bring it to the Courthouse and perhaps be allowed to plug it in and make photocopies and/or scans to your heart's content without being charged per page. Those could not be certified, but at least getting the file materials would be a great advantage. Thanks for anything you might be able to do.

  19. Kathleen Moore: I have added a superb VIDEO from YouTube by Australian CLOE BUCKINGHAM on the provisions of Honduran Constitutional law violated by Mr. Zelaya. Please, before you leave, see that video.

  20. Hi Kathleen,

    The following ireport is the latest juicy info. distributed. Also check the links and videos.

    Ansering your recent question, the Honduras government is strong and President Michelleti has stated this many times. He recently wrote the following for the Wall Street Journal:

    This new article is good also:

    So, as the world turns, we keep trying to get the truth out there!!

  21. Besides my previous comments and links to WSJ above, our Honduran newspapers have minute to minute info.
    The following link gives you the latest headlines and quick to read; however its in spanish:

  22. Thank you Kathleen for such an informative web site...
    I believe the information you are looking for regarding Honduras you can find it at
    I will see if I can translate this article of yours so you can pot it here.
    You can see a petition to President Obama some of us have signed to tell him we are TOTALLY against Zelaya coming back. There is close to 15 thousand signatures already.

  23. Sorry, the petition website is

  24. Hello, re:
    Thanks for this link.
    You should remember that DEMOCRACY is, by definition, MAJORITY RULE. The majority should not be placed in the position of having to PETITION anybody, in particular FOREIGNERS running other peoples' countries, to kindly keep their nose out of local democracy.

    Also, the armed minority of Zelaya supporters who intend by force to OVERTHROW the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY, can in no way itself be called "democracy," nor do they represent DEMOCRACY. They represent nothing but ANARCHY and MOB RULE.

    Kathleen Moore

  25. Kathleen Moore:
    Thanks so much for this! I just now have the opportunity to download these documents to my key. The people responsible for this web site should try to put it into English and French, two huge world "markets" to reach who need to understand this.

  26. Dear Kathleen Moore,


    Your blog presents a lot of legal theory that is all well and good. The central question I have come upon is did the Supreme Court in fact act to remove Zelaya, or did the National Congress, or did anyone and if so by what lawful basis did they act.

    I have read the Honduran Courts "Special Communication" which proves cause for an indictment (facts in evidence are sufficient to sustain charges). Also the Arrest Warrant is certainly proper, justified, and given under due authority. However, it also refers to Manuel Zelaya (in the part why they chose the Armed Forces vs. National Police) as holding the office of President. One would surmise by this reference that he still held the office legally speaking.

    So the documentation gets us to an indictment and arrest, where-in Manuel Zelaya would be presented to the court after his custody was obtained. Article 239 is not mentioned, and there is no section that formally states Manuel Zelaya is thus (pursuant to citations) removed from the office of President. Of course a legitimized accusation is not a formal finding of guilt, but the beginning of a process.

    After this there is a black hole of documentation with the exception on I believe June 29th, Manuel Zelaya's case is referred to a lower court because he is no longer a high public official. This is just a notation of an accomplished fact, not the act of accomplishing or putting into effect Manuel Zelaya's formal removal from his charge.

    They have a communication of July 20th where-in the courts states in item 8 that Honduras has a constitutional process for the succession of Presidents. But it doesn't quite state that the process on June 28th was fully constitutional, never mind make citations as to why.

    The National Congress did apparently vote overwhelmingly to remove Manuel Zelaya citing Article 239. But it is not clear by what Article the exercised the authority to declare that a violation under 239 existed. But Roberto Micheletti stated in the Wall Street Journal article in late July that the Supreme Court removed Zelaya under Article 239, though I can't find any evidence of that fact.

    I have heard the Supreme Court made a finding that the succession was appropriate and constitutional - after the succession and swearing in of Roberto Micheletti as the new President. I can't find any copies of it on-line though. In fact certainly if the court found the process constitutional it would heal any previous irregularities through the authority of the Supreme Court. But did they in fact make such a finding, and if so where are there references to it?

    My kind regards,
    Donald McIlvin

  27. Comments by Donald McIlvin Continued..

    The Process in the judicial system was stated but inconclusive in that it had progressed to an indictment and arrest. A defendant is presumed innocent until a guilty finding. The courts had not found conclusively that Zelaya was guilty, as the case had not been tried. There was not separate finding related to Zelaya's powers as president that his acts constituted a violation of Article 239 which would result in his immediate removal.

    The National Congress did act to remove Manuel Zelaya under article 239, which of course has the immediate removal clause for proposing or supporting directly or indirectly changing the Presidential term limits. The issue is by what due process was Manuel Zelaya found formally and legally to have been guilty of violating Article 239. It would be fine for the Congress to determine that since he was found to have violated 239 through a due process, therefore he shall be removed and replaced etc.

    The fundamental flaw in relying on the act of Congress to remove Zelaya is one of separation of powers. They can not make a finding of guilt with regard to Zelaya's acts, as that power is reserved to the Judicial Branch.

    So without some judicial finding that Zelaya did conclusively what they said he did, on what basis was article 239 invoked by the Congress. The simply do not have the authority to do it.

    Enough of the Devil's Advocate thing. All this means is that the succession was worst case a flawed constitutional succession. Manuel Zelaya has not pursued his case in Honduran courts for some obvious reasons but also because if he did submit to custody he would likely be found guilty.

    One can also argue the judicial process was truncated when Zelaya was expelled from custody, an act that itself was in defiance of the court order to arrest "and remand". Thus the congresses succession was required to maintain constitutional order. An indicted President's legal authority, one could argue, is foregone. A constitutionally compliant president is necessary for constitutional order, thus the finding of evidence sufficient to sustain the constitutional charges may equate to a conclusive finding sufficient to support the invocation of Article 239 as that is not a matter of criminal jeopardy, but the holding of executive powers by an individual. The good of the nation becomes preeminent not Zelaya's individual rights pertaining to the office. However, I haven't seen that the Supreme Court made this distinction.

  28. Comments by Donald McIlvin completed..

    Anyway, none of thes flaws - if they in fact bear out to be true - can justify or explain US or Canadian support for the OAS requiring Manuel Zelaya's reinstatement as President. Clearly both the Supreme Court and Congress legitimatly proferred charges, a legal arrest, and the will of the people as manifest through their elected representatives most certainly voted to remove manuel Zelaya from the Presidency. It is impossible to credibly characterize the proceedings of the Judicial and Legislative branches of governement as extra-constitutional. The Military expulsion of Manuel Zelaya from Honduran territory was certainly extra-constitutional, but the net effect was to change Zelaya's location. His location on foreign soil has not as yet become a factor in his legal standing as President within Honduras.

    The basis by which Manuel Zelaya was relieved of his charge as president, through actions of the Judicial and Legislative branches, is entirely consistent with western jurisprudence for the early removal of an executive office holder on the basis of cause.

    A Policy which advocated the return of nManuel Zelaya to Honduran Custody would be respective of the legitimate and sovereign authority of the courts and the congress.

    Reinstatement there is no credible argument for this possible, and that is why the OAS, US or Canadian governments have not offered one.

    My Kind Regards,
    Don McIlvin

  29. Dear Kathleen Moore,

    One last argument to present on why the US, Canadian, and OAS demand to reinstate Manuel Zelaya is illegitimate.

    Considering my previous posts above, we have the proceedings of the Judicial and Legislative branches of government resulting in the succession of Presidents. This occurred prior to the constitutional time based on cause well established in the courts.

    Many of those that argue the removal process was flawed focus on the role of the Military. Of course the Military had no role in changing Zelaya's legal status, they just changed his location.

    For those that actually focus on the legal process raising questions on the authority of the Congress or whether the Judicial process was brought to completion etc. In essence lets capture any and all quibbling with the process of removal utilized for Zelaya's removal.

    The first hurdle for the international community is to over come the right of self determination of the Hondurans. They having a representative democracy have voted out Zelaya based on charges sustained by the Supreme Court. The only place questions of constitutionality can be adjudicated is within the judicial branch of the Honduran government.

    No such case has been brought. The next question, were a case to be brought, is who has standing to bring the case. Certainly Manuel Zelaya does or interested parties within Honduras could. But the international community has no standing to bring the case as it would violate the "self" part in the right to self determination.

    The international community in opposition to the succession has based its claim on signed treaties to the OAS charter which require constitutional democracy as the form of government. It has pointed to the Military expulsion to foreign soil of the elected President, prior to the expiration of his term, as the basis of the claim that constitutional democracy has been interupted.

    It is now well known that the judicial and legislative branches of government implemented an early succession for cause.

    A legal brief to rejustify its claim is required, since the original claim is clearly false. Without one the international claim is illegitimate.

    When one ponders why no revision has been readily offered, you have to look at what it could possibly be based on. I have yet to see a valid argument made on any blog, yet alone made by policy makers that can over turn the Honduran right to self determination and non-interference. The international community would have no standing in an imagined court case, that has never been brought, to challenge the removal process. That the judicial and legislative branches acted to remove Zelaya for reasonable cause makes a primafacia case for a constitutional removal.

    Since no one with standing has challenged the process, it must stand.

    To force or coerce through fincial pressure Manuel Zelaya's reinstatement is to continue his extraconstitutional and anti-democratic behavior, and in fact produce an interuption in Honduran Constitutional democracy.

    My kind regards,
    Don McIlvin

  30. Kathleen Moore to Don McIlvin: Hear! Hear! 100% right.

  31. Rep. Connie Mack's trip report, while very much a summary of discussions with a number of US and Honduran officials and private groups, does provide a glimpse into the thinking of a number of principles involved in the Hinduran Crisis. I found four rather troubling facts comming out of the various meetings.

    The first two pertain to the US Government position and the thinking behind US Policy.

    1) The US Visa of a sitting member of the Honduran Supreme Court was revoked because he is considered "part of the regime".

    2) The US government is dismissing the 124-4 vote of the Honduran Congressional Assembly to remove Manuel Zelaya under article 239 because it has deemed this vote is a "post removal" discovery by Micheletti.

    The other two pertain to aspects of the Honduran politicaql landscape and give insight into some of the thinking.

    3) The Honduran Supreme Court evidently ordered the Military to expell Manuel Zelaya from the country. The legal reasoning being fear that there would be extensive loss of life if he remained in the country, thus the legal logic that an illegal act is OK if it saves many lives.

    4) The meeting with the Lutheran World federation and "other citizens" was also disconcerting. This group apparently on the far left said that since Manuel Zelaya was giving money to the poor, he should remain in office. Further they said that the popular will of the people can trump the law, therefore Zelaya's actions were OK since he was "following the will of the people".

    Any thoughts or comments?

    My kind regards,
    Don McIlvin

  32. I'm looking for more documents from the Honduran Supreme Court file(s) on Zelaya. If anybody has access to that file, I would appreciate scans of everything.

    In particular, I would like to have a copy of the documents used to institute the ouster proceeding. I notice that the arrest order is referred to as being "interlocutory". I'm not familiar with what this means in Honduras; in Canada, in Quebec anyway, the legal term "interlocutory" is applied to a decision of a Court on a motion that is "incidental" to, or in the midst of a generally larger proceeding. It means that if the motion is granted, the decision on it is binding until the case is completed and there has been a trial.

    Q.: Does the "interlocutory" arrest of Mr. Zelaya signify that there is a larger case file waiting to come to trial?

    Q.: Has Mr. Zelaya instructed attorneys to file anything in his behalf in reply to the arrest warrant and the general proceedings? If so, I'd like to get scans.

    Q.: Do you use bailiffs in Honduras? In Quebec, we use bailiffs to file documents into court after they have been served, and the bailiff then reports to the Court, in writing, that he served such & such a document to such person at such date and time. I would like scans of anything in the Zelaya file that has been served.

    Q.: Is there a "docket" or a "plumitif" of the court record re Zelaya? That's a listing, usually electronic nowadays, where a certain department of the Courthouse is devoted to typing into the record the dates and times that documents were filed, or decisions were issued, along with names of parties, lawyers, judges, and court clerks, etc. If there is a "docket" in the Zelaya file, I would like to have a scan of it.

    Q.: Are there minutes of court stenographers in the Zelaya file?

    I would appreciate information on any and all of this. Thanks very much to anyone who can enlighten me.

    Thanks for your time.
    Kathleen Moore

  33. Mr. McIlvain : The Supreme Court of Honduras did NOT order Zelaya to be expelled from the country. The arrest warrant orders him to be picked up and jailed.

    According to an article by Micheletti which I reasd 2 weeks ago, the deportation of Zelaya was done on the private initiative of someone in the military, who is to be "punished" for this excess of power.

    -- Kathleen Moore

  34. Kathleen Moore: Democratic Underground is quoting from this:

    to suggest that the Supreme Court of Honduras, and the Congress, and the military, colluded to oust Zelaya to prevent a lawful referendum of a kind different to the one the Constitution forbids.

    A challenge to the legality of the ouster was filed by lawyers and judges in Honduras.

    Does anyone have a copy of those documents? I would like to see that court file. And, I would appreciate a link to a current copy of the Honduran Constitution.


  35. I have found the original of that "counterpunch" article in my previous comment, above:

    And I have left the following message below the Thoresen article at Rebel Reports:

    * * *

    I would find it much easier to appreciate and evaluate this article if it contained links to the documents involved, i.e.:
    - article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006
    - Honduran Constitution
    - Zelaya's various Executive Orders

    I would observe, in passing, that entrenched provisions of a Constitution defeat conflicting provisions of any statute made under the Constitution. If the use planned to be made of the "Civil Participation Act of 2006" was able to defeat the entrenched provisions of the Constitution, then the statute, being merely a statute, or subsidiary law, would be void to the extent that it could be so employed.

    I note that: "President Zelaya also expanded international relationships and joined ALBA, a regional bloc that supports cooperation and hemispheric integration."


    "Hemispheric integration" is a step on the way to a one-world communist government. It involves the complete elimination of Canada, as per the 1941 communist planning map of Maurice Gomberg, which is well on the way to achievement given the formation of increasingly communist (Soviet-style) federations on the different continents, all moving inexorably toward political, legal and economic union.

    I wonder, given this fact, whether the alleged plans of Mr. Zelaya to "give the gift of participatory" democracy to the Honduran people would have been such a gift. Ultimately, it would be used, as in Ireland, to attempt to get the Honduran people to accept a Lisbon-Treaty style "constitution" for Central America, in order to get western hemispheric union done.

    However, what is clear from the march of events in the European Union is that the people have less and less participation in their own governance, as their national sovereignty shifts upwards into the hands of unelected and unaccountable lawmakers.

    At the present time, people in the UK complain that some 80% of their laws are now made in Brussels and that nothing they say or do is of any consequence to change it if they are not in agreement.

    There may therefore be a deeper level to what has happened in Honduras. I would need to see the documents mentioned by Mr. Thoresen in order to give this more efficient thought.

    If anyone can send me links, I would appreciate it.

    Thanks for your time.

    Kathleen Moore
    The Official Legal Challenge
    To North American Union
    My own videos:

    * * *

  36. I just posted a similar, but longer message at Democratic Underground:

  37. Kathleen,

    In terms of the 'question' lets say of whether the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's expulsion, Certainly the arrest orders call for remand. However, the Connie Mack trip report includes statements made by HSC President Rivera in the meeting he had with him, where-in Rivera offered at minimum legal logic that mitigates criminality if not exonerates those invoolved directly in the expulsion. Maybe Connie Mack got it wrong or it is lost in translation, but that is what the report says.

    Don McIlvin

  38. Kathleen,

    The problem that I have with the Thorensson article is that it seems to be a fanciful arguement made as if by the Supreme Court, let alone ignoring fundamental principles of constitutiuonal law. Of course they are not what the courts decided. In mathamatics there is a fundamental rule that you can not divide by zero. With Supreme Courts deciding cases, you can argue with the propriety of their decision, but not with their right to decide it as a matter of finality.

    Zelaya's ballot was illegal, because the supreme court decided it was as such. They get to define such things in the legal realm. Arguements to the contrary have no legitimacy as a matter of law, though there is nothing wrong with expressing them. But when the head of the executive branch commits overt acts that negate or ignore the decision of the court, it is a usurpation of powers under the constitution. An arguement that the executive can decide such matters is in effect an arguement that one can divide by zero.

    Where Zelaya's actions not unlawful in the realm of Honduran Jurisprudence, there would be no need for an amnesty on the matter. Ergo even the OAS and the rest of the international community recognizes that what Zelaya did was illegal.

    Don McIlvin

  39. Hi Kathleen,
    Thanks for all your emails. Dont believe everything you read out there... Honduras is FIRM, regardless.
    The German site.... a bought honduran trying to make more money (living comfortably in Germany!)
    New site for info:
    In touch. Brenie M

  40. In this video you can hear and see Zelaya himself saying that he was going to dissolve the Constitution and create a new Assembly that would allow him to re-elect himself (of course we all know that he wanted it for life).
    I will see what I can get you as far as translations.

  41. Some thoughts on where this crisis is going..

    It is becomming very clear that the effect of international policy in regard to Honduras serves only, I repeat ONLY, to fan the flames of a far left revolution in that country - who's goal is to over turn the existing constitution. Today in Honduras, a prominent figure in the "resistance" Rasel Tomé was reported to have said (by El Heraldo) "the fight is not only the return of Zelaya but to install a Constituent Assembly that will establish a new legal order in Honduras". The new legal order has been the goal all along. It brought about the crisis, and continues to be the underlying issue. It would be oxymoronic to assert that the far left there has set asside its goal of over turning the Honduran constitution for the sake of preserving the Honduran constitution, and thus only to restore deposed President Zelaya back in power - for at most 5 months. This whole crisis is about bigger things than Zelaya's remaining mandate.

    This gets us to the curious issue of not recognizing the upcomming elections on Nov 27th, where in the new President, as well as a new congress, mayors and other elected officials will take their seats on January 27th 2010. The electoral process in Honduras is over-seen by a special electoral court which is technically part of the Judicial branch of government. This court during a period leading up to the elections has some executive powers to order the armed forces to assist in the polling processes etc. The members of the court were seated prior to June 28th, and would remain seated if the Arias plan were implemented. So why would the international community have confidence in the courts oversight of the elections with Zelaya whom had defied this court, but not in Micheletti whom has defended its authority.

    More next

    Don McIlvin

  42. Continued..

    What needs to be understood is that the Honduran left, supported by the Chavistas, has extended influence enough to control the international policy and the bodies of the OAS, as well as the UN for that matter. They have realized that they were unlikely to get Zelaya back in power. On January 27th Zelaya's mandate ends, so calling for his return after that has some obvious problems. By negating the up comming elections it enables the Chavistas to purpetuate the crisis, and shift gears. After January 27th 2010, when Zelaya has no constitutional mandate as president, and an elected al be it unrecognized new President takes office, what will the position of the left be. The ground that is being prepared is to insist that the only way to resolve the crisis now (after January 27th) will be to call for a Constituent Assembly, headed by Manuel Zelaya. Obviously the new President, the Honduran Courts, and the Honduran Congress will refuse anything of the sort. It is also likely that Zelaya, whom has no regard for the existing constitution will simply attempt to assembly one on his own, with the full diplomatic support of the Alba group, the OAS, and the UN.

    Members of the US State Department, and Canadian Foreign Service are not dummies and they have to know that not using the upcomming elections as a basis for resolving the crisis, will precisly result in the calls for a Constituent Assembly in Honduras. With Zelaya's mandate expired, what other course can the internationaal community take - other than to cave in completely and reconginize the new government. Perhaps the cohesion of the international community will disolve at that future point, but if not the impasse will go on for years.

    It is not likely that the Zalistas will sit idly by, nor that the existing political establishment will allow a constituent assembly to take place on Honduran soil. So efforts call it in Nicaragua will be next, but more over the scant violence that has erupted so far will likely turn into a full fledged insurgency - as the Zelistas try to implement their new constitutional order.

    This scenario is well apparent to the US and Canadian professionals in the foreign policy arena. Yet they persist in adhering to the Zalista (Chavista) agenda in this crisis. As such the international community is knowingly fanning the flames of far left revolution in Honduras rather than supporting a process to restore constitutional order in Honduras.

    It is understandable for the US to be supporting the far left in latin america, if only that in the Obama administration the far left is actually the near left. But in Canada, there is supposed to be a conservative government. Conservatives in the US are all over this. Just scan the Weekly Standard or the Wall Street journal. Where are the prominent Canadians who will stand up for constitutional democracy?

    It is time for some real opposition to the prevailing international "consensus"? Canada is positioned to lead the way.

    Don McIlvin

  43. Unbelievable! The US State Department has revoked the visas of the remaining 14 members of the Honduran Supreme Court. They had previously revoked the member who signed the Zelaya arrest warrant on behalf of the court.

    This action is I believe unprecidented in its arrogance, it is utter interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. It is the most shameful action taken by the US in the on-going attempt to impose a rejected criminal as the Honduran leader. It is a disgrace!

  44. Mary O'Grady's latest article in her series on Honduras is the best yet, a real block buster. I wonder with Zelaya sitting in the Brazilian embassy when he will gather a crowd large enough to attempt to march on the presidential palace etc. It will take some time to pull off the coordination with his supporters.

    Don M

  45. Kathleen said:

    1. I wonder why the Honduran government did not send a Swat Team to pick up Zelaya and bring him back to jail, where he belongs. It is very unfortunate that Zelaya is playing the hero who braved his way through military blockades to return home to "restore" his phoney idea of democracy.

    2. The United States is corrupt to the core at this point. They are Communist-controlled through the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and need to completely discredit Honduras and its Supreme Court and Government, because Central America is needed to link North American Union and South American Union into Western Hemispheric Union. If the Honduras Constitution is worthless in US eyes, this is no doubt the same for the Canadian Constitution, given the silent annexation of Canada currently underway.

    3. What is this thing still doing on the internet: it's a phoney ambassadorial site, and a phoney Zelaya government site. Why did Honduras not hire professionals to knock these sites offline?

    4. The media are just not publising the truth about anything any more. The 2 million+ march on Washington that took place Saturday 12 September 2009 was not even MENTIONED on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and CTV here in Montreal, and not findable at their web site. I wrote to both stations and sent them the videos made by others of millions cramming the streets around the White House. No reply. I think they are not covering this, because they don't want Canadians to know that Americans are rebelling and that something is extremely wrong. They are looking for a "bloodless" annexation, to their own convenience. They don't want Canadians looking too closely at the situation south of our 49th parallel, or they might start to notice too much.

    5. I guess I'd be more aggressive in Honduran shoes; perhaps because I am seeing all this from my own Canadian shoes, knowing we are facing a similar international farce the minute we move to take our country back from the coup that has been running it for the multinationals since the time of Trudeau with a view to precisely the annexation to USA and Mexico that is going on now, by stealth. These con-men gave us phony referendums to secede, on the pretense that Quebec sought independence. But, the game was always to replace Canadian Confederation with the EU system, disguised as "keeping Quebec in Canada," and Quebec independence was the blackmail to get it.

    We are still at risk for a third and "final" referendum as a smoke-screen to cover the last stages of the forced annexation. And when Canadians take measures to blow these lies out of the water and take back our sovereignty, what exactly will we be facing? Clearly, the Honduras "situation" of international lies, fraud, intimidation, phoney press, contempt for the Rule of Law, the trampling of our domestic rights to govern by our own Constitution, and all multiplied 100 times, given that Canada is Canada.

    Follow me on as well as here. I've one piece there, complemented by this piece by Burwell Stark:

    And is also starting to post my videos, commencing with the 2008 Federal Elections video called "While You Were Sleeping".

    I put a new video last week, "Ekos The Annexation Survey":
    which documents pointed questions being put to Canadians about "North American Union" and a European-Union style government, and a new currency, etc.

  46. Here's another interesting powerpoint of events in Honduras...

  47. And on this video Mel himself saying he won through fraud & corruption...

    Also, an article about Zelaya's dad being involved in the massacre of "Los Horcones" & serving prison term

  48. Another great posting on SCRIBD

  49. From Don M

    For anyone looking for the Congressional Research Service report that documents point by point how Zelaya's removal from office was in accordance with the Honduran Constitution - the following URL is an authentic source.

    Don M

  50. Have you seen this site:

  51. It is ironic that with all thye talk of a Coup by US policy makers, and of Dictatorship by Zelaya and his supporters, that the negotiations turn on whether the Congress should vote in the San Jose accords, or whether the Supreme Court should make a finding. In either case, it recognizes a previous legal processes occurred effecting Zelaya's removal from office, that needs to be reversed through another legal processes.

    What better proof is there that the original process was legal and not a coup, and therefore what has all the fuss been about?

    Certainly, if there waqs an interuption of constitutional order, the restoration process would not require a legal process to reverse the departure from democracy.

    Don M

  52. The reversal process will be the interruption of constitutional process. It will be tantamount to a full repudiation by Congress of the lawful Constitution, and of the Courts and their warrant.

    That's the real "fuss".

    Kathleen Moore
    The Official Legal Challenge
    To North American Union

    My own videos:


  53. Well now that we know that Hondurans responded to Zelaya's call to boycott the elections by producing a record turn out increasing to 60+% from the 50% turn out when Zelaya was elected. The one Presidential candidate that echoed Zelaya's positions vociferously calling for his reinstatement, and also for constituting a Constituent Assembly - got about 2% of the votes. The other 98% voted for candidates that agreed with his ouster and refused his reinstatement. I have often wondered how a nacissistic meglomaniac would handle utter repudiation at the national level.

    It is laughable that he thought he would win the congressional vote which ended up 111 against Zelaya's reinstatement, 14 for, and 3 absentions. What a moron.

    Don M

  54. Hello. This is Friday, 18 June 2010. I hope that my Honduran friends are subscribed to these comments. I released the following message yesterday to my followers in Facebook, YouTube and elsewhere:


    On 9 June 2010, Gilles Duceppe, leader of the bogus "separatist" Bloc Quebecois party in the federal Parliament of Canada, used his
    parliamentary office, House of Commons letterhead and parliamentary fax machine in Ottawa to serve notice on 1600 world leaders and influential personalities of PLANS FOR A THIRD AND FINAL REFERENDUM to destroy Canada.

    There is NO POWER TO SECEDE in Canada.
    Provinces of Canada have only LOCAL powers under section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867. They cannot act in any way that substantially affects another province, let alone all of Canada. Nonetheless, our nation and our provinces were commandeered decades ago by hidden powers placing their agents in our high offices to put Canada into a nose-dive in order to dissolve Confederation for the spreading EEC-EU system, which is the template of a world federation of regions under world government. This is the end of nations, not the beginning of the independent state of Quebec. The separatist movement, largely generated artificially from underground by big corporate interests, and with Pierre Elliott Trudeau and other key people aboard in the "secret committee" of Power Corporation, is being used as a front to impose the new world order system.

    I need your support now; please go to my HABEAS CORPUS CANADA Facebook group and become a member; please use the following e-mail address to DONATE NOW to the LEGAL SUPPORT FUND for the final preparations to meet Treason against Canada at its Waterloo, where it will be served a crushing defeat. (Paypal)

    There is a Paypal widget here:

    And another embedded in this Zelaya blog page.

    Thank you for your support.

    I have to pay for court registry fees, court stenographers, process servers, printers & binders, documents out of court and national archives, additional equipment to get the work done with. Every dollar counts! The battle of Canada against the corporate New World Order is the battle of all sovereign nations. Join me!

    Kathleen Moore -- Habeas Corpus Canada: The Official Legal Challenge to North American Union. WAKE UP NOW, AND STAND UP FOR CANADA!


  55. The counter on this blog page today says "31". The counter has malfunctioned, or someone has altered it. There were many THOUSANDS of hits on this blog in the two weeks alone after it was first put up. I will have to look into the issue later, and remove the counter, or find other means to confirm the stats.
    Kathleen Moore
    Montreal, Canada

  56. In his 2013 article entitled "The Expressive Function of Constitutional Amendment Rules"in the McGill Law Journal, Associate Law Professor at Boston College Law School, Richard Albert makes a passing reference to the events in Honduras in 2009, and cites a number of sources for further background. I haven't read these sources, I have not changed my opinion that Zelaya's attempt to forcibly amend the Honduran constitution was a coup, and that the Courts lawfully ordered his removal.

    It seems to me, however, that the statement made by the law article's author, pointing out the formal non-amendability of the constitutional term limit of the Honduran presidency, indicates that this Professor of comparative law understands that Zelaya attempted to outstrip the formal constitutional limits, and was thus acting unlawfully.

    I am posting this brief reference for the interest of anyone still actively documenting the matter:

    "The different thresholds for formally amending A, B, and C could also reflect the concern that future generations of political actors will be tempted to act in their self-interest by seeking to amend certain power-conferring constitutional provisions. The Honduran constitution illus­trates such a concern. That constitution's designers thought it necessary, given the nation's history, to entrench presidential term limits against formal amendment;107 accordingly, the constitutional text designates the presidential term limit provision as unamendable.108 The durability and legitimacy of this rule were recently tested when then-President Manuel Zelaya proposed a national referendum on amending the term limit pro­hibition.109"

    Related footnotes:

    107 See Teresa Stanton Collett, "Judicial Independence and Accountability in an Age of Un­constitutional Constitutional Amendments" (2010) 41:2 Loy U Chi LJ 327 at 345-46.

    108 See Constitution of the Republic of Honduras, 1982, No 131 of 1982, arts 239 (establish­ing one-term rule), 374 (entrenching article 239 against formal amendment).

    109 For a discussion and analysis of this episode, see e.g. Frank M Walsh, "The Honduran Constitution is Not a Suicide Pact: The Legality of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya's Removal" (2010) 38:2 Ga J Int'l & Comp L 339; Doug Cassel, "Honduras: Coup d'Etat in Constitutional Clothing?—Revision", online: (2009) 13:9 ASIL Insights ; William Ratliff, "Understanding the Mess in Hon­duras" Forbes (28 September 2009), online: Forbes ; Elisabeth Malkin, "Honduran President Is Ousted In Coup" New York Times (29 June 2009). online: New York Times .

    246. (2013) 59:2 McGill Law Journal—Revue de droit de McGill