Q

    OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER
    And Jean Chretien Jointly, Severally and Personally
    DEFENDANTS

1. The Plaintiff may seek judgement in accordance with this Statement of Claim or such judgement as may be granted pursuant to the Rules of Court unless within 20 days if you were served in Saskatchewan; Within 30 days if you were served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America; Within 40 days if you were served outside Canada and the united States of America (excluding the date of service) you serve a Statement of Defense on the Plaintiff and file a copy thereof in the office of the Local Registrar of the Court for the Judicial Centre above named.

2. In many cases a Defendant may have the trial of the action held at a judicial centre other that the one at which the Statement of claim isissued. Every Defendant should consult his lawyer as to his or her rights.

3. This Statement of claim is to be served within six months from the date on which it is issued.

4. This Statement of Claim is issued at the above named judicial centre the 24th day of November 2000.

5. This action is brought against you under the simplified procedure as set out in Part forty of the Queen’s Bench Rules.

    ___________________________
    Deputy Local Registrar
                                         _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1. Patrick Ellis, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”, was at all material times a Citizen of one of the several Provinces whose current abode is in the (unincorporated) City of Regina.

2. Office of the Prime Minister, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Office”, was at all material times a body politic and is the position held by the leader of the political party in power and chief administrative officer for the corporation of Canada, hereinafter “CANADA”. “Defendant Office” is resident of the City of Ottawa as set out in s. 16 of the British North America Act (1867) now the Constitution Act (1867) hereinafter the “Act”.

3. Jean Chretien, (a Liberal), hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Chretien”, was at all material times resident of the City of Ottawa and the Prime Minister of Canada. He is sworn to uphold the constitution of Canada and to work within the confines of the Constitution Acts 1867-1982 under the doctrine of “Peace Order and Good Government”.

4. Canada is founded upon a Constitutional Monarchy wherein the Constitution is paramount and not a Centralised Monarchy.

5. “Defendant Chretien” was, at all times in his federal political career, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, holding key cabinet positions within the Pearson, Trudeau and Turner terms as well as in his current term as Prime Minister.

6. “Defendant Chretien” is under oath to administrate CANADA according to the limitations as set out in the “Act”. He is, in particular, bound under the terms as set out in s. 130.

7. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that the federal government is the “general” or “residual” government and the bulk of Legislative powers fall within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures.

8. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that powers inherent with the administration of “CANADA” is found within s.s. 91 and 95, among others, and exclude matters of a “Local and Private Nature” and matters involving “Property and Civil Rights”.

9. The powers of the federal government over “people”, are confined to; Indians (s. 91.24), Aliens (s. 91.25) and Immigrants prior toimmigrating into a Province (s. 95) and excludes the population at large.

10. “Defendant Chretien” was present when “Defendant Office”, Lester Pearson (a Liberal) and holder of that office, passed into law the Canada Pension Plan (1964) as he knew, knows or ought to have known that the intent of that Act was to induce the Citizens and residents of the several Provinces into becoming the “property” of the federal government through the introduction of the Social Insurance Number and it’s subsequent assignment for Revenue Canada purposes in 1967.

11. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows, or ought to have known that the attempt by “Defendant Office” to create Amendment the 14th U. S.style citizens, if it could, would render those subject to the Provincial Governments due to the Peace, Welfare and Good Government doctrine entrusted to the Provinces at Confederation.

12. “Defendant Chretien”, as Attorney General, stood by as “Defendant Office”, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (a Liberal), passed into law, through Orders in Council, the Emergency Planning Order, wherein he knew, knows or ought to have known that that “so-called” law infringed upon the Exclusive Classes of Subjects reserved to the Provinces and that “so-called” law must be passed by the Legislatures in order to have any effect as s. 94 of the “Act” provides.

13. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known of the break down in the position of Governor General and the securing of that position to the “ownership” of the federal government by “Defendant Office”, MacKenzie King (a Liberal) and holder of that office, through the “Letters Patent Constituting Office of Governor General” (1947).

14. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that he cannot appoint justices to the Supreme Court of Canada as those appointments must comply with s. s. 17 and 101 of the “Act” yet, with flagrant violation of the Constitution, appoints justices to the Supreme Court of Canada rendering decisions from that body of no force or effect to the Citizens of the several Provinces.

15. “Defendant Chretien” is an integral part of a plot by the federal government to usurp Provincial powers over to their own use by
“appointing” the “so-called” justices, sympathetic to the unitarian cause of the federal government, to the Supreme Court of CANADA bench and by “federal-Provincial agreements”.

16. “Defendant Chretien” is carrying on the myth of taxation when he knows that the taxation system currently in place is an act of treasonand or constructive treason.

17. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that the expressions “sacrifice for fiscal need”, “new federalism”, “social contract (insurance)” are all “buzz-phrases” conjured up by “Defendant Office” in order to confuse the Citizens and residents of the several Provinces.

18. On November 9th 2000 “Defendant Chretien” stated, at the all candidates debate hereinafter “debate”, that he, representing the federal government, would be involved with Provincial health care (Local and Private, Property and Civil Rights) knowing that he could not as this is an Exclusive Class of Subject over which the Provinces have authority.

19. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that his statement on national television on November 9th 2000 was a breach of public trust and that he further knew, knows or ought to have known that such a breach is an act of treason and or constructive treason.

20. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that, when speaking of health care, the federal government’s jurisdiction is to Marine Hospitals and Quarantine as provided in the “Act”

21. During that “debate” Stockwell Day, leader of the Alliance Party, stated his intentions that the Provinces were to have their lawful powers, under the “Act”, restored to which “Defendant Chretien” stated that the “Act” is not needed as “we have the Charter and the courts”. Again, “Defendant Chretien” made known his intention that he will not abide by his oath of office and to adhere to the Constitutions of Canada and of the Several Provinces.

22. “Defendant Chretien” has decided that he shall “rule” over Canada by way of a Centralised Monarchy rather than by way of the lawful Constitutional Monarchy and knowing such act to be an act to overthrow the Constitution(s) of Canada and or of the Provinces.

23. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that “Direct Taxation” is strictly a Provincial jurisdiction and the federal government is restricted to “indirect taxation” and those monies raised are appropriated to the use of the Provinces, when they become financially needy, and to lubricate the machinery of government to meet that end (s. 103). Caron v. the King (1924) “gave” the federal government powers of appropriation “…for dominion purposes” (91.3 modified by Caron, violating the Paramountcy of the Imperial Parliament) yet the “Act” does not permit the federal government to spend “Provincial monies” as they deem fit.

24. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that the expression “Supremacy/Paramountcy of Parliament” is used in reference to the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and not the parliament of CANADA, hence the “Act” has not been altered nor could “Defendant Chretien” alter the same to his own use.

25. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that he could not dissolve the House as there was no non-confidence call in the House nor was the current mandate over yet chose to by-pass the Constitution and leave any decisions to the courts.

26. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that the very act of calling an election wherein the conditions as set out in paragraph 25 have not been met is also a breach of the Public trust and that is also known as a treason or act of constructive treason.

27. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that “Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money” is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, (federal treasury) and not for the private company know as the BANK OF CANADA. Since he is holding in perpetuity the fraud of letting the Banks control our currency there now exists some $35,000,000,000 in notes and coins in circulation and the RECEIVER GENEREAL is taking in over $160,000,000,000. “Defendant Chretien” knows this is how depressions arecreated.

28. “Defendant Chretien” knew, knows or ought to have known that there is no national debt since CANADA prints it’s own currency based upon the G. N. P. and or the G. D. P.

    THE Plaintiff THEREFORE CLAIMS;
    a. $250,000.00 in General damages.
    b. Punitive damages to be assessed by a jury of 12 of the Plaintiff’s peers.
    c. Special damages in the amount of $10,000,000.00.
    d. Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the jury of 12.
    e. Issues of fact be assessed by a jury of 12 of the Plaintiff’s peers.
    f. Such further and other relief the Honourable Court may permit.

    Patrick Ellis
    317-845 Broad Street
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    s4r 8g9
    Ph: (416) 938-0722
    (Acting in Person)

This Document was delivered by: Personal service by Patrick Ellis who’s mailing address is 317-845 Broad Street Regina, Saskatchewan s4r
8g9 .