Clarity Act :Do You Know The Facts about the Alberta Referendum

Clarity Act, 2000 Explained catch 22

To give effect to the requirement for clarity. As set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the Quebec sessions reference, and this was done in the year 2000, June 29th.

Just to elaborate a little bit on the difference between an opinion of the court and a ruling of the court.

Well, it's the same thing that we do. I mean, I have… 100,000 opinions, as do you.

Example I like a certain kind of beer and that's my opinion. You might like another kind of beer and that's your opinion and that's really all the Supreme Court is doing. They're just giving an opinion.

But now as many of you have come to realize the illegal and unlawful federal authority decided to create what they call a law.

On that opinion. Now, if it was a ruling, there would have to be a case and a court case in front of them. Right. That they would make a ruling out off. In other words, they would be resolving a dispute. So you and I go to court.

We get into an argument. The court then makes a ruling, which is to settle our argument.

The opinion is not the same as a ruling. Opinion is just the court going, well, you know, we think This is our opinion. Yeah, it has no legal enforcement qualities to it.

Well, now it does, according to them. According to the criminals… Well, and you've got to ask yourself Really, everyone must comprehend this and share this to others

Section 59 of their Constitution Act was never ratified. In order for it to come into supreme law in Canada, they need to ratify it, and they have yet to do that.

So think about this how does something like this have any standing in law?

This was done in 2000. They still have to ratify the Constitution Act in 1982 which still to this day of May 2025 never has been satisfied or even ratified

it has been 42 years since the Constitution Act of 1982 and its been in limbo since then. They never did. They tried Meeach Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Accord, but it never came to fruition. In other words it failed or did the deliberate ensure it failed.

So lets all look at the preamble where it says, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right under international law or under the Constitution of Canada Again do not forget, they haven't ratified this constitutional act of 1982

Remember international and Canada are maritime jurisdictions, because both international and Canada are maritime jurisdictions.

Also for the National Assembly Legislature, the government of Quebec to take effect this succession of Quebec from Canada unilateral. So this was happening when Quebec was looking to once again Leave. Yes Quebec they keep threatening to separate. like, this whole issue here in 2000.

Most Canadians thought the whole separation issue with Quebec was over and done with with Rennie Levesque and his separatist vote was in 1976
Today most of the people thought it was finished and it continued on right up to 2000 and it still has continued

Do not forget that in 76, that's when Walter F. Kuhl gave Rene Levesque, the letter.

Walter F. Kuhl in detailed letter stated how can you ask for a divorce without first having a marriage. You're already separate nation.

HOW CAN YOU BE DIVORCED IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN MARRIED? In other words, ever since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, by the British Government, each of the provinces of Canada has been a completely sovereign and independent state, and because the provinces have signed nothing since then constituting a Federal Union and a Federal Government, and because no such treaty has been ratified by the people of Canada, the provinces still enjoy the status of sovereignty and are privileged to use it in any way they see fit.

As you will observe from the enclosed addresses, I quote eminent Canadian constitutional authorities as suggesting that the only and logical solution to the existing constitutional circumstances is the drafting and the adoption of a proper federal constitution in which the provinces can reserve for themselves any and all powers necessary to enable them to govern their provinces successfully.

I am sure you can appreciate that if this were done, you could solve your economic and other problems in Quebec without resorting to separation. I feel sure that having the ability to solve your problems and still remain constitutionally part of the country of Canada, would be much more satisfactory to your supporters as well as to others within your province.

It's all about money and power. That's all it is.

Let us go back and in the second paragraph says, whereas any proposal relating to the breakup of a democratic state

Do you find this statement of democratic state bizarre or very strange.

Is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens. And once again in red, I've put in brackets slaves Whereas the government, the corporate regime of any province of Canada Incorporated is entitled to consult its population by referendum.

On any issue and is entitled to formulate The wording of the referendum question.

I will read it once again. Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled It's entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question.

This does not mention you , me or any of the people.
Now we have this movement of referendum initiated by the Citizens with the Alberta Prosperity Project and a few more controlled Groups spouting the same regurgitated nonsense. So all of you out there thinking, we're going to have referendum. They hare blowing smoke up your ass. You been duped.

Now lets discuss this in further detail. This means in their words he government gets to decide the wording of the question in your referendum Not you and it gets worse.

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada It's no longer an opinion, has determined that the result of a referendum on succession of a province from Canada must be free of ambiguity, both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.

And that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that will rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations.

What this means is you can not just leave. This mean there must be a negotiations. That might… lead might lead to secession.

Again this means the government has to give you permission to tell them you want to leave… Then you get to sit down with them and negotiate the possibility of leaving.
Important you and I and the people do not get to sit down and negotiate. That is right the selected officials get a sit down. yes the same ones who swore and oath the King Charles.

Let us not all forget what the recent dictators did in the Moron plandemic of lies and deceit. They shut down the economy, locked everyone up and forced an injection of poison or the kill shot to millions.

Now you and I think of negotiations such as with a trade unions or contracts in business.
And we all know from life experience negotiations take a long time and sometimes there is never an agreement and it just ends with no more negotiations.

What do you do when the government says, well, we just won't recognize your referendum?

They rule and own their system. This means go back to work slave and shut up or we lock you down again. And it gets better.

Oh, of course it does. This is the unlawful federal government. They can do what ever they want. Do you think they want to give up there fiefdom of slavery. Not a chance.

From the clarity act it goes on to say, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means More than a simple majority rule.

So Really what does this mean. It means more than a majority rule, yet every law dictionary says majority rule.

The Supreme Court of Canada somehow thinks it's above the law once again. And I hat to burst you bubble they are above the law, because their are no concrete laws in Canada corporation. They have the so called power to rewrite any law that suits their agenda of control

And hence the simple majority rule that a clear majority in favor of secession must be required to create an obligation to negotiate secession.

So what exactly does this mean in layman's terms.
it means you got to have a clear majority is based on their opinion of what a clear majority is.

So what do you think their clear majority is going to be 100%. 90%

A clear majority will be a 100% of the people agreeing to succeed so you can come to the negotiating table to secede.

I hear all this talk of 50 percent plus one, or 63 percent and so on. So let this sink in. They decide not you and I .

Are this referendum going to be counted by paper or electronic vote counting machines.

Now again they only get to negotiate.

So say after the referendum if it every comes we have 100% vote to leave, but it's still a negotiation.

This is how ridiculous this is ? And then it goes on to say, and that a qualitative evaluation is required to determine whether a clear majority in favor of secession exist in the circumstances.

Qualitative evaluation involves the “why” and the “how” and allows a deeper look at issues

This means not only do you have to have a clear majority, now they're going to put a council together a group of people to make sure that you had a clear majority.

The criminals are going to determine it. Do the average man and woman comprehend the referendum initiated by the people have no input at all.

Are the Alberta Prosperity Project, Wexit and the 51 first state misleading people. Well of course they are. I have met with APP and Wexit and the 51 State leaders since 2020 and have show clear evidence the clarity is useless and after all this information, they still push this nonsense to millions.

You may ask Why? Well because its just another distraction to keep the people walking in circles while they move forward with their UN Agenda 30 world enslavement.

Every man and woman who are looking at this referendum need to be educated on what this clarity act is.
Furthermore all these people such as the grand jury people you need to read this and share this so more become educated. You will never become liberated until you are educated

The Clarity Act goes on to say, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that In Canada, the secession of a province to be lawful would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

This means for this secession to become lawful you have to have an amendment to the constitution that isn't lawful.

This is how ridicules this really is
Again they didn't ratify the Constitution Act in 1982. Who is they you may ask. Not you or I or the people but the selected agents for the corporation of Canada

Both accords were deliberately sabotaged in 1987 and 1995 but the deceivers or criminals say it would take an amendment to that unlawful and illegal document to leave.

Again it says would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

What constitution are they're referring to, the photocopy in Ottawa that Pierre Trudeau picked up at a gift shop in Britain of the BNA act.

The photocopy of North America Act. Yeah, that's the one they have in the archives in Ottawa. The originals in the UK archives because it's their property.

To add the BNA act was a document to rape, pillage, murder and enslave pheasants.

The Clarity act goes on to say that such an amendment would would pre-force required negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all the provinces and the Government of Canada.

Then it states the negotiations would be governed by the principles of federalism. Democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law
Lets go over this last statement for clarification - Democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law and the protection of minorities. The protection of the minorities!

What is federalism ?

It says a principle of government that defines the relationship between the central government at the national level and its constituents units at the regional, state, or local levels.
Under this principle of government, power and authority is allocated between the national and local government units.
Such that each unit is delegated a sphere of power and authority only it can exercise While other powers must be shared. None of this is in the Corporation of Canada

We look at what democracy is mob rule and that is definitely in Canada.

Constitutionalism, well, considering that Canada doesn't have one
We will read it anyway. The principles of a constitutional government or adherence to them. Constitutional rule or authority. That's what it defines as and then the rule of law. A state of order in which events conform to law.

Huge Problem is that Canada doesn't have the rule of law.
We don't have law of the land. That's the rule of law. We have color of law, because Canada only exists on the water. If you look under the Interpretations Act and look up The definition of Canada as per their definition.

It's the internal waters and external seas.

In the Clarity Act whereas in light of finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be… that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province on secession.

lets look at this in more detail the clarity act states It would be for the elected representatives to determine what constitutes the clear question that you can ask. And what constitutes a clear majority?

So MP's MLA's or the selected employees who swore an oath to the King not the people their job is on the line if the profit secedes. So do you think for one second that the selective representatives want to lose their job by giving you The clear question and a clear majority in a referendum? Moron fake plandemic Must educate you how they did nothing to stop and all of the libs and Cons, NDP and the Green all voted for UN Agenda 30 sustainable death sentence to the people or slaves.

No. They'll be fair with all of us. If you Have read the little child case? there's how much fair you're going to get.

Furthermore is states the house of commons as the only political institution elected to represent all Canadians.
It has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority sufficient for the government of Canada to enter into negotiations In relation to secession of a province from Canada.

Talk about stacking the deck 100% in their favor. And yeah, this is, A P P or Wexit, is running around pushing the referendum and so… You want to waste your time? I hope Not.

Who hear still think they're going to start a political party and push to have referendums and we're going to get a vote on it in in Parliament.

They've already voted laws that totally, basically… they will stop any movement for a referendum by we the people. They silence we the people and use their hired guns, the selected employees for the corporation of Canada . Yes the ones who swore and oath to the King and Privy council, also to keep secrets of what is discussed.

In layman's terms this means Shut up to we the people or slaves if you more up to speed on how we are truly governed under this dictatorship.

In the Clarity Act it states whereas it is incumbent on the Government of Canada not to enter into negotiations that might lead to the secession of a province from Canada and that could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that the Canadian residents in the province enjoy as full participants in Canada.

Unless the population of that province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the prophets succeed from Canada.

Let this sink in for a second. Doesn't it already require them to express their democratic will to leave Canada before they even begin negotiations? Correct.
here is the kicker. The termination of citizenship and other rights of Canadian citizens.

What does this mean. When you secede from Canada, meaning that you're giving them the audios or goodbye or hit the road were moving on!

… you're losing your citizenship. So basically, if you terminate your citizen, if this causes the termination of a citizenship, you can't have a referendum and you can't leave. It's a catch of 22. They have covered every base with landmines.

Unless the population of the province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the province succeed from Canada. So that would mean 100% of the population of of the province must want to secede. Yes 100% of the province.

Now reality check you go to a restaurant with 10 people on what toppings they would like on a pizza. Basically not all are going to agree.

Everybody gets cheese and pepperoni. That's it. Okay, good luck with that and having them agree to it. Even two people have a hard time to agree let alone several million people all have to agree.

They say here clearly expressed. It's democratic will that the province secede from Canada. So what would be the democratic will?
In order for the termination of citizenship, which will happen upon secession.
So 100% that they are willing to give up their citizenship. Not 99, not 99.99. Not 98, but 100%.
Otherwise, if it terminates citizenship, guess what? You can't do it.
So they leave that to the very end. That's the catch-22.
If it terminates the citizenship, guess what? Your referendum even to negotiate secession can't go forward. This is why any of these different movements that you see out there that claim… We're going to do this and attack them from within.

We're going to get this and we're going to use that. How well did all the challenges when your masters locked you up, took your jobs, and told you to go home and lock yourself into your prison.

So many uneducated people challenged the charter, the bill of rights, used common law and many resorted to the Magna Carta with no comprehension of what these really were. They just followed the controlled ops or agents blindly.

The Magna Carta and Article 61. None of that will ever work. It does not exist or apply to slaves
Here is a question did the Supreme Court of Alberta tell the people of Alberta you have no choice . The politicians or employees for the corporation of Alberta Canada can do whatever they want once they're selected they can thumb their nose at you and still get a paycheck Because they're politicians.

You can't fix the system from within.

These criminals have hundred years of writing laws just like this that make it impossible For you, the citizen or slave to use their system to empower you.

Everything about their system is designed to keep you under their… thumb.

Coming back to Article 61 of the Magna Carta, has to be the Magna Carta 1225. It cannot refer to the 1215 as the 1215 was never ratified. Even the 1225 Article 61 is no longer even relevant anymore , the last time it was ever used successfully was in 1688.in the UK and that Magna Cartas has been buried and collecting dust and never to the daylight or in law ever again.

Reason is in 1689 The English Bill of Rights was created by William and Mary which basically negated the Magna Carta, which was why 1688 was the last time it was successfully used and so people who talk about using the Magna Carta today or regurgitating have no clue. They need to study their history before they lead others down the path of the dead end gang. They need to understand what they're talking about because they are blowing smoke like A P P, wexit , Concerned Canadian, Alberta proud, Alberta Separation, and other talking heads misdirecting the facts.

And I've been saying that for a long time. I am happy to say… that a large number of the men and women are catching on to these facts. They're starting realize you can't use something that ceased to exist hundreds of years ago

You can't use something that was created by a foreign de-facto government only exists by the power of that foreign government and has nothing to do with we, the people. Slowly, people are starting to catch on to the importance Of those three little words we the people.

They are the most powerful words in any free society. Whether it's a democracy, a republic.

They are, without a doubt, the most powerful words.

One more major topic I want to discuss is the conflict of the traditional lands called treaty rights. The Indian Act is no different than the BNA Act, All men and women in every province have been harmed.

To correct this all men and women must sit down create a contract or constitution in their respected areas.

The first nations have been abused and harmed still to this current day as every other man and women in the corporations. So when I see these so called speakers for the Bands saying no separation this concerns me deeply are these individuals actually educated or compromised. Who in their right mind would want to continue with the corporation of Canada or even any of the corporations of the Provinces.

These individuals must be compromised and are no longer needed to represent the majority of the first nations, Bribe after bribe keeps these globalist Chiefs workings maintain this corrupt unethical system
The solution is we the people create a constitution we all can agree to , which ends the land claims as of now No One has any land its all owned by the Vatican crown corporation
Time to end the fraud

Dallas Hills

.