This post is part of a story which should be read in the following order with other posts:
1) Three Weeks in Looney Bin for Political Views
2) Letters to Trudeau (Jean-Bernard)
3) Shackled (the "Ballpoint Habeas")
-- See SLIDESHOW, bottom of page.
. . .
"Canada had its Trudeau (a good friend of Castro's, by the way), and apparently, now, I have mine," said Moore, while describing how she survived a three-week ordeal in a Douglas Hospital mental ward, not knowing if she would ever see the sunlight again.
In effect, inmates risk involuntary injection of drugs, with or without court order, and whether they consent or not. This is, in fact, what happened to Moore on the 8th of November, 2007. She said it left her feeling like a vegetable.
Moore believes that her constant refusal to be labelled a "patient," and to be psychologically intimidated despite Douglas efforts to orally feed her antipsychotic drugs, pulled her through.
"They bit off more than they could chew," said Moore, and "I made it very hard for them to swallow."
In the Intensive Care Unit, inmates are assigned a nurse on a 'round-the-clock basis. Whenever the shift changed and someone announced to her, "Madam Moore, I'm your nurse!" Moore would reply, "only in
your mind;
I'm not a patient, I'm a victim of
kidnap."
Moore also attributes her success in getting out (she was actually
thrown out on 21 November 2007 after three weeks of refusing to be subdued!) to her general knowledge of law. However, she laments, she had no access to the Internet, or to her laptop which the Douglas Hospital had locked up. Her computer contains a database of Constitutional law that she would have liked to refer to, in particular as
habeas corpus proceedings are used to free people who are wrongly detained, including those labelled "lunatics". And so, Moore had to work from memory, and without any access to the specific laws governing mental health and social services.
"Psychiatrist Marianne Boisvert wanted to know where I'm getting my information on North American Union," said Moore. "I could see where she was going, she expected me to say "the Internet," and then she could diagnose me as a conspiracy theorist (i.e., paranoid -- and in fact, that's what she did), so instead, I said, well, 17 American Legislatures have passed laws against it, lock THEM up."
Throughout her ordeal, Moore never ceased to write letters and notes. To let others know on the outside the kind of predicament she was in, Moore would call the telephone answering machines of newspapers and read her letters in.
During her illegal incarceration, she was allowed no visitors, no exercise, and found herself on paper rationing by the Douglas Institute's Doctor Hani Iskandar who with a sly leer reduced her to two sheets a day, after which she wrote on paper towels liberated from the washroom.
Typically, the Douglas nursing station threw its door open to listen as Moore dictated her letters into newspaper answering machines over the inmates' telephone, which was in an open area making private communications next to impossible.
"Just as well," said Moore, "I wanted them to see and hear what I'm doing. I wanted them to know that it was not going to be easy for them to hang onto me."
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 1 November 2007
Made an oral request to Dr. Marianne BOiSVERT for access to my "medical" file. She repeated this request to the nursing station where a woman laughed derisively and exclaimed, "Here we go!" The file was not forthcoming.
* * *
The first letter Moore wrote was on the morning of 2 November 2007, to the Director of Professional and Health Services at Douglas Hospital, DR. JEAN-BERNARD TRUDEAU, who, in fact, took her to Court on 8 November 2007 in an effort to keep her in long-term detention:
FIRST LETTER:
Without Prejudice
All Rights Reserved
November 2, 2007
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau
Douglas Institute
6875, boulevard LaSalle
Montreal (Quebec)
H4H 1R3
Re: KIDNAPPING OF 31 OCTOBER 2007
Article 1, Code of Civil Procedure of QuebecArticle 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec
PROHIBITS civil imprisonment except in the case of contempt of court. I have been civilly imprisoned since the night of 31 October 2007 by Police criminally assaulting me to force me into an ambulance after ridiculing me about a lawsuit I plan to file in future, a subject raised by them, not me, at the time they were called by 911 to 784 14th Avenue #11 in Lachine concerning an illegal lock-change by my landlord, who confiscated my property, including law books and notes for legal proceedings.
The confiscation, just like the criminal assault by Police which followed, was politically motivated to destroy my planned future legal proceedings and to discredit me.
I am being detained unlawfully and against my will at Douglas Institute with the same political motive of discrediting me by the unlawful manufacture of rubber stamps to ratify criminal abuse by the state. Neither Police, the LaSalle Hospital, nor this Douglas Institute has shown any
- 2 -
written grounds as valid legal basis for the present detention, the LaSalle Hospital detention, or the assault by Police on 31 October 2007 forcing me into an ambulance.
This assault and illegal detention occurred immediately after Police ridiculed me about subjects not under discussion on the night of 31 October 2007, and not known to the landlord by disclosure from me, being: (1) my studies in law; (2) my planned future legal procceedings which are the subject of one or more web sites, including:
http://habeascorpuscanada.tripod.com/ [now @:
http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com/]
http://www.freewebs.com/administrationdelajustice/Furthermore, former Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux has been using Police to stalk me, discredit me, intercept my employers and landlords, solicit harassment, and confiscate and destroy my property, including evidence and draft legal proceedings, since Lyse Lemieux personally and criminally supervised the destruction of a lawfully filed Evocation in 2000-2001, while the file (Record) was incomplete, to prevent it from coming to a hearing. By Art. 165.4 CP, the respondent landlord, as bagman for the respondent Justice Minister had admitted as facts, as if pleaded, over 200 detailed allegations
- 3 -
of criminal abuse and malicious prosecution against me by himself and the Rental Board with no proceedings filed or served by him, and the Rental Board and the Justice Minister thus completely ultra vires.
The former Chief Justice, arrested for drunk driving and forced to resign -- criminally colluded in 2000-2001 to destroy my proceedings. She then criminally destroyed my home and property while using the bailiff to put a box full of my legal evidence against all of them into the hands of the landlord subject of my lawful proceedings: Arciero.
The former Chief Justice and her croneys at court were subject of proceedings at Federal Court, FCT-794-04 in 2004 in an attempt to remove them from office. My residential premises were criminally broken into, searched, trashed and myself threatened on the day that I was at Federal Court before Judge Johanne Gauthier (former law partner of NAFTA's Brian Mulroney) promising to file something substantive in 48 hours in relation to a motion for case management.
That substantive motion would have disclosed a U.D.I. in Quebec; and at the time, I knew nothing of North American Union, the long-planned fusion of Canada, US and Mexico to form a new country. That break-in and criminal harassment, detailed in a
- 4 -
motion before Federal Court Judge François Lemieux, hampered the filing of the substantive procedure.
I have now been kidnapped by Police criminally assaulting me after taunting me as follows:
"Who do you think you are!"
"You can't do THAT all alone!" -- evidently referring to Habeas Corpus Canada, because Police specifically mentioned "the Queen" before stating this challenge. The Queen, in personam, is the respondent in my planned legal challenge to North American Union, and the criminal termination of Canada by those illegally detaining office in my country.
The pattern of stalking by former Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux et als, using Police to follow, disenfranchise and discredit me was repeated again on 31 October 2007 by Police deliberately leaving my legal proceedings and property in the hands of a landlord who had broken my door to confiscate them.
The Douglas Institute, controlled by McGill University, which is criminally assisting the take-down of Canada, has one objective in my case: to fabricate a psychiatric profile to discredit me, and therefore to discredit Habeas Corpus Canada,
- 5 -
which, if completed and instituted, would stop North American Union and restore lawfully constituted government to Canada.
To answer the taunt of Police: "Who do you think you are!" -- I know who I am. I'm a Canadian.
And Police had no authority on 31 October 2007 to refuse to sanction the landlord for illegally changing my lock and criminally confiscating my property. The Police further had no legal basis witnessed by them to assault me in order to prevent me from contacting a lawyer to prevent them from forcing me into an ambulance.
The Police were never in my apartment, because the lights never went on, I was outside my windows waiting for them. On the contrary, Police remained with the landlord the whole time, in his apartment, which is wehere the police saw my property.
- 6 -
The Douglas Institute is criminally assisting a kidnap for the purpose of slandering me, and of damaging my reputation, and of aiding the take-down regime in silencing me, in order to silence Habeas Corpus Canada.
The Douglas Institute having no grounds in law to detain me against my will, Soviet-style, is required by Article One of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure to release me immediately, together with my property.
This letter is hampered by the Douglas Institute having confiscated my laptop computer and denying me access to it. [Note: all letters and a draft proceeding in habeas corpus with Douglas Institute as Respondent were written in ballpoint while in illegal detention at Douglas Institute.]
This criminally illegal detention is also serving to destroy my new business, joyeuxmontreal.webNG.com, which would help to make me financially independent, something the current regime does not wish to occur.
- 7 -
The Douglas Institute is hereby held criminally and civilly liable for loss of trade and damage to my business interests to the full extent that these are hampered or terminated by the present criminally illegal detention of the undersigned.
Govern Yourselves Accordingly.
[SGD.: Kathleen Moore]
Note: Receipt of the foregoing letter was acknowledged by Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau in writing on Douglas letterhead, communicated to Ms. Moore by the nursing station in the Douglas ER, as follows:
November 2, 2007
Mrs. Kathleen Moore :
As per your request, I wish to confirm reception by FAX of your letter dated November 2, 2007.
[SGD.:] Jean-Bernard Trudeau, M.D.
Director of Professional and Hospital Services
* * *
SECOND LETTER:
Without Prejudice
All Rights Reserved
November 2, 2007
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau
Douglas Institute
6825, boulevard LaSalle
Montreal (Quebec) H4H 1R3
Re: UNLAWFUL INTERVENTIONS
. DRUGS (antipsychotics)
. PSYCHIATRIC "evaluations"
___________________________
Sir:
On November 1, 2007, your Institute took unlawful advantage of the undersigned by conducting a "psychiatric" evaluation in the presence of Dr. Marianne Boisvert and Nurse Nicolas Dupont, while neglecting to first inform me of my rights. In fact, it was only this morning, 2 November 2007 at 9:35 AM that Nurse LIETTE DESJARDINS gave me the green flyer entitled "Rights and Recourses of Persons Placed Under Confinement" published by the Government of Quebec.
In fact, on 1 November 2007, I was therefore illegally interrogated for legal purposes, or for alleged or proposed legal purposes, in the complete absence of information on my rights, and while exploiting my weakened condition after repeated and extensive physical assaults at LaSalle Hospital including choking, attempts to rip off my clothing, and being forcibly buckled into hand, leg and body harnesses to forcibly take medical samples the Hospital was not legally entitled to take. In that compromised,
- 2 -
exhausted and weakened state, which also included more than 24 hours of sleep deprivation, Dr. Marianne Boisvert, at times aggressively, and at times cynically, extracted or attempted to extract information from me. On the basis of that unlawful session, I have been apparently psychiatrically labelled by Dr. Boisvert and subjected to further measures.
This morning, 2 November 2007, Nurse DANY BERTHIAUME was asked by me to provide me with a copy of documents emanating from that session. Only at that time was I then informed that access would only be given by a BAILIFF on certain terms and conditions, at which time I could appear in Court to contest the said documents.
It is therefore fully apparent that a LEGAL DOSSIER was being compiled on me by Dr. Marianne Boisvert and Nurse Nicolas Dupont, in the absence of this rights flyer, given to me only the following day and stating that I could categorically refuse any examination, care or treatment except as ordered by the court.
I categorically refused this morning.
Furthermore, the DOSSIER compiled on me by Douglas Institute up to 9:35 AM 2 November 2007 is null and void and of no legal value for the denial of this rights information. It is therefore inadmissible for any legal purposes, and if submitted to any court must be immediately stricken from the Record, if there can be such a thing as a Record in a non-existent Court which
- 3 -
has been nullified by U.D.I.
In addition, the DOSSIER mounted on me by Douglas Institute is null, void, and of no force or effect for the following reasons:
(1) Complicity with a criminally unlawful kidnapping of the undersigned for POLITICAL purposes;
(2) Police assault on me on 31 October 2007 when I indicated that I wanted to consult a lawyer;
(3) Repeated assaults on me at LaSalle Hospital while denying me access to a lawyer;
(4) The intimidation effect of these accumulated violent assaults in a short period of time;
(5) The battery of the undersigned by Police and Hospital Staff at LaSalle, rendering me incapable of protecting my own interests effectively in the immediate aftermath,
Furthermore, the attempt on the night of 2 November 2007 by one TRACEY BATCHELOR, a nurse, to administer an antipsychotic drug to me was, in the circumstances, not merely intimidation by TERRORISM on the heels of repeated physical assaults by gangs of people at LaSalle Hospital who TIED ME DOWN to FORCIBLY TAKE MEDICAL SAMPLES and to INJECT ME WITH AN ALLEGED DRUG to FORCE ME TO SLEEP as punishment for expressing myself to repudiate my assailants, an ad-hoc gang of
men and women who had set about restraining me and ripping
- 4 -
off my clothes, during which I cried, "RAPE!" and repeatedly demanded to be released, as I was being held criminally and unlawfully against my will with NO LEGAL VALID GROUNDS BEING SHOWN.
Following these experiences of 1 November 2007, I was under the clear impression, in the dark, in my bed at DOUGLAS INSTITUTE, where I am also being held criminally and unlawfully against my will, that I was ABOUT TO BE ASSAULTED ONCE AGAIN to impose the drug by injection because I had just refused to take it voluntarily.
The terror of another possible impending attack to forcibly administer a drug to me led me to get out of bed in order to try to find a lawyer to get me out of here. I left a message on the answering machine of lawyer VONNIE ROCHESTER at telephone number (514) 282-1516, explaining that I had been kidnapped and that I feared an assault might be imminent to inject drugs that I did not want and could damage me.
The impression that drugs might be forcibly injected which could damage me was heightened by the impression at LaSalle Hospital that AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO TERMINATE MY LIFE at LaSalle Hospital. The blood forcibly extracted from me at that Hospital was said by a male nurse,
- 5 -
was said to show a result of 6.9 as my blood potassium level. That male nurse wished a further blood sample for a further test, alleging that with a BLOOD POTASSIUM LEVEL of 6.9:
"YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE DEAD!"
"
YOU COULD DIE ANY MINUTE!"
In fact, I take potassium as a supplement, and I repeatedly told that male nurse and another male who showed up as reinforcements to hold me down for the second blood draw that I took potassium supplements, and a high result would be normal for me. These men, in particular the male nurse, insisted that a second blood analysis was required, because if my level was indeed 6.9, they would have to TREAT ME, apparently against my will, to BRING IT DOWN.
An hour and a half later, the male nurse returned with new results. Now, he announced, "Your blood potassium level is LOW," "It's LOW!" "TOO LOW!" "iT'S 3.3 TO 3.4!" "We have to TREAT you to put it UP!" He now tried to orally administer a POTASSIUM CHLORIDE PILL of enormous proportions, which I refused; and by which I was appalled.
- 6 -
If the first test result of 6.9 was now wrong, which implied that I was "DEAD" or about to "DIE", then a second test of 3.3 to 3.4 suggesting that my BLOOD POTASSIUM LEVEL was now LOW, had only a 50% chance of being right. It seemed to me, that in the context of POLITICAL HARASSMENT and a CRIMINALLY UNLAWFUL KIDNAPPING, it would be convenient to my ultimate assailants if I should die of causes apparently unrelated to the assaults in fact being made on my life since 2001; it occurred to me that my real blood potassium level could in fact be 6.9, and NORMAL for me, as I take a supplement; but that the enormous potassium-chloride pill which the male nurse now wanted to administer was an attempt to push the level fatally higher to kill me, and the second test was wrong, and only a pretext to administer the fatal potassium.
Therefore, when I said to VONNIE ROCHESTER, via her telephone answering machine, that they could "damage" me at DOUGLAS INSTITUTE, I was referring to the real
- 7 -
possibility of a POLITICAL KILLING by the forced administration of drugs.
IN CONCLUSION, I reiterate: the DOUGLAS INSTITUTE is holding me criminally and unlawfully pursuant to a kidnapping by Police, and I invoke the complete nullification of any purported DOSSIER of this institute on those general grounds; and the nullification of any part of same up to 9:35 AM 2 November 2007 for reasons set out above.
The DOUGLAS INSTITUTE therefore has NO LEGAL DOSSIER on the undersigned; and therefore absolutely nothing admissible in Court; and if purported to be admitted, is null, void and should be stricken.
I also reiterate my demand to be released immediately pursuant to Article One of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, which PROHIBITS CIVIL IMPRISONMENT outside of contempt of court.
Do You Govern Yourselves Accordingly.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
ADDENDUM: ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE . . .
- 8 -
Further on the invalidity of any dossier purported to be compiled on me by the DOUGLAS INSTITUTE, not merely did the Institute confiscate my property to keep it under lock and key upon my being forcibly admitted, but personnel SEARCHED my property, SEIZED and READ & CONSULTED in such purported DOSSIER, my personal documents and correspondence in my purse, without my prior knowledge and permission.
Further illegal aspects of this search and seizure may yet be disclosed, because as yet, I have NO LAWYER, VONNIE ROCHESTER has not answered me; others I have called have not answered me; and more importantly, I am beind denied access to my own laptop computer, which contains a legal database of Constitutional cases and commentary which I need to defend my rights more effectively.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
Note: Receipt of the foregoing letter was acknowledged by Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau in writing on Douglas letterhead, communicated to Ms. Moore by the nursing station in the Douglas ER, as follows:
November 2, 2007
Mrs. Kathleen Moore :
As per your request, I wish to confirm reception by FAX of your second letter dated November 2, 2007.
[SGD.:] Jean-Bernard Trudeau, M.D. Director of Professional and Hospital Services
Note: in both cases, Ms. Moore's letters were faxed to Dr. Trudeau by the nursing station, which also received his replies by fax.
* * *
THIRD LETTER:
2 November 2007
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau
DOUGLAS INSTITUTE
6875, boulevard LaSalle
Montreal (Quebec) H4H 1R3
Sir:
The very aggressive and smirking DR. ISKANDAR of McGill University must get a very fat salary to take competent, intelligent people and break them down into idiots.
ISKANDAR says he can hold me for 21 days, which I note is just long enouigh to destroy my business, JOYEUX MONTREAL:
http://joyeuxmontreal.webng.com/This also leaves all my property including legal files in the hands of my landlord, who changed the lock illegally to confiscate them.
This also deprives me of the opportunity to be INTERVIEWED by the PRESS and MEDIA.
I require the facilities and resources, and access to my laptop, to immediately prepare a motion in HABEAS CORPUS.
Govern Yourself Accordingly.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
Note: The foregoing letter was never acknowledged. In effect, none of the letters after the second letter was ever acknowledged.
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 2 November 2007 20h30
NURSE SARAH KIRNON tells me that DOCTOR HANI ISKANDAR [said to be Egyptian] is
denying me an accompanied outing to the law library to prepare for the "subpoenda" DOUGLAS is sending me. She said, "He's put everything on hold, no movement, until Monday." In her English (UK) accent. Monday will turn out to be "subpoena" day because the DOUGLAS lawyers, in contempt for the law against detaining people past 72 hours (if it
were a detention, and not a kidnapping, so the delays don't apply!) will be issuing proceedings that schedule a hearing date DAYS
after the expiry of any legal right the DOUGLAS has to hold anyone in the event of initially lawful detentions.
KM Notes: Pretext: "subpoena" not here yet, so he says I "don't
need" to prepare. He's substituting HIS determination of MY legal rights and "needs" for my rights at law, in order to limit them and deny me the right to find out what they are really up to. DOUGLAS is issuing the "subpoena" and ISKANDAR, FOR the DOUGLAS, is controlling me (on the pretext that this is medically prescribed forced inactivity) to prevent me from preparing to answer it, because he knows I'm going to kick his ass if I can get my hands on the laws and see what's going on. The accompanied outings for legal business are not just "DOUGLAS Code of ETHICS," they are the LAW.
KM Notes: The "halt all movement until Monday" business of ISKANDAR via NURSE KIRNON includes halting "file access," so, again, because of the so-called medically prescribed "halt" until Monday, ANOTHER
denial of access to my so-called
medical file. Of course, because there's nothing IN it to substantiate detaining me.
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 2 November 2007 22h00 "SHOWDOWN" #1
Re: NURSE YVES DAOUST and NURSE SARAH KIRNON
An attempt was made at 10:00 p.m. to
CONFISCATE my copies of legal letters and proofs of service from DOUGLAS INSTITUTE, as well as my personal notes that I had been writing to document events, to put them under THEIR lock and key. It was a very tense standoff. It was almost a tug of war, and DAOUT
wasn't happy. He said, a tad vindictively, that the night nurses "
would take them" if they were not locked up. He figured I'd keep them on the window sill beside my bed (there are no side tables in these rooms, just a bare bed, and the window: no place to sit, write, think.) But, I'm sleeping on them, under my mattress. I said, "You have the key. I don't.
YOU put me in a
legal situation and then YOU want to pilfer my notes to find out what I'm saying!"
I had to walk away from my room with my documents in my hands to protect them.
[KM Notes: the fear was that they would come after me and take them. I had been confronted by Nurse Yves Daoust, and the use of physical force to compel inmates here is not at all unknown. There's always a gang of them ready with blue rubber gloves to come after you. So, when I walked out of my room and headed for the washroom with me notes, I had no idea what would happen.
Fortunately, they backed off and I was able to return to my room and slip the documents under my mattress, and sleep on top of them. However, DAOUST very tersely made it clear the confrontation was not over. "We'll
SETTLE this LATER!" he exclaimed, and he and Kirnon took their keys and finally walked away.]
KM Notes: I think they hire the big, fat ones to overpower their victims. I've heard stories today from two people, one who calls himself "Walter The Great", and another, Michael, newly arrived, about "
THE HOLE" and "THE NEEDLE". About 8 of them (DOUGLAS staff) arrive with two security guards and overpower whoever in their view is "misbehaving". They throw them into "THE HOLE", also called "SECLUSION" or "SIDE ROOM" and lock them in. Walter, who has been in and out of institutions for 37 years and is probably in his 50's, has been "in the hole" "a million times". Walter says big guys like YVES DAOUST with the big arms are there for the purpose. And this is the guy I was facing off against to protect my notes!
* * *
FIFTH LETTER:Without PrejudiceAll Rights Reserved
Saturday, 3 November 2007
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau
Douglas Institute
6825, boulevard LaSalle
Montreal, Quebec H4H 1R3
Re: Illegal and Arbitrary Detention
Article 1, Quebec Code of Civil Procedure
Mr. Trudeau:
The Douglas Institute has failed, refused and neglected to produce a single shred of legal proof of any lawful basis for its present detention of the undersigned, despite being duly called upon to do so on several occasions. The Douglas Institute has categorically refused me access to my file, and has in particular failed to produce a Police Report substantiating this otherwise illegal detention.
I therefore reiterate my demand that Douglas Institute release me immediately, as Article One of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure expressly and unequivocally prohibits civil imprisonment except in the case of contempt of court.
Govern Yourself Accordingly.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 3 November 2007 - Saturday - 11h12 a.m.
Location: Room J-1135, off the "dining" area, sometimes called the 'salon' because there's a TV and radio speakers and a couple of reclining chairs in front of the lunch tables. I call J-1135 the GLASS ROOM, for convenience, because they conduct interventions in there and never draw the blinds. I think that's illegal. If they trump up any reports on me from anything said in here, they might be invalid -- if they were lawful in the first place, which they aren't -- because the blinds aren't drawn.
NURSE FRANÇOIS LAPIERRE: met him at 11h00 AM in the Glass Room at HIS invitation. Asked him to show me my clothing, laptop, and property to allow me to determine their status. Is my clothing ripped, or damaged, has it been cleaned as I had asked the clerk to do on the other side in the ER 2 days ago, did it shrink? I need to see my purse and my laptop which they confiscated.
LAPIERRE: (1) First, he
changed the subject and said, "You're not
allowed to HAVE your clothes!" I said, "That's not the SUBJECT. I want to determine the STATUS, I want to EXAMINE my property.
(2) He then said, "SARAH [NURSE KIRNON] will show it to you." [This was 11:00 am, LAPIERRE was on duty, KIRNON would not be on duty until the EVENING shift.] I said, "I just TOLD you that I made this request YESTERDAY
to SARAH and she did NOT show it to me.
(3) Then LAPIERRE tried to force a psychiatric intervention: patronizing, leering, "WHY are you here? What HAPPENED? How can we HELP you? You were
EVICTED!" [KM Notes: "evicted" is a legal term. It requires the service of a proceeding, and a hearing, and a final decision; this was a criminal lockout by the landlord and LAPIERRE, FOR THE DOUGLAS, is EQUATING a criminal act against me with a LEGAL act. Denial of my rights as a person and a citizen: a victim of mob rule and Police refusal to apply the LAW. He's DEFAMING me as a lunatic who has been 'evicted' when I am a citizen who has been criminally assaulted and deprived of my property and home, Nazi style.]
(4) LAPIERRE said he
saw my LaSalle Hospital file and there was a "CODE BLANC" (Code White). I said, "What does THAT mean?" He said, French accent, "aggressive," "violente". It's the OPPOSITE.
THEY were aggressive and violent.
I corrected LAPIERRE and I said, "No, my
LOCK was illegally changed in violation of the Civil Code of Quebec. And I am NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR INTERVENTION. Play head-games with someone else." I got up and opened the door. Other inmates in the "salon" can hear, now. Suddenly, LAPIERRE
wants to show me my clothes. He pursues me out the door offering to show them to me. I'm not interested in saving his face for him. I inform him, in front of the other inma,es and in no uncertain terms, that his attempt to impose an INTERVENTION "in there" (in the Glass Room) was ILLEGAL because I REPUDIATED all interventions on receiving the patients' rights flyer some 24 hours late. Then, I walk away.
I've only taken a few steps, when I stop, because I sense him following me. I turn and tell him, "You are violating all my rights." I point to the Glass Room and say: "In
there, you tried to impose an unlawful intervention in violation of my statement to this institution yesterday morning [2 November 2007 2 9h35] that I
categorically refuse your interventions. You are
not respecting that statement. I turned to walk off and he
again offered to show me my clothing. I ignored him, and walked off to my "cell," as I call it, this being prison.
In this session, LAPIERRE ignored the existence of my letters to Jean-Bernard TRUDEAU, and tried to turn me into a nut case under treatment.
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 2nd or 3rd November 2007 - 15h45-15h55
Re: Meeting "obliged" by DOCTOR HANI ISKANDAR
Present: . Iskandar
. Medical student: Hanane Benbarkat, McGill
. Medical student: Jennifer Mutch, McGill
Notes:
. ISKANDAR asked again by me to produce the police report and the file.
. ISKANDAR blows me off (leering the whole time), alleging there's no rush, I can WAIT until NEXT WEEK for the "subpoena" from Court and "THEN" I can see it (allegedly the "file" is attached to the "subpoena").
. They manufactured a second psychiatric "evaluation" AFTER I REFUSED the assessment pursuant not merely to my own inclination to refuse, but to the patients' rights flyer which stipulates that the law entitles me to refuse. So, SINCE I refused, the second psychiatrist, flouting the refusal, manufactures a second report using the first bogus one by Doctor Marianne BOISVERT, together with "information on file" NOT disclosed to me, and which I never authorized anyone to gather. Without that second bogus report, they would have not had the "two" reports they needed to concoct in pretense of fulfilling the "law" in order to transfer me by force into the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) behind locked doors and windows with bars.
. I had refused the Doctor Johanne RENAUD assessment
to her face,
in the hallway. The psychiatrist's office was 6 feet away from us, the door closed and presumably still locked.
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 4 November 2007 - Sunday 18h50
I just spoke to a female at Saint Mary's Hospital ER. If Police brought someone in my ambulance and said "danger to self or others," and the person was LUCID, and did NOT want to be admitted, she said that person would be asked to sign a "consent" form to be discharged, as "we have no right to keep anyone against their will."
KM Notes: I was kidnapped BUT good and assaulted every time I said I wanted to LEAVE. The HOSPITAL (LaSalle) collaborated with a criminal kidnapping.
* * *
A FEW SHORT NOTES IN EXHIBIT TO THE BALLPOINT HABEAS, TRANSCRIBED:
[Friday] 2 November 2007
SARAH [NURSE SARAH KIRNON] :
I need an accompanied outing to the law library, with a photocopy budget, to conduct research and preparation pertinent to the forthcoming Douglas subpoena and legal challenge.
I want to go on Saturday, so I'll have Sunday to study the information I collect.
Kathleen Moore
[Status: DENIED]
[KM Notes: 8:30 PM 2 NOV 2007 Nurse Sarah says ISKANDAR put the freeze on
all* * *
2 NOV 2007
SARAH:
(1.) I need, immediately, a complete copy of my file, including the POLICE report and Hospital reports. This is my THIRD request, the first two being to Marianne Boisvert, and to Mr. Iskandar.
(2.) I need a supply of white paper to write letters.
(3.) I need a lined, spiral noteook to organize the
FACTS for the upcoming legal challenge.
(4.) I need access to law books, and legal databases, and printed decisions from SOQUIJ, etc.
[Status: DENIED, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED.]
[Status: 3rd REFUSAL: 2 NOV 2007 @ 20h30 Nurse Sarah citing Iskandar re a "halt on ALL movement." By this, Dr. Iskandar effectively prevented his detainee from accessing legal information, most notably a copy of the laws cited in his own legal proceedings as the alleged basis of the initial detention, by which it would be instantly seen that there WAS NO LEGAL BASIS.]
* * *
2 NOV 2007 SARAH:
. I need the Articles of incorporation of Douglas Institute for all Pavilions.
. I need an Annual Report for Douglas (2007) detailing and identifying its sources of funding.
[Status: DENIED, DENIED.]
* * *
2 NOV 2007 SARAH:
. What bailiff's office is used here for subpoenas*?
. Which bailiff is used for
my subpoena*?
* Note: the staff at the Douglas Institute incorrectly refer to the Douglas proceedings which are served upon detainees in an effort to continue to detain them "subpoenas," however, they are not subpoenas, they are proceedings which the recipients may choose to ignore, albeit at their peril, as to ignore them is to permit the detention to continue.
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 4 November 2007 12h30 (noon)
Re: LaSalle Hospital
[I should ] seize the surveillance tapes of 31 October 2007 10:30 pm onward. Will show me
sitting quietly with a cup of water and
them taking the cup away and then attacking me to drag me bodily off the chair and throw me into the corner room to shackle me. Then, later, the tapes will show COP, MARTIN PERREAULT, taunting me with a wave and a snicker after they tied me up and forcibly took my blood and installed an I.V.
* * *
OTHER LETTERS:
Without Prejudice
All Rights Reserved
5 November 2007
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau
Douglas Institute
6875, boulevard LaSalle
Montréal (Québec) H4H 1R3
Mr. Trudeau:
There is no place quiet to sit and write a decent letter on a flat table in your madhouse.
The present letter is to reitereate my demand that you release me immediately pursuant to Article One of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure which expressly and unequivocally prohibits civil imprisonment except in the case of contempt of Court.
Douglas Institute is criminally and forcibly detaining me against my will, as Voltaire, in his time, was detained against
his, by
beatings to force him into confinement. Voltaire did not have the benefit of habeas corpus, and neither do I. Both the Police, LaSalle Hospital and Douglas Institute have denied me access to a lawyer.
Mr. Trudeau «cachet» is illegal in the civilized world, and expressly illegal in Quebec and Canada. And so is mob rule.
- 2 -
NO institution has any right or power to forcibly detain and "treat" any lucid and conscious individual against his will. I repeatedly and quietly asserted my wish to leave LaSalle Hospital which replied by criminally assaulting me to forcibly detain me.
The correct procedure was for that Hospital to offer me a consent form for my signature featuring the words "I refuse treatment," pursuant to the signing of which, LaSalle Hospital was obliged to release me. The illegality of that detention continues to colour the illegality of
this one, on your premises, where on the morning of November 2nd, your Dr. Iskandar threatened to obtain a Court Order to
drug me to shut me up.
This is a political kidnapping to prevent me from pursuing my legal research and procedures to release Canada from confinement by illegal referenda on the sovereignty of my country, which has
also taken a "beating" by FLQ bombers to radically alter its politics and destroy its government.
Let me go, Mr. Trudeau, or the full force of the law, soon or late, will be upon you.
Govern Yourself Accordingly.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 5 November 2007 10h35
NURSE FRANÇOIS LAPIERRE just confiscated my ballpoint pen, alleging it's "a danger". (I handed in my "voltaire" letter to TRUDEAU about an hour ago.) LAPIERRE couldn't be more right. I'm flattered. However, he
left a PACKET of colored pens
and a BALLPOINT,
and a RULER and other paraphernalia with SIMON, another "inmate" who is sketching two tables away. Those instruments, apparently, are NOT "a danger". [And the DOUGLAS bailiff will arrive at NOON with their proceeding, concerning which I have been denied all my demands for file access and an accompanied visit to the law library, in order to prepare.]
LAPIERRE then offered me the blunt stub of a pencil, which I refused, so he said, suspiciously, "You have
another [pen]?" I said, "If I had
another, I wouldn't have had to borrow
that one (the one he just confiscated) from
you. [i.e., from the nursing station.]
Logique!
NOTE: This note, in
ink, was copied over from the original I wrote in PENCIL, as I had a pencil in my folder.
NOTE: update: It's past noon, LAPIERRE has gone out for lunch. I asked another nurse for a pen. She said, "Didn't you
have one? I said, "Francois confiscated it. I have a summons to answer." I had just received the DOUGLAS proceedings. She said, since it's a
lettre officielle I can
have one. And she gave me back the one I had borrowed this A.M., which LAPIERRE had just confiscated.
Notes: I have been placed on
paper rationing by DR. ISKANDAR, evidently to shut me up. This hampers note-taking on events here, and letter-writing, and drafting communiqués to the press, and drafting legal proceedings. And so, the Plaintiff (DOUGLAS) self-servingly controls the Defendant's (mine) ability to RESPOND to the Plaintiff's proceedings.
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 6 November 2007 Tuesday 13h35
Re: Welfare
I had figured out from the bogus psychiatric reports that the Welfare cheque could be a lynch-spring to release me. I think that somehow, in law, if I
had the cheque, they couldn't keep me. Which is why they planned it for 31 October 2007: change the locks, kidnap me, steal the check on November 1st, and then refuse to let me out to replace it. Hang onto me.
- I called the welfare agent assigned to my file in Lachine, HORACIO ARRIEGADA. He was evading our 13h00 telephone appointment. He had promised, at 11h30, to arrange for my cheque with his supervisor (Martina Bank). Then he ducked out. I finally
caught him and he said they "can't DO anything because I can't come and
sign for my cheque replacement. He then said, "You have to ask
YOUR SOCIAL WORKER to get it
FOR you!" We had gone through that this morning. He knows I am refusing a social worker. I've been kidnapped. They're trying to take me over, make me look incompetent, appoint someone to control my affairs, as if I can't do it myself.
I said, "
I DON'T WANT ONE!" He exclaimed, and with implication in his tone, "
GET ONE!"
So, he's trying to force me to declare myself incompetent in exchange for a cheque which the law and the constitution say he can't withhold and must issue.
I said, "
You order my cheque now, I
know how you people work, and have it waiting on your desk for me to come and pick it up." (I could have signed for it then.) He refused.
I said, "You are complicit with people who are
detaining me illegally. It's gonna be
JAIL for you, ARRIEGADA,
JAIL!" He slammed the phone in my ear.
KM Notes: Psychiatrist Marianne BOISVERT on 1 November 2007 in the afternoon said she was refusing to let me out to
get my cheque because I had "no money" and "nowhere to go". She was pretending to hold me for my own "protection". I had refused her efforts to appoint a SOCIAL WORKER to deal with the Welfare office to get it FOR me. So, they are holding me because I have no cheque, but I have no cheque because they are holding me. BOISVERT's trying to make me look like a VAGRANT, pretending in her bogus report that she doesn't know "where" my cheque is coming from. She's knows very well it's coming from the welfare office.
* * *
NINTH LETTER:Without Prejudice
All Rights Reserved
7 November 2007
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau
c/o MARGO BLOME
Douglas Institute
6825, boulevard LaSalle
Montreal, Quebec H4H 1R3
Re: My November 2007 Welfare Cheque
Mr. Trudeau:
As you know, on 1 November 2007, your Doctor Marianne Boisvert kidnapped me on your premises to explicitly
prevent me from going to the Welfare Office to sign an Affidavit to replace my November 2007 cheque in the amount of $572 and a sum of cents. This cheque would not be "missing" in the first place if I had not been kidnapped off the sidewalk in front of my house by Police and physically assaulted to force me into an ambulance while denying me a lawyer.
Your Doctor Boisvert held me a prisoner under threat of physical attack from your staff BECAUSE I categorically refused to allow her to appoint a social worker to deal with the Welfare office on my behalf.
- 2 -
I have attempted by telephone on several occasions to have my cheque re-issued by the Welfare office. However, my agent, HORACIO ARRIEGADA, despite being fully informed of my predicament on your premises, has absolutely refused to implement emergency measures to re-issue my cheque without my prior signature. In the apparent spirit of your DOCTOR BOISVERT, Mr. Arriegada has told me to
get a
social worker, or he
won't give me my money. That is illegal.
In the apparent spirit of both your DOCTOR BOISVERT and Welfare agent Arriegada, LEGAL AID COTE DES-NEIGES, through Maître Cathrine LAUZON, has said by telephone that they can do "
absolutely nothing" to get my cheque re-issued. In addition to which, Maître LAUZON has broken her promise of 16h20 yesterday to FAX ME a legal aid mandate to my name as Maître Bénéficiaire, thus depriving me of access to legal resources.
DOCTOR TRUDEAU, I have been informed by legal counsel that even in the case of a
lawful detention, which this is
NOT, your ability at law
- 3 -
to detain me expired 72 hours
after I was delivered here against my will by ambulance after repeated beatings to
force me here.
You are currently illegally detaining me. You need to release me immediately so taht I can go and have my cheque re-issued.
Govern Yourself Accordingly.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
* * *
Personal Journal Notes: 7 November 2007 13h50
NURSE MARGO BLOME refused to FAX the foregoing letter of mine to TRUDEAU demanding my immediate release for expiry of legal delays, and for access to my cheque. She says she's "not allowed to fax". She then gave me an envelope without a stamp and invited me to mail it.
* * *
Personal Journal Note: 8 November 2007 13h10
Re: Douglas Hospital's application for a Court Order to continue to detain me:
Note: incompetency detention hearings are conducted behind closed doors by Quebec statute, the legality of which has not yet been challenged. I intend to challenge it in the course of my reply proceedings. In the interim, no one may enter the Court room in question while a hearing other than one's own is underway.
After being kept waiting outside room 14.11 in the Montreal Courthouse (Palais de Justice), I personally asked a guard in from of 14.11 if he would please go in and ask JUDGE ANDRÉ RENAUD if he was competent to hear my Motion for Habeas Corpus. In answer, the Judge refused to see me and I never set foot in the Court room. [AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM, EQUITY, FAIRNESS, NATURAL JUSTICE.] I was then detained by guards and hustled into an ambulance in the basement of the Courthouse.
With no input from me to such effect, the ambulance technicians tauned me that I should call "Amnesty International". How did they know that on 2 November 2007, I had tried to FAX AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL from the nursing station in the Douglas ER, but they wouldn't send it, even though the number was toll-free. Q.: who's leaking my supposedly confidential Douglas Hospital file information to 911 and to "Urgences Santé?"
Notes: "Urgences Santé" (translated literally = "Health Emergency"). Their French-only web site is here: http://www.urgences-sante.qc.ca/
* * *
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Pedro Villagrand
Risk Management
Douglas Institute - Dobell Pavilion
6875 Boulevard LaSalle B-1134
Verdun (Qc) H4H 1R3
Re: Lost Property of Kathleen MooreMr. Villagrand:
Yesterday evening by telephone, you requested that I write this letter describing property of mine missing or lost on the Douglas premises.
ITEM #1: COMPUTER POWER CORD (LAPTOP)My laptop is an IBM Thinkpad which sold for $2500 new and which currently operates only on wall socket. The power cord consists of two parts, one which plugs into the laptop, and one which in turn plugs into that part, and then into the wall. it is the portion that plugs into the wall which is missing, and has disappeared since Douglas took possession of the laptop.
ITEM #2: LAPTOP (EXAMINATION DENIED)Nurse Renaud denied me the right to open the lid and other components of my laptop to verify their condition.
ITEM #3: DIGITAL CAMERA MANUALThis manual is an integral part of my FUJI FINEPIX500 digital camera system, essential to my proper operation of it. The manual was in my black shoulder bag on my arrival at Douglas Institute. it is now missing. The manual also contained two proofs of purchase for the camera and the memory card, which also serve as the basis for the guarantees. I had moreover written
in ink on the cov er of the manual the name of the ambulance technician of 911 whose vehicle unlawfully picked me up on 31 October 2007. The loss of the manual therefore also represents obstruction of evidence, all the more since Douglas Institute has to the present date denied me access to all police, ambulance and other reports at the alleged basis of two fraudulent "psychiatric" reports concocted in defiance of my right to a lawyer and to rights information, and both repudiated by me.
ITEM #4: SKIRT TO A FALL/SUMMER SUITOn the night of 31 October 2007, I was wearing a matching skirt and a loose blouse. Both pieces are in a pale pastel small-flower pattern. The skirt is a wraparound and the waistband fastens with buttons. To my knowledge, LaSalle Hospital placed all my clothing into a sealed white plastic bag, which was placed on the ambulance that brought me to Douglas Institute on 1 November 2007.
On my arrival here, I asked a préposée in "URGENCE" to launder my clothes and hang them up. However, I never saw my clothes until after my illegal transfer to I.C.U., at which point it became apparent that the skirt is missing.
This matched skirt and blouse was my best outfit of clothing. I now have no suit at all. I would ask the Douglas Institute to compensate me for this loss by defraying the cost of a new suit, thus placing me back into the position where I was before the skirt was lost.
Thank you for your prompt attention to these urgent matters.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore, 14 November 2007
P.S. Obviously, I need to examine my laptop inside as well as out, to determine if anything else is damaged or missing. As you are in charge of Risk Assessment, please see to it that my computer is made available to me for this purpose.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
* * *
Without Prejudice
All Rights Reserved
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau
-and-
Dr. Hani Iskandar
Douglas Institute
6825, boulevard LaSalle
Montreal (Quebec) H4H 1R3
Re: ACCOMPANIED VISIT TO COURTHOUSE
-- Action Autonomie
__________________________________
Gentlemen:
This is to inform you that I have an appointment at the Palais de Justice de Montréal for 10:00 A.M. on the morning of Monday, 19 November 2007, accompanied by Madam LOUISE BARON of Action Autonomie.
I need the «accusé de reception» of the Douglas Institute, and the name or names of the person(s) you plan to send to accompany me.
Govern Yourselves Accordingly.
Kathleen Moore
* * *
Without Prejudice
All Rights Reserved
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau
-and-
Dr. Hani Iskandar
DOUGLAS INSTITUTE
6875, LaSalle Boulevard
Montreal (Qc) H4H 1R3
Re: Accompanied visit to courthouse
-- Action Autonomie
__________________________
Gentlemen:
You have not had the courtesy to acknowledge my letter of 15 November 2007 on the above-captioned subject.
You have not had the courtesy to acknowledge phone calls from LOUISE BARON in the same regard.
I need to deposit and present a time-sensitive Motion (Requête) on Monday morning at the Palais de Justice de Montréal, accompanied by patients' rights activist LOUISE BARON.
The failure of DOUGLAS INSTITUTE to acknowledge and accommodate this need is a violation of my fundamental rights.
- 2 -
I reiterate my 15 November 07 request that you acknowledge receipt of my correspondence in this matter.
I need the name or names of the person(s) you plan to send to accompany me.
I moreover note that DOUGLAS INSTITUTE is sending [J----W-----] to the Palais de Justice de Montréal on Monday morning, 19 November 2007 for 10:00 AM, precisely the date and time I need to be there.
It is therefore a simple matter for Douglas Institute to order a TAXI-VAN with an extra row of seats, to accommodate me for transport at the same time.
Kindly Govern Yourselves Accordingly.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
* * *
FAX [SENT INTERNALLY ON DOUGLAS LETTERHEAD FROM THE NURSING STATION IN THE DOUGLAS ER TO DR. JEAN-BERNARD TRUDEAU. It appears here, out of chronological order, because of its material connection to the next items where it becomes clear that Aide Juridique de Montreal hijacked Moore's legal business over her express wishes.]
2 November 2007
Destinataire Jean-Bernard Trudeau
ExpediteurService: URGENCE
Telecopieur 514-888-4096
Telephone 514-761-6131 POSTE 2221
CommentairesWITHOUT PREJUDICE - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DR. JEAN-BERNARD TRUDEAU:
YOUR NURSE, LIETTE DESJARDINS, HAS REFUSED TO FAX TOLL-FREE TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL MY REQUEST TO OBTAIN THE REPRESENTATION OF ONE OF THEIR LAWYERS.
MS. DESJARDINS HAS IMPOSED
HER OWN CHOICE AS THE SOURCE FOR MY LAWYER: AIDE JURIDIQUE VERDUN. THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS VIOLATES MY RIGHT OF FREE CHOICE OF LAWYER AND SOURCE OF LAWYER. I ALSO
REPUDIATE ANY LAWYER ASSIGNED TO ME BY YOU, THIS INSTITUTE, THOSE DETAINING MY GOVERNMENT, AND THE
AIDE JURIDIQUE, WHETHER VERDUN OR ANY OTHER.
[SGD.:] KATHLEEN MOORE
* * *
[TYPED TRANSCRIPT OF HANDWRITTEN DEMAND FOR LEGAL AID
AS GIVEN TO MAÎTRE CATHRINE LAUZON ON MONDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2007]
Sans préjudice
Sous toutes réserves que de droit
Lundi, le 5 novembre 2007 [date when served with the Douglas motion to extend the illegal confinement]
Aide-Juridique de Montréal
OBJET: L'Émission d'un mandat d'aide-juridique
Maîtres :
Par la présente je vous demande d'émettre immédiatement et provisoirement si nécessaire et ce sur une base urgente un mandat d'aide juridique au nom de :
« Maître Bénéficiaire
Kathleen Moore Pageot »
Ce mandat vise, parlant globalement, ma réponse juridique à une série de détentions illégales et arbitraires incluant mais pas limitées à celles issues du numéro d'évènement suivant :
08-07-1031-024
et celles en relatioon avec la procédure douteuse déposée le 2 novembre 2007 devant la Cour du Québec sous le numéro de dossier :
500-40-021349-076.
- 2 -
Ce mandat doit couvrir, notamment, les éléments suivants :
. copies des rapports policiers et hospitaliers;
. copies des documents aux dossiers des cours et tribunaux;
. frais de CD et/ou de cassettes d'audition;
. frais de sténographes officiels;
. frais des huissiers pour assignations, significations, production, dépôt aux dossiers et RETOURS, frais de saisies, etc.;
. frais d'experts et de témoins;
. frais de timbres judiciaires;
. frais de télécopie pour fins de signification;
. frais de recherche en droit;
. frais de déplacement;
. frais de traduction, traducteurs, et/ou interprètes;
. frais de préparatioon de FACTUM et d'autres documents reliés à l'appel et à l'appel incident;
le tout sans limiter.
La soussignée a droit prima facie audit mandat étant forcée à survivre sur l'aide sociale aux taux mensuel du 572,00$ suite aux pertes d'emplois et dénis d'argent résultant du harcèlemenet criminel pratiqué à son endroit notamment par l'ancien Juge en chef de la Cour supérieure du Québec Lyse Lemieux, agissant par voie de la Police.
En conclusion, je tiens à rappeller aux Maîtres que l'article 2 du Code de procédure civile est censé faire apparaître le droit, et je vous demande de vous conformez à son esprit.
Veuillez agir en conséquence.
Kathleen Moore Pageot
* * *
Personal Journal Note 6 November 2007 16h20
MAÎTRE CATHRINE LAUZON called at the inmates' phone in the far end of the "salon" (in front of the Glass Room), and by chance, I picked it up. She asked for me.
They're refusing
MY mandat d'aide juridique as «Maître Bénéficiaire»
, and instead are PAYING THEMSELVES to represent me, and to top it off, are sending a 'stagiaire'. [A stagiaire is an articling law student who is not yet a lawyer, has not come to the Bar.] This is another deliberate insult. They are stripping me of my rights to represent myself and sending a kid with no experience to "save my life", up against a proceeding seeking a Court order to continue to hold me a prisoner, which I point out to Lauzon. Lauzon replies, nonchalantly, that the "stagiaire" will be a lawyer "next year". And I point out, in the meantime, she's experimenting on ME. I can see the game Lauzon is playing, so I demand that she put in writing what she just said to me, and FAX IT to me. Such a letter would serve to prove the one thing I need: that I have been ACCEPTED for Legal Aid, and with that letter in hand, I can repudiate the Legal Aid office and the stagiaire, and take my own business back, and very likely use the letter as evidence of my right to have the Court stamp placed on my own Habeas Corpus.
LAUZON alleges that "in two minutes" she will FAX me a letter from her
confirming the legal aid mandate. When it arrives, I'll "FIRE" her (there's a different word for it when you repudiate a lawyer for acting illegally, I can't recall the term right now: oh yes, it's DISAVOWAL) and I'll control my own life, as planned.
The FAX machine here in the REED PAVILION ICU nursing station is (514) 762-3859, which a BIG "FAT" man just gave to me on a slip of paper. I make note, now, of all the huge,
grossly fat DOUGLAS staff members... some of the biggest people I have ever seen working together in one place... because the psychiatric reports these people concocted on pretense of their legality to detain me declare that I am "obese" and this is supposed to be a sign of
my mental incompetency! Well, lock up your FAT STAFF! I've never seen so many grotesquely obese people anywhere, and if overweight is an indicator of competency, the lot of them must be completely crazy.
[KM Note: they can't deny my right to the mandate to represent myself, it's illegal to deny it, they are maliciously nullifying my legal personality which is affirmed in the Quebec Civil Code.]
* * *
Monday, 19 November 2007 13h00
Mister Justice, Madam Justice
1. I have attempted to obtain a Legal Aid mandate in my name as Maître Bénéficiaire to defray my costs of self-representation.
2. On Monday, 5 November 2007, on the premises of the
REED PAVILLION, I gave a letter [annexed to the HABEAS* See Exhibits, SIXTH LETTER] to
Aide-Juridique de Montréal for this purpose, care of
Maître CATHRINE LAUZON.
3. It was clearly understood at the time between
Maître LAUZON and myself, that I would represent myself and she personally would be present only in an assisting capacity.
4.
MAÎTRE LAUZON had me sign a blank application and rushed off with it to another meeting.
5. I later learned that persons at
Aide Juridique de Montréal had "filled in the blanks" giving solely themselves the mandate,
excluding my self-representation.
- 1 -
- 2 -
6. On Tuesday, 6 November 2007, by telephone to me at REED PAVILLION, Maître LAUZON [said] that
she was
not coming to Court with me on 8 November 2007, she was sending a
stagiaire instead, because she and Maître Therien [sic] were both "too busy".
7. On the same date, in the same call,
Maître LAUZON informed me that she had sent a letter
to the DOUGLAS INSTITUTE lawyers in my name. I was appalled, as I had authorized no such thing. I asked Maitre LAUZON to FAX me a copy of that letter.
8. What
Maître LAUZON did FAX me, 24 hours later, after promising a FAX within "2 minutes" was a FAX COVER SHEET with a short note to the DOUGLAS lawyers falsely alleging that I had mandated Legal Aid to represent me and asking them to fax their own procedure and exhibits. See p. 02/03 of "La Charité & Therrien". In any event, this letter was not authorized by me and was done without my knowledge and contrary to my explicit written instructions.
[INSERT @ END OF 8:]
Moreover, the "AUTHORISATION ET CONSENTEMENT" being page 03/03 of the same fax is very clearly
NOT an authorization for
legal representation, but an authorization for Legal Aid to verify my
financial admissibility for Legal Aid, which is a far different matter. [KM Notes: see 3 thumbs below and click to enlarge the FAX in question.]
- 3 -
9.
Maître LAUZON and
Aide Juridique de Montréal have therefore hijacked my legal business and PAID themselves for making undisclosed representations they were not authorized to make.
10. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the hijacking, as a Beneficiary of LEGAL AID, I am entitled to a copy of the
issued mandate.
Maître LAUZON, and then
Maître THERRIEN who happened to be on these premises last week, have both
categorically ignored my repeated requests for a copy of my
issued mandate.
11. On Thursday, 8 November 2007, I was taken to Court by DOUGLAS INSTITUTE -- and it should be noted that any colour of right on a technicality of law to hold me
at all expired
days earlier. I came prepared to
represent myself with a draft motion for HABEAS CORPUS, apparent from the dates of commissioning of the Affidavits thereto.
12. I wrote most of that proceedings on
Douglas premises with a ball-
- 4 -
point pen because the DOUGLAS INSTITUTE has locked up my laptop.
13. I completed the balance of the draft proceeding in a 3rd-floor closed consultation room outside the courtrooms. During that hard process, I was continually
BADGERED by DOUGLAS personnel sent to "guard" me, and
then by Legal Aid stagiaire
ERIKA ALIOVA, and then by
Maître CATHRINE LAUZON who barged in while I was drafting and
after I had repudiated Miss
ALIOVA and Legal Aid as unentitled to represent me or to speak for me.
14. I was further BADGERED by the lawyers for DOUGLAS INSTITUTE, who had the presumption to pretend to send me messages from the Judge presiding in room 14.11.
15. I threw
Maître LAUZON out. And I informed the DOUGLAS lawyers that I doubted they spoke for the Judge. I demanded that everyone leave me alone, I was citing my Exhibits, and the
- 5 -
sooner they would quit BADGERING me, the sooner I would be done.
16. Shortly afterward, DOUGLAS "guard" RICK [LAST NAME REFUSED] again opened my door to inform me -- as if he worked for the Judge -- that the Judge "would see me" at 13h00. However, it later became apparent that a BOILERPLATE default order had been issued that
MORNING sending me back to DOUGLAS INSTITUTE with the Judge, ANDRÉ RENAUD, embellishing the "ORDER" by giving Police the authority to use force: «de porter main forte» as if I were a wild animal and not a person on the third floor writing a HABEAS CORPUS with a ballpoint pen amidst constant disruption by DOUGLAS personnel and Legal Aid who had self-servingly hijacked my business while denying me a copy of the legal aid mandate, which I needed to put a $110.00 Court stamp on my HABEAS CORPUS*.
* It should be apparent from the Legal Aid hijacking that I was found admissible for Legal Aid. Moreover, I understand that detainees are prima facie entitled.
- 6 -
17. From all that transpired, I have the distinct impression that young
Miss ALIOVA and perhaps also
Maitre Cathrine LAUZON filed an appearance in room 14.11 to represent me, despite being very clearly
REPUDIATED by me. I had written my said repudiation on the "legal aid application form" on which Legal Aid itself had been so self-serving asa to fill in the blanks to their own benefit, as this was the
ONLY document
Miss ALIOVA would show me.
18. It should be noted that Maitre LAUZON's offices at Aide-Juridique de Montreal are directly implicated in FCT-794-04 as facilitating an administrative kidnapping of me in 1998, and in the destruction of my home which was then at 6420 Somerled Avenue in N.D.G.
Maître Clermont BELANGER, now retired, is specifically implicated.
19. I am therefore left to conclude that an appearance and representations to the Court and to
- 7 -
DOUGLAS lawyers were made in my name by
Miss ALIOVA, possibly by
Maitre LAUZON, and even others, and the nature, scope and content of which have never been disclosed.
20. It would certainly be to the self-serving benefit of Aide-Juridique de Montreal to have me LOCKED UP and PSYCHIATRICALLY LABELLED to deprive me of my legal personality, as FCT-794-04 is a
TEN-MILLION DOLLAR (
$10,000,000) law suit the
FACTS of which have already been
admitted as true by the Federal Attorney General in virtue of the Federal Court Rules equivalent of an art. 165.4 CP. Subsequent to the Federal Attorney General's motion, I
desisted reserving all my rights.
21. And I have a three-part ORDER from the Federal Court's MISTER JUSTICE FRANCOIS LEMIEUX so confirming, and stipulating that I can file again because there is
no RES JUDICATA.
- 8 -
22. In view of the foregoing, I ask this COURT to ORDER that Aide Juridique de Montreal file into the Record of this HABEAS CORPUS
my copy of the Legal Aid mandate they had the gall to hijack, and that same be placed in
my name as "Maître Bénéficiaire" to facilitate my self-representation in the present file of HABEAS CORPUS and related matters.
23. In addition, I request a COURT ORDER giving me full access to file No.: 500-40-021349-076 and to all related information in the Courthouse, including the RôLE and in particular te Clerk's annotated Rôle for proceedings in that file in room 14:11 on 8 November 2007.
24. The aforesaid ORDER should also facilitate photocopies being made of the said file and RôLE, as well as cassettes and transcripts, for the purpose of coverage of costs by Legal Aid.
- 9 -
Thanking you in advance, I remain,
Sincerely,
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
*
*
* * *
Thursday, 6 November 2007 9h45
DOUGLAS INSTITUTE
6875, boulevard LaSalle
Montreal (Qc) H4H 1R3
CARE OF: MARGO BLOME, NURSE [Note: initialed by Nurse Blome as receipt]
DEMAND FOR INFORMATIONSir/Madam:
Since 1 November 2007, I have been repeatedly denied access to information related to my illegal detention on your premises. Every request has been ignored, neglected or refused. Your Institute alleges that it provides security for my property; in fact, the Institute is unlawfully in possession and control of my property, some of which has already gone "missing," as the Institute knows. I am hereby calling the Institute to immediately account for my property and file information in its possession by providing me with the following:
1. Certified copies of Douglas Hospital's detailed inventory of my property in your possession and control;
2. Certified copies of all police, ambulance, LaSalle Hospital and Douglas Hospital and Douglas Institute REPORTS and other documents in my "file";
3. Certified copies of invoices the Douglas Institute has submitted or intends to submit to MEDICARE to compensate itself for illegally detaining me here;
4. Certified copies of the Institute's complete record of blood pressure and oxygen readings on me.
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
* * *
NOTES:
On the morning of 21 November 2007, Dr. Hani Iskandar threw Kathleen Moore out of the Douglas Institute while Nurse MARGO BLOME held wide the doors.
This was in apparent revenge for a week of activities by Moore and by her patients' rights counsellor, LOUISE BARON, of Action-Autonomie, attempting to get transport for Ms. Moore to Court to file her own handwritten motion for
habeas corpus regarding the illegality of her detention at the Douglas Institute.
Ms. Moore was put out the door in her sandals and a shawl, with snow falling, and slush on the ground, and Nurse BLOME shrieking epithets after her because Ms. Moore refused to wear the gigantic size-12 pair of men's galoshes each boot of which must have weighed at least two pounds, and a two-sizes too small old blue coat that fit her "like a straight-jacket". Both items had been rounded up by BLOME at the last minute from the patients' lost and found as unclaimed belongings of former inmates.
The Douglas also gave Ms. Moore precisely one bus ticket, and a one-page list of homeless shelters, having colluded with her landlord to lock her out of her home.
In fact, as BLOME held the door, she called into the nursing station, matter-of-factly: "Did Kathleen's landlord come to pick up her keys?" thus making it clear that the Douglas was cooperating with the illegal lock-change and the criminal confiscation by her landlord of all her property, including her law books and legal papers.
It should be noted that in the case of lawful detention, the Institute is required by law to place the discharged detainee into lodgings. However, the Douglas Institute, after detaining Ms. Moore for three weeks alleging her incompetency and her lack of lodgings, placed Ms. Moore on the street.
With respect to the letter which follows below, it should be noted that Ms. Moore attended Court of Quebec on 8 November 2007, but was deprived of her right to see the Judge. On that date, she did, however, have her affidavits sworn for a draft motion for Habeas Corpus hat she had written herself in ballpoint pen while wearing ear-plugs to drown out the racket in the Douglas looney-bin.
Events subsequent to November 8, 2007 have been added to her court file in the form of letters to the Court.
It should be noted that on the evening of 21 November 2007, the day of her unceremonious "discharge" by BLOME and ISKANDAR, Ms. Moore gained access to the Courthouse after business hours, and was ecstatic to be asked
Juge de garde the Honourable Carole Julien, to deposit her Motion, which Moore did.
Moore also intends to replace it by an amended version, now that she once again has access to law resources.
Here is one of the letters which Ms. Moore submitted to the Court via Judge Carole Julien to supplement her main motion, which she had to write in ballpoint pen on Douglas premises:
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 12h50
Mister Justice, Madam Justice:
Re: FORGED PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS
-- NURSE MARGO BLOME on 6 November 2007 @ 10h00 @ 10h50
_________________________________________________
1. I asked nurse MARGO BLOME if I could speak to her for a moment. When she came out of the nursing office, she wanted to go into the "GLASS ROOM," as I call J-1135. I refused because that room is often used to carry out formal medical assessments, and I did not want my contacts with staff here to be misrepresented as such. BLOME therefore sat down in the seat in front of me in a two-seater table outside the GLASS ROOM, where I was sitting and writing.
2. First, I asked her for a pair of clean earplugs, there was ink on mine. She went to get me a set, stating rather nastily, "That'll teach you to stick your pen in your ear!" I said, "No, I'm not "orienté
x", the earplugs and the pen were in the same envelope."
3. She sat down again, and I said to NURSE BLOME, "I'm waiting for an «accusé de réception» for the 2-page letter ["SEVENTH LETTER", Exhibits to HABEAS] given to Jean-Bernard Trudeau (my "Voltaire" letter) via the nursing station, where it had been tossed contemptuously onto a desk by Nurse François Lapierre. Lapierre had also confiscated my pen shortly afterwards.
4. Nurse MARGO BLOME scowled and replied severely:
"Oh! Mr. Trudeau is a busy man.
I don't think he's even read it.
He's a
very busy man!"
5. I said, "That's too bad. When you KIDNAP people, you get busier."
6. MARGO BLOME said:
"Oh! His secretary may have it somewhere,
but I don't think you'll have a reply for a LONG TIME."
7. I had composed a list of documents which I required from the DOUGLAS ["EIGHTH LETTER," Exhibits to HABEAS]. I had hand-written two copies and offerred both copies to BLOME for her to verify they were the same. She said they were. I asked her to initial one as my receipt, and she did.
8. BLOME said she didn't see "any problem" in providing me with the documents on the list. her one reservation was with regard to my request for copies of their invoices to Medicare in my name, but she said my request for the other documents was "normal" and "very normal," and she took the list, promising to look after it.
9. BLOME read the list aloud and when she got to item #2 and the phrase "Douglas Institute REPORTS," BLOME's body stiffened, she adopted an aggressive tone, locked eyes with me, glaring menacingly, and spontaneously and vengefully announced:
"EVEN if it's FALSE, they're
signed by TWO psychiatrists,
and their WORD is taken."
10. BLOME had just referred to the two "psychiatric reports" in my hidden file, which were the only things attached to the 2 November 2007 Douglas motion for my confinement, and which I knew to be a perjured tissue of lies, fabrications and hearsay.
11. In effect, MARGO BLOME had just bragged to me that the REPORTS were FALSE. She knew they were a fraud and were being used as such.
12. In the exchange which followed, I told BLOME that I was aware of FRAUDS as high as the Supreme Court which were "taken" because there's no appeal, and so a couple of BOGUS PSYCH REPORTS wouldn't surprise me.
13. Finally, BLOME left the table with my list of requested documents and entered the nursing station.
14. About fifteen (15) minutes later, Nurse MARGO BLOME came back, allegedly conveying news from DR. HANI ISKANDAR.
15. When she flung herself into the chair opposite mine, this time uninvited, she was in-my-face LOUD and AGGRESSIVE, and she seemed to be casting her eyes over my papers. I figured she might be looking for "LETTER #8" that she had just signed, but it was already tucked away.
16. I pointed out that BLOME was trying to READ my papers, and she retorted derogatorily:
"Can't
see anything,
there's too
many of them!"
17. I had been writing on lengths of brown paper towelling from the washroom because ISKANDAR had been rationing my paper to halt my press.
18. I said, "When you're denied paper, you write on anything you can get."
19. BLOME said that raised the point that since I had "come" there, I had been "asking for a lot of things";
20. "Paper" was the only "thing" she mentioned;
21. BLOME said that DR. ISKANDAR was refusing my demand for documents ("EIGHTH LETTER" in Exhibits to HABEAS) because I won't "cooperate". By that, BLOME meant that I would not submit to ISKANDAR's medical jurisdiction. I wouldn't allow medical or psychiatric evaluations, and I was refusing their bogus medication;
22. "TIT FOR TAT!" exclaimed BLOME. I should "cooperate," she said, "in exchange for the paper". "TIT FOR TAT!" she repeated.
23. I said:
"That's BLACAKMAIL. You are denying my rights by demanding that in exchange for a couple of sheets of paper, I should do what the law says I don't have to do. The LAW says I have a RIGHT to my file information and you are BREAKING THE LAW."
24. I then continued:
"This is BLACKMAIL from someone who just bragged to me that "EVEN" "false" psychiatric reports will be believed becuase they're signed by psychiatrists with "permit numbers".
25. I then told BLOME, "This conversation is at an end." BLOME refused to budge from the seat where she sat glaring at me. She became LOUDER and more insistent. I told her again,
"This conversation is at an end."
26. BLOME became still louder and said she didn't "care" what I had to say, she was going to continue to raise her voice ("lève le ton"!) to talk over me.
27. I said, "This conversation is over." As BLOME wouldn't leave, I packed up my papers and left the table, headed for my room, to get away from her.
28. BLOME got up and followed me, yelling. She followed me a good fifty (50) feet to the door of my room.
29. BLOME yelled, repeating that she didn't "care" what I had to say, and now, something new occurred to her:
"DR. ISKANDAR thinks that at your age, 54,
your
mental state may be due to organic causes!
He wants to rule out a
brain tumour!"
30. This subject had never been raised before. Moreover, as BLOME had just admitted, the two (2) "PSYCH" REPORTS had been FAKED and so there was no "mental state" to be analyzed, for "organic" causes or otherwise.
31. BLOME'S reference to a "brain tumour" was simply malicious intimidation because "TIT FOR TAT!" hadn't worked.
32. I said to BLOME, "I don't have a brain tumour, and this conversation was over some time ago."
33. As BLOME stalked off, still yelling, toward the nursing station, I matched her tone and called after her:
"You must be a partisan of Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux;
she espouses your theory!"
34. BLOME looked confused; but I was referring to the discredited Soviet theory of middle-age madness which the former Chief Justice took the liberty of judicially legislating into the Practise Rules: «Quérulence» -- tantamount to Judicial Declarations of Madness, allowing judges a power they do not in fact have -- to declare litigants "crazy" from the Bench.
35. After this, I entered my room, which finally ended it.
36. Mister Justice, Madam Justice, I am seeking a Court ORDER quashing the FORGED PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS, whose sole purpose is to defame and discredit me, and damage my life and my employability.
37. Those reports are:
(SEE DOUGLAS PROCEEDINGS in the Exhibits)
2007-11-01 14:30
Dr. Marianne Boisvert
-and-
2007-11-02 09:35
Dr. Johanne Renaud
38. In addition, I ask the Court to PROHIBIT the DOUGLAS INSTITUTE or its HOSPITAL and PAVILIONS, from billing Medicare in my name to detain me for the purposes of FORGING psychiatric reports. This is not a MEDICAL purpose and it is defamatory to me to have any medical records anywhere falsely alleging that I underwent a "PSYCHIATRIC" detention, when what I in fact what I underwent is POLITICAL HARASSMENT, kidnap and repeated criminal assaults, including at the hands of DOUGLAS INSTITUTE.
Thanking you in advance, I remain,
Sincerely,
[SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
* * *
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Madam Justice Carole Julien
En sa qualité du Juge de garde
Court of Québec
1 Notre-Dame Street EastMontréal (Québec) H2Y 1B6
Re : Douglas Institute (Hospital) –and– Kathleen Moore
Madame Justice :
I wish to thank the Court for its kindness and intervention yesterday evening, 21 November 2007 at about 18h00 in the above-captioned file. I sincerely appreciate it.
The purpose of the present letter is to inform the Court of my intentions regarding my Habeas Corpus.
Evidently, I was at a grave disadvantage in attempting to compose my Motion while held behind Douglas bars in notable violation of Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I therefore had no access to the Internet or to law libraries, and I was denied all visits that I requested to facilitate legal research on my rights and status. I had to rely on the small amount of information I could glean by phone with librarians, few of whom were willing to dictate chapter and verse of the laws I needed to review, while I took notes.
At the present time, I therefore intend to amend my Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus with Certiorari in Aid and will present it together with an expanded List of Exhibits and fresh Affidavits. The amended version will be type-written, however a photocopy of the original handwritten Motion will accompany it. Certain letters, already produced, may be converted to Affidavits.
This will take a bit of time, because my other first priority is to complete my Christmas web site in order to launch my new business, and hopefully rescue it from demise after three weeks in detention during which I was unable to launch, as planned, in the first week of November.
In the interim, I would very much appreciate the Court’s kind consideration in preparing and issuing as many as possible of the ORDERS that I requested in the letters supplementary to my Motion and placed on file last night.
This will enable me to proceed with evidence gathering, as I understand that items such as police reports can take up to thirty (30) days to receive, and longer when accompanied by cassettes. As well, I am having difficulty even getting Security at LaSalle Hospital to admit that they have surveillance cameras in the ambulance bay, although, clearly, they do; and any ORDER of the Court which would facilitate preservation of that evidence would be very much appreciated.
As well, I wished to ask the Court to reserve all my rights
in limine with respect to the Douglas Institute’s Motion, as I may wish to take certain preliminary measures, for example, interrogating Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau on his Affidavit. I may also invoke some of the preliminary exceptions.
- 2 -
Madam Justice may have notice that I included art. 52 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms among the founding provisions of my Motion. That is because, whether or not the Court decides to keep my Motion in the Douglas file (
huis clos), as opposed to opening a file for it under its own number, I intend to invoke the invalidity of statutorily prescribed hearings
in camera and will have to conduct the necessary research to file an appropriate motion.
In respect to the assignment of a file number to my Habeas Corpus, I am not a partisan of the majority view in the case of
In re. Storgoff, [1944] S.C.R. 526. I prefer the very lucid and well-reasoned dissent of Chief Justice Rinfret, whose arguments I would make my own, and I consider it unfortunate that the majority view appears to have governed much of the development of Canadian habeas corpus law. I will therefore be moving the Quebec Court to keep my Habeas separate, in its own file.
I will at all times appreciate the indulgence and assistance of the Court in the name of fairness and equity, as I am not a lawyer, and I have no staff or equipment as do the attorneys for the Douglas Institute. I therefore cannot turn on a dime.
I also expect to encounter difficulties obtaining bailiff service for my amended Motion, in the sense that I cannot afford to front the costs, and therefore some arrangement might have to be made with Legal Aid, for example, by which their own bailiffs would be at my disposal for that purpose, so that those bailiffs can bill Legal Aid directly for my costs. However, I also do not wish to be hampered and delayed by Legal Aid constantly nit-picking my costs, which is why I gave a detailed letter of the purposes of my mandate to Maître Cathrine Lauzon, a letter which, as the Court knows from my Motion of last night, fell on ears that were stone deaf.
Following bailiff service of my introductory proceeding, I will then attempt to take maximum advantage of the fax-service provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. As I have a laptop with a burner, I will also attempt to provide an electronic copy of my motions, and possibly even scans of the evidence, to accompany the printed documents, which would hopefully facilitate the business of the Court.
As I am currently homeless, illegally locked out of my lawful apartment, and alienated from my property and law books which have been abusively confiscated by my landlord thanks to dereliction of their duty by Police on 31st October last, I will be electing domicile at the Montreal Courthouse, and will need to find out exactly how that works. I will then employ that mode of address for communications in the Douglas file and in my Habeas Corpus until further notice. I can always be contacted at joyeuxmontreal @hotmail.com, which is my email address for the business I am trying to launch.
In the interim, I once again thank the Court for its time, and I look forward to news of the several ORDERS requested.
Wishing you a very good day, Madam Justice, I remain,
Yours sincerely,
______________________
Kathleen Moore
* * *
From: K. M. (kathleen_moore@hotmail.com)
Sent: November 30, 2007 12:52:48 PM
To:
info@amnesty.caRe: Montreal Woman Sent to Mental Ward for POLITICAL Views
Amnesty International
312 Laurier Avenue East
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1N 1H9
Telephone: (613) 744-7667 OR 1-800-AMNESTY (266-3789)
Fax: (613) 746-2411
E-mail:
info@amnesty.cahttp://crazyforcanada.blogspot.com/Sir, Madam: On the night of Wednesday, 31 October 2007, I was kidnapped off the sidewalk in front of my home in Lachine (Montreal), Quebec by Police who ridiculed me for my study of law, and who apparently had knowledge of my web site, Habeas Corpus Canada, where I contemplate the filing of FUTURE legal proceedings to stop the secession of Quebec and the annexation of Canada to the US and Mexico under "North American Union".
I was assaulted by Police to prevent me from contacting a lawyer. I was forced into the ambulance, which drove off directly to the LaSalle Hospital, where I was assaulted again by a gang of rubber-gloved personnel on orders of one Dr. Dagenais, a female, who appears in the slideshow at the bottom of my above web site.
I also have reason to believe that an attempt was made on my life by a male nurse who ordered me to take a potassium-chloride pill the size of a toilet-cleaning tablet, and which I refused to take. His photo is featured at the top of the above-linked web site, and also in the slideshow at the bottom.
I was conscious, lucid, sitting in a chair and drinking from a styrofoam cup of water and REFUSING any and all medical interventions when the cup was removed and LaSalle staff, on orders of Dr. Dagenais, attacked me, dragged me and threw me bodily into a trolley, shackled me hand and foot, and put me in a body harness, while stripping my clothes off and crumpling them into a plastic bag along with loose change that fell out of the pockets in the process.
A large amount of blood was forcibly drawn while I was shackled, over my repeated objections, and an I.V. line was introduced into my right arm, said to be for the purpose of administering drugs, and all, again, against my will, and in direct violation of the personal rights guaranteed in the Quebec Civil Code, the to refuse such interventions, and in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights to be free of such intolerable interventions.
Police who had brought me, finally laughed at the open door of the room containing my trolley, where I lay strapped and shackled and hooked up to the I.B., and tipped a hand to their hat, as if they had just "got" me good. If Police in fact believed that they were detaining someone who was ill, it would be highly unlikely that they would ridicule the person on their way out.
Over a period of hours, I cut my way out of the body harness with nail clippers, and when I attempted to exit the Hospital in the early morning through the ambulance bay, I was again attacked by LaSalle staff, who throttled me, twisted my arms behind my back, and who while yelling for reinforcements, herded me back to the trolley, threw me in bodily, ripped my clothes off, and once again shackled me.
I was at all times conscious and lucid, and refusing any and all interventions. I at all times demanded that the attacks be stopped, stating, "You do not know what you are doing. You are criminally assaulting a competent, intelligent person." I also at all times demanded a lawyer, as guaranteed to me by law, but I was never brought to a telephone, let alone to a bedpan.
I was transferred by force of intimidation to the Douglas Hospital Emergency ward by threats of further physical violence expressed to me by Dr. Antonio Bianchine on the early afternoon of 1 November 2007, after a 16-hour detention.
In order to up the ante to coax me into the next ambulance, Bianchine expressly LIED that there was a phone in the ambulance that I could use to call a lawyer, and that I would be given copies of the police and ambulance reports of the previous 16 hours. I had repeatedly demanded these, which were also denied, because I wanted to see the alleged legal basis on which the hospital was purporting to hold me. However, forced again to the LaSalle ambulance bay under duress, there were no such copies of those papers, and naturally, no "telephone" in the ambulance. I was thus held for over 16 hours to that point while being denied all documents, and was again denied access to a lawyer. Somebody wanted me TRANSFERRED to the Douglas Hospital without any interference from a lawyer to protect my rights, so that I could be labelled by fraud by two psychiatrists, and thus discredited for my political views.
The transfer to Douglas Institute was done by surprise, just as the transfer to LaSalle had been the night before, as in both cases, I was not told where I was going.
At the Douglas Institute, I was again denied (i) access to the same documents; and (ii) specific information on my rights while under their roof. I was also denied the right to fax toll-free to Amnesty International, in attempt to get a lawyer, as being lucid, I knew very well that I had just been made the object of political imprisonment for my views on Canadian unity and North American Union, and I had been ridiculed by Police before they attacked me, and who evidently knew about my web site, Habeas Corpus Canada:
http://habeascorpuscanada.webng.com/ which is also at two other locations: http://habeascorpuscanada.tripod.com/ and
http://www.freewebs.com/habeascorpuscanada/. [KM Note 18 Dec 2007: HABEAS CORPUS CANADA now has a top-level domain: www.habeascorpuscanada.com ]
At the Douglas Institute, attempts were made to feed me Risperdol, an oral antipsychotic drug, which I consistently refused. I also refused to be labelled a "patient" and repeatedly asserted my competency, the illegality of my detention, and the fact that I considered myself a political prisoner. When I decided to represent myself, and applied for the appropriate legal aid mandate stipulating its purposes and that it should be made out to me as "Maitre Beneficiaire Kathleen Moore" to cover my court costs to fight this unawlful detention, the government Legal Aid office hijacked the mandate for themselves, and then despite being repudiated by me in writing, they unlawfully appeared and made representations in Court on 8 November 2007, the nature of which I am still unaware of. In effect, again, I was denied access to legal representation of MY choice while having GOVERNMENT lawyers self-servingly take over my business in order to keep me unlawfully incarcerated.
The Douglas Institute detained me several days past the 72 hours provided at law for detentions that are initially lawful, though in my case the initial detention was not lawful, as the only lawful basis for Police to transmit anyone to a Hospital against their will is provided at s. 8 of the Act respecting the Protection of persons whose mental state presents a danger to themselves or to others, R.S.Q. P-38.001, which states:
Power of peace officer.
8. A peace officer may, without the authorization of the court, take a person against his will to an institution described in section 6
1) at the request of a member of a
crisis intervention unit who considers that the mental state of the person presents a grave and immediate danger to himself or to others;
2) at the request of the
person having parental authority, the tutor to a minor or any of the persons mentioned in article 15 of the Civil Code of Québec (Statutes of Québec, 1991, chapter 64), where no member of a crisis intervention unit is available in due time to assess the situation. In such a case, the peace officer must have good reason to believe that the mental state of the person concerned presents a grave and immediate danger to himself or to others.
Examination.
Subject to the provisions of section 23 and to more pressing medical emergencies, the institution to which the person is brought must take charge of the person upon arrival and have the person examined by a physician, who may place the person under preventive confinement in accordance with section 7.
"crisis intervention unit".
In this section, "crisis intervention unit" means a unit designed to take action in crisis situations pursuant to the mental health service organization plans provided for by the legislation respecting health services and social services.
1997, c. 75, s. 8.
http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/p-38.001/20030530/whole.htmlThere was NO "crisis intervention unit," neither the Police nor the Ambulance had any grounds to presume that I was a danger to anyone, the only behaviour in question being that of the landlord who had criminally shut off my electricity and changed my locks and confiscated my property without colour of right in law. Neither Police nor the Ambulance personnel even attempted to enter my apartment to recover the key for me and secure my property.
I was standing quietly outside the building, watching my windows and noting that the lights never went on because Police never went in to ascertain the circumstances of the lockout, and when Police exited the landlord's apartment after some 20 minutes or more inside, they proceeded immediately to taunt me for my study of law and my political views. They even taunted me with the question "Who's your father!" and I don't know where that question came from, but it emerged with Police from my landlord's apartment.
The Police Act and the Code of Ethics of Quebec Police very specifically prohibit harassing and abusing a citizen, and in particular on grounds of politics. Yet, these Police did precisely that, while ignoring actual criminal acts committed by the landlord.
There being no "crisis intervention unit" and no person in parental authority over me, and the landlord harassing his tenant not constituting a person with a "special interest" under s. 15 of the Civil Code of quebec, the Police had no authority in law, that is under the Statute which prescribes the law, to detain me on any account.
There was therefore NO legal detention in effect on the night of 31 October 2007 when Police attacked me to prevent me calling a lawyer, and when the Amulance, solely on the unsubstantiated
word of Police who had taunted me for my POLITICAL views, drove off with me to the LaSalle Hospital. There was therefore no lawful detention that could have given the LaSalle Hospital a remote color of right to lay a hand on me. There was therefore NO lawful detention at the time Douglas Institute -- who could not but be CONSCIOUSLY aware that there was no lawful basis, nonetheless further detained me in order
to FALSIFY a pair psych reports alleging that "ambulanciers" had been in my apartment and witnessed a stove burner left on, whereas in fact the hydro had been off for three days, and at the time of my detention I HAD NO KEY TO MY OWN APARTMENT BECAUSE THE LOCKS HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY CHANGED.Therefore, there was no lawful basis to the detention in the first place, and there could thus be NONE at the basis of the default order obtained against me from Judge Andre Renaud by Douglas lawyers purporting to "authorize" a continuation of what in fact was an illegal and not a legal detention.
Immediately on my return from Court to the Douglas Institute by amulance, Dr. Hani Iskandar, without color of right in fact or law, ordered me to be stripped and isolated for the purpose of being forcibly injected with antipsychotic drugs which he had no power in law to inject, and which consitutes
criminal assault, and
psychiatric abuse.
The said injections rendered me incapable of handling my own business immediately after the ex-parte judgment, thus hampering my ability to keep notes and prepare counter-measures such as an appeal or a Motion in Revocation for cause. In fact, I was not even allowed to read the Judge Renaud "decision" -- which was in fact written by the Douglas's lawyers, until some 8-10 days after it had been issued.
Some 4-5 days later, upon recovering from the disabling effects of the forced injections with antipsychotic drugs, I immediately contacted patients' rights counsellor, LOUISE BARON, of Action-Autonomie, and between the two of us, a week elapsed during which the Douglas Institute ignored and/or repudiated all of our best efforts to have them release me under accompaniment to meet Ms. Baron at the Montreal Courthouse so that I could file my own Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Ms. Baron and I set a first appointment to meet for this purpose at the Courthouse on Monday morning at 10:00 a.m. on 19 November 2007, an appointment which Douglas Institute allowed to expire while ignoring me and refusing Ms. Baron.
A second appointment was made for 10:00 the morning of Wednesday, 21 November 2007, and once again Ms. Baron went to work from her end contacting not only the Douglas Institute in this regard, but their lawyers, who knew very well that I had a Constitutional right to be accompanied out of the Hospital to file my motion.
The said appointment lapsed by pre-emption of it by Doctor Hani Iskandar, who in a heavy, authoritarian manner with witnesses at his side on the afternoon of Tuesday, 20 November, 2007, approached me where I sat quietly writing at a table in the Reed Pavilion and gave me his territorial speech on how he runs the Institute, he is the only authority, and on his authority, said he, "You are being PUT OUT tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m." -- in other words, an hour after the second scheduled appointment with Ms. Baron, thus showing the Douglas's defiance of my fundamental rights.
I said to Dr. Iskandar, "You don't have the balls to face me in court. I've got you BY the balls. You have illegally detained me for 21 days on pretext that I had nowhere to go, while preventing me from obtaining the means to go anywhere (my cheque in the mail, back at my apartment); and now, you advise me you are throwing me out on the sidewalk tomorrow morning, thus contradicting yourself." I also said, "You think you prescribe my rights, but the Constitution of Canada prescribes my rights, and no matter how powerful a doctor you think you are, you have no power over me."
At this, Iskandar grinned and leered, and began to back off together with his new medical students that he had used as witnesses.
The following morning, Wednesdady, 21 November 2007 at 9:30 am, Iskandar approached me again in the Reed cafeteria, where I was sitting quietly with my papers, and blustered to me that he was "PUTTING" me "OUT" and if I wouldn't leave, he said, he'd "call Police". Iskandar handed me a single sheet of paper containing a list of homeless shelters before he took his leave.
Shortly thereafter, I went to the nursing station and demanded to be immediately released, well before 11:00 o'clock, and I was in fact allowed to leave, while the Douglas Institute's Nurse Margo Blome, an ally of Iskandar, hurled epithets accusing me of "refusing to let anyone help" me, because I had refused to wear a gigantic size-12 pair of men's galoshes, each boot of which weighed about 2 pounds, and an old tight blue coat that fit me like a straightjacket, which Blome herself had rummaged up as an afterthought out of the patients' lost and found.
Douglas Institute, knowing that I still had no cheque, and had not a penny in my wallet, gave me precisely one (1) bus ticket and put me on the sidewalk.
It should be noted that the sole law, the Statute under which Douglas Institute was pretending to hold [me], requires a discharging institute to FIND LODGINGS for the person they have been holding. The bad faith of Douglas Institute is 100% evident from the fact that in punishment for my refusing to be subjected to their bogus psychiatric jurisdiction, they continued to flout the law by putting me on the sidewalk, homeless, to terminate my illegal detention.
I spent the next three nights sleeping in a homeless shelter before I found a temporary one-week stay in a small room at #222, 1839 Papineau, for $200.00, and where I have been told I will not be given a lease on December 1st, thus making me once again homeless. This is in contrast to the facts, set out more fully at my web site, that I have a lawful address of domicile and residence at 784 14th Avenue in LaSalle, but Police on the night of 31 October 2007 when called to the scene by me via 911, categorically refused (i) to recover my access from the landlord who had illegally changed the locks, and (ii) to account to me for the whereabouts for my furniture, property, law books and four years of legal research notes, without limitation, all of which the landlord had confiscated without any proceedings at law and with the complete condonation of Police who are thus complicit with him in the criminal acts perpetrated by him.
In effect, it appears to have been the landlord who somehow communicated to Police my political and legal activities, and the nature of my studies in law, and who induced them to detain me as a lunatic to prevent them from criminally charging him for inter alia, shutting my electricity off, changing the locks on my apartment, and confiscating my property. This landlord had been continually entering my apartment illegally throughout the rental, including to leave a business card on my work table with a crucifix on it and Bible verses.
The present letter is to request your investigation of this situation, and your immediate support and assistance
in particular to restore to me my law books and four years of legal research, and sets of CDs containing scans of documents which belong to me, and were unlawfully confiscated by my landlord. I make this request because Police, in dereliction of their duty, have refused to assist me. Clearly, these items are material to my political rights that are under assault here; by depriving me of my property and research, the aim is clearly to destroy my ability to pursue my political beliefs and launch future legal proceedings.
I would also appreciate the presence of Amnesty International at the legal proceedings in Habeas Corpus and others in the same regard, which were deposited by me at the Montreal Courthouse with the duty Judge on the evening of 21 November 2007.
It should be noted that when Doctor Iskandar "PUT ME OUT", he failed to provide me with any written documentation stating that I was released or 'discharged' from the boilerplate Order of Judge Andre Renaud obtained ex parte by the maniplations of Douglas lawyers, and so my first effort was to visit the Courthouse in order to secure a formal discharge.
It had seemed to me, in the absence of all documentation, that Douglas Institute could simply have called Police to declare that I had "escaped" and have me once again detained and returned to their ultra vires jurisdiction, where I might again be visited by forced injection to permanently detain me.
I was therefore fortunate to have the intercession on the evening of 21 November 2007 after Courthouse hours of the Honourable Judge Carole Julien, who at about 18h15 herself by telephone confirmed my release from Douglas Institute with staff at the Reed Pavilion nursing office. At the same time, Judge Julien requested that I deposit my Motion in Habeas Corpus, which I did, and have followed up with a fax-letter to the Judge to inform the Court of my intentions regarding its development.
In the interim, the landlord who was able to use Police to detain me abusively continues to be in illegal possession of my property, law books and four years of legal research notes, which Police in violation of their own Code of Ethics, and of their Mission in the Police Act, simply refuse to account for, although the actions of the landlord fall directly under provisions of the Criminal Code including s. 430.1(d) CCC:
430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
[Notes: landlord illegally shut off my electricity on 29 October; then on 31st, changed the locks illegally and confiscated my property, all of which criminally interfered with my lawful use of my property and lease, and then criminally obstructed my access to my lease and to my property.
In order to evade criminal charges for this, landlord was able to obtain cooperation of the Police in protecting him by picking me up as a lunatic for my POLITICAL views and planned future LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. This is the USSR where people have no rights and landlords called the Police to declare their tenants crazy and pick them up.
The next provision also applies, as my property includes a collection of CD's in jewel cases containing my photography which I need to operate my business that I am developing, and scans of legal research and documents. This is all DATA my access to which has been criminally obstructed, and Police refuse to give effect to MY rights in law.]
430. (1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.
Now, here's an interesting further provision, which demonstrates that the law is backwards in Quebec and used to abuse the victim of a landlord with some kind of political connections sufficient to get him the protection of Police for his own criminal acts:
430. (2) Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. [Notes: this landlord criminally SHUT off the electricity, it was off for three days, my efforts to interest Hydro-Quebec in the illegal shutoff and send an inspector fell on deaf ears; yet, somehow, without anyone including Police or Ambulance -- neither of whom entered my apartment -- witnessing the shut-off, the Police who unlawfully detained me managed to get the Douglas Institute to write a fake "psych report" declaring me a lunatic by claiming I had left a stove burner running.
Now, how do you do that in an apartment with no electricity? Moreover, the LAW -- which is rarely applied to protect VICTIMS of abuse here, and in this case when the abuse is a pretext for POLITICAL ends -- in fact points to the landlord who SHUT OFF the electricity as the party causing "actual danger to life" because he was blackmailing and harassing his tenant by the cutoff, unconcerned that other methods such as candles might be used, which could indeed result in a danger to everyone in his building, including tenants of nine other apartments, and his own family, living on the main floor.
So, how does the psych ward label me a dangerous lunatic alleging a burner was on when there was no electricity running at all, but the man who in fact causes the "danger" is able to get me locked up? ]
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=mischief&language=en&searchTitle=R.S.C.+1985%2C+c.+C-46&path=/ca/sta/c-46/sec430.htmlI was picked up, and denied a lawyer the whole way along who would have compelled my release even at the door to the ambulance, even at the door to the LaSalle Hospital ER, because the SOLE purpose was to LABEL me as a lunatic in order to discredit me, Soviet style, while stripping me of my law books and research on the very topic for which the Police ridiculed me.
Thanking you in advance for your kind attention to this very important matter, I remain,Sincerely,Kathleen MooreMontreal, Quebec, Canada
http://habeascorpuscanada.webng.com/http://www.freewebs.com/administrationdelajustice/CRAZY FOR CANADA: http://crazyforcanada.blogspot.com/
* * *
RE : Transmission d'une plainte
From: Commissaire aux plaintes (commissaireauxplaintes@ramq.gouv.qc.ca)
Sent: December 11, 2007 10:07:26 AM
To: joyeuxmontreal@hotmail.com
Dear Mrs Moore Pageot,
I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 4 December 2008 at our office.
I have already submitted your request and complaint to the department in charge at the Régie and once I receive an answer from them in the following days, I will give you an answer to your request promptly.
Sincerely,
Lynn McCormick
Complaints Commissioner's Office
Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec
Phone: 418-682-5145
Toll free: 1-888-899-2121
-----Message d'origine-----
De : joyeuxmontreal@hotmail.com [mailto:joyeuxmontreal@hotmail.com]
Envoyé : 4 décembre 2007 18:20
À : Commissaire aux plaintes
Objet : Transmission d'une plainte
Kathleen Moore Pageot
4373, avenue de l'Esplanade Montréal (Québec) H2W 1T2
Montreal Québec
H2W 1T2
Tel. :
Adresse électronique: joyeuxmontreal@hotmail.com
Nature de la plainte :
Montreal, 4 December 2007
From: Kathleen Moore Pageot
Medicare: MOOK 5357 0913
Re: FRAUD AND ABUSE OF MY MEDICARE NUMBER
By: Dr. Hani Iskandar, Douglas Institute; LaSalle Hospital, Montreal
Sir, Madam:
This is to inform you that a letter was been given by me to
Juge de garde the Hon. Carole Julien on 21 November 2007, indicating that I will be seeking an injunction to prevent the
Régie de l'Assurance Maladie from paying even a penny to Douglas Hospital, Douglas Institute, Reed Pavilion, Dr. Hani Iskandar, or any other person or entity connected with Douglas Institute for alleged "medical care" of the undersigned. That injunction will also implead the LaSalle Hospital, which also has no right to bill Medicare for any "care" concerning me.
I was kidnapped by Police on the night of 31 October 2007 and held a prisoner because of my political beliefs. I was criminally assaulted by Police and then by staff at LaSalle Hospital, and then by staff at Douglas Hospital, all the while being denied access to a lawyer.
Details of the said kidnapping and criminal assaults may be found here:
http://crazyforcanada.blogspot.com/
This present email is to advise you NOT TO PAY A PENNY TO THOSE PEOPLE, or else the Minister will have to institute RECOVERY PROCEDURES and DAMAGES WILL BE CLAIMED BY ME AGAINST THE
REGIE FOR DEFAMATION should invoices from those persons and entities appear in my permanent file with the
Regie.
I have informed the Court that the attempt of the above persons and entities to bill Medicare for alleged "medical care" is defamatory to me, as these people have concocted a bogus psychiatric record to discredit my competency and my political opinions. Indeed, one of the nurses at the Reed Pavilion BRAGGED about the falsity of the psychiatric reports while verbally abusing me, and concerning which I have notified the Court by preliminary letter.
The
Régie de l'assurance maladie is NOT permitted to RECORD, STORE, ARCHIVE or otherwise associate ME and MY medical record with any invoices from the LaSalle Hospital, its doctors or other staff, or from Douglas Institute or Douglas Hospital and its doctors or other staff, or any other related entities and personnel.
The Court has been informed of my plans regarding legal proceedings against Douglas Institute, with initial proceedings in HABEAS CORPUS having been deposited in the file on the evening of 21 November 2007 at the request of the Judge.
This is to inform the
Regie that I will be impleading the
The Régie de l'assurance maladie as a
Mise en cause in those proceedings, which are presently in the file (huis clos) of: 500-40-021349-076.
ABUSE OF MEDICARE CARD - CARD ORDERED WITHOUT MY AUTHORIZATION:
I have not had a Medicare card for several years. It had expired, and then the expired card was lost. I had not renewed it due to costs and due to problems obtaining a mailing address.
I was informed by Nurse Margo Blome of the Douglas Hospital, AFTER THE FACT, that Dr. Hani Iskandar took the great liberty of "PRESCRIBING" a new MEDICARE CARD for me WITHOUT A PHOTO, and of arranging with the
Régie to have it sent by mail to the Douglas Hospital so that HE could use it to PAY HIMSELF for detaining me as a prisoner on his premises.
I DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID CARD BY DR. HANI ISKANDAR OR ANYONE ELSE.
NO ONE BUT ME HAS AUTHORITY TO HAVE MY MEDICARE CARD ISSUED.
THE SAID CARD SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO THE DOUGLAS INSTITUTE.
IF IT HAS BEEN SENT, IT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY CANCELLED.
That card was obtained without my knowledge, by the fraudulent representations to the
Régie of the Douglas Institute.
I am not AT the Douglas Institute, I was THROWN OUT on 21 November 2007 by Dr. Iskandar in vengeance for my efforts to REPLY to his own ILLEGAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS by which he attempted to get custody of me.
It will be apparent from the Court proceedings to come, in which the
Régie de l'assurance maladie will be impleaded as a
mise en cause, that there was NEVER ANY LAWFUL DETENTION of the undersigned BY POLICE, BY LASALLE HOSPITAL OR BY DOUGLAS HOSPITAL, and therefore there was NEVER ANY LAWFUL INCURRING OF "MEDICAL CARE" as I had repudiated and refused ALL so-called "care" and interventions, which were FORCED upon me, and were thus not medical but CRIMINAL ASSAULT.
LaSalle Hospital should ALSO NOT BE PAID. They detained me against my will while I was lucid and conscious, and assaulted me for the purpose of detaining me. They are not entitled to bill for alleged "medical care" when what they did to me was hold me against my will and forcibly extract blood and samples which I DID NOT AND DO NOT AUTHORIZE, and which THEREFORE ARE NOT BILLABLE.
Please confirm to me that the
Régie HAS NOT PAID A PENNY TO LaSalle Hospital, or to the Douglas Hospital or Institute.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada
Mailing address:
Kathleen Moore Pageot
c/o 4373, avenue de l'Esplanade
Montréal (Québec) H2W 1T2
joyeuxmontreal@hotmail.com
[KM Notes: On 11 December 2007, Kathleen Moore visited the government Medicare office at 425 de Maisonneuve Boulevard in Montreal and (i) confirmed that her file is now with the Medicare office's legal department; and (ii) ordered and paid for the issuance of her own Medicare Card with photo and signature, which should arrive any day in the mail to her temporary address at a Montreal HOMELESS SHELTER, where Moore has been sleeping nights on the lottery system. In effect, for a homeless woman to have a bed for the night, she must phone in to the shelter at 2:00 pm each day. The first 12 women who get through the busy lines get the 12 available beds. Moore has been lucky so far, but it is getting colder up here, and there is always the risk of her call not getting through in time to obtain one.]
* * *
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Fax #1 of 2
TO: HORACIO ARRIEGADA
CLE de LaSalle
2212, avenue Dollard, 2e étage
LaSalle (Québec) H8N 1S6
Tél.: 514 365-4543
Fax.: (514) 365-5450
Re: SPECIAL BENEFIT: $100 FOR VIOLENCE
Mr. Arriegada:
It has come to my attention that the Minister increases the basic benefit by $100 for anyone who, as a victim of violence, has recourse to a homeless shelter or similar resource for three consecutif months from the date of admission.
This is to notify you of my intent to claim this increase on the aforesaid grounds more fully set out at article 53, paragraph 9 of the Loi sur l'aide aux personnes et aux familles, L.R.Q., chapitre A-13.1.1, which reads as follows:
"Augmentation de la prestation.
53. La prestation de base est augmentée d'une allocation pour contraintes temporaires lorsque l'adulte seul ou un membre adulte de la famille :
[...]
9° est victime de violence et se réfugie dans une maison d'hébergement, ou dans un autre lieu de même nature, pendant au plus trois mois consécutifs à compter de la date de son admission."
Govern Yourself Accordingly.
Kathleen Moore
MOOK 09075351
NAS: 246-074-488
* * *
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Fax #2 of 2
TO: HORACIO ARRIEGADA
Le ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale
CLE de LaSalle
2212, avenue Dollard, 2e étage
LaSalle (Québec) H8N 1S6
Tél.: 514 365-4543
Fax.: (514) 365-5450
Re: SPECIAL BENEFIT $200 FOR MOVING COSTS
Mr. Arriegada:
You have repeatedly ignored my demand for a special benefit of a $200 moving budget to pick my property up from 784 14th Avenue #11 in Lachine H8S 3L3 where it was taken hostage by the landlord on 31 October 2007.
When I met you at your office last week and asked you for a written decision of the Minister on this demand, you told me to look it up myself on the Internet, alleging that all the laws are out there. That was the wrong answer, Mr. Arriegada, and as you are an AGENT of the Minister, it amounts to your refusal to do your job, which is that of the Minister.
When I insisted that the Minister do the Minister's job and that you reply to this repeated written demand with a decision and REASONS, you then attempted to deflect my said demand to the future at the office nearest the Le Chainon homeless shelter in Montreal, which would not have my file any time sooner than February 2008, thus prolonging the period in which I am separated from my property, in particular my law books and boxes of legal research.
Mr. Arriegada, it is clear that the Minister is attempting to block, delay and deter my ability to COLLECT MY PROPERTY from the premises where it was taken hostage on 31 October 2007.
I once again demand that the Minister reply in writing without any further delay, for the lack of such reply also obviously denies me the right to appeal without delay.
Govern Yourself Accordingly.
Kathleen Moore
MOOK 09075351
NAS: 246-074-488
* * *
On Monday, 17 December 2007, Kathleen Moore filed a Police Ethics Complaint online at the Police Ethics Commissioner's web site:
http://www.deontologie-policiere.gouv.qc.ca/index.php?id=37&L=1
For those unfamiliar with Police operations in Quebec, the following article in the Montreal
Mirror tabloid will shed a little bit of light:
The police ethics whitewash>> Rather than investigate complaints against the cops, Quebec's Ethics Commissioner will now mediate the disputes. Critics say it will allow the cops to ignore their own code of conductby JACQUIE CHARLTON
http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/100297/news4.html
Moore wonders how the Police Commissioner will approach "conciliating" the officers in question for political harassment, assault and kidnapping, for according to this
Mirror article, in the current state of the law, the Police Commissioner "only" has to "require" the guilty Police officers to "recognize" "the fact that they might have done something wrong." In other words, by law, there will be no investigation, and if Moore wants a shot at justice, she will have to undertake her own time-consuming and costly legal proceedings.
The text of Moore's Police Ethics Complaint was auto-emailed to her by the web site of the Police Ethics Commissioner, where she had filed it online:
[Subject:]
Your Police Ethics ComplaintFrom:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9ontologie_Polici=E8re?=@spssowl2.sso.msp.gouv.qc.caSent:
December 17, 2007 6:40:52 PM
Reply-to: =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9ontologie_Polici=E8re?=@spssowl2.sso.msp.gouv.qc.ca
To: kathleen_moore@hotmail.com
L: 1
submitted: 1
type:
nom [name]: Moore
prenom [first name]: Kathleen
naissance [birth date]: 1953 / 07 / 09
adresse [address]: 784 14th Avenue, #11, Lachine, Quebec H8S 3L3 -- CURRENTLY LOCKED OUT ILLEGALLY
telephone:
tel travail:
telecopieur:
courriel [email]: kathleen_moore@hotmail.com
policiers [police officers]:
AGENT MARTIN PERREAULT, STATION 8
AGENT SYLVAIN CHENETTE, STATION 8
description phys:
corps policier [police force]:
MONTREAL POLICE STATION 8, LACHINEposte:
date: Details of the actions of the two officers in question are posted at the following web site:
http://crazyforcanada.blogspot.com/
lieu [locations]:
1. 784 14th Avenue, Lachine, Quebec
2. Emergency Room of the LaSalle Hospital, Lasalle
3. Douglas Institute, Emergency Room
4. Douglas Institute, Reed Pavilion
numero constat [court file number]: No. 500-40-021349-076
explications [description of incident]: On the night of Wednesday, 31 October 2007, I called 911 to report that my landlord had illegally changed the locks to my apartment, and had confiscated my furniture and property. I reported to 911 that the landlord had threatened to have ME arrested if I called Police to report him.
Evidently, the landlord was right. When Police arrived, they did not go into my apartment, they went into the landlord's apartment, and when they emerged 20 minutes later, they were not the least bit interested in restoring my key to my door, and refused to disclose to me the condition and location of my property.
Instead, the Police officers in question harassed and ridiculed me for my law studies, which I had not disclosed to them, but they had found out about while inside the landlord's premises. Police taunted me about "the Queen" and said, "Who do you think you are! You can't do THAT all alone!" in apparent reference to my web site, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA, www.habeascorpuscanada.com, where the opening page of planned legal proceedings discloses Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II as the personal respondent.
The officers in question then disclosed that they had called an ambulance because they thought I was "a bit mental". Police attacked me when I said I wanted to call a lawyer, and forced me into the ambulance on its arrival. From the time of this unlawful Police detention, to my unceremonious release on 21 November 2007 by Douglas Institute, I had been a prisoner of kidnap, repeatedly criminally assaulted in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada generally and of the Civil Code of Quebec specifically.
The Police in question thus harassed me, assaulted me, kidnapped me off the sidewalk in front of my home, violated my fundamental freedoms including but not limited to those protected by the federal and provincial charters of rights, and were derelict in their duty by refusing to apply the law to protect my home and my property, thus denying me equality before the law.
Since 21 November 2007, I have been living in a women's homeless shelter, still locked out of my apartment in Lachine, and the condition and whereabouts of my law books, legal research notes, personal files, furniture, linens, clothing etc., to this day unknown because Police refused to do their job on 31 October 2007 when called to the scene for the purpose of restoring my access to my home.
On 11 December 2007, I consulted with a Police Officer in Park Extension, who assured me that I still have a right to a POLICE ESCORT to recover my property from the landlord who illegally confiscated it on 31 October 2007, with the condonation and complicity of the Police in question, and I intend to avail myself of that right, and hopefully, this time, Police will DO their jobs.
temoins [witnesses]: Details of this incident, and documents, are being regularly posted at the web site, as fast as I am able to produce them:
http://crazyforcanada.blogspot.com/
elementspreuve [evidence, elements of proof]: other
* * *
On Tuesday, 18 December 2007, Moore emailed a short modification of her Police Ethics Complaint of 17 December 2007 to the Police Ethics Commissioner, and a copy of the entire complaint to the Public Security Minister responsible for the Police Ethics Commission:
FW: Your Police Ethics Complaint
From: K. M. (kathleen_moore@hotmail.com)
Sent: December 18, 2007 11:49:32 AM
To: deontologie-policiere.quebec@msp.gouv.qc.ca
Cc: ministre@msp.gouv.qc.ca
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Police Ethics Commissioner
454, place Jacques-Cartier, 5th floor
Montréal (Québec) H2Y 3B3
Telephone : 514 864-1784
Fax : 514 864-3552
NOTICE OF MODIFICATION OF POLICE ETHICS COMPLAINT:The complaint is modified to add two locations (lieux), being
3 and
4, as follows:
lieu:
1. 784 14th Avenue, Lachine, Quebec
2. Emergency Room of the LaSalle Hospital, Lasalle
3. Douglas Institute, Reed Pavillion, Emergency Room
4. Douglas Institute, Reed Pavillion, Intensive Care UnitKathleen Moore, Montreal
c.c.:
M. Jacques P. DupuisMinister of Justice and Minister of Public Security
Member for Saint-Laurent, Québec Libéral Party
ministre@msp.gouv.qc.ca
* * *
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS UPLOADED ON 20 DECEMBER 2007:
Your Police Ethics Complaint
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9ontologie_Polici=E8re?=@spssowl2.sso.msp.gouv.qc.ca
Sent: December 20, 2007 12:54:54 PM
Reply-to: =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9ontologie_Polici=E8re?=@spssowl2.sso.msp.gouv.qc.ca
To: kathleen_moore@hotmail.com
L: 1
submitted: 1
type:
nom: Moore
prenom: Kathleen
naissance: 1953 / 07 / 09
adresse: 784 14th Avenue, #11, Lachine, Quebec H8S 3L3 - LOCKED OUT HOMELESS SINCE 31 OCTOBER 2007 BY DERELICTION OF POLICE
telephone:
teltravail:
telecopieur:
courriel: kathleen_moore@hotmail.com
policiers: AGENT PERREAULT - STATION 8
AGENT CHENETTE - STATION 8
descriptionphys:
corpspolicier:
poste:
date:
lieu:
numeroconstat:
explications:
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS:
SLIDE SHOW OF 16 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, WITHOUT LIMITATION, CONFISCATED BY LANDLORD AND ABANDONED IN HIS HANDS BY POLICE REFUSING TO APPLY THE LAW.
http://s213.photobucket.com/albums/cc143/montrealchristmas/784%2014th%20Avenue%20apt%2011%20Lachine%202007/police%20ethics%20slideshow/?action=view¤t=666b2c8c.pbw
SEE INDIVIDUAL PHOTOS, ATTACHED.
temoins:
elementspreuve: online
* * *
20 December 2007
THE SLIDESHOW OF 16 PHOTOS OF MY PROPERTY
CONFISCATED BY LANDLORD AND ABANDONED IN HIS HANDS
BY POLICE REFUSING TO APPLY THE LAW:
* * *
Your objection to conciliation
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9ontologie_Polici=E8re?=@spssowl2.sso.msp.gouv.qc.ca
Sent: December 20, 2007 1:18:25 PM
Reply-to: =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9ontologie_Polici=E8re?=@spssowl2.sso.msp.gouv.qc.ca
To: kathleen_moore@hotmail.com
L: 1
submitted: 1
type:
numerodossier: WAITING FOR IT
objection: oui
motifs: I wish to file an objection to conciliation, but I have not yet been provided with a file number for my Police Ethics Complaint.
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION (WITHOUT LIMITATION):
Political harassment, political discrimination, verbal, physical and psychological assault, kidnapping, over 21 days of civil imprisonment, repeated beatings and threats of beatings by hospital staff, criminal lock-out and criminal confiscation of property by the landlord in which the Police became complicit by refusing to apply the law, cannot be dealt with by conciliation.
These are substantive violations of public-order law and of federal and provincial Charter rights.
courriel: kathleen_moore@hotmail.com
* * *
RE: AGENTS PERREAULT AND CHENETTE, STATION 8
From: K. M. (kathleen_moore@hotmail.com)
Sent: December 21, 2007 4:54:56 PM
To: deontologie-policiere.quebec@msp.gouv.qc.ca
Cc: pdq8@spvm.qc.ca
PHOTOGRAPHS OF MY PROPERTY ARE ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL. THE SIZE OF THE IMAGE FILES REQUIRES THAT THEY BE DIVIDED INTO GROUPS AND SENT IN MORE THAN ONE TRANSMISSION.
[Note: 16 photographs were transmitted in 4 groups]
Montreal, 21 December 2007
To:
Maitre Claude Simard, Police Ethics Commissioner
-and-
Pierre Landry, Commandant du PDQ 8
Gentlemen:
A Police Ethics Complaint was filed online on Monday, 17 December 2007 concerning the unprofessional comportment of Police Agents
Martin Perreault and
Sylvain Chenette of Police Station 8 in Lachine. Those officers abandoned my property in the hands of landlord Mario Fragapane who had illegally changed the locks on 31 October 2007 and confiscated it while ridiculing me for my study of law and for my political views, and then criminally assaulting me to force me into an ambulance while being at a loss to tell me under what provisions of law they purported to be detaining me. I was detained in all for more than twenty-one (21) days, sufficient to destroy my new business that was to launch for Christmas.
Police Agents
Perreault and
Chenette refused to apply the only provision of law pertinent at that time, being
430(1) CCC against the landlord who had changed the locks to my doors and confiscated my property.
Mischief430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or damages property;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
The aforesaid section is the Criminal provision relating to the prohibition at article 1934 of the Civil Code of Quebec:
1934. No lock or other device restricting access to a dwelling may be installed or changed without the consent of the lessor and the lessee.
If either party fails to comply with his obligation, the court may order him to allow the other party to have access to the dwelling.
1991, c. 64, a. 1934.
Furthermore:
§ 7. — Right to maintain occupancy
I. — Holders of the right
1936. Every lessee has a personal right to maintain occupancy; he may not be evicted from the leased dwelling, except in the cases provided for by law.
1991, c. 64, a. 1936.
The same landlord had criminally shut off my electricity at 15h30 on Monday, 29 October 2007, which is yet a further violation of section
430(1) CCC and both the electricity cut-off and the illegal lock-change constitute criminal harassment as set out at section
264 CCC:
Criminal harassment264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection
(2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Prohibited conduct(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
To date, the location and condition of my property, abandoned by Police in the hands of the landlord who had criminally changed my locks and confiscated it, are still unaccounted for.
For obvious reasons, I cannot incur truck rental fees simply to park a vehicle in front of 784 14th Avenue #11 in Lachine in order to then call 911 in the hopes that Police will this time show up and recover my property, which they failed to do on 31 October 2007, by refusing to apply the law.
This is a formal demand to the Police Ethics Commissioner,
Maitre Claude Simard, promptly provide me with a FILE NUMBER for my complaint filed on 17 December 2007.
This is a further formal demand to Commandant
Pierre Landry of Station 8, Lachine, that he
immediately account to me for the condition and whereabouts of my property, featured in the attached photographs, which were also submitted to the Police Ethics Commissioner in an online follow-up on 20 December 2007.
Govern Yourselves Accordingly.
Kathleen Moore
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
* * *
TO READ A TYPED VERSION OF KATHLEEN MOORE'S "BALLPOINT HABEAS CORPUS",
SEE THE POST "SHACKLED".
Posts
