Make your own free website on Tripod.com
VIF En français | In english
Home | My account | Support | Downloads | Contacts
Thursday, September 23 2004 13:11:36 EDT
search for on  
This will allow you to send a Fax from the web



Submitted successfully


Sending a fax
Fax number 5142832169
Attention to RCMP - Montreal
Company  
From Kathleen Moore - Montreal
Regarding Criminal Stalking, B&E's
Message à envoyer Time: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:06:46 -0400 (EDT)

From: <federalcourt@runbox.com>

To: john.sliter@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

Subject: Fwd: SPVM - Montreal Police Refusing to Investigate



23 September 2004


Sir:

I found your email address on the internet, and would appreciate your kind assistance in locating the appropriate department of the RCMP for an urgent situation.

I am being criminally stalked by Montreal Police who have colluded with City Officials to repeatedly destroy my home and property without due process.

I took measures to institute the appropriate legal proceedings, but have been hampered by an escalation in this form of criminal harassment, which at this date included a full-scale assault, last week, on all my property containing documentary and other evidence, and on all my draft proceedings representing months and in some cases, years of work.

This is criminal obstruction of justice, and criminal destruction of evidence.

As Montreal Police are involved in this stalking, and in instigating criminal harassment by landlords and neighbours wherever I live, they are acting ultra vires and are committing criminal acts which put my life at risk under the Charter.

I am attaching a PDF copy of my letter addressed to the most recent landlord who carried on this kind of harassment and conducted the illegal lock change of 16 September 2004.

I forwarded this letter to the Montreal Police at Station 11 -- the originators of the harassment, who categorically deny me services and protection, while attempting to effect my unlawful arrest to silence me on pretexts trumped up by them, because I have done nothing wrong, whereas they have, and are looking for an excuse to discredit and stop me before I can get to court to expose them. That particular Station 11 ignored my faxes on 2 July 2004 to the effect that I had been locked out of my rented room at 2030 Patricia Avenue by the landlord and neighbours in the building within hours after I made known to Judge Johanne Gauthier of Federal Court on 14 June 2004 that I intended to file my Motion for Jurisdiction of Exception within 48 hours. The illegal lock-out and harassment at that time was most certainly done to prevent me from completing the filing of that motion. IN fact, all my legal papers were taken hostage when the lock was changed in my absence. I also faxed documents to Station 11 proving that landlord Marc Descheneaux was not in possession of any duly formed legal proceedings, for lack of quality and capacity, and therefore had no right to proceed to evacuate my room and property. Nonetheless, Station 11 Police ignored the fax and permitted Descheneaux to evacuate my room and property.

On 21 September and again on 22 September 2004, I communicated by e-mail with officer Angelo Falbo of Station 11, and by online fax with Station 38 to the effect that my new landlord, Luc Dallaire, had also locked me out of my new room at 3690 Saint Denis Street, without bothering to take any legal proceedings. All my legal files, evidence, draft documents, clothing and personal property are locked in that room, and Montreal Police are ignoring my demands that they intervene to permit me to re-gain access to my room and property.

I forwarded the attached PDF letter to the Sûreté du Québec by email yesterday, but as yet have no response.

Following is the paste-in of other documents related to these ongoing criminal abuses and illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

I will appreciate your kindly forwarding this present e-mail to whoever is responsible for this type of situation at the RCMP: "abuse de confiance" by Montreal Police and by Montreal City employees, Ombudsman and executive.

This is an emergency, I need my property back, ALL of it, without any further delay.

In the meantime, I am sleeping in a homeless shelter, but I can be reached via this e-mail. I am in Montreal, but can't find an RCMP e-mail address online specific to the Montreal detachment.

Thank you in advance for your prompt and kind assistance in this matter.


Kathleen Moore Pageot Welham

P.S. I also believe the local Police intend to murder me, and that they have been managing an online campaign of stalking through a web site on servers in Beijing to which they have attracted a private membership, with intent to have me slaughtered under web-cam over the Internet.


P.P.S. I have reason to believe that the Montreal Police, as a pretext to get their hands on me to carry out their plan to murder me over the Internet, have trumped up a warrant alleging "méfait" on my part on the pretext that I collected my own mail from my own mailbox at Aaprtment 2, Room E, 2030 Patricia in Montreal because the landlord retained the only key and denied the tenants access to our mail until he felt like handing it out. The landlord's acts are an illegal interference with the mail, and I reported same to Police Station 26, and to NDG Postal Station in April-May-June of 2004. However, the fact that I used a fork to pry the box open and collect my mail and cheques, and then transferred the mail belonging to other tenants (who were not in the building at that time) to Station 26 for safekeeping, is being used as the pretext to charge me with "méfait," which, as you can certainly realize, is malicious and ludicrous. Meanwhile, the landlord who illegally retained control of the mail, and who illegally broke into my room and changed the lock to prevent me from filing my Motion for Jurisdiction on 16 June 2004, and who then illegally evicted me on 2 July 2004, is being fully protected by these same police.


----- Start Forwarded Message -----

From:

To: Angelo.Falbo@SPCUM.QC.CA, Rachel.Desmarais@SPCUM.QC.CA

Subject: SPVM - Montreal Police Refusing to Investigate



http://www.suretequebec.gouv.qc.ca/aide/courriel.html



This is an emergency. Montreal Police were put on notice on 21 September

2004, and again on 22 September 2004, of criminal acts by my landlord Luc

Dallaire in respect of my leased premises at 3690 Saint Denis Street.



Please find a letter attached in PDF format which explains some of the

situation.



I am currently locked out of my room by an illegal lock-change, by which

the landlord has taken illegal possession of my property and clothing

without lawful procedures, and while refusing to accept the rent for

September 2004.



I will appreciate your immediate emergency intervention.



Kathleen Moore



July 9, 1953; NAS: 246-074-488



----- End Forwarded Message -----


This is a fax sent on 23 September 2004 to City Pound:



MISE EN DEMEURE




Par télécopieur au : 872-4494, 872-2828 et 872-3086





23 septembre 2004




Fourrière municipale de Montréal

969 est, du Louvain

Montréal (Qc)




Monsieur Boulet :




La semaine du 13 september 2004 a été organisée par le bureau de l’Ombudsman –




et ce en concert avec mon propriétaire actuel (qui a changé la serrure sur ma chambre et a pris mes biens, vêtements et documents légaux en ôtage le 16 septembre 2004) sans aucune procédure légale –




et afin de cacher des actes criminels de Marcel Tremblay du bureau d’arrondissement NDG et de Denise Tremblay du Permis et Inspections pour l’arrondissement, ces actes ayant eu pour effet de rendre mes biens au fourrière le 22 janvier 2004 –




et ce en complot avec la Police de Montréal qui mène une campagne de la terreur à mon endroit d’une place à l’autre afin de m’empêcher d’agir devant les Cours –




ainsi en complicité avec la Faculté de médecine vétérinaire de l’Université de Montréal par voie de deux Monsieurs du même bureau d’arrondissement –




ces derniers ayant se mit pour détruire des preuves matériels du harcèlement criminel et menaces à mort proférées à mon endroit par voie de la torture et décès de mon animal dont le cadavre se trouvait à Saint-Hyacinthe –




La présente est donc pour vous aviser personnellement que je vous tiens responsable et coupable de la destruction et perte de preuves judiciaires si vous avez ou si vous allez procéder à la destruction de mes dits biens, l’Ombudsman étant ultra vires et ayant se comporté en abus de confiance.




Veuillez agir en conséquence.




Kathleen Moore Pageot Welham




----

M. Pierre Marois
President
Commission des droits de la personne
360, rue Saint-Jacques 2e étage
Montréal (Québec) H2Y 1P5

Téléphone : (514) 873-5146
Téléphone sans frais : 1 800 361-6477
Télécopieur : (514) 873-6032

Sir:

I have been illegally evicted and my life has been threatened as an apparent reprisal for my political opinions and my intent to "faire valoir" my political rights in Quebec as a Canadian.

I am attaching a letter in the form of a Word.doc file which I have addressed to the current landlord responsible for this particular instance of criminal harassment. I have no funds to serve the letter, and no proper address or fax number for him.

I will appreciate the Commission's immediately opening a file and transmitting this letter to Mr. Luc Dallaire on my behalf.

In respect of a prior similar incident of criminal harassment concerning my legal and political rights, you have on file some partial information about an illegal "séquestration" which took place on 14 June 2004 at my room 2E on 2030 Patricia Avenue. It is noteworthy that while the lock was damaged and I was harassed into leaving those premises and abandoning my legal papers and property on that occasion, an illegal "eviction" in the absence of duly formed proceedings took place on 2 July 2004 without my knowledge.

This underscores the fact that the 14 June 2004 harassment to drive me out of my dwelling, and which commenced on that date within hours of my announcing to Federal Court my intention to deposit a Motion for Inherent Jurisdiction of Exception within 48 hours, was in fact political harassment, because given the 2 July 2004 eviction which was scheduled nonetheless, the only possible underlying purpose of the 14 June 2004 harassment was to stop me from filing my Motion for Jurisdiction, which would have exposed the federal government mere days before the recent elections.

The fact that I have now been accused of being "Ché Guévara," who was clearly a political figure and an activist, and this in the context of an apparent effort to carry off a sequestration and a kidnap, confirms my initial complaint to you earlier this summer, of political harssment under section 10 of the Charter.

Thank you for your time.

Kathleen Moore Pageot

P.S. The text of the attached letter is also pasted below.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

– Demand Letter –











Without Prejudice


Without Limitation


All Rights Reserved





20 September 2004



Mr. Luc Dallaire
Saint-Jérôme, QC
Care of : Quebec Human Rights Commission



Cell phone: (450) 419-2167







Re:

3690 Saint Denis Street
, Lease of Room (31 July 2004)


Mr. Dallaire :





This letter is to place you on formal notice concerning criminal harassment— specifically political harassment—of the undersigned by yourself and persons in your employ and/or acting on your behalf at 3690 Saint Denis Street in defiance of section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms / Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec.





On Saturday, 31 July 2004, during a telephone conversation prompted by your advertisement in the same day’s edition of LaPresse, you agreed to rent a furnished room to me for the sum of $320.00 meaning with heat, hydro and hot water included, as of August. You set up an appointment with me to meet your daughter, Marie-Soleil Dallaire at 1:30 pm on the afternoon of 31 July 2004 at 3690 Saint Denis, a meeting in which you participated fully and which you directed via your daughter’s cell phone, and in the course of which you yourself specifically approved and concluded the oral lease for my room, and instructed your daughter to give me the keys to the room and the building. There was no lock and no key required at the time for access to the common bathroom containing the tub, sink, shower and toilet. I paid the sum of $320 cash as rent in advance for August 2004 directly to your daughter, which payment she confirmed to you over the cell phone.





Your daughter had no rent receipts available and no key to give me for the main entrance to the building. She therefore asked your son what to do, and he volunteered to provide me with his key to the door of the building, which you then promised to replace for him on your next visit to Montreal.





Notwithstanding that the rent was paid in advance, no receipt was ever issued and the demand for same remains outstanding. Moreover, possession of the room was given without its first having been cleaned.





The room was so dirty, that merely walking barefoot on the unwashed floors blackened the soles of my feet, and then blackened the soles of my new beige slippers. Kleenex swabbed over every surface (shelves, counters, furniture, windows and floor) came away black and brown with filth and in some cases, granular dirt came away. It was apparent the room, which looks over

Saint Denis Street
, with 50 square feet of windows, had not been cleaned in months, let alone in weeks. The fridge had not been defrosted or cleaned.




On Sunday, 1 July 2004, I telephoned you to explain to you that the room was filthy. You denied this, alleging it had been cleaned at the time of certain renovations. You referred to the installation of the kitchen counter in the room as having been made “just for me”, thus implying I was the first tenant to have the benefit of this new installation. I assured you the room had not been cleaned recently and asked you to please come to see it. You stated that you live in Saint Jérôme, and the trip to Montreal was too far to make on the weekend, but promised to visit on 2 September 2004, a Monday.





At the end of the day on Monday, 2 July 2004, I returned in the evening to find that the floor had been washed, most of the shelves had been washed, and someone had laundered my slippers, in the process of which, one of the slippers (they had been brand new that week) had been stretched out of shape and fell off when I tried to wear it).





The fridge had not been properly cleaned: there was an inch of foul-smelling water in the draining tray under the freezer which let out a stink every time I opened the fridge door. I was obliged to do my best to clean the fridge myself – which had clearly been left dirty from the previous tenant.





I continue to await a rent receipt for $320 cash paid on 31 July 2004, although you have admitted in one of your abusive letters which you began to post on my door ni the public hallway that I was indeed the lawful occupant of this room in the month of August, which thus gives rise to my right of maintenance under the Civil Code in respect of Article 1941 which reads as follows.





On 14 August 2004, without any indication of your intent and without any prior notice, you illegally entered my room to add a note to the envelope you had previously thumb-tacked to the wall beside the stove prior to renting. The purpose of the note was to indicate that you would now also accept rent in the form of a cheque. Your thumb-tacked notice had specified that rent be deposited in the envelope stapled to the notice tacked to the wall inside my room, solely by way of cash or a certified money order, such that it was your clear intent to enter the room, at your discretion, on any number of occasions from the 1st of the month onward, to collect your rent from the envelope you had placed on the wall inside my room. This constitutes a gross invasion of privacy and of my fundamental Charter rights and freedoms.





Further on the topic of landlord’s right to enter leased premises, The Civil Code of Quebec is clear, and reads as follows:





1931. Le locateur est tenu, à moins d'une urgence, de donner au locataire un préavis de 24 heures de son intention de vérifier l'état du logement, d'y effectuer des travaux ou de le faire visiter par un acquéreur éventuel.





Neither this article nor any other in the Civil Code makes provision for a landlord to enter at will and at random to collect any form of mail or rent from inside leased premises. Your prospective entries to collect the rent from the envelope you had tacked to the wall were thus illegal, as was your entry on 14 August 2004 to leave a frivolous note in the same said envelope alleging cheques were now accepted in payment of the rental. This was a type of administrative notice you should have tacked up on a public wall in the common areas. You had no right to enter my room, nor anyone else’s.





The Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms is even clearer than the Civil code, and makes it fundamental and irrefutable that:


[Jouissance paisible des biens.]
6. Toute personne a droit à la jouissance paisible et à la libre disposition de ses biens, sauf dans la mesure prévue par la loi.
________
1975, c. 6, a. 6.


[Demeure inviolable.]
7. La demeure est inviolable.
________
1975, c. 6, a. 7.


[Respect de la propriété privée.]
8. Nul ne peut pénétrer chez autrui ni y prendre quoi que ce soit sans son consentement exprès ou tacite.


You thus had no respect, no right, and no legitimate purpose to enter my room in my absence without my prior knowledge or consent and without 24 hours’ prior notice on 14 August 2004 or for any other purpose stipulated in your unilateral and illegal convention thumb-tacked to the wall in my room. Your entry at that date was thus illegal, an invasion of privacy, an affront to my dignity, and in blatant contempt for my right to peaceable enjoyment of my oral lease for the room which was and is my property, in respect of which the aforesaid Charter also states:


[Sauvegarde de la dignité.]
4. Toute personne a droit à la sauvegarde de sa dignité, de son honneur et de sa réputation.
________
1975, c. 6, a. 4.


[Respect de la vie privée.]
5. Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privée.
________
1975, c. 6, a. 5.


By illegally entering my room on 14 August 2004 for no substantial or reasonable purpose, and by intending to illegally enter to pick up rent from a thumb-tacked envelope, you wantonly violated my home, my privacy, my dignity, my free disposition and peaceable enjoyment of my home and the oral lease that was and is my property.





The fact that you entered my room illegally on 14 August 2004, if not on other dates that I am not aware of, exposed my personal property and documents, including my personal legal business, to your illegal and unwanted scrutiny.





My draft legal proceedings and various law books and evidentiary documents were lying open in the room on the bookcase, the desk by the window, on the shelves over the kitchen counter, and in various bags and carry cases, one of which was unzipped on the floor of the room. You undoubtedly took cognizance of my personal legal business and political interests in the process of your illegal entry.





Then, toward the end of August, after a number of weekends during which your three adult children who live upstairs had repeatedly awakened me by disturbing the peace in the common areas and the hallways at 3:30 a.m. (the girls coming in) and again at 4:30 a.m. (your son coming in), I was exhausted from the chronic sleep deprivation. On 31 July 2004 in our telephone conversation which had initiated the application to lease, I repeatedly made it clear to you that I was looking for peace and quiet: I had work to do and needed my sleep. You assured me your children were not juveniles, but adults, who were responsible and quiet. You evidently forgot to mention this to your children, who ran on the stairs, jumped to the landing skipping stairs, and yelled and talked to one another up and down the stairs, and stopped to laugh and talk in front of my door on the landing, regardless of the hour, which, as said, was 3:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m., in particular on the weekends.





Appalled by the systematic infringement of my fundamental rights to occupy my home in privacy, and to benefit from sleep at night in order to be able to work to earn a living in the morning, and to carry on my personal legal business, I removed your thumb-tacked envelope and notices from the wall inside my room and tacked them outside on the wall in the hallway, accompanied by copies of extracts from the aforesaid Charter concerning the fundamental fact that “La demeure est inviolable.”





Moreover, my oral and written demands to your adult children to cease their disturbances at 3:00 and 4:00 a.m., were to no avail, and all told were met with retaliation by you and by them.





On or about 20 August 2004, you once again barged into my room, this at approximately 6:30 p.m. (18h30). You knocked: I ignored the knock because I thought it was your tenant Norman. You knocked again without identifying yourself, and again I ignored the knock, believing it was Norman.





You then put your key in the lock and entered, arrogantly ignoring the fact that was indisputable before you, that I was in my room, lying on the bed half naked with my pants off, just a few feet in front of you, with the back of my head to the door, lying on my side facing the window, and reading a novel. When I heard you put your key in the lock intending to enter, I froze, expecting that whoever had done so would excuse himself and back out on realizing I was home.





However, you ignored me, and went about your illegal business which this time involved thumb-tacking a new illegal envelope for payment of the monthly rental onto the wall inside my room, thus aggressively asserting your claim—over the aforesaid Charter—to continue illegally entering my room by ignoring me and doing so in my presence while I was naked. It was clearly your intent to insult and appal me.





After thumb-tacking the duplicate envelope to the wall, you then deposited a letter on the top of the stove asking me to get in touch with you – concluding your letter “Au plaisir de vous voir bientôt.”





Evidently, you had already quite seen sufficient of me during this illegal entry when you deposited that note, pretending to ignore me as I lay on my bed without my pants on. Your actions in my room at that time were clearly designed as criminal harassment, in part as retaliation for my having removed your illegal envelope from my room, while demanding peaceable enjoyment in the middle of the night from your adult children.





I repeatedly ordered you out of my room, stating that I was “naked,” but you ignored me. I shouted for you to leave but you remained where you stood, inside my room, staring while nonchalantly announcing, “Madame, je suis votre propriétaire,” as if this excused your abuse of right and your craven ignorance in entering a lady’s room while she was naked. You then had the gall to pretend to attempt to initiate a conversation concerning the envelope and the letter you had just installed, as if this irrelevant subject matter—or any subject of any kind—excused your ignorantly standing there while staring at me without my pants on.





I finally had no alternative but to get off the bed naked in order to chase you out of my room, at which point you retreated in such haste and violence that you broke the lock on my door while repeatedly slamming the door shut against me and jamming your key into the lock in order to lock me in my room against my will to buy you the time to escape down the stairwell. In so doing, you thus incurred one of your numerous criminal defaults, in this particular respect under section 279.1(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, not including the fact that you broke the lock in the process.





When I managed to pull the door open, you were standing in the hallway facing the descending flight of stairs which leads to the exit, with your children sitting on the upper flight of stairs overlooking my door as if they were seated in a little private amphitheatre to watch the show.





Your daughter, sitting on the stairway, clapped hands and laughing uproariously, smirked and gave me the finger, then shrieked that you were now calling police to have me removed from my premises—and this with the rent paid.





Evidently, you and your uneducated family—for whom no attendance at any university and no pretentious acronym trailing from your surname can remediate your fundamental lack of the most basic civilized gestures attributable to courtesy and society, if not to common sense—. It was then as now apparent that you were harassing me to deprive me of my lease, which is my lawful property.





Evidently, you had also joined a campaign of criminal stalking and harassment to deprive me of my home, peace of mind, privacy and property in an effort to rob me of my peace of mind as well as of my legal files, evidentiary documents and other personal property. For on 1 September 2004, you refused, failed and neglected to collect the rent for September, although I had it ready and waiting for you.





Instead, you plastered my door repeatedly with duplicates of the same frivolous letter implying that I was illegally living in my own leased premises—and which letters you simply re-dated, reprinted and kept leaving on my door face-up in the hallway to be read by all and sundry including the building’s other tenants.





The Civil Code of Quebec states as follows:





1941. Le locataire qui a droit au maintien dans les lieux a droit à la reconduction de plein droit du bail à durée fixe lorsque celui-ci prend fin.





Le bail est, à son terme, reconduit aux mêmes conditions et pour la même durée ou, si la durée du bail initial excède 12 mois, pour une durée de 12 mois. Les parties peuvent, cependant, convenir d'un terme de reconduction différent.





1991, c. 64, a. 1941.





I was entitled by law to have you pick up the rent at my door, and by no other means including means involving illegal entry.





You took planned and deliberate measures to ensure I had no other means to pay the rent: (i) first, you failed to appear, thus making yourself unavailable; (ii) second, you alleged in your letters that your 3 adult children on the premises are not allowed to collect the rent thus eliminating that prospect for paying it—despite the fact you had explicitly authorized your daughter, Marie Soleil, to accept the rent for August; (iii) and then by failing to provide a proper address for yourself to receive the rent by registered mail, so that any check I sent had little if any prospect of being acknowledged by you.





In plastering my door day after day with the same defamatory letter designed to harass me and defame me to my neighbours and thus embarrass me into leaving by implying I was a squatter in my own leased premises, it was your clear intent to harass me.





You have maliciously and without color of right pretended not to know who I am, whereas (i) you were given my name over the telephone during our initial conversation, (ii) and again in the meeting between your daughter and myself with yourself on the cell phone on 31 July 2004, and have been in my room in my absence and without notice where you could not have failed to noticed my name on the various documents out in the open amongst my books and papers.





In addition, you have used your tenant in the adjacent room, Norman, to illegally survey and harass me. He, like you, has a key to my room and has used it when I was in but had ignored his knocking, whereupon he put his key in the door, opened it, saw me sitting at the desk by the window, then backed out, and relocked it without saying anything. I was putting my make-up on at the time and clearly saw him behind my shoulder in the mirror of my compact.





Norman has subsequently denied having a key to my room, although he has also claimed to have been your former “janitor”.





1902. Le locateur ou toute autre personne ne peut user de harcèlement envers un locataire de manière à restreindre son droit à la jouissance paisible des lieux ou à obtenir qu'il quitte le logement.





Le locataire, s'il est harcelé, peut demander que le locateur ou toute autre personne qui a usé de harcèlement soit condamné à des dommages-intérêts punitifs.





Your actions, those of Norman, and of your adult children constitute criminal harassment in an effort to drive me out of my room as retaliation for my demands for peaceable enjoyment. However, evidence of a political component arose on the night of Thursday, 16 September 2004 when Norman, sitting in his chair by the door, was evidently planted to innocently await my return from Saint Hyacinthe and my discovery that you had changed the lock to my door after refusing to collect the rent.





In locking me out of my room, you took my property hostage, including all my clothing, personal and legal papers, and books belonging to the library which are now incurring hefty late dues if not substantial costs of replacement.





This illegal entry combined with illegal lock-change constitutes mischief (méfait) in respect of the following provisions of the Criminal Code:





Mischief


Mischief

430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully


(a) destroys or damages property;


(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;


(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.


Mischief in relation to data

(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully


(a) destroys or alters data;


(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;


(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or


(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.


Punishment

(2) Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.


Punishment

(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars


(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or


(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Idem

(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3),


(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or


(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.






It was 10:00 p.m. when I discovered the illegal lock change. Your tenant-janitor, Norman, was sitting in his room in a chair by the door, with the TV on. He had uncharacteristically left his own door open.





He then offered to check the lock on my room and confirmed that my keys which your daughter and your son had given me, no longer worked. He denied having any janitorial tools any more, when I asked to borrow a crowbar to open my door, and he was buoyantly joyful—as if this were something long planned, rather than a last-minute proposal—when he offered to sleep on the floor of his room that night, proposing that I sleep on his bed. He repeatedly discouraged me from calling various shelters in search of a bed. He offered me a chair to reset and a drink of water, then insisted I come out with him while he went “to buy cigarettes”.





I abandoned him as he walked north on Saint Denis—I stopped at the gas station on the next block to ask for a crowbar—but the station was closed, and so I returned to Saint Denis to wait on the steps. When Norman returned, he had no “cigarettes”. Although it was now after midnight, and the Laundromat downstairs had closed at 9:00 p.m., Norman approached the door and magically, a man materialized, opened the door, exchanged words with Norman, and closed the door again.





After which, Norman mounted the steps, as if his mission to obtain “cigarettes” had been accomplished, and took a package from his pocket much smaller than a package of cigarettes, proceeded to unwrap hash marijuana and roll himself a joint, which he immediately lit and smoked, filling the room with a cloud of vapour while repeatedly insisting that I join him.





He had turned on the TV set without the sound, while playing music from a different source, perhaps a stereo, on the speakers beside the set.





The more he smoked, the more he became arrogant. Within a few minutes, Norman was verbally mocking me. He made comments revealing he has a great deal of information on my personal legal business, which I have never discussed with him. He said, who do I think I am, “Ché Guevara?” – I was “trying to hijack a train,” he said, “I should give up and hop a fence at the border and head for Chicago.”





I asked to borrow his cell phone and started calling women’s shelters. Norman discouraged this and after three calls, he took the phone away from me, insisting that I was going to spend the night in his room, in his bed, and he would sleep on the floor.





He smoked some more and in an ever more amused and arrogant tone, continued mocking me: he said that people who are after me intend to “crucify me.” He said, “They are going to eat you alive,” (which reminds me of comments made in the summer of 2003 by Tracey Meagenhardt, and that it was now his “great honour” to give me his bed, which he then bowed before, curtseying, and gesturing wide with his arms to embrace the length of it, stating that his bed would now be “a cemetery” for me.





There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Luc Dallaire, that your tenant-janitor Norman had positioned himself—in light of your illegal lock-change—to assist those he claims are pursuing me and who intend to “crucify” me and “eat me alive.” It would be a coup, indeed, for a drug-addicted n’er-do-well to aggrandize his status by capturing a political prisoner whom he, himself, had just likened to Ché Guévara. There is no doubt in my mind that had I been naïve enough to accept a “cemetery” as a bed from your tenant-janitor Norman, I would not have awakened in the same place the following morning.





I therefore have no alternative but to accuse you, Sir, given your illegal lock-change which facilitated this attempt by Norman to deliver me to my political and legal tormentors by trying to con me into sleeping in his bed, that you are complicit with him and that your illegal lock-change and the presence of Norman were calculated in an effort to wipe out myself, being the balance remaining after the wipe-out of “85%” of the evidence which Norman bragged that night had already been wiped out with the force of a “hurricane” (a sure allusion to the hurricanes then sweeping Florida) and a definite reference to the activities of Montreal City’s Ombudsman and City Pound who had planned that week to destroy all my “documents” and evidence by pretending to launch a formal Ombudsman’s intervention.





You are hereby notified that given your prior abusive behaviour, Sir, I took the trouble of documenting my room and all my property by taking photographs to prove I was lawfully living there and I can therefore prove and identify everything I owned before you conducted your illegal lock-change.





Your having taken my clothing, papers and property hostage constitutes, inter alia, a criminal mischief (méfait, section 430.(1), of the Criminal Code of Canada, and thus gives rise to a series of criminal charges to which you are liable, over and above the civil defaults which you have committed to harass me and deprive me of my home, my property, my legal business, political rights and peaceable enjoyment.





The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1966 and signed by Canada, inter alia recognizes that, « in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights […] »





Your illegal lock-change in complicity with the efforts of Norman on the night of 16 September 2004, constitutes a criminal attempt to dispose of me which violates my rights as a free human being to pursue my political and civil freedom without fear of assault, kidnap, or other reprisals.





The Civil Code of Quebec reads as follows on the topic of an illegal lock-change:





1934. Aucune serrure ou autre mécanisme restreignant l'accès à un logement ne peut être posé ou changé sans le consentement du locateur et du locataire.





Le tribunal peut ordonner à la partie qui ne se conforme pas à cette obligation de permettre à l'autre l'accès au logement.





1991, c. 64, a. 1934.





I never requested and never consented that you change the lock on my door. Your illegal lock change was and is a part of an ongoing campaign of criminal harassment,, from one address to another, orchestrated by police who are following me to protect the culpable by soliciting these types of acts from a series of landlords as a deterrent to my right to the free exercise of my legal and civil rights, and the free expression of my political convictions.





Your actions, prima facie, represent an attempt on my life, and a violation of my Charter and Civil rights to enjoy my leased premises which are mine in respect of an oral contract of lease, and which you have no unilateral right to end by taking my property hostage under the guise of a unilateral lock change.





The Criminal Code of Canada provides as follows in respect of criminal harassment:





Criminal harassment

264. (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


(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;


(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;


(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.


Punishment

(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of


(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or


(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Factors to be considered

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened


(a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or


(b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance made or entered into under the common law or a provision of this or any other Act of Parliament or of a province that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a).


Reasons

(5) Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision.


R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 264; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 37; 1993, c. 45, s. 2; 1997, c. 16, s. 4, c. 17, s. 9; 2002, c. 13, s. 10.






Your actions have obliged me to have recourse to a women’s homeless shelter where the very inconvenient schedule requires residents to be in no later than 8:00 p.m. at night, thus depriving me of the freedom to conduct my life and business at my own discretion according to my own schedule.





Your deliberate, illegal and abusive actions have deprived me of my access to my property, including court evidence, research files and legal documents required in the conduct of my personal affairs, and you are therefore holding all of my other rights hostage as well to intolerable delays.





The Civil Code of Quebec provides as follows:





1936. Tout locataire a un droit personnel au maintien dans les lieux; il ne peut être évincé du logement loué que dans les cas prévus par la loi.





1991, c. 64, a. 1936.





You have illegally evicted me from my lease, my clothing, my personal property and lawful premises while holding my property hostage under lock and key in the room I rented which lawfully belongs to me.





Your actions have deprived you of any right to sums of rent on these premises, as you now owe me damages in right of a cause of action which exposes you civil, penal and criminal remedies as well as to penalties.





In order to give you the opportunity to minimize your damages, Sir, I am willing to discuss remedial measures, through the mediation of the Commission des droits de la personne du Québec, and which measures must include the immediate return to me of access to my room and the control of my property.





Govern Yourself Accordingly.


Kathleen Moore


<SGD.: Kathleen Moore>


___________________________

Reload a new form

VIF Internet 8270 Edison Anjou QC H1J 1S8 - 514-353-9988 / 888-321-3737