FW: [A-List] The national question

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

Revisiting the national question might be a good place to start anyway.
Melvin has repeatedly brought up the subject of the "national colonial
question" in the USA, after the work of Nelson Peery. (I'm still waiting for
my copy of that book, but once it arrives I intend to use it as a
springboard for discussion here.) Meanwhile Donnie and I are looking at the
question of Scottish independence. And there is plenty of experience on this
list with respect to anti-imperialist struggle in the non-metropolitan
world. Not to mention Jim and Lou who have experience with respect to the
struggles of Indians in North America. Additionally, there are subscribers
who have already written very contrasting views on the national question
elsewhere but who would nevertheless be regarded as comrades-in-arms. So
howsaboutit? Does anyone want to start a serious study of the national
question, rather than merely trade slogans?

Michael

Response Jim C: Here is an example of Blackfoot work on the national
question as part of current struggle on practical issues:


 

Department of Justice
Canada	Ministère de la Justice
Canada	
			
	Edmonton Regional Office
211 Bank of Montreal Bldg
10199 - 101 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
T5J 3Y4	Bureau régional d'Edmonton
Edifice de la Banque de Montréal 
211 rue 101 - 10199
Edmonton, Alberta
T5J 3Y4	Telephone:
Facsimile:

Internet:	780 495 2968
780 495 5835

kirk.lambrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Our File:
Notre dossier:	15-94081
	
Your File:
Votre dossier:	

September 23, 2003

BY FAX (360) 992-2863 

Clark College
1800 East McLaughlin Blvd.
Vancouver, Washington
98663

Attention:	James Craven

Dear Sir:

RE:	R. v. Yellowhorn

I wish to advise that the Attorney General of Canada does not intend to
intervene at this stage of the proceedings.  I would however like to be
advised of the decision on that issue and to be served with notice of any
appeal that is taken therefrom.

Yours truly,



Kirk N. Lambrecht Q.C.
General Counsel
Civil Litigation and Advisory Services 

Cc:	Alberta Attorney General (Via Fax 427-0401)
	Attention:  Kurt Sandstrom

	Crown Prosecutor's Office	(Via Fax 403-381-5760)
	Attention:  Gordon Falconer


 
 Just a note on the progress of our case and to thank you all for your help.
Although we only asked that people with expertise in the law note that our
arguments were at least not frivolous per se and were worthy of serious
examination, your NLG endorsement was critical in our advancing this far. We
have approached several lawyers in Alberta, each said they found our
arguments extremely compelling as a matter of law, reasoning and evidence
and yet would not take our case as they were afraid of being branded
"radicals" and tainted for further practice in Alberta. We have two
professors of "Native Studies" one Native and one non-Native, who go to all
sorts of conferences, stay in nice hotels, get big speaking fees to talk
about the plight of us Natives, and who said our arguments were airtight,
but refused to join us as they were afraid of losing their standing on the
lecture circuit.
 
You will be able to see from this that the Feds in Canada do not know what
to do with us. We did serve them properly with notice of intent to raise
constitutional issues yet three times they claim not to have been properly
served. In our last court session, the place was crawling with RCMP and I
was on the borderline of a contempt citation; yet we have plugged on.
 
Anyway, thank you both, and all members of the NLG for believing in us and
giving us your endorsement. We have only the truth and our courage to tell
it as our weapons. What is really getting to the "Man" is that we are using
his own laws to reveal that his own bourgeois sacreds actually indict,
compromise and de-legitimate the very property and other sacreds they
purport to legitimate and protect. We are revealing a whole system that came
out of and was built upon raw naked racism and genocide and that any Indian
recognizing and obeying those laws or trying to buy into that system is like
a Jew obeying the 1935 Nuremberg Race laws and trying to buy into the nazi
system--they are aiding and abetting their own extermination and that of
their People.
 
Thanks again from all of us Blackfoot,
 
Jim


 
Mr. Lambrecht

Thank you for your patience and assistance. Part of the problem on our side
is that since the Attorney General of Alberta has already stipulated to
having received proper notice of intent to raise constitutional issues some
time ago (April 8, 2003) and seems to be aware of the specific arguments to
be advanced as well as the specific statutes, regulations, acts and treaty
to which we take exception, it is difficult for a layperson to understand
how and why the federal requirements for "proper notice" would/should be
significantly different.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance in the interest of justice
for all sides of this case.

James M. Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi)

 

Mr. Craven

Thank you. 

I am considering the sufficiency of the notice i.e. whether it complies with
the obligation to identify a statute or regulation which is alleged to be
inoperative, inapplicable or invalid.

 

Mr. Lambrecht:

May I assume that this notice of receipt is also notice of having received
proper service of intent to raise constitutional issues in the case of Bella
Yellowhorn?

Thank you again for your assistance and patience.

James Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi)

 

Mr. Craven

Thank you. I have received this.

Kirk Lambrecht

 

Dear Mr. Lambrecht:

Thank you for your acknowledgment and request for further specifics in order
that this notice be complete and comply with legal requirements for proper
notice.

Specifically we are arguing that the Indian Act is genocidal per se and
presently, violates at least Articles II b,c, and e of the 1948 UN
Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ratified by
Canada in 1953 and part of the Supreme Law of Canada; we will argue that any
asserted obligations of Blackfoot under the Indian Act, or under Treaty 7,
including obligations to obey the licensing and insurance requirements under
the Alberta Motor Vehicles Act, amount to demanding that Blackfoot aid and
abet ongoing genocide against the Blackfoot Nation collectively as well as
against members individually.

Further, we argue that forced assimilation and Canadian citizenship of
Blackfoot, and associated forced obligations that go with forced
assimilation and Canadian citizenship, are genocidal per se and violate the
1948 UN Convention on Genocide which is part of the Supreme Law of Canada.

Further, we argue that Treaty 7 was never signed and/or never a full and
binding Treaty and thus any purported obligations of Blackfoot under Treaty
7 to become "loyal subjects" of the Crown and bound by all Canadian laws do
not exist as a matter of international law;

Further, we argue that although Canada claims that Treaty 7 was properly
signed and valid, although we dispute this claim with historical evidence,
Canada has nonetheless built up whole system of material interests and
purported property rights based upon the assumption of the validity of
Treaty 7; under international law, specifically the Vienna Convention on
Treaties, only nations sign, continue and enforce treaties and each treating
partner when signing a treaty, recognizes the co-equal status and systems of
government (producing the leadership having the standing and authority to
sign a treaty and bind a whole population to its terms) of the other
treating partner(s) and thus there is ample legal authority for the
continued existence of the Blackfoot Nation with its own right to
independence, self-determination, sovereignty and traditional government and
mechanisms for selecting the composition of that government. Thus, Bella
Yellow Horn, a member of a sovereign Blackfoot Nation, and all members of
the Blackfoot Nation, may travel throughout Canadian lands with the same
status and obligations (vis-a-vis licensing and insurance) as any other
motorist from another sovereign nation.

I hope that meets your requirements for proper notice and specificity in
terms of what specific Acts or laws are being challenged; this is also
notice of an affirmative defense in terms of an affirmative obligation not
to obey Canadian laws that objectively promote de facto genocide against
Blackfoot Peoples.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi)

 

Mr. Craven

I understand that the attached email is your Constitutional Notice under the
Judicature Act of Alberta. I confirm I received it by email.

The notice is required to identify the Act or Regulation which you say is
invalid, inoperative or inapplicable. I do not see this here. 

I understand from your discussion with me that you intend to argue that
those provisions of Treaty 7 and the Indian Act, which confirm an obligation
to comply with provincial law, including the Alberta law which requires a
person to obtain insurance before operating a motor vehicle, are somehow
constitutionally invalid. 

I would ask you to confirm that this is, in fact, what you intend to argue.

You will appreciate that the obligation to identify the Act or Regulation
which you say is invalid, inoperative or inapplicable is on the litigant
asserting the claim, not on the Government. 


Thank you.


Kirk Lambrecht

Counsel

 

Dear Mr. Sandstrom, Mr. Brooks and Judge Jacobsen:

I am sending this notice in care of Mr. Sandstrom to be cc'd also to Mr.
Falconer, Mr. Brooks and Judge Jacobsen. I just sent to the web address
given for the Attorney General of the Federal Government of Canada: a) my
letter dated April 12, 2003 written as official notice of intent to raise
constitutional issues in the case of R. v Bella Yellow Horn, Provincial
Court of Lethbridge, Alberta, s.71(1)(a) MVA; b) the National Lawyer's Guild
Letter of support and endorsement for some of our proposed constitutional
arguments; c) a copy of our Blackfoot Indictment of the Governments of
Canada and the U.S. for Genocide (all accepted into the Court record in
Lethbridge to the best of my knowledge). These were sent with a Return/Read
function sent and the above are acknowledgments and receipts that they have
been received by the Office of the Attorney General of Canada. When I
receive acknowledgments that they have been read (or at least opened) I will
send those receipts as well.

Further, I am making inquiries to obtain the telephone records and/or
receipts of transmissions from the fax machine at the Research Department of
the Peigan Band Office on April 22, 2003 to attempt to document that
official notice was indeed sent to the Attorney General of the Canadian
Federal Government of intent to raise constitutional issues as was
represented to me to have occurred by Bella Yellow Horn.

I must also note that a finding that Bella Yellow Horn was indeed insured at
the time she was stopped and subsequently charged with driving without
insurance, does not, and should not, make her constitutional and other
arguments "moot". We gave notice previously that this case would involve the
legal existence and application of Blackfoot National Sovereignty,
constitutional issues and applications of the 1948 UN Convention on the
Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, ratified in 1953 by the
Government of Canada and thus part of the Supreme Law of Canada; in a
previous Court session on April 8, 2003 we noted that we would not be
stipulating on the issue of whether or not Bella Yellow Horn was indeed
"insured" as the burden of proof on that issue rests with the Crown.
Further, if Bella Yellowhorn represents to me, as she did, that she was
indeed "insured" and believed herself to be insured (as a matter of personal
choice and not as a matter of any obligations recognized by her under the
Indian Act, Treaty 7 or summarily-imposed Canadian Citizenship), I am bound
to raise that defense as well since not to do so would involve a form of
fraud upon/misuse of the Court stipulating what Bella Yellow Horn considers
to be untrue for the purposes of using the Court to raise other issues and
defenses.

Further, in a brief conversation with Mr. Brooks, Bella Yellow Horn asked
for the name of the person who made the phone call to the Lethbridge Police
that led to her being stopped for possible impaired driving. Mr. Brooks
indicated that I must request that name and I am hereby formally doing so in
this letter.

Next, in the Courts of Canada every day, attorneys with law degrees and
considerable trial experience suffer sustained or overruled objections, and
Judges are often reversed on appeal; this indicates that possession of a law
degree and admission to the Alberta Bar is no guarantee that no mistakes are
made by those trained in law. In a pro se defense, Judges can easily give
guidance and make their rulings without shouting, anger and clearly abusive
tones and content of speech--and without compromising the right of the Crown
to a fair trial. Further, when I indicated to His Honor that we had tried to
secure Counsel in Alberta and were unable to do so, as we were told by some
attorneys that they feared being labeled "radicals" and being compromised to
practice in future cases and/or were unwilling to raise Constitutional
arguments, His Honor made the comment to the effect that to secure an
attorney that attorney must be paid. We found this comment to be deeply
offensive and troubling as well as beneath the obvious considerable learning
and preparation of His Honor. Further, His Honor accused me of intentionally
attempting to "cherry pick" favorable evidence and arguments while
attempting to hide the unfavorable to our case. Although this is exactly
what the Eurocentric Courts are all about--magnifying the positives while
minimizing or hiding the negatives of one's own case while doing the reverse
to the opposition or magnifying their negatives while hiding or suppressing
their positives of their case (which I might add Mr. Brooks and Mr.
Sandstrom did not attempt to do as they acted very honorably during the
trial)--in Blackfoot terms this is a charge of acting dishonorably and
deceptively and His Honor was purporting to be inside my head and "knowing"
my subjective intentions. I should note that every single Blackfoot Elder
present in Court was of the opinion that His Honor was intentionally trying
to provoke me into getting a contempt citation that would result in my going
to jail and/or being dropped for cause as the unpaid agent for Bella Yellow
Horn's pro se defense; I noted to them that they cannot purport to "know" or
even reasonably "infer" His Honor's subjective intentions without
considerably more evidence. Indeed, His Honor acted properly and honorably
when he asked that Bella Yellow Horn's Blackfoot Nation Identification,
presented to the police officer at the time she was stopped, be entered as
evidence; and His Honor acted honorably in allowing us to finally and fully
document service of notice of intent to raise Constitutional issues to the
Office of the Attorney General of Canada when we represented that we had
come to Court believing that such had been done but without our having--as
we should have--the requisite documentation.

As Blackfoot, we have every reason to disrespect and distrust the Courts of
Canada. It was not long ago, that in and through the Courts of Canada and
Alberta, judges, with flowing robes, called "Your Honor", and attorneys with
law degrees and the title "Queen's Counsel", gave legal authority and cover
to, and/or helped to cover-up, the sterilizing of Native children, using
Native children for medical experimentation and the kidnapping of Native
children to be taken to Indian Residential Schools where they were subject
to forced "de-Indianization", assimilation and other monstrous crimes. Yet
we came and respected the decorum and procedures of the Lethbridge Court as
well as the authority and rulings of His Honor. We ask only that we receive
the same level of respect and not suffer abusive anger and tones of speech
that frankly caused me to get thrown off in some of my direct and
cross-examinations and worry about a possible contempt citation.

I ask Mr. Sandstrom, as a Queen's Counsel and Officer of the Court, in the
interest of justice and as I do not have the email addresses of the others,
that you please forward this letter to the Presiding Judge, Mr. Falconer,
Mr. Brooks and other concerned parties you deem necessary and give notice of
intent to have this memorandum entered as part of the official record of the
trial.

We invite rebuttal of any and all points of view and issues raised in this
letter and stipulate that any rebuttals should accompany this memorandum for
the court record. This is not being sent to the Attorney General of Alberta
as that office has already stipulated to having been given proper notice of
intent to raise constitutional issues but this could be sent to that office
as well.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven (Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi)

(signed: call (360) 992-2283 if verification of source/signature is needed)
Acting as Unpaid Agent for the Pro Se Defense of Bella Yellow Horn

 

April 12, 2003

 

Minister of Justice, Canada

Attorney General of Canada

Department of Justice, Canada

Edmonton Regional Office

211 Bank of Montreal Bldg.

10199 101 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta

T5J 3Y4

Attorney General of Alberta

208 Legislature Building

10800 9th Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta

T5K 2B6

Dear Sir or Madame:

I am writing as a Court-accepted unpaid agent of the pro se defense of Bella
Yellow Horn in the case of Her Majesty the Queen versus Bella Yellow Horn in
the Provincial Court of Alberta, Lethbridge, Alberta, R. v Yellow Horn,
Bella s.71 (1)(a) MVA, Trial 03, 04, 08; 2:00 #1 pursuant to provisions of
the Judicature Act, RSA. 2000, c. J-2, Section 24(1). This is not a notice
of claim of no jurisdiction of the Provincial Court of Alberta, but rather
notice of intent to raise constitutional issues in this case. Indeed, Bella
Yellow Horn gave full and specific notice of the types of arguments to be
raised in her case as can be seen from the attached letters and materials to
the Presiding Magistrate of the Court (received by Mr Scott and Mr.
Sandstrom well in advance of the case). Further, a letter of endorsement of
our proposed arguments from the National Lawyer's Guild (see attached) was
sent to the Presiding Magistrate to assure his honor that not only did we
respect the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, that also, we did not plan
to advance arguments that were frivolous per se. The cited act being
violated is the Alberta Motor Vehicles Act--driving without insurance.

First of all, in writing this letter and giving this notice, we do not
stipulate in any way that indeed proper notice under the Judicature Act has
not been given. Further, since we gave specific arguments that we plan to
advance in the Provincial Court at Lethbridge, none of which explicitly
challenged the jurisdiction of that Court, how then can we be seen to be
challenging the jurisdiction of that Provincial Court? Further, I refer you
to the attached submission made by Bella Yellow Horn, dated December 5, 2002
which reads as follows:

Bella Yellow Horn

P.O. Box 37

Brocket, Alberta

TOK 0H0

Telephone: 403-965-3175

December 5, 2002

Attorney General of Canada Attorney General of Alberta

284 Wellington Street 208 Legislature Building

Ottawa, Ontario 10800 97 Avenue

K1A 0H8 Edmonton, Alberta

T5K 2B6

Dear Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Alberta:

My arguments are enclosed with this letter.

Yours truly,

Bella Yellow Horn

(signature of Bella Yellow Horn)

Enclosure

ARGUMENTS

Under the International Bill of Human Rights and Freedoms, "No nation shall
interfere in the internal affairs of another nation."

I am a member of the Blackfoot Nation recognized by the United Nations and
the International Bill of Human Rights and Freedoms (world laws).

I claim aboriginal title to my Homeland--Blackfoot Nation.

Canadians are immigrants. I am NOT a Canadian.

Freedom and liberty of expression is my reason to have my own license plate
on my property.

Canadian and Canada is a falsehood.

Indian act is illegal and unfair.

Constitutional and Declaration claim of sovereign nation, land, identity and
property.

Come clean, immigrants respect aboriginal nations.

I have identified and claimed my Blackfoot Nation Sovereignty to the
Canadian immigrants.

I want compensation of $5 million for what has been done in damages to me
and my van and my Blackfoot license plate.

Other aboriginal nations have their own license plates, so the Blackfoot
Nation can have their own too.

 

Attached photocopies of fax numbers to which this was sent (1-780-422-6621
on Dec. 5, 2002 at 12:29 pm; 1-613-954-0811 on Dec. 5, 2002 at 12:31 pm)
attest that this was sent to and received by the proper authorities.
Although this refers primarily to another charge, driving with an
unauthorized license plate, for which Bella has already been convicted in
absentia according to the Crown Prosecutor Mr. Scott in an ex parte
conversation on April 7, 2003 (for failure to show up in court although
Bella claims that she did and the courtroom was locked) this charge refers
to driving without proper registration and insurance, it is clear, however,
from this submission, that these arguments, and possibly others, having
constitutional implications, would be advanced even if the charges were
somehow separated into separate trials. Further, although Bella's submission
is not as perhaps precise and "elegant" as some attorneys or Eurocentric
types might prefer, Bella is the product of the infamous Canadian Indian
Residential School system (virtually stipulated to be genocidal in its
nature with the creation of the $350 million "Healing Fund" by the Canadian
Government) that left her not only brutalized and poor, but also without the
formal "education" or legal preparation to submit the types of formal and
esoteric presentations that attorney's might find "consistent" with proper
form of submission under the Judicature and other Canadian Acts. Still I
would argue that her arguments are elegant and profound despite--or perhaps
because of--their apparent simplicity. 

Also in his brief on the constitutional issues, which I obtained only on
April 7th upon arriving at the Blackfoot Reservation at Brocket (a day
before trial on April 8th) Mr. Kurt J.W. Sandstrom noted that: "The Attorney
General accepts the letter of February 2, 2003 from James M. Craven on
Yellowhorn as notice of a challenge to the Court's jurisdiction under
section 24(1) of the Judicature Act. Similarly, the letter of Mr. Many
Bears, dated March 28, 2002 is accepted as similar notice. The Attorney
General of Alberta will notify Canada to determine whether official notice
will be required on these cases, and will provide copies of the
aforementioned letters to Canada." Other than the fact that Mr. Sandstrom
has mischaracterized Bella Yellow Horn's position with respect to
jurisdiction of the Court, this seems to suggest that my letter, acting as
an unpaid agent of the pro se defense of Bella Yellow Horn, was accepted as
notice of intent to challenge Court jurisdiction, a mischaracterization, yet
it also alludes to the specifics of my letter to the Court, plus our
attached "Indictment of the U.S. and Canadian Governments for Genocide",
giving notice that we would be advancing Constitutional arguments in a Court
whose jurisdiction the prosecution has summarily claimed we have challenged
or would challenge. Further, I must note for the record, that in an ex parte
conversation with Mr. Sandstrom, during a Court recess, when I asked Mr.
Sandstrom if he had read the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide to which Canada
became a final signatory in 1953 (and thus it became part of the Supreme Law
of Canada) he responded to my question: "some". When I asked if he had read
our attached Indictment of the U.S. and Canadian Governments for Genocide,
attached with the letter to the Presiding Magistrate in the case, Mr.
Sandstrom also responded "some" and indicated he will read all of it and may
have to make an amended brief. Yet Mr. Sandstrom came to Court, along with
Mr. Scott, with a fully-prepared brief on constitutional issues while
arguing that proper notice of potential constitutional issues to be raised
was not given. In addition to the prejudicial effects of tying Mr. Many
Bears' case with that of Bella Yellow Horn, we also asked that the cases not
be tied together as Bella Yellow Horn was not advancing the same types of
arguments that Mr. Many Bears appeared to be advancing with respect to
jurisdiction of the court. Indeed we can imagine many circumstances in which
Canadian courts have jurisdiction over Indigenous or foreign nationals
residing in or committing offenses in Canadian territory.

In any case, pursuant to, and out of respect for, the order and jurisdiction
of the Provincial Court in Lethbridge, and the time allotted to make this
submission, this is to be taken as formal notice of intent to raise
constitutional issues in this case of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of
Alberta v Bella Yellow Horn, s. 71(1)(a) MVA pursuant to provisions of the
Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, Section 24(1) and any other required
provisions relevant to this case and the advancement of constitutional
issues in this case. The specific arguments to be advanced have already been
presented and are presented in the attached materials with this letter. Some
of the proposed arguments include--but are not limited to:

1) The Indian Act is genocidal per se and causes forced assimilation and
other deleterious conditions and relationships that violate the 1948 UN
Convention on Genocide and other Covenants and Treaties of International Law
to which Canada is a signatory and are thus part of the Supreme Law of
Canada under the Canadian Constitution; therefore any purported duties and
obligations of Indigenous Peoples under the Indian Act are made illegal by
those aspects of the Supreme Law of Canada with which they are in direct
violation or contradiction; asking any First Nations person to recognize and
submit to the Indian Act in Canada is precisely analogous to asking a Jewish
person or persons from other targeted groups to recognize and submit to the
infamous 1935 "Nuremberg Laws" of Nazi Germany in the opinion of many
recognized scholars on First Nations issues in Canada.

2) Mr. Sandstrom's brief notes that: "The Provincial Court clearly has
jurisdiction over the accused. Aboriginal persons, like Canadian citizens,
are bound by the laws of Canada. This is the case whether an individual is
part of a group that has entered into a treaty with the Crown or not." and:
"Aboriginal persons, like others residing in Canada, are entitled to the
benefit and protection of Canadian law. They are at the same time expected
to obey Canadian law." We know of many cases in which obedience to a
lower-level law puts one in conflict with higher law: someone breaking
speeding laws in order to stop a murder for example. In this case, we argue
that Bella Yellow Horn was objectively acting as an agent and instrument to
expose and stop genocide and thus cause obedience to the Supreme Law of
Canada prohibiting the acts or cover-up associated with genocide. No person
may be compelled to obey laws that are inherently discriminatory, that
conflict with higher laws or that objectively promote their own
extermination and that of their People;

3) Any purported obligations of Blackfoot under Treaty 7 that serve to
denationalize or cause Blackfoot to surrender to all laws and authority of
the Crown are contradictory and in violation of international law and those
aspects of the Canadian Constitution dealing with genocide. Only sovereign
nations may sign treaties and according to the Vienna Convention on
Treaties, which the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts have recognized as
definitive international law on treaties, each treating partner
recognizes--or at least does not call into question--the authority, co-equal
status and systems for determining government/leadership of the other. The
cited language of Treaty 7, dealing with Blackfoot allegedly agreeing to
become loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen and all of her laws, if
accepted, would mean that Blackfoot, as a sovereign nation, would be signing
a treaty whose terms and language served to extinguish the very sovereign
nation that had the authority and standing to sign--and continue--such a
treaty; no nation, especially Blackfoot, would ever sign such a treaty that
would be illegal and non-binding under international law and basic contract
law. These asserted obligations under Treaty 7, along with Treaty 7 itself,
are simply not valid under even Canadian Law. Further, Treaty 7 was not
fully and finally ratified by the Crown in London as required prior to 1947.
Further, according to the notes of Father Constantine Scullen,
representative of the Crown to attest to the signatures of the Blackfoot
Chiefs on Treaty 7, none of the Chiefs would make a mark with their own hand
nor would they even touch the pen used to make the mark and therefore Treaty
7 and any purported allegiances or obligations of Indigenous Peoples under
Treaty 7 would not exist, eventhough the Government of Canada has asserted
Treaty 7 to be binding and has built a whole system of "private" property,
interests and purported property rights under its provisions.

4) The very same laws, including the Indian Act that have brought Blackfoot
to conditions of abject poverty (average $229 Canadian per month in
income)on wide-open Reserves, with no businesses or mass transportation
systems, are also alleged to mandate that Blackfoot carry auto insurance
often costing up to $1200 Canadian per year; in this context, carrying auto
insurance is prohibitive and not driving means leaving oneself subject to
conditions of life that violate Articles II (a),(b), (c), and (e) of the
1948 UN Convention on Genocide--part of the Supreme Law of Canada. Bella
Yellow Horn, like many First Nations persons, was therefore forced by
Canada's own laws to violate lower-level laws in order to survive and in
order to uphold higher laws. 

We trust that his shall constitute sufficient notice under the provisions of
the Judicature Act as we have made a good-faith attempt to comply with its
provisions and the order of the Provincial Court in Lethbridge, Alberta.

Sincerely yours,

 

James M. Craven (signed by representative)

Blaqckfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi 

 Unpaid agent for the pro se defense of Bella Yellow Horn

 

Bella Yellow Horn

 

Cc: Presiding Magistrate, Provincial Court of Alberta, Lethbridge, Alberta,
case of Bella Yellow Horn

Mr. Gordon K. Falconer, Crown Prosecutor

Mr. Peter Scott, Crown Prosecutor

Mr. Kurt Sandstrom, Crown Prosecutor





NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

Michigan Chapter

Established - 1937

Ford Building, 615 Griswold, Suite 916, Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 963-0843

www.michigannlg.org

nlgorganizer@xxxxxxx

 

March 19, 2003

 

Presiding Judge

Provincial Court - Criminal Division 
Court House

320 - 4 St., 

S. Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada  B T1J 4C7


Re:  Case of Bella Yellowhorn 

 

Dear Hon. Presiding Judge:

I am writing on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild - Michigan Chapter in
the matter of  Bella Yellowhorn and to respectfully urge her acquittal on
the charges after an impartial review of the facts in her case.  

 

The National Lawyers Guild is a progressive legal organization working
towards the end that "human rights shall be regarded as more sacred than
property interests."  We are the oldest integrated bar association in the
United States and are affiliated with the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers.  Our chapter is one of the oldest and largest chapters
in the United States with over 300 members throughout Michigan. 


We have been informed of the facts of Bella Yellowhorn's case and believe
that her good-faith beliefs are supported under international law.
Specifically, we endorse and adopt the arguments of Professor Jim Craven, a
recognized expert concerning the rights of Native Americans, summarized as
follows: 

a)The Blackfoot Nation is real and viable and still in existence despite
past and present attempts at its extermination;

b)Bella Yellowhorn is a member of the Blackfoot Nation;

c)The existence or non-existence of any nation should not be found dependent
upon recognition or non-recognition by other nations (particularly those
such as Canada or the U.S. who have a long history of genocide and acting in
denial of the sovereignty of First Nations);

d)The sovereignty of indigenous people's cannot be legitimately denied; 

e)The Government of Canada does assert Treaty 7, signed with Blackfoot
chiefs, to be binding and has built a whole system of supposed property
rights and material interests upon that and other Treaties. 

f)The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, recognized by both the
U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts as the "definitive international law on
treaties and treaty relations", only sovereign nations can sign treaties and
in doing so, each party necessarily recognizes the other treating party as a
co-equal and legitimate representative of  a whole People being bound by
that Treaty. 

g) Canada is not only bound by international law governing acceptance and
recognition of treating partners as sovereign and co-equal nations, it is
also bound by other specifics of the Vienna Convention on Treaties: e.g.
Article 27 which stipulates that no nation may invoke provisions of its
internal or national laws as a reason-or in order-not to abide by treaty
specifics and obligations;

h)Canada is also a signatory to the 1948 UN Convention on  Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (ratified in 1953) which, in Article
II(e), defines, as one form or instrument of genocide (NOTE: ANY of the five
instruments of genocide mentioned in Article II constitute genocide in
whole), the forcible transferring of children [or any persons] from one
group to another group; this includes any form of forced assimilation
including forced citizenship(also recognized as illegal in the Helsinki
Accords on Human Rights to which Canada is also 
a signatory). According to the Constitution of Canada, these Conventions and
Accords, having the status of treaties, constitute part of the "Supreme Law"
of Canada (which is why the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide  
supercedes the more narrow law-and more narrow definition of genocide-in the
Criminal Code of Canada dealing with genocide);

i)The Government of Canada, through the creation of the so-called "Healing
Fund" for compensation of victims of the Canadian Residential Schools
(instruments of forced assimilation, forced religious conversion, forced
sterilization, deliberate inflicting of serious mental and bodily harm,
sexual and physical abuse etc) has already 
stipulated to the reality and fact of ongoing genocide against First Nations
Peoples-including Blackfoot-as defined in Articles II (b), (c), (d) and (e)
of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide; these crimes occurred under and
through the Indian Act and the non-Blackfoot political entities (Tribal
Councils) imposed upon the Blackfoot by the Government of Canada;

j)Any governmental or judicial decision predicated upon the assumptions of
the non-existence of a  Blackfoot Nation and the enforced Canadian
citizenship (and citizenship obligations) of Blackfoot as mere "national 
minorities" involves, at least, complicity in genocide and/or cover-up of
genocide (which itself is a form of complicity in genocide) and as such is
in violation of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide and the Helsinki Accords
and thus is in violation of the "Supreme Law" of Canada;

k)Bella Yellowhorn, in her own mind, with some substantial legal scholarship
supporting  her beliefs, believed/believes that: a) There still survives a
sovereign Blackfoot Nation with its own traditional laws, government and
institutions and that she is a member of that Nation; b) Asserting the fact,
existence and viability of the Blackfoot Nation-along with asserting the
derivative rights of that Nation to sovereignty, independence,
self-determination and freedom from extermination-is essential to preventing
the total extermination of what is left of the Blackfoot Nation and
therefore her intent and actions are consistent with Canada's treaty
obligations to prevent and punish the crimes of genocide; c)  Her status
driving on non-Blackfoot lands, was 
no different (in international law and in intent) than someone from another
nation or state of another nation (e.g. Montana) with non-Alberta license
plates and/or non-Alberta insurance driving through Alberta or anywhere in
Canada; d) She was fully insured in the only way that anyone is really
insured-their honor and integrity; after 9-11 many insurance companies
refused to pay-out on obligations such that the nominally "insured"-and any
victims in need of compensation as a result of actions by the insured-were
never really insured at all (and indeed many victims of the "insured" had
more to fear from the insurance companies driven by profit motives than from
those individuals whose actions required compensation for the victims); it
is for these reasons that Blackfoot regard the integrity and honor of the
person causing damages as the only real form of "insurance" one can carry
and in that sense, Bella Yellowhorn was fully insured in Blackfoot terms;


Thank you for your consideration of these issues.



Sincerely,


John C. Philo

Chapter President