RE: Some issues of international law and genocide

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

And the undersigned Blackfeet, Blood, Peigan and Sarcee Head Chiefs and
Minor Chiefs, and Stoney Chiefs and Councillors, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the Tract within ceded, do hereby
solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this Treaty, and also to
conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the
Queen."

^^^^^

CB, esquire : In addition to Jim Craven's discussion of this, there may be
arguments for Bella Yellowhorn regarding the basic invalidation of this ole
agreement or treaty to become part of the British empire and derivatively
Canada because of duress on the Indigneous sisters and brothers,Blackfoot,
by the force of arms that the invading goddamn Europeans ( British ) and
their goddamn queen imposed. It is basic in law that duress vitiates a
contract or agreement ,treaty,  that is dependent upon a meeting of minds ,
free wills, for its validity.

Fraud can also invalidate an agreement or treaty. The usurping invaders were

big time liars regarding material facts of the treaty , no doubt.  I'm
certain of that.

There was also probably a failure of meeting of the minds because one party
understood the deal to involve a private property regime and the other's
culture involved a communal concept of property with respect to land
especially.( CB, MA ethnology).

( Note the treaty mispells the Blackfoot name as "Blackfeet";this indicates
that the Blackfoot didn't agree; the BlackFOOT didn't agree to anything like

this; this is an agreement with the nonexistent BlackFEET)

Free the land !


Hi Charles,

First of all none of the Chiefs who attended the Treaty 7 Conference could
speak English, the document was written in English, the only one who spoke
Blackfoot was Father Constantine Scullen and his Blackfoot was broken at
best. In his diary, Father Scullen wrote that Crowfoot and Red Crow, the
principal Chiefs in attendance, noted, as far as he could understand, that
"Peace is our right for which we need trade nothing and especially our lands
which are no individual's to trade or sell or bargain away." He noted that
none of the Chiefs would touch the pen although the Government wrote it up
as if he had certified a signing by the Chiefs.

Further, of course the issue of unconscionability--our people literally, not
figuratively or metaphorically--had guns to their heads. Reinforcements were
brought in with canons lined up to show what awaited Blackfoot if they
refused to "sign". Further even if there were a legitimate treaty, when
treaties, like any agreements, contracts or covenants are broken, the
injured party is entitled to be made whole and/or the situation returns to
status quo ante with the violators of the agreement not being able to keep
ill-gotten gains; that is bourgeois law.

Finally, that letter was written in response to a request by the Magistrate
for a proffer of my background and arguments to be advanced to certify me to
testify and assist Bella in her pro se defense. It notes that these are but
SOME of the arguments we will advance--not ALL.

Now I don't know if Stuart as ever been a part of a movement subject to
movement discipline, democratic centralism and chains of command--especially
one under extreme seige and on the verge of total extermination--but I
cannot answer some ill-informed arguments that have already been anticipated
and dealt with in other documents (yes I wrote the documents at
www.chgs.umn.edu and our indictment has been reviewed by eight professors of
international law who came up with no criticisms) but our request for
support is not an invitation to debate on public media where specious
arguments may be picked up by "The Man" and used to sidetrack usd or tie us
up in endless and meaningless debate. So with all due respect, I am done
responding debates especially when it is clear that the person attempting to
start a debate knows absolutely nothing about our reality, intentions,
backgrounds and other issues not mentioned.

I remember vividly, during the 60s and 70s, when certain elements of the
"left", who shall remain nameless so as not to start a fight on this list,
went around--and in their newspapers--saying that they supported the
Vietnamese in their struggle against U.S. imperialism BUT, BUT, as
"principled revolutionaries" they felt compelled to note that the DRV was,
after all, run by "Stalinists" and was a "deformed worker's state" that was
not the types of socialism they would advocate or build (exactly some of the
same arguments the CIA was making in cover media). So we are not making an
argument "trust us" but we have secrets that if we told you we would have to
kill you." We are only asking that if, if, someone can honestly, in their
own mind, support us (not even in agreement) in the sense of attesting that
these are very serious and compelling arguments we are advancing, or at
least not friviolous, and worthy of examination along with our evidence in
support of our arguments and allegations, then please help us. This is not
an invitation to debate, wrecking, armchair or parlor theorizing, playing
lawyer or whatever. We simply have too much at stake.

Charles is an attorney whose views I value highly. I value the views of
non-lawyers, specialists in these issues and those generally interested. I
am not invoking Chairman Mao's dictum "No invesitgation, no right to speak"
about our issues, I only ask that someone be mindful that "The Man" loves
these ultra-reductionistic and hair-splitting debates on the left as they
serve his purposes--but not ours.

Thanks to all,

Jim

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.