Ongoing Legal Case

Friday, January 21, 2005 Ongoing Legal Case in Alberta (most recent to past) Blackfoot vs Canadian Government: National Sovereignty/Existence vs Genocide

Dear Mr. Sandstrom and Brooks:

Here are two documents with some arguments and legal authorities that we plan to introduce at trial. As I have noted, most of our arguments, and citations for legal authority/precedent, are embodied in the documents already in your possession: Blackfoot Indictment of U.S. and Canadian Governments For Genocide (already accepted into the Court record); previous submissions of specific arguments to be advanced at trial; endorsement of proposed arguments by the National Lawyer's Guild; facsimiles of newspaper articles on sterilization and medical experimentation on First Nations persons.

I have asked Bella to make copies of any Tribal documents or personal family documents and get them to Mr. Brooks immediately and I hope that they have been delivered. The bulk of our submissions will be through expert testimonies of the witnesses that we gave notice would be

called to testify.

Finally, as it is our Way, even when in Courts that operate on principles not consistent with our Ways, we welcome full and open debate of all the relevant issues; we do not believe in using procedure or contrived scopes of direct examination to limit or contrive possible scopes and content of rebuttal and if you do need more time to deal with the Treaty 7 arguments, and ask for further continuance beyond the two days allotted for this phase of the trial, we will accommodate whatever is required to ensure that the Crown has ample time to properly answer any and all submissions and arguments by us to your satisfaction. We only ask that you keep in mind the costs for me to travel to Alberta and that Bella is being represented-through no fault of her own or mine and not for financial reasons--by someone who is not a lawyer and not familiar with some of the procedures etc.

Thank you for your consideration. James M. Craven Unpaid agent for the pro se defense of Bella Yellow Horn

THE HONORABLE JUDGE RONALD A. JACOBSON

The Provincial Court of Alberta

December 10, 2003

Kurt Sandstrom Barrister and Solicitor Alberta Justice Oboriginal [sic?] Law Team 9th Floor, Peace Hills Trust Tower 10011- 109 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3S8

RE: R. v. Bella Yellowhorn-Trial set for January 22nd and 23rd, 2004

Your letter of December 4, 2003 is acknowledged. Together with this reply it will be attached to the Clerk's file.

Mr. Craven's proposed intention to challenge the constitutionality of Treaty 7 creates an entirely new issue. Subject to submissions, it would appear that either a supplementary or

entirely revised constitutional notice must be prepared and properly served on all concerned-including the Government of Canada.

When that is done, should we even attempt to have the trial proceed on January 22 and 23, 2004?Or should there be another pre-trial conference to determine what adequate time is required in order to properly complete the trial of all issues at a later date? Split trials should be avoided whenever reasonably proper!

This matter can be discussed in a telephone conference call. Either Assistant Chief Judge J.A. Wood, or myself, or both, can participate.

This matter should not be delayed.

Yours truly,

R.A. Jacobson (signed)

RAJ/bjs

cc: James M. Craven, Clark College

Eric Brooks, Crown Prosecutor

Mr. Craven, This will acknowledge your email of November 16, 2003, which I received on that date. Thank you for providing additional information concerning your case.

I was unable to discuss this with Mr. Brooks until today. We will not be contacting your witnesses, but we do appreciate the invitation to do so by conference call. I can also advise that I noticed your potential challenge to Treaty 7 in your email on October 12. As this was the first time I understood you to be challenging Treaty 7, I immediately contacted our expert on treaty documents and was advised by him on October 14, 2003 that he would be unavailable to testify on January 22 and 23. He will be able to testify in April, May or June however. Therefore, I am going to write the Court and advise that if credible evidence concerning the validity of Treaty 7 is advanced at trial, I will need to request an adjournment. I will send you a copy of that correspondence.

In the meantime, I renew my request for you to send documents to me which you intend to file in evidence. I understand that you are working on that. It will greatly simplify our task on January 22 and 23.

Thank you. Kurt Sandstrom Barrister and Solicitor Alberta Justice Constitutional and Aboriginal Law 9th Floor, Peace Hills Trust Tower, 10011-109 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 3S8 Tel: (780) 422-4160 Fax: (780) 427-1230

Dear Mr. Sandstrom,

This is to acknowledge receipt of and to respond to your most recent email and letter to Judge Jacobson dated December 4, 2003.

This may be the first time you understood that we would be challenging the validity and applicability of Treaty 7, but it is most certainly not the first time we made clear our intent to advance this dimsension of our overall argument. Attached is our whole file on this case from

the earliest letter to the Court by me onward. For example, from my letter of Feb. 10, 2003 to the Court and also sent to you and others involved in this case:

a)That there is indeed a real and viable Blackfoot Nation still in existence despite past and present attempts at its extermination or elimination and that Bella Yellowhorn is indeed a member of that Nation; b)That the existence or non-existence of any nation is not in any way dependent upon recognition or non-recognition by other recognized nations (particularly those such as Canada or the U.S. that have acquired and built material interests in denying the existence and legitimacy-and derivative rights of independence, self-determination and sovereignty-of First Nations and/or other nations); the existence, legitimacy-and derivative rights-of all nations are a matter of "facts on the ground" and international law as were it not so, any nation could summarily extinguish another nation (genocide) through simple non-recognition and applied power disparities; d)Although some Blackfoot deny that Treaty 7 was actually signed by the principal chiefs of the Blackfoot, the Government of Canada does assert Treaty 7 to be binding and has built a whole system of supposed property rights and material interests upon that and other Treaties. According to 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 explicitly and

tacitly recognizes the other treating party as a co-equal and legitimate representative of a whole People being bound by that Treaty. In recognizing the legitimacy of a treating party, each party is also tacitly, if not explicitly, recognizing-or not calling into question-the legitimacy of the mechanisms and institutions through which the representatives and government of the treating parties were selected and the traditional Blackfoot mechanisms and institutions through which the alleged Blackfoot Chiefs and signatories of Treaty 7 were selected remain in force among traditional Blackfoot despite any impositions of alternative political forms (Tribal Councils) under the Indian Act;

And from my letter of April 12, 2003 to the Court and sent to you and other parties involved in this case:

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.

and from my letter to Mr. Lambrecht of Sept. 10, 2003 (also forwarded to you):

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, selfdetermination, 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.

We have made it clear that although we believe that Treaty 7 was never signed by the Blackfoot Chiefs (according to the diary of Fr. Scullen charged with being a witness to the signatures of the Blackfoot Chiefs), was never ratified by the Crown, was put to the Blackfoot Chiefs with coercive and unconscionable force and has been violated over and over by the Canadian Government, our central argument is that Treaty 7 is self-impeaching and internally

self-negating as its central terms call for dissolution of one of the sovereign nations that must remain in existence and sovereign to have the standing, authority and capabilities to sign and keep the terms of such a Treaty. We have advanced this argument over and over clearly.

I am therefore at a loss to understand why any further delays would be necessary.

I have asked Bella to quickly put together any documents we may use to advance our case (She is in possession of some family and other documents) to send them to you. And I reiterate that if you choose to depose our potential witnesses, whose names, telephone numbers and likely testimonies and arguments have been given, I would only ask that I be allowed to stand or listen in and participate if necessary.

I would also ask that you forward to us the names, telephone numbers, likely testimonies, backgrounds of any potential witnesses along with any documents that you might plan to introduce. Also, I must ask again that we get the name of the person who filed the complaint with the Lethbridge Police that led to Bella Yellow Horn being stopped and subsequently charged (as was promised) and the chain of custody and present whereabouts of her van that was seized.

Thank you for your assistance and patience. Would you please forward this to Judge

Jacobson whose email address I do not have?

James Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi)

cc. Judge Jacobson

Mr. Craven: This will acknowledge your communication below my email of October 12, 2003. By copy of this email, I am forwarding your communication to Eric Brooks and Kirk Lambrecht.

I appreciate your advice as to your proposed witnesses. I also understand that you are still working on which documents you wish to produce at the trial of January 22 and 23. Unless you can provide me a clear indication of what the substance of your proposed Elder testimony will be, the best way to deal with this will be to have the Elders proceed with their testimony, and then adjourn in order to have these historical facts, and the documents relied on by you, examined by an expert for the Crown.

You should forward to me the documents upon which you will be seeking to file in evidence

before the Court. I can then advise you whether the Crown will consent to the filing of these documents, or whether you must prove them in the normal way. This may entail getting certified copies, or producing a witness who has knowledge about these documents. If I know what the document is and know it is authentic, I will in most likelihood consent to its admission and can save you these steps. Even though you may have provided some of these documents to the Crown and the Court, please send me a complete bundle with each document labeled (either under a tab number, or a document number on the first page of the document). I will then review each document and advise you which can go into evidence by consent, and which you will have to prove.

I will leave it to Mr. Brooks to determine whether it would be appropriate to communicate any of your comments to the court. You are certainly free to communicate with the Court directly, I would only ask that you send me a copy of that communication.

Yours truly,

Kurt Sandstrom Barrister and Solicitor Alberta Justice Constitutional and Aboriginal Law

9th Floor, Peace Hills Trust Tower, 10011-109 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 3S8 Tel: (780) 422-4160 Fax: (780) 427-1230

Dear Mr. Sandstrom:

Thanks for your response and helping with outlining the procedures involved in submissions of documentary evidence and proposed lines of argument. In this regard, below is an example of some of the evidence on the genocidal nature of the Indian Act and the right/survival imperative of First Nations Peoples not to recognize or obey it. For the record, this applies specifically to Bella Yellow Horn in particular as she was slated to be sterilized under the color of the Indian Act and Alberta Sterilization Act and was only saved from sterilization with some last-minute legal intervention. Had she recognized and--complied with--her obligations under these Acts, which were in violation of Article II (d) of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide to which Canada is a signatory, her present children would simply not exist and the Blackfoot Nation would have ben deprived of some of its citizens. Further, Bella and other members of her family were used for medical experimentation in the Indian Residential Schools, again under the color of "law" and supposed "obligations" under--and to comply with--the Indian Act

which were in violation of Articles II (a), (b), (c),(d) and (e) of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (see below).

We are attempting to comply with all your discovery and other rights prior to trial. We do not have the resources available to us that the Crown has and therefore our responses might not be all that you are used to. In any case, we have made good-faith attempts to comply with all our pre-trial obligations and ask that our constraints are understood. Those potential witnesses to be called all have specialized and personal knowledge/experiences with the genocidal nature and consequences of the Indian Act and/or Treaty 7 "obligations" past and present and will show that any First Nations person recognizing/obeying the Indian Act would be aiding and abetting their own extermination and that of their own People, would themselves be complicit in genocide, and in violation of several articles of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide; and those who refuse to recognize or comply with the Indian Act are objectively acting as agents of the higher or "supreme law" of Canada.

Thank you for your assistance.

James M. Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i' poyi)

Alberta sterilization victims also used as guinea pigs Revelation comes as 40 victims win $4M settlement

Marina Jimenez National Post 10/28/98

As many as 100 of the children at the centre of the Alberta sterilization scandal of the late 1960s and early 1970s were also used as guinea pigs in drug trials, the National Post has learned. The children lived at the Provincial Training School in Red Deer. Some were wards of the province and others were placed in the school by their parents, who did not consent to the sterilization or medical experimentation, which included the administration of powerful steroids and anti-psychotic drugs. Experts say one of the drugs used, the anabolic steroid norbolethone, is illegal today. The anti-psychotic tranquilizer haloperidol was also used. Its effect on children is said to be akin to hitting them over the head with a sledge hammer.

Yesterday, 40 people who were sterilized against their will reached a settlement totalling $4million with the government of Alberta. This brings to 540 the number of people who have settled with the province for being sterilized under the now-defunct Alberta Sterilization Act, which was in effect from 1928 to 1972. The operations were ordered by Alberta's eugenics

board to prevent the mentally disabled from passing on their defects to offspring. Lawyers say they want more money from the government for victims who had to endure being tested with powerful drugs in addition to being sterilized. "Invading people's rights in the form of unauthorized research and taking advantage of people who couldn't look after themselves is the kind of thing that courts award punitive damages for," said Jon Faulds, an Edmonton lawyer representing 109 sterilization victims still negotiating settlements.

Allan Garber, another Edmonton lawyer acting for the former training school residents, said they were treated like cattle. "The experimental drug treatment only compounds the evil that was done to our clients." Dr. Leonard J. LeVann, medical superintendent from 1949 to 1974 at the Red Deer school, published the results of his drug experiments in scholarly journals, which were recently turned over to lawyers for the victims. The articles show that Dr. LeVann, who is dead, gave 100 undersized children the anabolic steroid norbolethone over a 12month period in 1971. The drug -- now illegal in Canada -- made the children gain weight. But it also produced some side effects: the genitals of two boys increased in size and one girl's voice deepened."The treatment of retarded growth in children with anabolic agents is controversial," he wrote in the September 1971 edition of the International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Therapy and Toxicology. Nonetheless, he called the drug study "entirely satisfactory."

Norbolethone is illegal today because of its powerful side effects - damage to the liver and negative psychological symptoms. Anabolic steroids can also increase aggressive sexual behaviour in men and cause secondary sexual characteristics, for example, facial hair in girls. Dr. LeVann also gave 100 children haloperidol, an anti-psychotic tranquilizer, over a period of 40 days in the late 1960s to counter hyperactivity and excitability. Dr. Louis Pagliaro, a professor of educational psychology and the associate director of the substance abusology research unit at the University of Alberta, says haloperidol "would essentially knock(children) out. (It) generally decreases people's ability to learn and adversely affects memory and behaviour." Dr. LeVann's studies are "full of half-truths, assumptions and by today's standards, lack proper research methodology," says Dr. Pagliaro.

About 2,800 people were sterilized in Alberta before the Sexual Sterilization Act was finally repealed. Documents now show that many of the people sterilized were not mentally disabled.

In 1996, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered the provincial government to pay Leilani Muirer $740,000 for being wrongfully confined in the Red Deer school and sterilized. Her landmark victory opened a floodgate of litigation. In June, 1998, the government agreed to pay 500 more sterilization claimants up to $100,000. Many continue to live in the Red Deer

facility, known today as the Michener Centre. The province has spent $54 million on settlements to date. The compensation deal for the sterilizaiton victims announced yesterday, much the same as those announced last June, gives claimants $75,000 now and another $25,000 after three years, if they are then living outside institutions.

The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, April 26, 2000 Native children deprived of care Preventive dentistry banned during study

By Michael Valpy

Federal-government doctors withheld specialized dental care for children in eight aboriginal residential schools in the 1940s and 1950s to see what the effect would be on their teeth and overall health. The specialized dental care was withheld as part of a five-year study of aboriginal children's nutrition. The study's director, Dr. L. B. Pett, the retired chief of the nutrition division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, said parental consent was not obtained for the study. Instead, the government obtained permission from the school principals.

A letter dated Oct. 3, 1949, from Dr. H. K. Brown, chief of the department's dental health

division, said: "It is important that during the period of this study, no specialized, over-all type of dental service should be provided, such as the use of sodium fluoride, dental prophylaxis [professional cleaning] or even urea compounds [used in treatment of decay].

"In this study dental caries [decay] and gingivitis [gum disease] are both important factors in assessing nutritional status. The caries index could be upset by such specialized dental measures as those referred to above.

The letter -- referring specifically to the United Church school in Port Alberni, B.C. -- also said that preventive dental treatment would make the study of "questionable value" in measuring vitamin C deficiency.

Fillings and extractions were to continue.

Professor Gary Accursi of the University of Toronto's Faculty of Dentistry said yesterday that a dental-ethics committee would be unlikely to approve such a trial today. He said he did not know whether it would have passed the ethical standards of the time.

A Toronto medical expert on clinical trials, who asked not to be identified, said the letter, on its face, implied clearly that the Canadian government was prepared to let aboriginal children

suffer the effects of poor nutrition without intervention so long as its study was not adulterated.

Dr. Pett, in an interview yesterday, put the study, which he said was conducted at eight schools, in a different context. It was carried out, he said, to improve nutrition for aboriginal children and provide information on good nutrition for their parents.

Fluoride treatment, now considered one of history's greatest public-health advances, was then in its infancy. The first fluoride trials in Canada, in Stratford and Brantford, were being carried out at the time of the study. The only thing that bothered Dr. Pett about the study from an ethical point of view, he said, was the absence of parental consent. "Parental consent was always an issue," he said. "It was hard to contact them. So many were in the bush."

So the study went ahead, he said, with the consent of the school principals, who were given more-or-less legal status as in loco parentis (in the place of a parent).

The records of the nutritional study were found in Ottawa's National Archives by freelance writer David Napier, commissioned by the Anglican Journal, the newspaper of the Anglican Church of Canada, to inquire into aboriginal residential schools. The Journal will publish his article, the result of eight months research, later this month.

The schools were operated by churches in a contractual relationship with the federal government for more than a century.

Children as young as five were taken away from their families and placed in the schools. They were ordered not to use their mother tongue and to set aside their cultural values and practices. The Roman Catholic, Anglican and United Churches, along with the federal government, face hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits from nearly 6,000 former students.

Copyright 2000 The Globe and Mail

4160 Fax: (780) 427-1230

Mr. Craven,

I understand from the Prosecutors' Office that he continuation date for this trial has been set for January 22 and 23, 2004 in front of Judge Jacobson. I have been asked to ensure you are informed of this date. We have Canada's letter dated September 23, 2003 to you indicating

they will not intervene in the trial at this stage. It would help me prepare if you could, by the end of November, or earlier, advise me of the following information: 1. Will you be calling witnesses, or do you intend on just making the arguments you outline in your correspondence to the Court, Canada, or us? 2. If you are calling witnesses, who will they be? 3. What is the brief substance of their testimony? 4. Will you be filing any documents (there are strict rules on how this is done for some documents)? If you want to file documents, it would help me to know which ones you intend to file. I can help you on the proper procedure for filing these documents.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Kurt Sandstrom Barrister and Solicitor Alberta Justice Constitutional and Aboriginal Law 9th Floor, Peace Hills Trust Tower, 10011-109 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 3S8 Tel: (780) 422-4160 Fax: (780) 427-1230

Dear Mr. Sandstom,

Thanks for the note and I apologize for the delay in writing back as I am totally swamped with work and did not want to reply in a cursory or superficial way.

First of all, I did get notice from Mr. Lambrecht that the Canadian Federal Government would not be intervening at this stage but did want to be notified in the event of an appeal and perhaps would step in at that stage. I do also need to contact Mr. Lambrecht and perhaps this note to you will suffice for his purposes as well so please feel free to share this with him and whomever else is concerned with this matter including Judge Jacobson, Mr. Falconer, Mr. Brooks and any others.

As you know our defense involves several dimensions. I do apologize for any delays caused by our not having had full documentation available, but, as our resources are meager relative to those of the Canadian Federal and Alberta Governments, and as I am forced to rely on others to take care of some matters inside Alberta, and as I am assisting a pro se defense without legal assistance in Alberta, such problems are likely and unintended. For the record, we Blackfoot do not have or practice any of the concepts and practices so typical of the adversarial eurocentric court systems that have been routinely used to facilitate and give legal

cover to genocide and genocide cover-up in Canada: excessive ritual and protocol; jury/judge/venue shopping; contrived and shaped scopes/content of direct examinations in order to limit and shape possible scopes/content of redirect examinations; not asking questions to which we do not already have an answer; attempting to magnify the exculpatory and minimize the inculpatory in our own case while attempting to minimize the exculpatory and maximize the inculpatory of the opponent's case; obstruction of discovery and use of discovery to cause prohibitive legal costs and obstruct justice; paid--dueling--"expert witnesses" whose formal credentials give their opinions "probative value" and the status of "evidence"; etc.

As you probably noted, not only did we give notice of intent to raise Constitutional issues (I am still exploring getting documentation that notice was indeed sent from the Peigan Band Reserch Department on April 22 as was represented to me to have been done) but we gave notice of the specific content of those arguments. These are indeed the arguments we will be raising. Further, we provided a letter of endorsement from the National Lawyer's Guild, composed of Canadian as well as U.S. lawyers and many of them considered experts in international law, that was intended to show that the arguments that we proposed to advance were not frivolous or a frivolous use of the Court's time--in terms of available supporting evidence, reasoning and international law. We asked the NLG only to support our contention that our arguments were not frivolous without necessarily adopting or endorsing them, but the

NLG came back, to our surprise, actually endorsing and adopting those arguments.

First, I will be calling Bella Yellow Horn back to the stand to clear up some issues from the previous phase and to set up the next phase of the trial. Specifically, we will be exploring her state of mind at the time she was stopped in Lethbridge and her reasons for asserting the existence and sovereignty of the Blackfoot Nation and not being bound by the Indian Act or any asserted obligations under Treaty 7. We will also explore how she was supposed to document what papers she did or didn't have in her possession at the time of being stopped, and what insurance she did or did not have (as a matter of personal choice), when her van was taken to a place she was not made aware of and summarily sold without her knowledge and before her even being convicted, to a party still unknown to her.

Next, we will call the following witnesses: Mr. John Chief Moon (Thunder Pipe Carrier and principal spiritual leader of the Kainai Blackfoot); Mr. George Yellow Horn (one of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Apatohsipiikani Blackfoot); Elizabeth Yellow horn (principle Beaver Bundle Holder and spiritual leader of the Apatohsipiikani Blackfoot) and Mr. Floyd Many Fingers (respected Elder of the Kainai Blackfoot). These witnesses, in addition to being descendants some of the Chiefs who allegedly signed Treaty 7 and recognized carriers of the oral histories of the events surrounding the alleged signing of Treaty 7, are also very "expert" on the conditions of life on the Blackfoot Reserves. We believe that their testimonies will

materially add to our arguments that: a) the scope and content of the Indian Act and alleged obligations under Treaty 7 are genocidal per se and,in addition, have produced conditions of life that amount to genocide as defined in Article II of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide ratified by Canada in 1953 and thus part of the supreme law of Canada; b) these genocidal conditions flow inexorably (and foreseeably for anyone with an IQ over that of a tomato and a semblance of a heart and a conscience) from the content and applications of the Indian Act and Treaty 7; c) the Canadian and Alberta Governments have been well aware (and have been repeatedly made well aware)of these genocidal conditions and their effects and continue to refuse to ameliorate them and continue to attempt to cover them up; d)in the context of extreme poverty, isolated reserves, no public transport and meager incomes given under the Indian Act, any Blackfoot obeying the requirement to possess highly expensive insurance as a condition of driving is in essence aiding and abetting his/her own extermination and that of his/her People; e) by any test or criteria under international law that defines a nation, the same tests and criteria defining Canada as a nation, there survives and remains a Blackfoot Nation that has, as fundamental rights flowing from its status and reality as a nation, the rights to independence, sovereignty, self-determination, recognition and not to be exterminated or forcibly assimilated into another nation; f) although we argue that Treaty 7 was never signed, and has been broken over and over by the Canadian and Alberta governments, nevertheless, the Canadian and Alberta governments have built up a whole system of property and purported property rights predicated on Treaty 7 and in doing so were

bound to recognize not only the authority and standing of the Chiefs who allegedly signed Treaty 7, but also the traditional Blackfoot Ways and systems of government that selected these Chiefs as well as the existence and sovereignty of the Blackfoot Nation as only sovereign nations form and sign treaties and in doing so recognize treating partners and coequals at least in terms of authority and standing to form and keep treaties; g) Blackfoot may choose to become or recognized as Canadian citizens but no Blackfoot may be forced to assimilate or forced to take Canadian citizenship and undertake the obligations of Canadian citizenship as this amounts to forced assimilation, a form and tactic of genocide; h) Blackfoot are rountinely subject to "racial targeting and profiling" by Lethbridge police and routinely have their vehicles seized and sold without due process such that they are deprived of mobility from--and are indeed locked into--conditions on Reserves that can only be properly described as genocidal.

In addition to the paper by Tai Helton that I passed on to you, and in addition to the documents already submitted to the Court, we will be submitting copies of the diaries of Father Constantine Scullen, charged by The Crown with witnessing the signatures of the Blackfoot Chiefs who supposedly signed Treaty 7, in which he stated that none of the Chiefs would sign or even touch the pen used to sign; we will also be submitting some statistics, from Canadian Government sources, that document some of the genocidal conditions, realities and trends on the Blackfoot Reserves today.

That is as much as I can give you at this moment. In the next couple of weeks I will be able to give you further elaboration on our proposed arguments and witnesses. If you wish further elaboration on some of our arguments, you can go to http://www.chgs.umn.edu/ and under the section "Histories, Narratives and Documents" you will find some Blackfoot documents that will give you some of the types of arguments and supporting evidence we plan to introduce.

I will also be asking about possible incomplete transcripts from previous Court sessions. For example, at the May 20th session, at which I was not in attendance, Bella represented to me that the Judge formally inquired of the police officers present where her van was and asked those police to advise her where the van was and its status. That discussion is not on the official transcript I have of that session. I am interested in that issue particularly in view of the testimony of the arresting officer that he could only "guess" that her van had been sold and that he had never explicitly told Bella that it had indeed been sold. Further, I was promised by Mr. Brooks, in a conversation with Bella present, when Bella asked the name of the person who had made the phone call that led to her being stopped, Mr. Brooks said that I must request that name and I have formally requested it previously and am now formally requesting it again.

Further, I may have to call Mr. Scott as he was present in his office when that officer stated that the van had indeed been sold and made no mention of "guessing" that it had been sold. And yes, any assistance that you can give us in the spirit of being an "Officer of the Court" and in the interest of justice would be welcomed.

I hope that this answers at least some of your questions. If you require any further elaboration please do not hestitate to contact me. For the record, although Blackfoot are generally poor, we are communalists and come to the assistance of each other as a matter of our Ways. If we could have found a lawyer to take this case we would have put out an appeal for money and would have gotten sufficent funds to hire a lwayer. We are not trying to do this "on the cheap." We do not practice, as is celebrated and taught in Canadian capitalism and society, rat-race individualism, dog-eat-dog competition, selfishness, etc. We approached lawyers who agreed that our constitutional arguments were compelling as a matter of evidence, reasoning and law but were afraid to advance them in a Canadian Court out of fear of retribution in future cases and legal practice in Alberta. Others feared they might be labelled "radicals" for any association with this case (the word "radical" as you know comes from the Latin root "radix" or root and we regard a radical as someone seeking to get to the "root" of the issues at hand).

And finally, and please pass this on to Judge Jacobson, he can instruct us and make rulings

that we will obey, although we may make "exceptions" for the Court record, without resorting to abusive levels and tones of speech and continual references to supposed "incompetence" on my part. It is out of respect to the honorable actions and rulings on his part that I do not challenge his continuing to sit on this case for cause of demonstrated animus and disrespect in the last session. I am proud to be an "unpaid agent" of exposing genocide and genocide cover-up rather than a paid--and perhaps very "competent"--agent of genocide and its coverup as some lawyers and judges have demonstrated themselves to be historically and in the present in Canada [and this is not necessarily an implied or covert reference to His Honor].

Thanks for your consideration, patience and any assistance in the interest of justice.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven Blackfoot name: Omahkohkiaayo i' poyi Acting as unpaid agent in the pro se defense of Balla Yellow Horn Cc. Judge Jacobson Mr. Falconer Mr. Brooks

Mr. Lambrecht Mr. Scott

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

[email protected]

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

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, selfdetermination, 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 Can

Posted by Jim Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi) at 4:48 PM

Papers Posted at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota; http://www.chgs.umn.edu

Documents of the "Native American" Genocide

James Craven; Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi Professor and Consultant, Economics; Chairman, Business Division Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [email protected]

Judicial Findings From the Inter-Tribal Tribunal on Residential Schools in Canada (Held June 12-14, 1998 in Vancouver, B.C.). Submitted by James M. Craven, Tribunal Judge (c Copyright July 16, 1998, All Rights Reserved).

Part I - "You Can Recognize a Red Indian by His [or Her] Way of Life, Not by His [or Her] Blood Percentage." Chief Lame Deer, Lakota

Part II - Mission of the Tribunal: My Understanding

Part III - On the Issue of Ethnocide Versus Genocide

September '00: Indian Affairs Head Makes "Apology". Comments by Eugene Johnson (Selitz) and Jim Craven (Blackfoot), from AP report by Matt Kelly.

Residential Schools—The Past is Present. Radio program with James Craven on The United Church, May 2000. Transcription.

Chronicles of Ecoimperialism: Real Whales, Real People by James Michael Craven (Blackfoot Confederacy) (Click here for HTML version)

Paper on Blackfoot Nation

Indictment Of The Federal Government Of The United States Of America, The Federal Government Of Canada, Designated Agencies Of The Governments Of The United States Of America And Canada, Representatives Of The British Crown And Named Churches Resident In The United States Of America And Canada, For The Commission

Of International Crimes And Crimes Against Blackfoot Law, And Petition For Orders Mandating The Proscription And Dissolution Of Named International Conspiracies And Their Organizations By James M. Craven, Member And Named Prosecutor, Sovereign Blackfoot Nation.

Draft Constitution of the Blackfoot (PIIKANI) Nation