Bella Yellow Horn to the Canadian Ministry of Justice on Blackfoot Sovereignty
The following notice has been served to: The Solicitor General of Canada;
Attorney General Province of Alberta; Presiding Magistrate; Crown
Prosecutors; We are set to proceed to trial and Canadian news has been
giving coverage to this case. Representatives from other First Nations are
traveling to Blackfoot Country to lend their support and follow this case.
Jim C.
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.
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)
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
home : mission statement : contact : site map : search : store : links
DLN coalition : DLN issues : DLN nation : related issues Any reprints are under the Fair Use doctrine of international copyright law : See http://www.dlncoalition.org/fair_use.htm.
|
