FW: Cdn native rights lawyer seeks asylum in Norway

Craven, Jim jcraven at SPAMclark.edu
Sun Aug 8 12:02:02 MDT 1999





-----Original Message-----
From: John Shafer [mailto:wy430 at victoria.tc.ca]
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 1999 12:58 AM
To: warriornet at lists.speakeasy.org
Subject: Cdn native rights lawyer seeks asylum in Norway


letter from Dr.Bruce Clark to his publisher McGill Queen's. More
information is at http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/Clark/main.html

emails for Clark can be sent c/o amano at sympatico.ca





       July 27, 1999

Dear *****
 I hoped I had anticipated and answered your questions in the two "To whom
it may concern" letters I dispatched to you earlier. But those letters must
have talked around rather than directly to the topic, for you have responded
to them by asking the series: "what are you afraid of if you return to
Canada? what is it like to be in this situation? how does it feel? what does
it mean to you and your wife? do you grieve for the country and the state of
the justice system and what it is doing? are you worried?" I will try again.
 I am afraid, and Margaret shares my fear, that if I were to return to
Canada I would be imprisoned in an insane asylum or a jail, killed, or
driven mad by the Canadian legal establishment's extracting of its vengeance
against me for what the book Justice in Paradise proves about the lawyers,
judges and police as a class in Canadian society. The evidence presented in
the book shows how that class, in virtue of its monopoly over the legal
process, is able to do whatever it wants with absolute impunity precisely
because that monopoly precludes any other person or institution from holding
that class to account. Its control of the legal process places that class
above the law; or, rather, makes its will the law.
 This fact and the fear that it engenders in Margaret and me undoubtedly
will sound out of touch with reality, at least until one has read the book,
for Justice in Paradise presents the evidence which defines a different
reality: a reality that Margaret and I, also, were raised as Canadians to
believe and trusted to be impossible, in our own country. Unfortunately if I
now attempt, by answering your questions, in effect to summarize the book's
full evidence I not only will not do the book justice but, worse, by a
superficial treatment of the evidence only feed the initial skepticism with
which our fellow Canadians will approach the book, and that may well serve
them as an excuse for not bothering.
 Over a twenty-seven year period I have systematically, methodically and
with consummate skill been isolated, demonized and professionally destroyed
by the combined actions of the lawyers, judges and police. My "offence" has
not been in saying what I say, but rather in being able to prove what I
say-as an insider, as both a practicing lawyer and an accredited legal
scholar.
 What I can prove, in the disciplined terms of those professions, is that
modern society has a potentially fatal (albeit remediable) flaw at its
heart, perhaps in its soul. Canada is, or at least structurally purports to
be a "rule of law" society, administered as such by the legal establishment
which controls the legal process.  By definition a democratic rule of law
society is one that exists on behalf of all her people equally to serve the
cause of justice, for all, as the application under the rule of law of truth
to affairs.
 The evidence presented by Justice in Paradise, however, is that the legal
establishment in Canada does not serve truth, but, rather, its own interest.
In Canada justice as the application of truth to affairs exists if, but only
if, the truth does not conflict with the interest of the legal
establishment. I learned this as young lawyer as part of the normal process
through which all young lawyers go as the wet behind their ears dries.
 My professional duty publicly to identify this structural defect in the
legal system-to become a whistle blower on my colleagues, a rank breaker, a
turn coat in the gentlemen's club-was thrust upon me twenty-seven years ago
when some Indians happened into my office seeking a legal remedy to uphold
the existing law protecting their sovereignty as first human occupants,
which law they claimed was with genocidal consequence being ignored.
 I researched the law with care, indeed even to the extent of obtaining a
masters degree and doctorate upon this subject, and found that Indians were
telling the truth. Worse, I discovered that the precise criminal modus
operandi for the theft of their land and the resulting genocide of their
people was, and still is, the legal establishment's intentional
burying-without properly amending or repealing-the law. Most importantly,
the law that has ended buried itself contains provisions which indict the
burying as not only illegal but treasonably, fraudulently and genocidally
so. For a society in which the legal establishment buries the law and
commits crimes is not a rule of law society.
 The legal establishment labours under a profound conflict of interest,
caught between its duty to uphold the law and the fact of its own criminal
breach thereof: the conflict between integrity and interest. Integrity
requires that the truth standard be respected; interest requires that
opportunism supersede truth. The lawyers, judges and police have opted to
resolve the conflict in favour of opportunism, a concomitant of which
entails suppressing me as integrity's advocate.
 You ask: "What are you afraid of if you return to Canada?" The legal
establishment has with impunity already imprisoned me in an asylum for the
criminally insane and jail, published the invocation to "kill this Clark,
smear the prick and everyone associated with him" which instigated the
bombing of Margaret's car, reduced us to destitution and destroyed our
prospects for employment. Justice in Paradise ups the ante. We fear the
legal establishment will respond with a preemptive raise of the stakes:
which we can not match and survive together, and we do not wish to die or be
kept apart.
 You ask: "What is it like to be in this situation?" The quest for justice
is part of the human condition. Humans are social animals. Margaret and I
care and strive for justice, and we too depend for survival and mental
health upon the company and support of our species. The denial of justice to
the natives to which we bear witness, and that we are experiencing ourselves
for taking up their cause, torments us. Society's ostracism of us places us
in an identity crisis as human beings. We love our country and its people.
They seem at worst to hate us and enjoy our suffering, and at best to be
indifferent. This hurts more than words can say, but we feel it, every day
and every hour, waking, and asleep in our nightmares from which we wake even
now that we have fled our country.
 You ask: "Do you grieve for the country and the state of the justice system
and what it is doing? Are you worried?" We grieve, we worry, but we hope. We
hope that Justice in Paradise will make a difference. Not for us. We are
gone, and will stay gone. But for Canada, for our children who have chosen
to stay, and their children. And for the all the people that Canada could
lead back to the paradise she seems intent on vacating, if only she would
listen, understand, and care.
"Bruce Clark"  "Margaret Clark"











More information about the Marxism mailing list