[bounced from Craven] Indictment by the Blackfoot Nation

Les Schaffer godzilla at SPAMnetmeg.net
Wed Oct 11 10:05:48 MDT 2000

[the following was bounced from Jim Craven, i have converted the
attached Word document to text. If you want the original Word file,
contact me or Jim. Errors in reformatting are mine. Les]




By James M. Craven
Member and Named Prosecutor, Sovereign Blackfoot Nation



   Long before there were recognized nations called The United States of America and
Canada, and for many years since the genesis and recognition of those nations,
People lived as and formed a Whole People and Nation. By any and all criteria under
international law that legitimate and mandate recognition of The United States of
America and Canada as sovereign nations, that have the unalienable right to
security and self-determination as nations, Blackfoot People have collectively
a "People" and Nation. Specifically, Blackfoot People historically and in the

1) possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared Territory;
2) possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared History, Culture, Spirituality
and Language;
3) possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared Legal and Political Institutions,
Processes and Traditions;
4) possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared Economic Institutions,
Processes and Traditions;
5) possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared Mechanisms and Institutions for
Determination of Membership in and Leadership/Composition of the Nation;
6) possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared Ancestors and Ties of Blood--
Family, Clan and Tribe;
7) possessed/possess the Recognized Capacity to Enter Into Relations With Other
8) possessed/possess Recognized and Expressed Common Will of Blackfoot Individuals
to Live Together in Collectives Forming Whole Societies Greater Than the Sums of the


9) possessed/posses Close Attachment to Ancestral Lands and their Resources;
10) possessed/possess Self-identification and Identification by Others as Members of a
Distinct Nation or Cultural Group;
11) possessed/possess a Recognized and Expressed Desire to Remain Distinct as
Blackfoot and Not to be Assimilated;

   As in the case of any Nation, the status and legitimacy of the Blackfoot  Nation
and the
unalienable rights of the Blackfoot Nation and its members to security, peace,
and self-determination do not depend upon  any degree or kind of recognition or non-
recognition by any other Nation or entity. The objective reality and status (under
international law and as a defacto reality) of Blackfoot People as a Nation, and the
derivative rights of the Blackfoot Nation to security, peace, prosperity and self-
determination demand--rather than depend upon--recognition by all those Nations
seeking or asserting similar recognition ( often with less authority) for themselves.

    Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in
law, that no members of one nation can be summarily declared to be members or citizens
of another nation without their consent. Blackfoot Peoples and members of the
Nation were summarily declared to be "citizens" of the United States of America in
without their consent and were summarily declared to be "citizens" of Canada in 1963
without their consent. Further, it is established and customary practice, and
codified in International law, that no nation or representative government of any
makes "treaties" with its own citizens; treaties are instruments and agreements
and among sovereign nations. Further, it is established and customary practice, and
explicitly codified in international law, that nations have the right to seek, expose
indict those who commit crimes in the name of/against members of a nation and/or
against international law, and to prosecute, on their soil, or in recognized
venues, those alleged to have committed such crimes.

   Prior to the precedents set at the Nuremberg and other International Tribunals, it
thought that "established and customary" practice of international law, and the whole
international law itself, applied only between nations. It was the "customary and
established  practice" in international law that what governments or parties of
nations did
or didn't do to their "own citizens" or their "own national minorities" that caused
harm to
these "citizens" or "national minorities" was not a matter for or concern of
law. Documents of and research on, the periods during which the U.S. and Canadian
Governments summarily declared Blackfoot Peoples to be "citizens" of the United States
and Canada without their consent, reveal that one of the clear and stated motives and
intent of summary declaration of citizenship was to summarily declare removed--and to
remove--certain "national minorities" of the United States and Canada (including
Blackfoot People) from any protection, coverage or application of international law or
conventions or treaties to which the U.S. and Canada were signatories and were bound
summarily changing their status to that of "citizens" and thus making their status and


 treatment an "internal matter" and supposedly not subject to international law; this
is in
violation of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

   Any extent to which any of the core elements of the Blackfoot Nation have been
diminished or extinguished as a result of conquest, occupation, and
policies and practices, does not, and should not, in any way call into question the
existence, legitimacy, or fundamental rights to sovereignty and self-determination of
Blackfoot Nation and its members. Were it so, those who sought to eliminate Indigenous
Peoples in general and Blackfoot in particular, would be rewarded for and assisted in
commission of the very genocidal crimes against Blackfoot Peoples and International
Law for which they are being legitimately brought to a Tribunal of  Blackfoot Justice.

     Indigenous Nations in general and Peoples of the Blackfoot Nation in particular
recognized, established and codified rights to national recognition, national
national preservation and protection of lands and resources, national
and the national right to take any and all measures necessary to preserve and protect
Nation against genocide, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, war crimes or
other kinds of crimes or threats against the existence and survival of the Nation as a
whole or its members.  Legal support for and/or codification of these fundamental
are to be found in: The Nuremberg Charter; The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide;
Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International
Conference of American States Dec. 26, 1933 (to which Canada was not a signatory);
Charter of the United Nations, Article I (2) and Article 55; United Nations
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles I and 27; the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article I; UN General
Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations
and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations;
UN General Assembly's Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the
United Nations; Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (e.g. "the right of colonial peoples
to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the `imperial
is `now undisputed'."); UN General Assembly Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty
over Natural Resources (GA Res. 1803, XVII, 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15 U.N.
Doc. A/5217, 1962); Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 15 and 17;  UN
General Assembly Resolutions 1514, XV (Declaration on the Granting of Independence
of Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14.12.1960) and 1541;  UN GA Res. 2625 (XXV)
of 24.10.1970, Annex, "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations; Basket I, Final Act, Article VIII of the Helsinki Conference  on
Cooperation and Security in Europe; Article 38 no. 1 b of ICJ Statute ( two elements
needed to create valid customary law in international law: general customary practice
opinio juris); Article 38 para. 1 d) of the ICJ Statute (judicial decisions can be
used as
"subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law"); the ICJ Advisory Opinion on
Namibia in 1971 ("Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South
Africa in Namibia); ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara (Order of 22 May 1975

ICJ Rep. 1975); ICJ Judgment on U.S. Military and Paramilitary Activities Against
Nicaragua, ICJ Rep. 1986; ICJ Judgment on East Timor (Portugal v Australia), ICJ Rep.
1995; Permanent ICJ Ruling in the Case of Greco-Bulgarian Communities, P.C.I.J.
[1930], Series B, No. 17,21; International Commission of Jurists, East Pakistan Staff
Study, 1972 ( " a people begins to exist only [and] when it becomes conscious of its
identity and asserts its will to exist", p. 47); International Labor Organization
107; the draft "Inter-American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" by the
Organization of American States; declaration of President Richard Nixon, 1973("self-
determination as the key concept that would govern relations between Indian tribes
and the government of the U.S."); declaration of President Ronald Reagan in 1983
(".the government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and Indian tribes had
endured.consistently recognized a unique political relationship between Indian Tribes
and the U.S. which this Administration pledges to uphold"); declaration of President
William Clinton in 1994 ("This is our first principle: respecting your values, your
religions, your identity, and your sovereignty.[We want to].become full partners with
the tribal nations."); memorandum of the U.S. Department of Justice (opinio juris)
([Clinton's position] "builds on the firmly established federal policy of
for Indian tribes."); Helsinki Final Act; "Fulfilling Our Promises: The United States
the Helsinki Final Act" by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in the U.S.,
1979; "Compact of Self-governance Between the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe and the
United States of America"; Article I, Section 10 and Article VI Section 2 of the
Constitution of the United States;

     From the fundamental right of the Blackfoot Nation to survival and self-
determination, other facts and conclusions flow inexorably. For example, Canada's
Indian Act, and the Indian Reorganization Act of the U.S., strip recognized Indigenous
sovereign nations, such as the Blackfoot Nation, with its recognized right to self-
determination, of the power to govern the internal affairs of the Nation and transfer
power to entities of a foreign power (DIA , Minister of Indian Affairs and their
Council" creations in Canada and the BIA, Department of the Interior and their "Tribal
Council" creations of the U.S. Government) thus summarily eliminating the right of
determination as a prelude to and instrument of elimination of the Nation itself. The
paternalistic policies of the Canadian and U.S. Governments purporting to "protect"
Indigenous Peoples through a "trustee relationship", have demonstrably created, and
inexorably create, not  "protecting powers", but rather, powers, exploitative
and indeed genocidal policies from which Indigenous Peoples need protection through
the exercise of the right of self-determination and through international law.

     For the above-mentioned and other clear reasons, agencies such as the BIA and
and their creations the "Tribal Councils", whose policies and actions are all subject
final approval and ratification by the BIA and DIA, can never be recognized as the
legitimate leadership and political authority of the Blackfoot Nation. The mechanisms
through which the Blackfoot Tribal Councils are selected are non-Blackfoot in nature
in terms of the "final authority" conducting and sanctioning them. Indeed historically

 in the present, corrupt Tribal Councils (not an indictment of every person serving or
has served on a Tribal Council) have been selected, used and run by the Canadian and
U.S. governments as  key instruments of genocide. It would be absurd and inherently
illogical to suppose that only those same Tribal Councils could have the authority
standing to bring charges against those who have committed crimes against the
Nation-crimes in which they were often intimately involved as co-conspirators and key
instruments of genocide.


   It was clearly established and accepted, by the parties participating in
prosecution and
judgment at the Nuremberg and later International Tribunals (which included the U.S.
and Canada), that their findings would constitute binding precedents adding to the
of evolving international law to which the parties prosecuting and sitting in judgment
themselves also would be bound. Specifically, in his opening argument at Nuremberg,
U.S. Chief Prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson noted:

         "Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within
           the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering
           a  whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals,
           and innumerable events.Unfortunately, the nature of these crimes is
           such that both prosecution and judgment must be by victor nations over
           vanquished foes [but] we must never forget that the record on which we
           judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge
           us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it
           to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual
           integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as
           fulfilling humanity's aspirations to do justice." (Nuremberg transcript)

  The findings, arguments and judgments of the Nuremberg and later International
Tribunals and Conventions clearly established, and incorporated into the corpus of
evolving international law that:
1) universal jurisdiction exists with respect to crimes against humanity and genocide
nation can claim immunity from international law or a "sovereign right" to conduct
crimes against humanity and genocide against persons living under the control of that
2) no nation may legally arrogate the "sovereign right" to selectively and
meet or not meet the terms of legitimate treaties or international conventions it has
ratified and accepted; nor may any nation summarily assert primacy of national law
over international law, treaties or conventions in the event of conflicts between
national laws and policies and international laws;
3) even when certain crimes against humanity and genocidal acts against persons and
groups have been traditionally practiced and accepted by members of dominant
exploiting groups, and even in the absence of certain explicit laws prohibiting such

crimes, established principles against retroactivity or ex-post-facto prosecution and
punishment (punishing someone for violating laws that did not exist when the crime was
committed on the basis the person (s) had no warning that they were culpable for their
conduct) may not preclude prosecution and punishments in present circumstances when it
can be shown, that alleged perpetrators violated established and customary practices,
sensibilities, laws and principles that nations commonly recognized, asserted and
for themselves for their own protection;
4) individuals and organizations may be held to be criminal and culpable and
prosecuted/punished even when acting as agents of broader governmental entities and
policies, and, the argument of "only following orders" would no longer be acceptable;
5) "mens rea", intentions, motives and interests may be inferred and considered
"proved" on the basis of the highly probable, clearly foreseeable (by an average and
reasonable prudent person) or inexorable consequences of given actions or policies
even in the absence of witnesses to or  recordings of specific utterances or documents
explicitly detailing "mens rea", intentions, motives and interests;
6)  common plans  to wage aggressive wars (crimes against peace), war crimes or crimes
against humanity constitute criminal conspiracies and  are in violation of
law and established treaties to which the U.S. and Canada were bound even before
7) waging aggressive wars and barbaric practices against other nations or groups
a nation constitute "Crimes Against Peace" and "Crimes Against Humanity" in
violation of international law and treaties existing even before Nuremberg and to
which the U.S. and Canada were bound;
8) even in all-out war there are limits in terms of outlawed barbaric practices and
outlawed targets of those practices that constitute "War Crimes" and "Crimes Against
9) any "designated authorities", collaborators or "contrived institutions" placed in
control by occupiers over the occupied victims of crimes and aid in the commission
of crimes (--e.g. Vichy Government in France during World War II) by those being
prosecuted, are also criminal and can never be held to be or recognized as the
legitimate and representative authorities and institutions of those seeking prosecution
      of  and punishment for any crimes or violations of  international law;
10) citizens of a given nation are also citizens of a World Community, and since
genocidal  and aggressive crimes, policies and actions by parties of one nation have
spillover effects on the World Community, and since no one is free and all are
threatened when anyone is oppressed, all human beings of the World Community
have both the unalienable right and sacred duty to sit in judgment of (and attempt to
stop) genocidal and other criminal acts and policies by or against any members of that
World Community;
11)  racial stereotyping and caricatures, racial policies objectively create
that make genocide and crimes against humanity more likely and easier to conduct
and accept, and are themselves crimes, even without a specific nexus between a
specific policy or polemics on the one hand  and the death of specific persons on the
other hand;

   The governments of Canada (represented by the British government) and the United
States were both participants (as prosecutors and sitting in judgment) at the
Tribunals. In his opening address, the U.S. Prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson noted:

      "The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the
peace of
    the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs, which we seek to condemn
    and punish, have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that
    cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being
    That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand
    of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captives to the judgment of the law is
    one of the most significant tributes that Power has even paid to reason."

   There was more than grotesque irony and hypocrisy in this statement. The architect
(Hitler) of  many of the very  crimes and policies committed by the nazis and their
collaborators for which they were being tried at Nuremberg, had been directly
by aspects of  U.S. and Canadian histories, policies and actions related to Indigenous
Peoples. According to James Pool in his "Hitler and His Secret Partners":

       "Hitler drew another example of mass murder from American history. Since his
     youth he had been obsessed with the Wild West stories of Karl May. He viewed
     the fighting between cowboys and Indians in racial terms. In many of his speeches
     he referred with admiration to the victory of the white race in settling the
     continent and driving out the inferior peoples, the Indians. With great
     he listened to stories, which some of his associates who had been in America told
     him about the massacres of the Indians by the U.S. Calvary.
         He was very interested in the way the Indian population  had rapidly declined
    due to epidemics and starvation when the United States government forced them
    to live on the reservations. He thought the American government's forced migrations
    of the Indians over great distances to barren reservation land was a deliberate
    of extermination. Just how much Hitler took from the American example of the
    destruction of the Indian nations his hard to say; however, frightening parallels
    be drawn. For some time Hitler considered deporting the Jews to a large
     in the Lubin area where their numbers would be reduced through starvation and
    disease. (p. 273-274).


         "The next morning Hitler's `plan' was put in writing and sent out to the
     occupation authorities as `The Fuehrer's Guidelines for the Government of the
     Eastern Territories: ` the Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we don't need
     they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and German health services are
     superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable. They may use
     And practice abortion, the more the better. Education is dangerous. It is

 ... if they can count up to a hundred. At best an education is admissible which
     useful servants for us. Every educated person is a future enemy. Religion we leave
     to them as a means of diversion. As to food, they are not to get more than
     We are the masters, we come first.'
           Always contemptuous of the Russians, Hitler said: `For them the word
       means the right to wash only on feast-days. If we arrive bringing soft soap,
       obtain no sympathy.There's only one duty: to Germanize this country by the
        immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins.' Having been
       devoted reader of Karl May's books on the American West as a youth, Hitler
        frequently referred to the Russians as `Redskins'. He saw a parallel between
       effort to conquer and colonize land in Russia with the conquest of the
       American West by the white man and the subjugation of the  Indians or
       `Redskins'. `I don't see why', he said, `a German who eats a piece of bread
       should  torment himself with the idea that the soil that produces this bread
       has been won by the sword. When we eat from Canada, we don't think about
       the despoiled Indians." (James Pool, Ibid, pp. 254-255)

And from a speech by Heinrich Himmler (date not given):

             " I consider that in dealing with members of a foreign country, especially
           some Slav nationality.in such a mixture of peoples there will always be
           some racially good types. Therefore I think that it is our duty to take
           children with us, to remove them from their environment, if necessary, by
           robbing or stealing them." (Telford Taylor "Anatomy of the Nuremberg
           Trials", Alfred A Knopf, N.Y. 1992, p. 203)

And from John Toland, preeminent biographer of Adolf Hitler:

           "Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of
         genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United
         States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa
         And for the Indians in the Wild West; and often praised to his inner circle
         the efficiency of America's extermination-by starvation and uneven
         combat-of the `Red Savages' who could not be tamed by captivity."
         (John Toland, "Adolf Hitler" Vol II, p 802, Doubleday & Co, 1976)

    Scholars such as Charles Higham, Christopher Simpson, John Loftus, Mark Aarons
and others have thoroughly documented that the U.S. and British Governments that
prosecuted and sat in judgment at Nuremberg and at other war crimes trials of Japanese
war criminals, and certain companies of the U.S. and Britain, were actively complicit
some of the crimes of the nazi and Japanese fascists through various economic and
political relationships that continued throughout the war between U.S. and British
Governments and companies  and German and Japanese Governments and companies.
These scholars have also documented that many of the wanted war criminals of Germany


 and Japan were sheltered, employed, placed in post-war political positions and aided
escape by the U.S. and British Governments that prosecuted and sat in judgment of
Japanese and German war criminals. Despite the myriad and naked forms of hypocrisy
and duplicity on the part of the U.S. and British Governments at Nuremberg and at
war crimes trials, the precedents and judgments they set were valid and incorporated
international law.

   We have and will present, solid evidence that many of the genocidal practices and
policies for which German and Japanese fascists were put on trial and punished at
Nuremberg and other International Military Tribunals, were inspired by and directly
paralleled, U.S. and Canadian histories, policies and practices (past and present)
respect to Indigenous Peoples in general and Blackfoot People in particular.
and not limited to:

1) forced relocations and transfers of Indigenous children and adults;
2) coerced/deceptive sterilizations of Indigenous children and adults;
3) coerced and deceptive uses of Indigenous children and adults for medical
4) coerced and deceptive uses of  "blood-quantum" criteria and categories to establish
categories of "status" (versus non-recognized and "non-status") Indians specifically
designed and intended to define Indigenous Peoples (and eliminate the `persistent
Indian problem') out of existence;
5) arrogating to summarily eliminate traditional Indigenous institutions and ways of
determining Indigenous leadership (Chiefs) and membership/composition of
Indigenous Nations and replacing those traditional Indigenous institutions and ways
with non-Indigenous organizations, entities, mechanisms and criteria designed to
impose compliant and collaborationist/sell-out agents of the non-Indigenous forces
intent on policies and practices defined as "genocide" under Article II of the 1948 UN
Convention on Genocide;
6) outright thefts and takings of traditional Indigenous lands and resources and
and summarily breaking treaties constructed and imposed through unconscionable
relationships, threats, fraud, deception etc;
7) designating and using Indigenous Reserves/Reservations as dump sites for highly
toxic wastes and causing a wide range of diseases and disease trends that served as
instruments of genocide;
8) calculated uses of various instruments of chemical and biological warfare designed
exterminate large populations of Indigenous Peoples;
9) practicing and/or knowing about and/or tolerating and/or covering-up and/or being
willfully blind to: routine murder, sexual and physical abuse, mind control, torture,
illegal confinement, starvation, unsanitary conditions, deleterious non-Indigenous
diets, abductions, illegal "adoptions", forced assimilation into non-Indigenous
cultures, denial of basic due process, coerced abortions and forced religious

       conversions in Residential and Boarding Schools and other institutions;
10) establishing and/or knowing about and/or tolerating and/or covering-up and/or
willfully blind to corrupt Government-sanctioned "Tribal" authorities, institutions,
policies and practices that resulted in losses/misappropriations of billions of
dollars of
desperately-needed and owed Nation/Tribal resources
11) systematic refusal to ratify and apply various precedents, Conventions and
of international law as they relate to Indigenous Peoples.

These are but some of the issues and particulars that we propose to charge and prove
this Tribunal.

     The U.S. Government and the Canadian Government (represented by the British
Government) were major forces initiating and conducting the International Military
Tribunals at Nuremberg and those Tribunals were a major force in the origination and
content of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide. Yet the U.S. Government did not ratify
the UN Convention on Genocide until 1988, forty years after the original UN Convention
on Genocide. Further, the U.S. government summarily placed a "restriction" on its
ratification of the UN Convention on Genocide known as the "Lugar-Helms-Hatch
Sovereignty Package" which stated in Article I (2):

     "Nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by
    the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States
    as interpreted by the United States."

   This is a clear violation of Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as the definitive international law on
treaties) as it is in violation of Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution

    [treaties are] "the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall
be bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary

   Documents of the U.S. Government reveal clearly consciousness of guilt on the part
the Government and its agencies. Debates in the U.S. Senate reveal that there was a
general awareness of and fear that the U.S. Government could/would be charged with
geneocide and related acts for historical and present-day policies and actions related
African-Americans and American Indians.

    The Government of Canada was even more ingenuous in its duplicity and attempts to
appear to ratify the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide while effectively obstructing its
recognition and application. The government of Canada put the crime of genocide in the
criminal code of Canada as a crime. However, of the five specific acts mentioned as
constituting genocide in Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide, three were
from the definition of genocide in the Canadian criminal code. So from Article II of

 Genocide Convention, b) "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group", and d) "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", and e)
"Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" were deliberately not
included in the Canadian criminal code definition of the crime of genocide. Only a)
[deliberate] killing members of the group, and part of c) an intentional plan to
about the physical destruction the group in whole or in part" were retained. The clear
intent was to make the definition of "intent" very narrow and the proving of "mens
or intent next to impossible; and therefore prosecution next to impossible to pursue.
Indeed there has been only one case of anyone being charged with the Canadian Criminal
Code's "genocide" and that resulted in an acquittal.

   For these and other clearly calculated, duplicitous and obstructionist
machinations on
the part of the Canadian and U.S. Governments and some of their agencies,  they are
in violation of  the following articles of the United Nations Convention on the
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Article I:

          "The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time
       of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law for which they
       undertake to prevent and to punish."

Article III

            "The following acts shall be punishable:

a) Genocide;
b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
d) Attempt to commit genocide;
e) Complicity in genocide;

Article IV

        "Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated
      in Article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally
      responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."

Article V

        "The Contracting parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their
      respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the
     provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide
     effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts
     enumerated in Article III"

Article VI

        "Persons charged with genocide or any other acts enumerated in
                        Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the
State in
                    the territory of which the act was committed, or by such
                    penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those
                    Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction."

Article VII

                        "Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall
                      be considered as political crimes for the purpose of
extradition. The
                      Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant
                      In accordance with their laws and treaties in force."

Article VIII

                           "Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of
                        the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of
the United
                        Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and
                        Of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in
Article III."

Article IX

                             "Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the
                          interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present
                          including those relating to the responsibility of a State
for genocide
                          or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III,
shall be submitted
                          to the International Court of Justice at the request of any
of the parties to
                          the dispute."

    The calculated, systematic and ongoing violations of Articles I to IX of the UN
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, by the
Governments of the United States of America and Canada, along with Articles I to IX
themselves, and all authority under international law recognizing/supporting the
sovereignty and self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation and People, legitimate and
give "standing" and authority to this Tribunal of the Blackfoot Nation. The
of the United States of America and Canada have refused to recognize and have sought
exterminate, the traditional elements, authorities and institutions of the Blackfoot
and replace them with collaborationist elements and institutions that would/could
charge those Governments of crimes against international law or with crimes against
own laws even if they were so inclined and the evidence mandated such charges. The
Governments of the United States and Canada have refused to allow their own genocidal
policies and actions to be submitted to the ICJ and have refused to recognize

 Blackfoot authorities or institutions as having "standing" or authority to bring
charges at
the ICJ and have refused/obstructed any real exercises in Blackfoot self-determination
that would result in the Blackfoot Nation and its traditional authorities and
having standing and becoming/being recognized as a "Contracting Party" able to bring
charges at the ICJ. The U.S. Government has refused to accept the authority of the ICJ
any matters other than those related to "commerical affairs". The narrow language of
UN Convention on Genocide has been selectively interpreted by the Governments of the
United States of America and Canada in such ways as to allow those who practice
genocide and other crimes against international law to either physically eliminate
summarily non-recognize any victims, evidence or traditional institutions that might
bring charges against them. This is like the nazis recognizing only their
puppet/collaborationist regimes in the occupied territories as being "Contracting
or "competent authorities" with the "standing" to charge them with various crimes,
recognizing only nazi courts as the legitimate venues in which any charges could be

   The long history of barbaric, criminal and genocidal activities committed by the
Governments of the United States and Canada and their accomplices, against Indigenous
Peoples in general and Blackfoot People in particular, continues today. Every attempt
expose, stop and obtain redress for various criminal activities through the
institutions of
the perpetrators has been met with more denial, cover-up and repression. Further,
attempts to establish a World Court or International Criminal Court free of the biases
influences of the perpetrators of crimes against Indigenous Peoples, have been
by those very perpetrators. We therefore assert this constituted Tribunal and its
constituted authorities and procedures to be legitimate (in traditional Blackfoot Law
in International Law) in composition, location and standing. Any final decisions of
Blackfoot Tribunal will qualify as binding "judicial decisions" within the meaning of
Article 38 (1) (d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and will
constitute a "Subsidiary Means For The Determination of Rules of Law" for
law and practice.

    As the "Statute of the International Court of Justice" is an "integral part" of
the United
Nations' Charter under Article 92 and to which both the U.S. and Canada are
this Tribunal's decision may be relied upon by some future International Criminal
or Tribunal or by any People or State of the World Community. Were this not so, the
nazis of World War II, for example, could never have been brought to justice for
in "occupied territories" as the "designated representatives" and "recognized
of the occupied nations and victims, supposedly charging and judging those nazis,
have been the very collaborators and accomplices of the nazis against whom also
were also properly made and later proved. Indeed, not one of those "governments" or
"governmental agencies" recognized by the nazis as "legitimate", sat as judges and
prosecutors at Nuremberg; they all sat as defendants.


     As to the standing, fairness and legitimacy of this Blackfoot Tribunal, composed
potential victims judging alleged victimizers, A. L. Goodheart in his "The Legality of
Nuremberg Trials", "Juridicial Review", April 1946 took on this argument succinctly:

    "It has been argued that the Tribunal cannot be regarded as a court in the true
     sense because, as its members represent the victorious Allied Nations, they
     must lack that impartiality which is an essential in all judicial procedure.
     According to this view only a court consisting of neutrals, or, at least,
     Some neutral judges, could be considered to be a proper tribunal. As no man
     can be a judge in his own case, so no allied tribunal can be a judge in a case
     in which members of the enemy government or forces are on trial. Attractive
     as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter
     to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy
     could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges
     representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases
     it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has a right to demand
     that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ
     has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law
     because ` a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of
     honest citizens."


     The traditionally recognized and responsible authorities of the Blackfoot Nation,
present at this Tribunal and acting on behalf of the Blackfoot Nation and whole
specifically charge that the Government of the United States of America and its
the Government of Canada and its agencies, the British Crown authority in Canada and
named Church or religious organizations resident on Blackfoot lands and/or in which
Blackfoot were placed (Catholic Church, United Church, Anglican Church, LDS or
Mormon Church, Presbyterian Church) directly committed, and/or conspired to commit,
and/or sanctioned and tolerated, and/or facilitated, and/or covered-up, and/or refused
prosecute and/or obstructed the prosecution of and/or were willfully blind to the
following crimes specified further in the following:

1) Article I of the UN Convention on Genocide;
2) Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide;
a) Killing Blackfoot persons as Blackfoot;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to Blackfoot persons as Blackfoot;
c) Deliberately inflicting on Blackfoot persons and the Blackfoot Nation conditions
of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Blackfoot People and
Nation in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent biological reproduction of the Blackfoot
People and Nation;

e) Forcibly transferring Blackfoot children to other (non-Blackfoot) groups, lands
and cultures;
3) Article III of the UN Convention on Genocide;
4) Article IV of the UN Convention on Genocide;
5) Article V of the UN Convention on Genocide;
6) Article VI of the UN Convention on Genocide;
7) Article VII of the UN Convention on Genocide;
8) Article VIII of the UN Convention on Genocide;
9) Article IX of the UN Convention on Genocide;
10)  Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions of 1949;
11)  Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:
A) Article 6
a) Crimes Against Peace
b) War Crimes
c) Crimes Against Humanity
      B) Article 7
      C) Article 8
12) Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal
And in the Judgment of the Tribunal as adopted by the International Law
Commission of the United Nations 1950 and UN General Assembly Resolution 177
a) Principle I
b) Principle II
c) Principle III
d) Principle IV
e) Principle V
f) Principle VI
g) Principle VII
13) Articles of the Statute of the International Criminal Court for Former Yugoslavia
Specifying the Acts Within the Court's Jurisdiction
a) Article 2
b) Article 3
c) Article 4
d) Article 5
14) Articles of the Statute of the International Criminal Court for Rwanda
Specifying the Acts Within the Court's Jurisdiction:
a) Article 2 (2,3)
b) Article 3
c) Article 4



     The Blackfoot Nation and People are on the verge of extinction. Victims of and
witnesses to the various charged crimes are dying. Blackfoot People individually and
collectively cannot wait for the formation of an International Criminal Court (blocked
by the U.S. Government) to hear Blackfoot charges against the Governments of the
U.S and Canada and other named parties. The Blackfoot and People cannot wait for
the U.S. and Canadian Governments to allow charges to be heard by the ICJ at the
Hague. The Blackfoot Nation and People Blackfoot cannot wait for the traditional
authorities, institutions and self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation to be
recognized and respected by the very Governments of the U.S. and Canada intent on
elimination of the Blackfoot Nation and People and their self-determination. The
Blackfoot Nation and People  cannot wait for the U.S. and Canadian Governments to
"decertify" and de-recognize their puppet and complicit entities (Tribal Councils,
BIA and DIA) and to recognize the traditional authorities and institutions of the
Blackfoot Nation that are certified and legitimated by the recognized right of and
international law governing self-determination of the Blackfoot  Nation and People.

     For all of the above-mentioned reasons and under all of the above-mentioned legal
authority (and more to be specified later) this Tribunal, structured and conducted by
the competent and traditionally recognized authorities and institutions of the
Blackfoot Nation, has standing and authority under international law and any
decisions or findings of this Tribunal can be considered binding judicial decisions
under Blackfoot Law and International Law.

          The competent, legal and traditional authorities of the Blackfoot Nation
that ultimate authority and power is truth, reason, law and evidence. Power pays no
`tribute to reason' when the conquerors put on trial-rather than summarily executing
jailing without due process-the conquered. Power pays only a `tribute to reason' and
law only when the powerful submit to the very laws, standards, precedents and morality
to which they purport to hold others and to which the powerful purport to be bound by
their own words and deeds. We will hold these named Governments and agencies or
entities to their own laws, words, precedents, deeds and professed values in addition
specific Blackfoot laws and values that they have violated and for which the Blackfoot
Nation and People have sovereign rights to protect.

More information about the Marxism mailing list