FW: Notice to the Federal Government of Canada

Craven, Jim jcraven at clark.edu
Wed Sep 10 15:57:49 MDT 2003

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

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, self-determination, 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.


James M. Craven

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

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list