Crown Treason - Not to Resist is to Collaborate


Native sovereignty in and over unceded territory is a Constitutionally protected liberty in British Columbia. The constitutional common law precedents and legislative instruments are identified in the appended list of authorities and arguments.

Some agents and assigns of the Crown in British Columbia are bent upon evading that constitutional status quo by means other than a constitutional amendment Those individuals that collectively run the federal and provincial governments and the non-native interest groups that most effectively influence them are committing treason in virtue of perpetrating the constitutionally prohibited fraud and abuse of molesting and disturbing the native nations by treating natives and their supporters as trespassers in an ceded territory.

So far the Crown's judges, by issuing and enforcing injunctions, have been the persons implementing the conspiracy to Use the natives' territory without first making a treaty as the constitutional law requires. In future the Crown's judges will have either to resist the treason by addressing the law that both constitutes the natives' constitutional liberty and reposes in Crown governments and Crown Courts a positive law fiduciary obligation to protect it, or else by their continued failure to address the law, continue to be collaborators.

By "treason", in this context, I mean specifically to identify that breach of allegiance which consists in the betrayal of the constitutional undertaking to prevent any federal or provincial government or any agent or assign thereof from molesting or disturbing in relation to unceded territory the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom the Crown is connected and which correspondingly live under the Crown's protection. The existing constitutional law enacts that unceded territory is reserved for the native nations. It remains reserved indefinitely: "for the present and until our further Pleasure be known." That is, unceded territory is constitutionally reserved for the natives' exclusive use and enjoyment until either a treaty is made with them, or alternatively until the Queen's "Pleasure" is duly revoked by a Constitutional amendment. Until then, anyone who molests or disturbs the natives upon unceded territory is deemed to have incurred the Queen's displeasure -- an enemy of the Queen's peace. Furthermore, at common law (and as confirmed by the Treason Act, 1351) it remains treasonous for anyone to- be adherent to the Queen's enemies, giving to them aid and comfort. Therefore, to act contrary to the constitutionally expressed pleasure of the Queen to respect and to protect the natives' liberty in and over unceded territory constitutes not only a forbidden act, but a crime the remedy for which is the punishment of the offender at the instance of the state.

The problem is that the federal and provincial governments, and in particular their Attorneys General, have an effective monopoly over the criminal and policing process. Thus, the jurisdiction to prosecute their fraud and treason ostensibly is vested in the criminals themselves. I say "ostensibly" since the even more fundamental principle to the state's control of process is the axiom that no man or institution is above the law, not even the Crown itself, and certainly not the Crown's agents and judges who, if permitted would thwart the law they are sworn to uphold. In these circumstances, any judge who fails to rise to the defence of the rule of law, by turning a blind eye to the precedents and statutes that establish the crimes of both his governments' agents, and his fellow-judges, himself is in breach of his personal oath and duty of office, and an accomplice.

Dated. at Lions Bay British Columbia this 1st day of August, 1991.

Bruce Clark, LL.B., M.A., Ph.D.(LAW), amicus curiae

Back to SIS