Wife: Margaret (Certified Education Specialist for Identified Gifted Students: Ages 5 to 19), who now works full time with Bruce on juridical jurisdiction/aboriginal rights/ecogenocide issues).
Three dependent children.
1997 Legal Counsel for some traditional native governments that exist outside the federal government system. And also for some native governments which though within the federal government system are becoming, or have become, reconciled with the traditional governments and values. Appearing for the Mi'gmaq Nation, Gespegewagi District, as intervenor in the pending Supreme Court of Canada Reference re the Legality of Quebec Secession, for the purpose of apprising that court that its jurisdiction is precluded or qualified in virtue of the fact that some portions of the territory involved in the reference remain unpurchased Indian territory. Appearing, or seeking to appear for the Mohegan Nation as intervenor in the Reference re Jurisdiction over Ellis Island as between New Jersey and New York, for the purpose of informing the newcomer court system that its jurisdiction is precluded or qualified in virtue of the fact that Ellis Island, like much of the Hudson River drainage basin, remains unpurchased Indian territory. Appearing or seeking to appear for accused persons regarding the same jurisdictional issue pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in R v. Ignace, a criminal trial in the newcomer court system of natives who at Gustafsen Lake occupied a defensive, albeit armed, position to defend themselves and their people against the genocide resulting from the combination of the premature newcomer invasion of the yet unpurchased Indian territories and the stonewalling by the newcomers' court system, of the natives' constitutionally guaranteed right to independent and impartial third party court adjudication in the international arena to resolve this native court versus newcomer court juridsictional dispute. Appearing in the State of Maine and the Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario to attempt to apprise trial level courts of the newcomers of the same jurisdictional law precluding or qualifying their jurisdiction. Preparing cases relative to native juristic sovereignty for presentation in the international legal arena. 1996 A refugee in New York from persecution in Canada for citing existing law on behalf of native clients including those at the "Gustafsen Lake armed standoff" in British Columbia. The particular existing law indicts the non-native legal establishment for assuming jurisdiction over natives upon their yet unsurrendered native lands, in circumstances where the assumption constitutes the crimes-in-progress of treason, fraud and genocide. Several in-writing appeals were filed while in exile - in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia - and these are pending. Secondly, a book entitled "Justice Eclipsed" was written in this year, with respect to which Peter Matthiesen (Spirit of Crazy Horse) in a pre-publication review states "enthralling, not only from a legal point of view but because of Clark's insight into attitudes and standards of Indian people which make it all but impossible for the honest ones who are the great majority to adapt to an inherently dishonest system of laws." 1990-1995 Domestic and international litigation relative to juridical jurisdiction and aboriginal rights for clients from Alaska, Nevada, California, Washington (DC), Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Surinam, and Central America. 1990 Author Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty - The Existing Aboriginal Right of Self Government in Canada (McGill- Queen's University Press, 1990) - ISBN 0-7735-0767-1; Ph.D. in jurisprudence, Aberdeen University, Scotland (C.M.H.C. full scholarship). reviews of Native Libery, Crown Sovereignty: Canadian Book Review Annual, 1990, pp. 416-417 The title of this widely researched, up-to-date, and persuasively argued study says it all...For Clark there is simply no issue here and for either government to argue that aboriginal jurisdiction in unceded lands has been superseded by government action and the failure of Natives to protect such claims in the past is bad law... In the long, difficult and expensive course of trying to resolve the issue of aboriginal land claims, it is not the law that has been at fault, but the law's misinterpretation and misapplication...Clearly this is an important book... One hopes that a shower of copies will descend upon policy and decision makers at both levels of government. - Christopher English Queen's Law Journal, Queen's University Faculty of Law, Volume 15 Number 2, Fall 1990, pp. 361-364 This book may be the most important single piece of writing on the subject of Aboriginal rights in Canada... It is not just a case on a specific point of law. Rather, it is a calling into question of a whole understanding of our constitutional history, one [conventional wisdom] that sees the evolution of Canada as a series of stages through which we have moved, kind of metamorphosis that has freed us from limits and restraints, so that by 1982 we had become completely free of the past...The evidence offered by Bruce Clark in support of his claim that the right of self-government is an existing Aboriginal right, and therefore constitutionally secured by section 35 of the 1892 Constitution, is found in pre-Confederation common law precedents and perogative legislation. That is, imperial law which Clark, unlike subscribers to the conventional wisdom, believes to be subsisting constitutional law in Canada...Bruce Clark argues for continuity of imperial laws, pointing to provisions like section 129 of the 1867 Act as evidence of an intention to weave each new document into the existing constitutional fabric rather than to supplant an old regime with a new one. The choice of model is crucial to First Nations people. If imperial laws put in place for their protection remain part of our constitution, then the Aboriginal rights that were recognized and affirmed in 1982 are far more significant than most of us believed when section 35 was enacted. And given the context in which the imperial laws are to be interpreted, Clark is almost certainly correct in his claim that one of those rights is the right of self government..If Bruce Clark is right, and I believe that he is, the power conferred by section 91(24) is surrounded by a rich texture of imperial laws whose purpose and effect we can now understand because the Charter provides a model that we lacked in the past. So it turns out that constitutional protection of fundamental rights is, after all, a part of our tradition. Like a soapstone carver, Clark has freed this image from the old monolith of legal thinking...Not only does this give rich content to section 35 of that Act, but it puts the fundamental rights of Aboriginal peoples secured by those old laws beyond the reach of ordinary legislation. Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty closed the circle for me. It is intuitively right...Given the current impasse in the process of honouring the commitment of 1982, this book is essential reading for all who wish for a just, peaceful and expeditious settlement of claims that have been ignored for more than one hundred years. - Noel Lyon, Faculty of Law, Queen's University 1987-1990 Author Indian Title in Canada (Carswell Law Publishers, 1987); M.A. in history University of Western Ontario (UWO) Canada; lecturer in Real Estate and Aboriginal Rights Law courses at the UWO Faculty of Law. 1978-1985 Aboriginal rights lawyer, resident on an Indian Reservation on a small island in Lake Temagami in northern Ontario Canada. 1978-1971 Sole practitioner in general law practice in the towns of Haileybury and New Liskeard, Ontario (4 secretaries, an office manager and a law clerk - 3 cars, house, farming estate, private airplane, etc. - long since expended in underwriting client's aboriginal rights litigation and going into substantial personal debt in their behalf). 1971 Licensed to practice as a lawyer in Canada (Ontario). 1963-1971 Law school and undergraduate at UWO.Testimonials
Note how the tenor of the testimonials has changed, in consequences of the presentation by Dr. Clark of his clients' legal argument concerning judicial complicity in treason, fraud and genocide contrary to the law respecting existing aboriginal rights.
Mr Justice F L Gratton of the Ontario Court (General Division), May 8, 1985: "I have had the opportunity of observing Mr. Clark, his demeanor as well as his competence. More particularly as counsel for the Bear Island group of Ojibway Indians, he appeared before me on a number of occasions. At all times I found him to be courteous, well prepared and able in the presentation of his arguments. These qualities were equally noticed by other members of the judiciary with whom we occasionally discuss the merits and demerits of various counsel. What I found particularly striking was the way in-depth research into all relevant aspects of a given case. Mr. Clark also possessed the ability to present lucidly and logically the various points advanced."After:
Professor E S Rogers, Chairman, Department of Ethnology, Royal Ontario Museum, April 21, 1985: "Mr Clark is an intense, intelligent and personable young man...there can be no doubt of his desire to assist them [the Indians] in their cause in any way legally possible...he became deeply immersed in the intricacies of the relationship Indians had with their land, concepts often alien to the Western mind, and their history of contact with the whiteman...He is diligent in his work, leaving no stone unturned. He is a man who responds with evident enthusiasm to a challenge."
Mr J T S McCabe, QC, Senior Counsel, Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, May 9 1985: "I have known Bruce Clark of the Ontario Bar in a professional capacity for more than ten years. During that period we have acted as opposing counsel in a vigorously contested dispute arising from the assertion of aboriginal rights by his clients...against my principal, the Crown in right of Ontario. Mr Clark was at all times a very formidable adversary. I have come to have great respect and admiration for him. He demonstrated a remarkable dedication to the cause of his clients and a determination to advance it to the very best of his ability. I am in a position to attest to the sheer magnitude of the work involved in the preparation of his clients' case and to the self-denial that effort must have entailed and the strength of character from which it must have derived. Moreover, his work was always characterized by intelligence, imagination and resourcefulness. In the particular field of aboriginal rights I would be very suprised if anyone practicing law or teaching in a faculty of law in Ontario can match the knowledge of the history and law that Bruce Clark has attained and exhibited over the past decade. I am entirely certain that he will serve any employer with loyalty, dedication and distinction."
Professor D C Hawkes, School of Public Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, reviewing the book Native Liberty, 1991: "will have a major impact upon the field, upon public policy, and upon aboriginal rights and constitutional reform...The research is exhaustive, the sources comprehensive, and the reasoning and scholarship sound."
Chief Justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada, September 12, 1995: "I must say, Mr. Clark, that in my 26 years as a judge I have never heard anything so preposterous and presented in such an unkind way. To call the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the (975) High Court judges of Canada accomplices is something preposterous. I do not accept that and I think you are a disgrace to the bar....We are all of the view that there is no foundation whatsoever for these two motions and they are accordingly dismissed with costs." [The a priori classification of the legal opinion as "preposterous" apparently relieved the court from having to address the constitutional legislation substantiating the validity of the motions' "foundation".]
His Honour Judge CC Barnett of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, October 6, 1995: "Mr. Clark wrote to the Attorney General....He enclosed an information....Among other things, Mr. Clark asserted that the Chief Justice of Canada was criminally guilty of High Treason, fraud and extortion....On September 12, 1995 Mr. Clark told the Chief Justice of Canada that certain comments made by him were 'blatant chicaneries'...he asserted that the Supreme Court of Canada 'has introduced from coast to coast in Canada, a murderous situation', apparently because, Mr Clark says that court has tolerated the invasion of the Indian territories by the court system and the police....First, Mr. Clark contrary to his statements, is not a friend of any court in British Columbia, or the Supreme Court of Canada. His writings and remarks are beyond being merely scandalous and outrageous....Secondly, Mr. Clark knows essentially nothing about the conduct of a criminal trial in Canada....Mr. Clark is not possessed of any legal skills..."
Decision of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada , April 6, 1995:"...all of the members of the panel were impressed with the solicitor's presentation, his thoughtful remarks to us, his commitment to his cause and the obvious sincerity of his beliefs...We believe the solicitor has much to offer the legal profession, but..." [The "but" introduced a recommendation for disbarment. Eventually, the bar association overruled the Committee and upheld Dr. Clark's right to raise the law, commenting that genocide against the aboriginal peoples is a fact and that the judges should have addressed the law.]