CHUBB PASCAL
LIL'WAT ESTKEN

A delegation of representatives -- of the Western Shoshones of Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho; the Temagamis and Chippewas of Ontario; the Lil'Wats, Haidas, and Okanagan-Shuswaps of B.C.; the Plains Cree of Saskatchewan; and the Innu of Quebec -- will be attending with Native rights lawyer Bruce Clark for the purpose of putting the issue of Native sovereignty before the International Law Court known as the Privy Council of Great Britain.

In 1773 that same court decided that the non-native courts of what is now Canada and the U.S.A. have no jurisdiction to resolve treaty disputes between Native and non-Native society (Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut).

That law has not been changed. In practice, howerver, the non-Native courts have assumed the very jurisdiction that was precluded by the Privy Council's decision.

In consequence we are facing a series of decisions, which though technically void for lack of jurisdiction, are resulting in the loss of liberty both of many native persons, and also of environmentalists who oppose the destruction by clear-cutting of the Indian territories.

The purpose of the entourage will be to persuade the Privy Council to say whether its decision remains good law.

There is no legal basis for denying this.

Existing law in legal theory precludes usurpation, but the white legal establishments' existing usurpation in practice precludes the implementation of existing law.

The usurpation has been and continues to be criminal.

Sovereigntists like the Lil'Wat and Qwa-Ba-Diwa are hopeful that a Privy Council ruling in their favour would end the ecocide, and avert the jurisdictional surrender of much of B.C. upon the basis of a fraudulent, treasonable and genocidal misrepresentation of existing settled and binding international and constitutional law.