Bruce Clark isn't a Freeman On The Land or Sovereign Citizen, but I hope you will forgive me for posting his story here because he has all the hallmarks of one: fringe beliefs, an inability to let go of unsuccessful legal arguments, a certain messianic worldview of single-handedly defeating corrupt judges and illegitimate courts to impose his theories, and of course the worldly disaster that inevitably flows from all that. The one thing that distinguishes him from freemen is that (with the exception of a rather half-hearted attempt to evade paying income tax at the height of his other troubles, he didn't do any of it for personal gain. Instead he went through all this to try to bring what he felt was a more just approach to aboriginal law in Canada.
Our hero's early life I take from his auto-hagiographical Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Allan_Clark_(lawyer) ) and an interesting blawg entry about him (http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/2010/10/15 ... uce-clark/ - check the comments for a very active presence by Clark, replete with (Freemanism alert!) very undocumented claims about a Supreme Court ruling more or less in his favour that to ably never happened
Our hero was born in 1944, studied law at the University of Western Ontario, and was called to the bar in 1971. He had a "a general practice in small-town Ontario, Canada, and acquired all the accoutrements of success including wife and children, a lovely home and farm, multiple motor vehicles, a private plane and a very comfortable lifestyle." (Lawdiva link above). In 1977 Clark argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of an intervener in a dispute over the governance of a large reserve (hereditary vs. elected): http://canlii.ca/t/1tx35 . There isn't any indication of what his position was, but it's an eerie foreshadowing of the topics that would bring our tragic protagonist down.
I can't do full justice to Clark's arguments, but the gist is that Canadian courts are bound by a 1704 decision if the British privy council, which said that a colonial court in
New England had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute between the colony and a neighbouring First Nation. By extension, Canada can have no laws nor judicial proceedings regarding its relationship with its indigenous people, but rather must have it all decided by the British Privy Council (not quite as loopy as it sounds. I think this was the never-used appeal of last resort until 1982.). If you want way way more on this see his new site http://mightisnotright.org/
The first record I can find of Clark as Porto-OPCA on Canlii is a 1991 appeal from an injunction against some protesters from the Mount Currie band near Whistler, BC. There is a preliminary ruling (http://canlii.ca/t/1d8k1 ) against Clark's attempt to introduce his indigenous sovereignty arguments at the appeal level after they weren't introduced at the injunction hearing. It was unsuccessful, as big complex, evidence-heavy arguments are apparently best heard at trial. A week later there is another ruling, apparently prompted by Clark being Clark: http://canlii.ca/t/1d8fj . It is enough fun to reprint in its entirety:
Bottom line, here is our hero from the outset, going to war with the courts and being suspected of being unfit to appear as counsel.WALLACE, J.A.: Before I proceed further with this application, - Mr. Clark I would like you to listen to this, - I must advise counsel of my concern respecting the nature of the material filed in support of the application. I refer in particular to the affidavit filed by Mr. Clark.
I understand Mr. Clark that you intend to refer to refer to and rely upon your affidavit which is dated February 5th.
MR. CLARK: No, My Lord.
WALLACE, J.A.: You do not.
MR. CLARK: No, I propose to file a leave book at the commencement and refer to other material.
WALLACE, J.A.: Well, why did you file this affidavit then?
MR. CLARK: I wanted to get the appointment, My Lord, and it got the appointment. That was the purpose.
WALLACE, J.A.: I see, well that perhaps reinforces my views on the matter. I refer in particular to paragraph two and three that says:
2. The Learned Chambers Judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Wetmore, on February 1, 1991, granted an injunction against my clients in virtue of denying counsel the right to cite and argue the legislation and precedents which would preclude that step both at law and in equity.
Then in paragraph three:
3. The said injunction constitutes or is tantamount to a fraud and an abuse of process, and a material step toward what may constitute the consumated crimes of criminal trespass, conversion, theft, extortion, assault, murder and cultural genocide against internationally protected persons contrary to the law to which the Learned Chambers Judge wilfully blinded himself.
In my view this raises questions of the propriety of the affidavit and of whether or not the deponent, Mr. Clark who is a lawyer representing the applicants in these proceedings, should have the privilege of appearing before the courts in this and other litigation.
I consider the paragraphs in question raise a gravely serious imputation of misconduct respecting the integrity and conduct of the chambers judge whose order I am being asked to review for the purpose of granting or denying leave of appeal. It could well affect my approach to, and consideration of the application however hard I might try to avoid such a possibility.
Accordingly I intend to adjourn this application to Tuesday the 12th of February, 1991. I would ask that Mr. Plant, counsel for the Attorney General refer this material to the Attorney General and to the Treasurer of the Law Society with the request that if they see fit they appoint counsel to appear before me on the adjourned hearing so I might have the benefit of their submissions as to the propriety of the affidavit and its use by the deponent on this application and on the further question of whether or not Mr. Clark should continue to have the privilege of appearing before the courts of the province as counsel.
At the same time I would like to hear from Mr. Clark on both of those issues.
The application is adjourned to Tuesday, February 12, 1991.
MR. CLARK: My Lord, may I?
WALLACE, J.A.: No. You will have an opportunity on Tuesday when this motion is brought back before me, to make any submissions you wish.
MR. CLARK: My Lord, may I for the record.
WALLACE, J.A.: No.
MR. CLARK: May I not for the record put on the fact that if the travesty of justice that I have described in that affidavit occurs that this court will be furthering it.
WALLACE, J.A.: Mr. Clark I want to hear from you no further until Tuesday.
MR. CLARK: No stay of execution.
WALLACE, J.A.: No stay of execution. The matter is adjourned.
A month later there is a trial of 59 protesters accused of violating the injunction: http://canlii.ca/t/1cs94. Clark again attacks the original injunction, on his native sovereignty theory. Isn't that a collateral attack on the original injunction? Yes, yes it was.
The next few years don't have much in CANLII but a bit can be gleaned from his 1995 disbarment hearing: http://canlii.ca/t/1m69m . Please forgive another long quotation but I don't think I can do it justice otherwise:
So, the highlight reel:Bruce Allan Clark (the solicitor) is the subject matter of a complaint of professional misconduct. The allegations are numerous and unusual. After some discussion, counsel for the Law Society amended some of the allegations and the following are the remaining allegations against the solicitor:
2.(a) While appearing before a justice of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Solicitor made intemperate statements about the Court which were unsupported by the facts. File: Volume 3, tabs 4 and 5.
(b) In the course of his professional practice, the Solicitor wrote letters to the following parties which were abusive, offensive and otherwise inconsistent with a proper tone of a professional communication: (i) Letters dated August 19, 1992 and September 14, 1992 to Judge Fournier of the Ontario Court - Provincial Division. Fournier: Volume 1, tabs 2, 4 and 7. N.B.: The letters to Judge Fournier were dated August 19th, 1992 and September 27th, 1992. The letter dated September 14, 1992 was Clark's letter to Stephen Snake, dated September 14 which was entered as an exhibit at the proceedings on September 14, 1992.
(ii) Letter dated May 19, 1992 to His Honour Judge Blair of the Provincial Court of British Columbia (re: R. v. Sauls). File: Volume 3, tab 1
(c) In the course of representing clients in various criminal proceedings, he asserted legal positions for which there was no reasonable basis in evidence, the particulars of which are as follows:
(i) He prepared and delivered documentation from a bogus court which purported to influence proceedings relating to outstanding criminal charges against his client, Stephen Snake. Fournier: Volume 1, tabs 5 and 6.
(ii) He prepared and delivered documentation from a bogus court which purported to convict Judge Fournier, the presiding judge in the criminal proceeding referred to in particular 2(c)(i) above, of various crimes. Fournier: Volume 1, tabs 7 and 8.
(iii) In submissions made to the court during criminal proceedings brought against Pascal, et al. and Sauls, et al., he accused the British Columbia judiciary and the Crown of conspiracy in crimes of genocide against aboriginal people. File: Volume 3, tab 2 and 3.
(iv) While appearing before a panel of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, he attempted to perform a citizen's arrest on the charges of treason and complicity to genocide. File: Volume 3, tab 4. (d) While representing his client, Stephen Snake, in the criminal proceedings referred to in particular 2(c) (i), he counselled a subpoenaed Crown witness, Verna Friday, to refuse to give evidence and to absent herself from the proceedings.
(e) In the course of litigation involving the Bear Island Foundation, he made intemperate and unjustified statements about various parties, the particulars of which are as follows: (i) In an affidavit which he swore, dated February 22, 1993, he alleged that: (A) the Attorney General of Ontario was party to a fraud with respect to concealing relevant evidence from appellate courts, and alleged that the Attorney General of Canada was probably also a party to this fraud; (B) Chief Gary Potts fraudulently, treasonably and genocidally induced the Supreme Court of Canada to render a decision pursuant to a treaty that is demonstrably void; and (C) the leaders of the Aboriginal entities who caused a Notice of Change of Solicitors to be delivered by Blake, Cassels & Graydon on February 24, 1993, did so in an attempt to further their fraud, treason and complicity in genocide. Philip Tunley: Volume 4, tab 1.
(ii) In an affidavit which he swore, dated March 15, 1993, he: (A) implicitly suggested that a decision made by The Honourable Mr. Justice Bolan of Ontario earlier in said litigation might constitute complicity in the crimes of fraud, treason and genocide; (B) alleged that The Honourable Mr. Justice Bolan wilfully blinded himself to precedents, statutes and facts; and (C) further alleged that The Honourable Mr. Justice Bolan's refusal to address the precedents, statutes and facts referred to in particular 2(e)(ii)(B) above, proved his own criminal liability. Philip Tunley: Volume 4, tab 2.
(iii) In an affidavit which he swore, dated April 20, 1993, he: (A) alleged that the Attorney General of Canada and the provinces and the judges of the courts of Canada wish to evade the questions as to whether Aboriginal courts have jurisdiction over land; (B) accused the Attorney General of Ontario of abuse of process and of invoking a criminally illegitimate aspect of non-native court jurisdiction; (C) alleged that the Attorney General had resorted to chicanery and is guilty of complicity in fraud, treason and genocide and of aiding and abetting the continuation of crimes; (D) accused The Honourable Mr. Justice Huneault of escaping with his genocidal usurped jurisdiction intact in dealing with a previous motion in the litigation; (E) alleged that the Attorney General had fraudulently breached an agreement with counsel for the Aboriginal entities; (F) accused Chief Potts and Rita O'Sullivan (the solicitor's former clients) of participating in a system of patronage and bribery; (G) accused the Attorneys General of Ontario and Canada, as well as unspecified judges, of being guilty of fraud, treason and genocide; (H) accused The Honourable Mr. Justice Steele of Ontario and The Honourable Chief Justice McEachern of British Columbia of racist attitudes which are fraudulent and treasonable and amount to genocide; (I) accused the Attorney General of sharp practice and chicanery and of being engaged in a criminal conspiracy on a national scale to pre-empt the law in furtherance of the crimes of fraud, treason and genocide; (J) accused the Attorney General of cunning chicanery; (K) accused the Attorney General of sharp practice and chicanery and accused the Canadian domestic courts of racism; (L) accused the Attorney General of concealing relevant evidence from appeal courts; and (M) accused The Honourable Mr. Justice Loukidelis of Ontario of judicial complicity in the Attorney General's chicanery. Philip Tunley: Volume 4, tab 3.
(iv) He made allegations similar to those referred to in particular 2(e)(iii)(D) above, while making oral arguments before The Honourable Mr. Justice Huneault on March 19, 1993. Philip Tunley: Volume 4
(v) when appearing before The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberts of Ontario on June 1, 1993, he (B) refused direct order from The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberts to cease argument on this point and to sit down; (C) accused the Honourable Mr. Justice Roberts of perpetuating fraud, treason and genocide; (D) accused The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberts of wilful blindness; (E) stated that he intended to lay an information against Mr. Justice Roberts forthwith; (F) alleged that The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberts was afraid to charge the solicitor with contempt; and (G) stated that he was going to attempt to lay an information against The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberts for complicity in fraud, treason and genocide. Philip Tunley: Volume 4, tab 4. See pages 1 - 8.
(f) In the course of the said litigation, he caused to be prepared, served and filed affidavits sworn on February 22, 1993; March 15, 1993; and April 20, 1993, in which he was the deponent, notwithstanding the fact that he was also counsel of record for the parties in whose support the affidavits were filed.
(h) By engaging in the course of conduct referred to above, he demonstrated his unwillingness to be governed by the Law Society or its Rules and Regulations.
(i) On or about June 6, 1993 in Haileybury, Ontario, the Solicitor unlawfully assaulted a member of the Ontario Provincial Police. Constable Bedard - statement and volume 2.
(j) On or about June 6, 1993, the Solicitor unlawfully trespassed upon certain property in Haileybury, Ontario, in an unjustified and illegal attempt to carry out a citizen's arrest of one James Morrison. Bedard: Volume 2, tab 8 - Statement of Clark.
-documents from a phony court, relating to (dismissing?) charges against a client and showing a conviction against the (real) judge
-accusing the provincial and federal governments, as well as the judiciary and even his clients the chiefs, of fraud, genocide, etc
-tried to perform a citizen's arrest on a panel of the BC Court of Appeal
-threatens to lay an information against ( I.e. Charge) a judge he was appearing before
-he went to someone's house to break in to look for evidence, and when the police showed up assaulted an officer ( apparently a light shove to get himself arrested and charged (it worked!)
I'll get back to the disbarment result once we get to 1995.
Next, in the spring of 1994, our hero is back at his eccentric self, in Bear Island Foundation v R: http://canlii.ca/t/6k03 . It is short and I think it's quickest to quote it again:
So, to sum up:The papers before me in these proceedings are voluminous and almost totally incomprehensible. They are filed by or on behalf of Bruce Clark, who is a solicitor of the Law Society but who resides in Bulgaria and has attempted to guide this matter from there. It appears to me that the proceedings are related to, if not identical with, those proceedings that went through the Courts of Ontario culminating in the Supreme Court of Canada under the name of Bear Island Foundation v. Attorney General of Ontario(1991), 2 S.C.R. 569 which in effect dismissed the claim of Bear Island Foundation to property in the Temagami region of Northern Ontario upon the ground that any aboriginal right that might once have existed was now extinguished.
After the release of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment, Mr. Clark, on behalf of certain aboriginal persons sought certain relief which motion came on before Roberts J. of the General Division. The relief was denied but the order provided that Mr. Clark should not continue to act in these proceedings, presumably because Mr. Clark had been a witness in the proceeding[or because he threatened the judge - see (e)(v) of the law society complaint above.]. Now, there are several matters before me which have been instituted by Mr. Clark who has not personally appeared but is represented by one of his clients, Miss Friday.
So far as I can determine, these matters include:
(a)an appeal from the order of Roberts J.;
(b)an appeal from the order of Bernstein J. who ordered an injunction against certain aboriginals to restrain the cutting down of trees on the property; and an order of Bernstein J. holding certain persons in contempt for disobedience of that order;
(c)an application to move all proceedings to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upon the ground that the Courts of Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada lacked jurisdiction.
It is obvious that I have no jurisdiction to deal with (c) above. I also have no jurisdiction in (b) above as the order of Bernstein J. was interlocutory and the contempt order was dependent upon that interlocutory order. With regard to (a) above, if any appeal was launched it was out of time and there is not before me any ground upon which an extension of time can be granted.
In all these circumstances all motions before me must be dismissed. This order is, of course, without prejudice to any motion properly brought on proper material.
As I noted above, it is very difficult to deal with Mr. Clark who seeks to conduct litigation from Bulgaria and in contravention of the order of Roberts J. I think it would be very much in order for the Court of Appeal staff to decline to accept any material emanating from him relating to these proceedings while the order of Roberts J. remains in force except, of course, material seeking to appeal the prohibition in that order.
-unintelligible submissions
-litigation conducted from Bulgaria (shortly after the fall of the iron curtain, too. Getting towards OPPT exoticness of venue)
-appealing an order not to act as counsel in the matter
-his standard attempt to get things ruled on from London
Next up is his appeal of his conviction for assaulting a police officer, as described in the law society complaint: http://canlii.ca/t/6js0 . Has our hero decided to hire a (different) lawyer, act contrite, or argue it on its merits? Don't be silly! Quatloos is a forum about people who double down and stick to repeatedly-demolished arguments to the bitter end! Not only does he try to get his conviction overturned, or at least referred to the British Privy Council on the basis "that the court had no jurisdiction with respect to the Indians whom he purported to represent as a lawyer and that accordingly it had no jurisdiction to try him for an offence under the Criminal Code based on acts performed by him in the course of his performance of his duty as a lawyer for the Indians", but he also tries to get the Bear Island civil suit thrown into the privy council reference too. Both bad ideas are given short thrift.
So let's get back to his discipline (disbarment) hearings: is it a foregone conclusion? The disciplinary committee found he was ungovernable, since he didn't intend to stop, and recommended that he be disbarred if he didn't resign http://canlii.ca/t/1gp92 (don't read the bottom half -that's still to come.)
So, in the summer of 1995 it all comes to a head, in the Cariboo region of northern BC (well, maybe 1/3 of the way up on the map, but as they say, Northern BC is everything beyond Hope (geographic pun groan)). The main background to this story is the Gustafsen Lake Standoff. The quick and dirty version of this story is that a group of native people near 100 Mile House, BC wanted to hold an annual sundance at a location that was on a rancher's land. He agreed, but then a few years later in 1995 there was some unpleasantness, leading to shots being fired, first at local forestry workers then at the police. There was a month-long armed standoff between a dozen occupiers and the police, followed by a peaceful surrender.
Clark got himself associated with the occupiers early on, giving support to their views of defending their sovereignty. He got to go into the encampment and apparently tried to have the Supreme Court of Canada make an injunction against the police http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/sep95cbc.html
But the climax of the crisis, from our point of view, was the bail hearing for the occupiers once they surrendered. They were brought to the courthouse in the nearby town of 100 mile house; the court (judges, clerks, lawyers) came down from the judicial centre of Williams Lake, the media were all there in anticipation, as we're the occupiers' supporters, both local and from far off. The mood was tense. I'll let the transcript (and BCCA commentary) take it from here:
Clark was arrested for contempt of court. That was the Friday. On the Monday, presumably after a weekend in the unrefined circumstances of the Williams Lake detachment cells) Clark had a chance to cast a better light on things after the heat of passion had ebbed. To apologise, or at least minimize the contemptuousness of the act. But he blew it, of course:THE COURT: Yes, have a seat.
MR. HAWKINS: Your Honour, Hawkins, initials R.H., appearing for the Crown. I should tell you that in these proceedings a special prosecutor has been appointed. That person is Elizabeth Burgess. She is on her way. I believe she's here, at least in the community, but I haven't seen her here in the court house yet. So in due course the Crown will need a little time for her to get herself organized and ready to go.
THE COURT: Perhaps I should find out whether all the prisoners are here and whether all counsel is present and ready to proceed. I'me going to adjourn briefly after that.
THE SHERIFF: Your Honour, Mr. Deneault and Mr. Dick are here.
MR. CLARK: And my name, sir, is Bruce Clark, appearing for all accused.
THE COURT: Are you a member of the Law Society of British Columbia?
MR. CLARK: No sir, I'm not.
THE COURT: What status do you have here?
MR. CLARK: I am counsel here pro bono, entitled to speak, if not as legal counsel as a member of the Law Society of British Columbia, as an agent pro bono.
THE COURT: I'm not going to hear from you, Mr. Clark. I understand that other counsel are on the court list as counsel of record.
MR. CLARK: That would be certainly an impropriety for Your Honour to have advance notice of that issue.
THE COURT: I have a list --
MR. CLARK: -- not having been given in open court.
THE COURT: Do you have a list? Do you have a list in front of you?
MR. CLARK: Yes I have a list --
THE COURT: Where is your name?
MR. CLARK: -- but this is something a typist prepares in the back room. It's of no consequence.
THE COURT: Yes --
MR. CLARK: What is of consequence is --
THE COURT: Just a minute. I want to hear --
MR. CLARK: -- the written material that I hereby file --
THE COURT: I want to hear from other counsel.
MR. CLARK: -- with this court.
THE COURT: What --
MR. CLARK: Filed. Did you hear me? It is filed.
THE COURT: What else do you want to say?
MR. CLARK: Just that. That this kangaroo court will not succeed. I am filing right now the written material that establishes that if you in wilful blindness do not address the law, you will be guilty of misprision, of treason and fraud of necessity, and arguably complicity and genocide. I am respectfully urging you to leave your mind open to this extent, to read the pieces of paper that are in that motion prepared on behalf of my clients. I have not been allowed to see my clients to obtain fresh instructions as to whether they wish to fire me and hire someone else. It is possible that they wish to give those instructions. If they do it is my duty as their former solicitor to brief incoming new counsel. Any interference with that is an interference with the sacrosanct solicitor-client relationship.
MR. GIBBS: Your Honour, my name is -- if we're into introductions of counsel.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CLARK: My name is Gibbs, initials R.C.
MR. CLARK: Get off me! Back up.
THE COURT: Just a minute now.
MR. CLARK: Would you have this man stop pushing me, please.
THE COURT: I'm going to have you arrested right now --
MR. CLARK: You too.
THE COURT: -- for contempt of court and I'll see you in Williams Lake from custody on Monday morning.
MR. CLARK: Please read the material then.
THE COURT: I may not do that because --
MR. CLARK: I'll take the material with me, please. Would you take --
THE SHERIFF: I'll take the material.
MR. CLARK: Fuck you!
THE COURT: I'm going to adjourn while this matter is dealt with.
MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE CLERK: Order in court, all rise. Court is adjourned briefly.
[8] What the transcript does not reveal of course is the tones of voice, the shouting or the fact that when the appellant shouted "Filed. Do you hear me? It is filed" he flung his bundle of material at, and hit the court clerk. On the authorities that alone is serious contempt in the face of the court in that it constitutes assault on a judicial officer carrying out judicial functions.
THE COURT: Well I still have to go back to Friday and consider what happened in the court room which upset a lot of people. It appeared that you were not recognizing the jurisdiction of the court, and that you were going to have your own way and you were angry and threw this document, which hit the clerk in a way that surprised everyone.
MR. CLARK: Yes.
THE COURT: And you think that was -- that's one of the things that triggered, well finally tipped the scales quickly to the --
MR. CLARK: I don't doubt that and I accept that. I think that if you were in fact a court, if you weren't just a man engaged in a criminal adventure. And if contempt occurred it did crystallize at that point where I not just -- didn't just hand in the document, but flung it. That was in the normal course unquestionably contemptuous. But this isn't the normal course.
Well then. The judge very soberly put the hearing of the contempt off for a proper trial, rather than just banging his gavel and yelling "60 days in the hoosecow!" or whatever one would yell. Clark was given bail, and all was well until his next court date in a month (Oct 18 1995 if anyone's counting). That's when he didn't show up for court because he had already gone on the lam and fled to the Netherlands (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/holland.html for a rather entertaining interview transcript.)
Clark spent over a year, from October 1995 until February 1997, abroad on the lam. He applied for refugee status in Norway but was, sadly, rejected. Two things happened while he was on this long transatlantic jaunt for freedom: firstly his complaint at the law society, where the disciplinary committee had recommended disbarment, was heard by the broader convocation of the Law society, and secondly he ran out of money. One would imagine that fighting disbarment while a fugitive from justice would put one at a disadvantage, but the Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) is above judging character based on such things. (http://canlii.ca/t/1gp92 , go halfway down to get the convocation decision and reasons) Instead they decided that Clark was just a swell guy trying hard to get heard, and the courts were jerks for not getting that. In about the best show of support he could have hoped for, he was sentenced to a reprimand for a few of the allegations, and most of the rest were dismissed. Everything's turning up roses for our hero! Unfortunately as I said he also ran out of cash, with the result that he and his wife failed to pay their income tax, and as well had to return to Canada to, you know, make a living and whatnot.
Clark returned to BC on February 18 1997, and shockingly was arrested on his outstanding warrant for failing to appear. Apparently the wheels of justice can turn quite quickly when there's no need for witnesses and the judge has had almost 18 months to draft his reasons; on February 21 Judge Friesen found Clark guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to 3 months incarceration(of which only about 1 month was served, of course). The full reasons aren't on Canlii, but are posted by the nice people at SISIS: http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/contempt.html . For now though I'll use the same quotes used in his next disbarment hearing:
In 25 years on the Bench I had never witnessed such anger and violence, except by mentally ill persons...
In these rare "in the face of the court" contempt citations, when a contemnor is arrested, he is brought back from cells at the first opportunity to show cause why he should not be cited. After a brief cooling-off period, the contemnor is usually regretful. An apology is encouraged and accepted. There is then no further penalty and no criminal record associated with the citation.
This is not such a case. Clark deliberately challenged the authority of this court in a most contemptuous, discourteous and angry manner accompanied by some violence. In this way he attempted to intimidate the court to accept his legal argument – an argument which has been rejected on some 40 consecutive attempts.
Despite time in custody, and having had the last 16 months to think about this matter while at large, Clark shows little remorse. He portrays himself as a "prisoner of war", as a "Solhenitzyn" contemned (sic) to a psychiatric ward for speaking the truth. He calls himself a "fugitive for justice" [emphasis is in the original] while at large on a warrant for his arrest for contempt and assault.
He continues to refuse to accept rulings of our courts.
The Law Society of Upper Canada held extensive disciplinary hearings in April 1995. Clark was found guilty of many charges by a panel, was considered ungovernable, and faced disbarment. On review, another panel reversed most of the findings and found him guilty of only a few charges, and governable. Surprisingly, and regrettably, the Law Society of Upper Canada seemed to condone much of Clark's hectoring as "zealous" advocacy – necessary because judges did not give him a proper audience, or consider his argument. That is a false premise. [bold emphasis is in the original]. Judges have listened patiently and carefully to his argument. Must a court listen to the same legal argument for the 41st time when that argument has been heard, considered and rejected 40 consecutive times at all levels in Canada?
As already mentioned, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the Williams, (supra) appeal. Clark then had another setback on September 12, 1995 in the Supreme Court of Canada. He refused to accept these rulings. On September 15, 1995, three days later, he added some violence to his submission in 100 Mile House.
After September 15, 1995, Clark continued his campaign to argue his rejected thesis in the courts. In R. v. Ignace et al. (Prov. CT. (sic) B.C. 100 Mile House #5786 Oct. 6 '95) in another matter (Clark again made his complete submission in his application to appear as counsel in the Gustafsen Lake case) Barnett J., ended his reasons by saying:
I am convinced that two propositions are clear beyond all doubt.
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. The Chief Justice of Canada was absolutely correct when he told Mr. Clark on September 12, [1995] that:
“LAMER C.J.: 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 nine hundred and seventy-five (975) High Court judges of Canada accomplices to genocide is something preposterous. I do not accept that and think you are a disgrace to the bar.”
Second, Mr. Clark apparently knows essentially nothing about the conduct of a criminal trial in Canada. He has repeatedly asked this court to make orders that it cannot possibly make, and he has repeatedly protested orders that this court must make. The various documents filed by Mr. Clark in this court, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the Court of Appeal are, in large part, an utter farrago of nonsense..."
Lamer, C.J. made the above comments to Clark only three days before he (Clark) appeared before me in 100 Mile House; Barnett J. made his comments three weeks later. After evading the warrant for his arrest for 16 months, he continues his attack on the courts in a most contemptuous way. The apology for having spoken a few ill-chosen words does not purge his profound, intractable continuing contempt. He clearly intends to continue his campaign to scandalize the courts as soon as he is released...
...In my view, his intransigent contempt for all Canadian Courts, his deception, and his willingness to resort to violence in the face of the court also jeopardizes the legitimate aspirations and interests of the aboriginal cause...The imposition of the conditional sentence is inappropriate in these circumstances.
Clark appealed his conviction, without success (there are five CANLII decisions on the appeal:
No bail pending appeal http://canlii.ca/t/1dzw5
No day out of jail to argue in person http://canlii.ca/t/1dzss
The sovereignty argument doesn't apply to this case http://canlii.ca/t/1dzsw
Conviction appeals denied http://canlii.ca/t/1dzrn
Sentence appeal denied http://canlii.ca/t/1dzrp ) and he and his wife also went to the federal court of appeal (http://canlii.ca/t/4n6l ) to argue against a tax court ruling (perhaps made in absentia while Clark was in Europe? Does the tax court roll that way?). Clark trotted out the native sovereignty argument again, but to no avail:
Counsel for the appellant has indulged in intemperate language in advancing irrelevant and frivolous arguments to justify the failure of the appellant and her husband to pay income tax as required by Canadian law.
He admits that the recipient of the income in question is not an Indian. Therefore, in our view no arguments as to the status of Indians in Canada, all of which with their supporting documentation we have carefully read, have any relevance to the issue at hand, which in our opinion was correctly decided by the learned Tax Court Judge.
After that, I'm afraid, the trail tapers off dramatically. The Law Society reconsidered the disbarment issue, and decided it was a good idea after all (http://canlii.ca/t/1mx01 ), not that they were influenced by Judge Friesen's outrage over their earlier decision or anything. Clark applied to have the disbarment lifted in 2004 (http://canlii.ca/t/1h0wx )using more honesty ("the Readmission Panel also notes how Mr. Clark’s desire to “get off welfare” was a motivating factor in even applying for readmission") than humility:
I'm glad to have found Clark alive and well enough to be writing his own history on Wikipedia. This really is a tragic story of someone who could have lived a much, much easier life but was instead consumed by an idea which just wasn't meant to be and just couldn't accept that. As a personal note, I think I briefly went to school with (one of?) Clark's son, and can't help but wonder how much he went through out of all this madness.6. Before the formal hearing even began, Mr. Clark presented the Readmission Panel members with an “agenda” containing a motion, asking the Readmission Panel:
To enquire of itself to ensure it is independent and impartial in accordance with the rule of law, and, if it finds it is not to arrange for the emPanelling of a fresh Panel…it is necessarily incidental to the due process resolution of this readmission application, that the Panel consist of individuals in principle capable, and by moral code irrevocably committed in advance to affirming the paramountcy of the rule of law, under which truth is right, over judicial imperialism, under which might is right, if and when those legal ethics conflict in the course of the hearing or deliberations i.e., that the Panel is satisfied, on this threshold issue jurisdictional competence issue, that it is capable of preferring justice over personal interest if and when the two conflict.