Kevin Annett + Common Law = The End of Goliath?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Ritafee

Is Being Human
Current News around Kevin Annett

“Canada and its churches, the British Crown and the Vatican stand guilty as charged as disestablished criminal bodies and can no longer have any lawful or legitimate constitutional authority if the rule of law is to be followed”.

This week’s official admission of massive deaths in the Indian residential schools comes on the heels of shocking new evidence showing that a Vatican and Church of England child sacrifice cult known as the Ninth Circle operated at the same schools for over a century, including at the Mohawk residential school in Brantford, Ontario. (www.itccs.org, March 29, 2014)

Kevin Annett was reached at his home in Nanaimo, British Columbia today and provided the enclosed you tube commentary on the remarkable news.

“I always knew their lies would fall apart, and persistence would pay off” remarked Kevin.

“But I’m thinking now of all my friends who died after struggling to see this day come about, like Bingo Dawson, Billie Combes, Ricky Lavallee and Harry Wilson – some of the eyewitnesses to the Canadian Holocaust who went public at great personal risk. This is their victory, as it belongs to all the missing children. But it will only mean something if Canadians act on this final proof of Genocide by church and state to enforce the verdict and arrest warrants of the Common Law court.

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Queen Elizabeth, Joseph Ratzinger and twenty seven other officials belong behind bars. And more than that, it’s now time to establish a constitutional Republic in Canada that is free and independent of the British Crown and the legacies of Vatican-sponsored Genocide”.

Previous News around Kevin Annett
Eyewitness to Coverup of Genocide in Canada


Interregnum: Crucial Evidence by Rev. Bruce Gunn regarding the removal of Rev. Annett


During the Christmas break and January, 1997, Rev. Bruce Gunn shared with Rev. Annett, Margaret Annett and Dr. Jennifer Wade the following statement that he attempted unsuccessfully to have included in the church hearing’s official record.

20 December, 1996


After Kevin Annett wrote his letter of concern about our church’s sale of Ahousaht land (Lot 363) to non-native associates of our church, I intended to show a copy of his letter to United Church Moderator Marion Best, within a week of its submission to Comox-Nanaimo Presbytery Executive. This would have been at a meeting of the World Mission Division in Toronto on the first weekend of November, 1994, chaired by Ria Whitehead.

Before I could do so, Marion approached me with a copy of Kevin’s letter in her hand. She looked very concerned and she asked me if I knew about the letter. I said I did, and her look said it all. That same week, she had put John Siebert from the national office on the case.

Over the next few months, it was Siebert and Brian Thorpe who set about to neutralize Kevin and get the Ahousaht chiefs on side. They did so by going to Ahousaht and paying off the chiefs with a $14,000 bribe: $7000 directly to them and then by picking up a $7000 tab for research into their land claims. These same chiefs later were encouraged to disassociate themselves from Kevin.

The money was transmitted to the Ahousaht chiefs through the United Church’s Northern Native Group, led by Alvin Dixon.

I believe Kevin’s removal originated from the church’s head office. The church knew that over 1400 lawsuits were coming down the pipe over the residential schools. The fact that Marion Best sent Siebert and Thorpe to buy off the chiefs and rally them against Kevin was confirmed in person to me recently, at a secret meeting of the chiefs with the church head officers, including the Moderator, Marion Best.

The meeting happened at Kevin’s former church, St. Andrew’s, in Port Alberni, where Kathleen Hogman had taken over. It was in early May of of this year (1996). I was asked to attend the meeting. Virginia Coleman, the National Secretary, plus Marion was there. From the native side were Nelson Keitlah, Ron Hamilton and Charlie Thompson, from the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council, and some of the Ahousaht chiefs like the Edgars and the Atleos.

At the meeting, I heard Virginia Coleman, speaking for the entire church, make an offer to the chiefs, saying the church would grant limited compensation to some of the Port Alberni residential school survivors, but only on two conditions: that the chiefs publicly disassociate themselves from Kevin Annett, and that they never support any investigation into deaths of children in their residential schools.

The chiefs all agreed to this deal.

This agreement, and the actions of the highest United Church officers, is I believe responsible for all of the church’s actions against Rev. Annett to date, including this present de-listing hearing. The issue before us is therefore not one of Kevin’s suitability for ministry, which has been amply proven, but rather the church’s efforts to silence an inconvenient whistleblower.

I want to add that the man who removed Kevin from his pulpit, the Personnel officer for B.C. Conference, Art Anderson, came up to me at a gathering in Kelowna in the summer of 1995, soon after he had helped stop the negotiations between Kevin and Presbytery, and said,

“Bruce, if you have any pull with Kevin tell him that he’ll never work in this province again if he doesn’t play ball with us. No-one will ever hire him after he’s being defrocked.”

These facts convince me that from start to finish, Rev. Kevin Annett has been the target of a definite conspiracy, and that this present hearing is merely the final stage in this deliberate professional and public destruction of him by the United Church of Canada and its top officers.

Rev. Bruce W.M. Gunn “
 
How can Harper be held responsible for crimes committed before he was PM or even an MP?
 
Thank you John, I have read all of the content you requested ... I personally, having never met Rev Bruce Gunn, am mandated to respect his opinion. As well I respect your right to disrespect the man being that you probably have met him and found reason to do so. Unfortunately the transcript that you directed me to did not in anyway convince me that the opinions/hearsay of the other 4 United Church Ministers/witnesses called by the Presbytery were more credible ...

Please watch the video in my initial post if you have not already done so ... Dr. Jennifer Wade has recorded the events of the hearing (she was present) quite differently than the United Church Panel did ... 'The silencing of whistleblowers like Kevin Annett is part of the strategy by church and state to conceal their crimes against humanity. Dr. Jennifer Wade, a co-founder of Amnesty International, is an eyewitness to the victimization and defrocking of Rev. Annett after he exposed secret sale of native land and murder by the United Church of Canada.'
 
Alex you asked 'How can Harper be held responsible for crimes committed before he was PM or even an MP?
My short answer is ... Stephen Harper works for/serves the Queen who demands the cover up of any child abuse reports involving 'church' leaders; thus he is guilty by association.
 
You can also read this ------http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/truth.html

The Truth and Its Consequences:
A Reply to my Detractors

by Rev. Kevin Annett

There are those who say if you bring a problem to light ---then you are the problem and are not welcome here ----who is right and who is wrong will not be known by us ---only Kevin and the United Church knows the truth -----The question is ----who are we to judge what we do not know for fact ----

Is Kevin really as bad as they make him out to be or is it just possible that the Church did something they shouldn't have and it was brought to the light and needed to fix the problem ----which was the one who exposed the deal ----

This is what Jesus says about doing right no matter the outcome----

Matthew 5:10-12
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for doing what God approves of.
The kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you,
persecute you,
lie, and say all kinds of evil things about you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad because you have a great reward in heaven!
The prophets who lived before you were persecuted in these ways.

So if Kevin is in the right and he is Born Again he has no worries -----

If Kevin did what they say he did ---then he will be judged by God in the end ----

If the United Church did wrong then again God will be the Judge not us ----

All Churches are run by People and are not always driven by the light -----greed and corruption can and do exist in Religion ---Many-- many Ministers preaching in our Churches are not Born Again and therefore can be driven by this worlds ways of the system that rules this world which is power and greed -----cover ups do happen in Churches as we well know ----

God knows the truth and all sin will be exposed in time ----



1 Corinthians 4:5
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

5 Therefore, don’t judge anything before the appointed time. Wait until the Lord comes. He will also bring to light what is hidden in the dark and reveal people’s motives. Then each person will receive praise from God.

Peace
 
UnDefinitive said:
As well I respect your right to disrespect the man being that you probably have met him and found reason to do so.


Please note that I have not said that I disrespected the man. I said very clearly that I have no respect for his opinion.

If you choose to equate the two you are not conversing honestly.

UnDefinitive said:
'The silencing of whistleblowers like Kevin Annett is part of the strategy by church and state to conceal their crimes against humanity.

Have watched this video and several others supportive of Kevin Annett. I also live in Brantford which is one of the latest claims of mass graves that Mr. Annett claims to have proof of while at the same time refuses to allow anyone access to, "because you can't trust "them."

That First Nations children were subjected to horrific conditions is not in dispute.

That First Nations generations have suffered for the fiasco that was the Residential School system is not in dispute.

That The United Church of Canada was a willing participant in the Residential School program is not in dispute.

What is in dispute, as far as this particular thread is concerned is the trustworthiness of Kevin Annett.

I do not find him to be a trustworthy individual.

UnDefinitive said:
Dr. Jennifer Wade, a co-founder of Amnesty International


This is a bit of a misdirect isn't it? Dr. Jennifer Wade co-founded the Vancouver chapter of Amnesty International which is an altogether different thing. If I open a McDonald's franchise I cannot claim to be a co-founder of the entire McDonald's empire. Well, I could but it would be a deliberate misrepresentation of truth.

While Kevin consistently claims that he was fired for uncovering secrets and blowing whistles the facts flowing out of the review panel are telling.

 
I personally, having never met Rev Bruce Gunn, am mandated to respect his opinion.


I find that a troubling statement, although I suppose it depends on what you mean by "respect." There are a lot of people I've never met whose opinions I don't respect.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? Do you really "respect" the opinions of anyone you've never met?

If I've never met someone, I base my decision on whether to respect their opinions on other matters.

I confess that I haven't followed the Kevin Annett controversy closely enough to have an opinion on how much "respect" the views he or Mr. Gunn express deserve. So, rather than "respect" I'd simply say I have an open mind.
 
I do believe there should be a full investigation into what actually took place. Appointing a neutral party to investigate all claims seems appropriate. Of course I suppose this would have to be someone that is not from Canada who has no vested interest either way other than to arrive at the truth. For the United/Anglican/Roman Catholic Church to seek justice, it seems to me that it would be impossible to be totally objective in any findings. Same goes for any government run inquiries, IMHO. It would be similar to having an alleged criminal supplying their own evidence and investigation with the victims being on trial.

The problem is, is there such a person or group that could do this without prejudice? Above being unduly influenced by either side?
 
Last edited:
An international NGO (NOT Amnesty, who have biases of their own) like the World Court or some arm of the UN would be the best option, I think. There could still be prejudices but at least they would not have any direct connection to the events or be under possible suspicion of involvement.
 
Alex you asked 'How can Harper be held responsible for crimes committed before he was PM or even an MP?
My short answer is ... Stephen Harper works for/serves the Queen who demands the cover up of any child abuse reports involving 'church' leaders; thus he is guilty by association.
I'm hardly unwilling to believe in churches doing terrible things, and I'm no fan of the PM or the Conservatives, but you really shot your credibility in the foot with that one. That comment isn't close to rational.
 
The more I read about Kevin Annett, on the sites that are by him or his supporters, the worse he looks. I don't even have to read any of his detractors words. The guy is a flake. Who runs around saying he is a "Nobel Peace Prize nominee"? The Nobel committee has a strict 50 year secrecy rule, so we'll never know if he actually was nominated. I can call myself a nominee. Nobody runs around calling themselves a nominee.

Plus, if you follow links about this guys and his impressive-sounding organizations that nobody has ever heard of and his nameless academic supporters, you hit waves of conspiracy theory verbage that is just utter crap.

This is the sort of thing that distracts from the actual abuse. He isn't helping his own purported cause.
 
chansen said:
This is the sort of thing that distracts from the actual abuse. He isn't helping his own purported cause.


Which, of all the tragedy his ministry represents, is perhaps the greatest tragedy.

 
Alex you asked 'How can Harper be held responsible for crimes committed before he was PM or even an MP?
My short answer is ... Stephen Harper works for/serves the Queen who demands the cover up of any child abuse reports involving 'church' leaders; thus he is guilty by association.
M where does the idea that one can be guilty by association. Is it a concept like original sin, or does it derive itself from some sort or alternative law?
 
Alex said:
where does the idea that one can be guilty by association. Is it a concept like original sin, or does it derive itself from some sort or alternative law?

While I cannot speak for UnDefinitive I think that there has been a confusion of terms.

Rather than guilt by association (which is an ad hominem) I believe the proper appeal is to vicarious responsibility. Typically vicarious liability flows up rather than down.

The most relevant case is found in Blackwater v Plint. Arthur Plint was the individual found liable for repeated sexual assaults made against Willie Blackwater. The United Church of Canada and the Government of Canada were found liable because Plint was in their employ and they failed to exercise sufficient oversight. Plint is guilty of sexual assault, that liability is applied vicariously to the United Church and the Federal Government who were responsible for Plint.

Supreme Court ruling on the vicarious liability issue is found here: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2239/index.do
 
Hello... with a cheery emphasis on a rainy day in Steinbach...

Kevin dropped in for coffee and conversation during the year I Occupied the student lounge, in the Iona Building of the Vancouver School of Theology. I was an early listener as he struggled to bring his insight into general view. This cost him much, including a broken relationship with his wife.

Kevin is an interesting case. His notice of travesty is not far from the mark. He might have fared better had those with pastoral oversight been at least a little more diligent than they were. Rather than investigate his findings, those with stewardship of institutional well being called his person into question. As if an unbalanced emotional state trumps evidence.

Kevin has attracted the attention, and occasionally the endorsement, of persons such as Shirley MacClaine and Noam Chomsky. He also aligned himself with indigenous persons struggling for notice in the public square. All as something of a loner who, the last time I met him in Vancouver, continued to live with his ailing mother as her primary support.

Kevin is a person caught up with an important insight. We may dismiss, on various pertinent points, Kevin, but this does not diminish the indictment he has championed.

Kevin was one of many persons who shared experience with me in the Occupied student lounge. David Milgaard was another. He remembered his life in my hearing and I had opportunity for gleaning substantial insight.

As one who sees and says,

George
 
Back
Top