Kevin Annett: The Bush Turkey Busted In Another (Big) Lie!

Kevin Annett – Busted Once More!

I really must admit, Kevin Annett is one of the most fun subjects I’ve had the pleasure to write about. The best part about covering this guy is that he is both a liar, and that he is a bad liar. That, and the fact he has so much content out there on the Internet that it is astoundingly easy to catch him in his mistruths. It’s like shooting bush turkeys in a barrel!

If you have been following me through my coverage of Annett, you’ll probably never forget the infamous ‘ex-parte’ incident at Jason Bowman’s press conference. Not only did Bowman ask me for a reacharound, but he totally got caught in a lie with his incorrect explanation of what ex-parte means.

The true meaning of ex-parte is that a case can be discussed when the defendant is not present. This only happens when the defendant cannot be located. Bowman & Annett tried to tell the world that ex-parte means a case can be tried in-secret and the documents will not be shown to the defendant. But, of course, we don’t allow kangaroo courts in Canada…

I was in a self-flagellating mood today I guess, so I endured watching Annett’s appropriately named documentary “Unrepentant” again. My first realization is that it is more about Kevin than it is about the people he claims to be representing. But, I guess that’s par for the course.

Then, I ran across a real gem- a small clip of video where Annett complains about his defrocking. Kevin says “…for centuries, people have had three basic rights under common law. The first is to know the charges that are brought against you, the second the right to face your accusers, the third is a right to a trial before your own peers.”

Exactly Kevin! That’s why the whole ‘ex-parte’ thing was wong! But, it seems, you already knew that- didn’t you? Time to give-up Kevin, you are so busted that there’s no way of getting out of this now. You can’t play stupid on the Bowman case any longer- this proves it. You too Alfred Webre- you’re a lawyer, right?

Here’s the video:

Permanent link to this article:


Skip to comment form

  1. lol you’re right it is fun, and kevin if you believe in facing your accusers come and face us in a debate we’ll see who’s got the stronger position.

    1. Indeed, I’m about to write a letter to Annett inviting him to a debate when he arrives in Toronto later this week. Doubt he will accept though- he’s a total coward…

  2. [Latin, On one side only.] Done by, for, or on the application of one party alone.

    An ex parte judicial proceeding is conducted for the benefit of only one party. Ex parte may also describe contact with a person represented by an attorney, outside the presence of the attorney. The term ex parte is used in a case name to signify that the suit was brought by the person whose name follows the term.

    Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” A bedrock feature of due process is fair notice to parties who may be affected by legal proceedings. An ex parte judicial proceeding, conducted without notice to, and outside the presence of, affected parties, would appear to violate the Constitution. However, adequate notice of judicial proceedings to concerned parties may at times work irreparable harm to one or more of those parties. In such a case, the threatened party or parties may receive an ex parte court hearing to request temporary judicial relief without notice to, and outside the presence of, other persons affected by the hearing.

    Ex parte judicial proceedings are usually reserved for urgent matters where requiring notice would subject one party to irreparable harm. For example, a person suffering abuse at the hands of a spouse or significant other may seek ex parte a Temporary Restraining Order from a court, directing the alleged abuser to stay away from him or her. Ex parte judicial proceedings are also used to stop irreparable injury to property. For example, if two neighbors, Reggie and Veronica, disagree over whose property a tree stands on, and Reggie wants to cut down the tree whereas Veronica wants to save it, Veronica can seek an ex parte hearing before a judge. At the hearing, she will ask the judge for a temporary Restraining Order preventing Reggie from felling the tree. She will have to show the judge that she had no reasonable opportunity to provide Reggie with formal notice of the hearing, and that she might win the case. The court will then balance the potential hardships to Reggie and Veronica, in considering whether to grant Veronica’s request.

    A court order from an ex parte hearing is swiftly followed by a full hearing between the interested parties to the dispute. State and federal legislatures maintain laws allowing ex parte proceedings because such hearings balance the right to notice against the right to use the legal system to avert imminent and irreparable harm. Far from violating the Constitution, the ex parte proceeding is a lasting illustration of the elasticity of due process.

    Ex parte contact occurs when an attorney communicates with another party outside the presence of that party’s attorney. Ex parte contact also describes a judge who communicates with one party to a lawsuit to the exclusion of the other party or parties, or a judge who initiates discussions about a case with disinterested third parties. Canon 3(A)(4) of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct discourages judges from such ex parte communications. Under rule 4.2 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer should refrain from contacting a party who the lawyer knows is represented by another attorney, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other attorney or is authorized by law to do so.

    In a case name, ex parte signifies that the suit was initiated by the person whose name follows the term. For example, Ex parte Williams means that the case was brought on Williams’s request alone. Many jurisdictions have abandoned ex parte in case names, preferring English over Latin terms (e.g., Application of Williams or Petition of Williams). In some jurisdictions, ex parte has been replaced by in re, which means “in the matter of” (e.g., In re Williams). However, most jurisdictions reserve the term in re for proceedings concerning property.
    Further readings

    Campagna, Larry A. 2002. “The Prohibition of Ex Parte Communications by Appeals Officers.” The Practical Tax Lawyer 16 (winter).

    Flowers, Roberta K. 2000. “An Unholy Alliance: The Ex Parte Relationship Between the Judge and the Prosecutor.” Nebraska Law Review 79 (spring).

    Gottlieb, Henry. 1995. “ABA Limits Ex-Parte Contacts; N.J. Lawyer Dissents.” New Jersey Law Journal (September 4).

    Harhut, C.T. 1995. “Ex Parte Communication Initiated by a Presiding Judge.” Temple Law Review 68.
    West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

    ex parte (ex par-tay, but popularly, ex party) adj. Latin meaning “for one party,” referring to motions, hearings or orders granted on the request of and for the benefit of one party only. This is an exception to the basic rule of court procedure that both parties must be present at any argument before a judge, and to the otherwise strict rule that an attorney may not notify a judge without previously notifying the opposition. Ex parte matters are usually temporary orders (like a restraining order or temporary custody) pending a formal hearing, or an emergency request for a continuance. Most jurisdictions require at least a diligent attempt to contact the other party’s lawyer of the time and place of any ex parte hearing.

    1. Thanks for sharing! I think this proves the point. Kevin Annett and Jason Bowman were full of it with their explanation of “ex-parte”…

    • Sheray on July 24, 2012 at 14:12
    • Reply

    … it’s evident that the entire drama is about Kevin’s desperate compulsion to imagine himself as some sort of savior figure in hopes of finding fame and fortune at whatever cost. Unfortunately he is so imbalanced he can only discern his intentions and behavior as a moralistic noble movement. Something tells me it is impossible for Kevin to look into the mirror and see the truth. Any word on what has happened with Jason Bowman lately?

    1. You’re right, it is probably impossible, without support of the mental health system, to get Annett to see the truth about what he’s been doing. This is so sad.

      The last I heard, Bowman is hiding out in a campground somewhere trying to figure out what to do with himself. Hopefully he will figure the right thing to do and help stop Annett from hurting more people. Bowman has the opportunity to come-out as a hero in this situation, let’s hope he figures that out…

    • Sheray on July 24, 2012 at 14:42
    • Reply

    If mental health were to get involved I feel it still wouldn’t get him to see the truth. I am pretty sure it would further feed his illusion that he is so important that the authorities must label him as crazy so us mere sheep won’t discover the truth. Nothing will help him, but you are right there are opportunities for individuals to stop him from hurting more people. Thanks for your research/writing Grenouf!!!

    • Dr. Nibblefang on July 24, 2012 at 17:52
    • Reply

    I have discovered the reason for Annett telling these fabulous stories. I have concluded that he has added some really potent pesticides to his kool Aid rations.

    1. Okay, so he’s high on Monsanto’s Roundup, that makes sense!

    • Pte Hinsila Ska on July 28, 2012 at 11:52
    • Reply

    If his lips are moving…….

What's your opinion?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: