Debunking Kevin Annett’s Kangaroo Courts…

The (dis) Honourable Kevin Annett

As I explained in my article about bush turkeys, they are pesky creatures who, once they start building a nest in your back yard, are very hard to get rid of. That analogy couldn’t have been more true about Kevin Annett- despite the fact that the vast majority of people have seen through his deception- he just keeps on trying…

A friend posted a link on my Facebook page a couple of days ago of Annett doing an interview with the Truther Girls last week. It would have been funny, had it not been so say- listening to Annett continue shovelling his manure can be rather depressing at times. But, as comedic relief, Annett does make a number of humorous misstatements:

1. “We Are Establishing de Jure Courts”

Annett’s use of the phrase de Jure is good for a laugh. De Jure means “legitimate”- so, what he’s saying is that he’s creating legitimate courts by the virtue of saying they are legitimate. The problem is that they aren’t- one can’t create their own court. Well, one could, but it would be a kangaroo court- and this pretty much nullifies the use of the word de jure. Basically, this whole statement of his is beyond stupid…

2. “They are acting under an order from the Vatican, it’s a law called Crimen Sollicitationis under Canon Law”

Once again Kevin has got something so wrong it is laughable. Crimen sollicitationis is a document that was created by the Vatican in 1962. But, the Vatican is no longer operating under this document- in fact, it was nullified on May 18th, 2001. Currently, the Catholic Church operates under a document titled “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela”. So, sorry Kevin, you are exposing your ignorance when you say this…

3. “This is not a mock trial…We are setting up, under common law power…”

There are two primary types of law- Common Law & Statute Law. Common law refers to the laws that are more or less “that’s the way it has always been done.” Common law relies upon the body of history and prior cases to establish what the rules are, one of the reasons lawyers study past cases so much. Statute law refers to the laws that have been passed by the legislature and have been written down and ‘codified’ for use.

Annett says he is conducting a criminal case, Criminal Law is codified into Statute Law, and is not related to Common Law. So, when Annett says his tribunals are not”mock trials” but they are, but virtue of the fact that tribunals are, in Canada, creatures of statute only. So, basically, what Annett is saying here, is circular nonsense.

4. “We are creating Peace officers”

Once again, Annett contradicts himself here. Peace Officers are, in Canada, defined under Statute Law and not under Common Law.

5. “We are going to conduct citizen arrests”

Section 494 of the Criminal Code outlines the circumstances where a citizen may make a citizens arrest. One is ONLY able to do it if one catches a criminal IN THE ACT of committing an indictable offense. So, once more, this is complete nonsense. If anyone actually takes Annett’s advice on citizen arrests they would find themselves charged with a crime.

Annett claims that he has a “highly experienced” legal team working with him- this is obviously a lie. Because, if he actually had qualified and experienced lawyers, they would have immediately corrected him on what he has been saying. I know, as I’ve run the information in this article past a couple of lawyers, and they both agree with me on all of these points.

Kevin’s statements are continually proven to be so wrong they are ludicrous. I proved that while he was lying about filing an (impossible to file) court case in Toronto. He proved this himself after claiming, with absolute confidence, that he found human bones at the Six Nations reserve (they turned out to be animal.) There are so many examples of how Annett is lying that it is hard to keep up with all of them in fact.

If you are someone who is still supporting this guy, you need to think long and hard about what you are doing. The longer you support Annett, the less likely it will look like you are an innocent person who was fooled, and the more likely it is you will be seen as a co-conspirator. The consequences of this could have a serious impact on your life- perhaps to the point of losing your freedom…

And, a special note to Alfred Webre. You have no excuse to be standing behind this nonsense- you’re a lawyer, remember? As it stands, until you take action to separate yourself from Kevin Annett’s deception, you are a de facto co-conspirator…

Permanent link to this article:


1 ping

Skip to comment form

    • Standing Water on August 7, 2012 at 20:48
    • Reply

    Well, Greg, this is an interesting topic, but I think you’re being too general—the sources are out there now, on-line. From the Year Books:

    “Come ley ad estre tout teps pur le creation de mod.
    Common law was at all times used from the creation of the world.” (10 Edw. 4 fol. 4)

    “To such Laws that they of the Holy Church have in Ancient Scripture, it is proper for us to give credence, because that is Common Law on which all manner of laws are founded
    A tielx Leis que ils de Saint Eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient a nous a doner credence, car ceo Common Ley sur quel touts manners Leis sont fondes” (36 H. 6 fol. 40)

    “Common Reason, which is Common Law
    comon reason, qui est Comon Ley” (35 H. 6 fol 53)

    Therefore, we see that Common Law is what has been used from the creation of the world, common reason. We see that Reason and Law are convertible terms. In the middle, we see that the ancient scriptures of the church are to be given credit, because that is common law. The reports I’m citing from are the Year Books—not really taught in law school anymore, because the content is a bit powerful:

    “and Sir, it is not conscience that makes use but common reason, which is common law, and common law is indifferent to all laws both spiritual and temporal &
    Et sir, conscyens ne fait use, mez comen reason: que est comen ley, le quell est indyfferent a toutez leyez cy bien spirituall come temporall” (14 H. 8 fol 8)

    Therefore, we see that common law is the indifferent arbiter of all uses, be they spiritual or temporal. And this extends to the use of temporal statutes, such as criminal codes. So I disagree with you that any codification of criminal law removes the common law’s superintendence of uses.

    Now, where Annett falls down is that the power of justice and mercy belong only to the supreme power, whoever that is. He also lacks coercion over Vatican City, the Queen, etc. etc, so he would be a delusional judge. And since he is asking for people’s money, that’s not right. But if he were doing it for free, I would think it an excellent bit of theater to highlight the need for some procedure for drawing groups like the Crown to account. I think a lot of people support it because they see it as theater, theater that is at least satisfying compared with the Crown’s judicial-theatrical offerings of late.

    On the other hand, maybe that simply means that if you’re using the right forms, that is, those approved by the supreme power, whoever you are, you can be a judge. In the Mirror, the oldest common law textbook, or at least one of the oldest, it says that anyone may be a judge, pretty much, except for minors and some other groups.

    I agree with your assessment of Annett, but I think you are being a bit too dismissive of the bright-side to all of this. If people look into what the phrase “de jure” means, perhaps they will decide that there are some things which, when done, render any government “de facto” and no longer “de jure.”

    • ptehinsilaska on August 14, 2012 at 20:56
    • Reply

    Well, Kevin, ah Standing Water…since “de jure” refers to the first law of the land, the Law of the Clan Mothers, which render the governments of the world “de facto” only when the Mystery Religion of Bablyon falls…for only then are they “post”, or void, I see that your half baked understanding of esoteric and archaic knowledge falls on its face, as you say. Quite right that you would be a delusional judge. See, the problem with you, Kevin Annett, is that you have deep psychopathy and exhibit smallness and hatred in the presentation of your character. Even if you had noble ideas about falling the foundations of Mystery Babylon, all by yourself, I’m sorry to be the one to crack your massively deformed, bloated and maniacal ego….all your elegant language and research is a tragic waste of time – for you are not only not a noble man, you are a common and lowly criminal. If Common Law is to take jurisdiction over Criminal Law, then it will be applied to you, not by you. Those of us with actual justice for anything in mind, are doing our best to see to it that that Criminal Law will swiftly and soon be applying to you.- law with conscience and common reason as well. It takes a spiritually awakened individual to understand the words and concept you grapple with Kevin…and you are of a most sordid heart. Indeed your path is Apostasy, and the one you should be judging is yourself. Hmmmm, the priest that wants to judge the priests……

      • sheray on August 15, 2012 at 19:16
      • Reply


    • sharon on December 19, 2014 at 12:57
    • Reply

    In light of what has come out this past week about the deceptive kevin annett, Alfred Webre has taken action to separate himself from this conman.

    1. Alfred Webre has been enabling this fraud for over 10 years. Taking action to “separate” himself, without accepting culpability isn’t enough of a reaction – it’s the response of a weasel.

  1. Hiya, Hope its okay to bring up some of the points you make in an interview I will be doing re: Common Law and Kevvies ignorance. I will site your article of course! Cheers, Rachael.

    1. Feel free, it’s all public domain and open to share. :)

What's your opinion?

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

%d bloggers like this: