If you feel that these interviews are providing you with an expanded perspective, more encouragement, and additional insights into our daily planetary and galactic walk, please consider donating to my website GalacticConnection.com.  Thank you for your support!  And thank you for coming by GalacticConnection.com to peruse our online library of galactically oriented information and education.-A.M.

Help Us Awaken the World
with Your Donations

Also, because this is a free public service, I am in need of a transcriber that will put forth the effort to transcribe these interviews for the entire world to transcribe into their own language and read easily. There have been many requests from abroad. If you are willing to work for The Light and spread The Light, please contact me.

microphone (1)Kevin Annett and Alexandra Meadors April 15, 2014
Galactic Connection.com on BBS RadioAlexandra: Good afternoon everyone. This is Alexandra Meadors of Galactic Connection.com and today we have a really special follow-up radio show with Kevin Annett. And I would like to just give you a brief background on him as I did before. If you want more information you can always go up to the Galactic Connection page at the BBS Radio Show profile and you’ll have even more information up there. But as many of you know, Kevin Annett is an internationally acclaimed whistleblower truly. And a Nobel Prize nominee. He also established the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State in 2010. And was very, very effective in deposing one Pope and now threatening that of another. So we have a lot of good information to review tonight, to see what kind of victories Kevin has achieved in the last week or so. And right now he’s racheting up the campaign to permanently de-establish the Vatican as a convicted transnational criminal body that openly trafficks people and children and protects child rapists. So if you want anymore information please feel free to go there, but every moment is precious with Kevin. He’s on the road. I’m very honored to speak to him today and we have a lot to go over. So Kevin, hello, hello, hello. How are you?Kevin: I’m doing really fine, thanks Alexandra. It’s good to talk to you again.

Alexandra: Yeah, You too. I’m glad we finally got this together. We had a lot of interference, everybody. Nobody is surprised about that, right? But I wanted to start out with, you know, you put out a very interesting article – ‘The Slung Stone called the Truth, and its Consequences: Living in a Post-Goliath World.’ I thought that was really fascinating. I kind of wanted to start out with – you were mentioning how your battle has been won. And you’re kind of in that stunned phase of do I really truly believe that this has happened. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

Kevin: Well, it was very graphically shown to me just this last week in an anecdote I shared in that article. I should mention to folks that you can follow all of the stuff on our website
. But anyway, that anecdote describes how just a few days ago before I left Vancouver, I met with a retired, fairly senior member of the Royal Canada Mounted Police, that’s for people who don’t know, that’s kind of Canada’s political police, the ones who are historically responsible for many of these crimes, including against the indigenous children. And this man said, that there’s a standing notice to all RCMP officers to not go near me. And the reason is because they are very worried about these stand down orders that the common law court issued against all the agents of the Crown and the Vatican. And in his words, he says, ‘We know what we did.’ In other words, they knew they were guilty of these crimes and they understand the power, even if most citizens don’t. They understand the power of a common law verdict that says that you are not obligated to obey the orders of criminals in high office. The Nurenburg legal precedents after World War II say that. The International Criminal Court says that, the international law says that – that the police, the judges, the soldiers, the members of Parliament and the Congressmen and all these people who are serving criminal bodies are obligated, and in fact, ordered by the citizenry to stand down if they’re going to obey the orders of those criminal bodies.

So they understand if push came to shove, they’d be in a very bad situation so they are not going near this at all. And people often say, well, what good can you do, that is the good that we are doing. We are shaking these institutions to their foundations. And not just legally, but spiritually. There’s a big battle going on, you know, on earth as also in heaven. And the real nature of these false churches and these institutions that kill children and traffick in them – they are being exposed, the mask is slipping. I was on the phone this evening with a woman in South Dakota who said, not only has she left the Catholic church because what we’ve exposed, but she’s going to all of the congregation and is telling them, if you still go to this church – don’t give them money. They are starting to do that, they are circulating a petition saying, we didn’t realize that our church has a policy of protecting child rapists and of priests who rape kids.

A: That’s so great.

K: Yeah. They’re an up and up force. This shows you how that big wave of change is happening and it’s very exciting to be a part of.

A: Well, apparently you kind of started all of this in the year 2000, right? It looks like that is about when you started really breaking into the whole child trafficking, right?

K: Well, it happened a few years before that when I was a clergyman, a minister in the west coast of Canada. But in the year 2000, I first published a lot of the cumulated evidence that I had gathered for the previous three or four years and it was a book. In February, 2000, I published the book called, ‘Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust,’ which described the massive death rate in the residential schools based on governmental documents, you know, of the constant death rate of over 50% of much of the 20th century in these Indian schools. I published that in the year 2000, and finally, last month for the first time, the Canadian Government acknowledged, yes, that tens of thousands of children died. So it took them 14 years, but it shows that the power of truth and persistence that, yeah, it does move mountains.

A: Yeah, and your amazing dedication and tenacity. You know, you have such a reputation out there, and you really truly are showing the rest of us what it is to win a victory because you see that light at the end of the tunnel – you never give up. And I just honor you for that and I’m so grateful to be talking to you tonight.

K: Well, thank you. I just need to say something about that though. Why wouldn’t anyone, when you know something is wrong, why wouldn’t you continue to oppose that wrong or to continue to speak about the truth you know. To me that’s the normal moral behavior for a human being.

A: I totally agree. I totally agree.

K: Right, yeah, yeah, so I don’t think I’m doing anything unusual. I think I’m just doing what any moral person should do.

A: Well, I think it’s your fearlessness too. You know, you just have that knowingness that no matter what you are here to do, you’ve got to get this done.

K: Oh yeah.

A: Everytime I speak to you, you’re so committed to your mission and your cause. I want the rest of my audience tonight to really, hopefully, have that ignite their missions.

K: Right, exactly. That’s why I’m doing this. I’m not a one-man show, I don’t want to be a hero, I want everybody to get on board with this. To take responsibility.

A: Exactly, exactly. And I want people to notice that, I find this fascinating, I’m looking at your background. Apparently, you were kind of a protester in many walks, eh?

K: Oh yeah, oh yeah. Oh, as a teenager, I was very involved in a lot of causes. One of the first protest I ever did was about the – I helped organize, as a high school student in Vancouver, Canada, we shut down a lot of the high schools because this nuclear testing was going off in Alaska. There is an island called Amchitka – and the US was doing nuclear testing there. And we went into all the high schools and pulled the fire alarms and had 10,000 students downtown protesting at the US Consulate. And that was my first act. But no, for years after that, I definitely see myself as, you could say, an activist. I was very involved in a lot of different kind of social justice movements, but also helping people on the ground. That’s how I got into the ministry. Because I had been working in the poorer part of Vancouver, doing a lot of social work and organizing people and that, so that kind of led naturally into the ministry for me.

A: You know, at what point did a bell go off within your head? Was it during the time when you were writing your book? I noticed that you had quite a few friends that were actually Indians that had gone through this type of torturous experience and I was just wondering what was the really turning point for you when you said, enough is enough. You know, it’s one thing to research it and put it in a book and it’s another to just go after it and bring it down.

K: Well, you know, I had that experience early on, the first Native man I ever spoke to when I got to Port Alberni in 1992. The very first week that I started in St Andrew’s United Church as a minister there I met a man who had seen his best friend killed in the residential school run by my church at the time. And I knew then, look – there’s something’s really serious here, because I kept talking to a lot of Native people that kept telling me the same story. And I mean, it started out early but I think that the turn in me
happened was
when I went through the loss of my own children when, you know, my wife encouraged and actually paid by the church, left me and won custody of our daughters who were only 6 and 3 at the time.

A: That’s right.

K: It was that realization, it hit me like a ton of bricks that if they could do that to me, just deliberately destroy my family like that because of what I had uncovered, there’s no humanity in these people. Then it made sense to me. Well, of course, they could kill these children. You know, when that level of inhumanity is at work, I guess it had to hit me personally. It wasn’t just an abstraction anymore at that point to me.

A: Wow, wow. Well, on to a little of a brighter note. Tell us a little bit about your experience this last week with the latest trial that you had.

K: Well, on April 7th, if you folks are following our work you might remember that last year we did – as you mentioned, the first case of the common law court in Brussels – now this was a convened court that looked at a lot of the evidence of genocide in Canada and brought in a verdict of guilty against Pope Benedict who did resign within the same two-week period that our verdict came in. And Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister of Canada and other officials were all named. The second case has to do with global child trafficking. There is a tremendous amount of evidence. There are sixteen witnesses who have already made statements to the court and the three main defendants are the present Pope Francis, the head of the Church of England Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, and the head of the Jesuits, a guy called Adolfo Pachon. There is evidence linking all three of those men not just in concealing and protecting child rapists and child trafficking in the Catholic and Anglican churches, but they have been actively participating in occult ritual, torturing and even killing the children. And this is from eyewitnesses, these are from people in government, in church, and they are really credible witnesses.

As the matter of fact, as to the present Pope, we have a man living in Spain under close protection who was a member of the Argentine military junta, he was a civil servant and he sat on meetings when this present Pope, Jorge Bergoglio planned with the Argentine military how they were going to kidnap and traffick the children of the political prisoners being held and killed in the jails of Argentina. And this is how Bergoglio became the head of the Argentine Church – by doing that and the other things that helped the military dictatorship. All of this is going to be coming out in the court and the prosecution has opened its main case. It is presenting evidence, we sent out a posting about that – it’s again up at
so people can read some of this. But it’s really horrifying stuff – we are talking about ritual sacrifice of children – we are talking about these cults that operate within the Catholic Church and other places. So it’s kind of like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, more of the pieces are coming into place now.

A: I think that the most fascinating thing in all of the investigation that you’ve done is, there doesn’t seem to appear one part of our civilization that has not been infiltrated by this ring. Would you agree with that?

K: Yes, I would agree. The testimonies for example, a woman in Holland who has actually gone public already two years ago, her name is Toos Nijenhuis, and she was born into this satanic network. Women are used as quote ‘breeders’ to have children either to sacrifice their baby or to raise their children as members of the cult. She saw very prominent officials, Prince Bernhard, founder of the Bilderbergs, the royal family in England, you know, members of the royal family, senior politicians. As a matter of fact, there was a famous case in the news involving a child serial killer called Marc Dutroux in Belgium and when Dutroux was arrested they found remains of children all through the basement of his house. But also evidence, that senior politicians, judges, heads of UN committees, they all were involved in this. There’s a Belgian member of Parliament now, Laurent Louis, whom I’m actually meeting this week and we are hoping to have a press conference together. He has named the Prime Minister of Belgium as being a child rapist and he’s facing criminal charges for doing that, they are really coming down on him, but he’s perservering. He’s got a lot of evidence linking a lot of these politicians and military people, all sorts of people. It’s an huge industry, child trafficking.

A: You know, I noticed that’s got a lot of publicity, I know I blogged several articles about Holland and the huge child trafficking ring there. It seems to be located around the Vatican, England, and Holland. Now is that a false sense of perception?

K: Well, what that indicates is that’s where the witnesses are based. So it’s kind of biased in favor of the evidence we that we’ve accumulated so far.

A: Okay.

K: But it is an international network. One of our informants in New York who I actually have seen numerous times, she knows people who still operate within these satanic networks so she’s got to be very careful so she’s not killed in disclosing this stuff. But to give you an example they, regularly, routinely, at full moons have ritual slaying of babies in Catholic cathedrals – it’s got to be at a Catholic cathedral – and she names – there’s a Cathedral in Montreal, there’s one right in New York City – there’s places where they happen in the catacombs – in the underground areas of the church. So this is widely known but heavily protected, so you kind of have to build these cases from the ground up, under a lot of harassment and threats. As a matter of fact, we learned from a source in Rome that the Vatican had dispatched a team to disrupt the court which is why it is actually meeting behind closed doors right now. We wanted it to be a public trial and it may be eventually, but for now we want to protect the witnesses and the evidence primarily. So we’re just disclosing the evidence periodically, but we’ve got to be aware of that there’s a lot of people out there involving these crimes that naturally don’t want this brought out.

A: I’ll bet. You literally are going for the head, you know, topping off the head.

K: Yes.

A: Of this whole conspiracy, you know.

K: That’s the only way to stop it.

A: Yeah, exactly. And I was going to ask you, now Jorge Bergoglio, he refused to challenge or deny any of these criminal charges, right? Is that where we still stand?

K: Right. Last month, these are all Youtube postings again at
, we issued a public summons to the three of them, Bergoglio, Pachon and Welby, and none of them responded. We sent them letters, registered letters, and never got a response. Now in the law, that’s called
which means ‘we do not contest the charges.’ And a judge normally in a court case would say, well, that’s a tacit admission of guilt – they’re not willing to defend their own good name when they’ve been called murders and child traffickers, that says they’re not challenging that, that statement. It strengthens the prosecution’s case tremendously. Because, you know, now they’re proceeding as, well, we’re assuming that the defendants are not saying anything in their own defense here. So we’re following legal procedure and due process. But like anybody that in that position, they think that they are impervious. They think they are God and think they can get away with anything. But their whole system is coming apart from the ground up and we have a lot of indication of that all the time.

A: I really wanted you to really clarify with the public right now what has transpired within the government of Canada. I think it’s just phenomenal what you’re talking about regarding the flag not being in the courtroom (right) with the fringe, right?

K: Right. Well, Canada is one example but you find the same thing in the United States as well. Recognizing that what we think are courts that are supposed to be convened under natural law which says that the courts are really the arm of the people not the judiciary – those courts are actually now private commercial courts and the judges are employees of these corporations. An example of that in Canada, there are no more Canadian flags in the court rooms. The only authority is this crest of the City of London otherwise known as the Crown of England. Just a couple of months ago I was in the British Columbia Supreme Court with a group of Native elders who were fighting for their fishing rights and I said to one of the elders, ask this judge if this was a public or private court and ask her for her Oath of Office, and he did. And each time she refused to answer, she finally said, ‘Either sit down or I will have you removed.’

Now again, not contesting what is being said, why wouldn’t you, if you were a public official who had taken an oath to abide by the law and to enact justice, why would you not say what your oath of office is. So these people, like, you know, any
, and there’s a difference between under the law,
means it’s the lawful and just system.
means, it isn’t ‘just’ or ‘lawful,’ but they’re a fact, they’re the power like when there’s a military coup and the military takes over, they’re
power even though they don’t have any legitimate authority. That’s what we are living under now –
rule, whether it’s the church, the courts, or governments. They’re not accountable to the people anymore and that’s even written in the – any member of Parliament, or judge, or a police official in Canada takes an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth and her descendants, that’s it, not to the people of Canada, not to the Constitution.

A: Yuck.

K: Yes, so they’re serving a foreign corporate entity, not the people. So we’ve said to them, and I constantly say to corrupt officials, you’re not accountable to us so why should I obey any of your rulings or anything. These statutes that governments bring in – this is a really important thing that people need to know. They brainwash us to think that a statute is the law and it has to be obeyed – it isn’t. Because if you look into the long tradition in common law in England it says, a statute which is a rule that government brings in basically to maintain themselves or to make money for themselves, like traffic tickets, and whatever. These statutes only have binding authority over the citizens if they consent. (Yes) If they don’t consent, it has no authority over you. It’s that simple. (Bingo) They never tell you that bit.

A: Right. Yeah, I know. That’s a good point. And I wanted to ask you too, you must be running up against not only death threats but an immense amount of disinformation campaigning. (Yup) How do you overcome that, I mean, what is your daily walk in trying to get past the mainstream media that would probably be blocking it as well as the security and the police that they own?

K: Well, at first I lost a lot sleep over this, because it’s like trying to fight a whole nest of hornets coming at you and I was trying to whack at them. But what I realized after awhile was to ignore them and build up your own light. Build up your own work and that creates a counterweight which is much more powerful than anything they can throw at you. So all the smears, all the accusations, all the attacks that come, I just ignore, literally.

A: That’s a good point, because when you resist you feed.

K: That’s right. You give them energy and power by resisting. But what they can’t fight is the fact that – and here’s the simple proof – I remember when I was interviewed by – when they
to interview me, they haven’t in 5 or 6 years – the corporate media in Canada, the Globe and Mail is the biggest newspaper and they interviewed me and they said, how do you respond to these allegations that you just made up these figures. I said, well, they are not made up, these are government documents showing that 50% of these kids were dying decade after decade – that’s a deliberate plan of extermination, it’s not just some random deaths. And anyway, if I was wrong, how come I’ve never been sued. How come the government and the church have never taken me to court with their own counter evidence, they never have.

A: Wow.

K: Okay, now the proof is right there. (Yes) They’re admitting by their silence that it’s true. And I just stand on that. Show me the evidence, let’s stay on the truth, not name-calling, not allegations or innuendo, or any of this nonsense. That’s all that they have. It’s like when I was in law, my first year they taught you this in legal process class. They said, in a trial, if the evidence is on your side you argue the evidence. If the evidence is against your client, attack the witness. (hmm) That’s the old lawyers dodge. That’s what you do. That’s what they are doing, they’re attacking me, the witness, because they don’t have any evidence. I have the evidence, they don’t.

A: That’s such a good point. Well, now you also mentioned that Queen Elizabeth of Windsor, she ordered the destruction of the forensic remains of the murdered children and the archives. Have you gotten down to the bottom of that? Have you been able to recoup anything that she’s she tried to destroy?

K: We’re getting it in bits and pieces. But we know that this goes back to two incidents. She was seen – Elizabeth of Windsor – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip were seen by an eyewitness taking seven boys and three girls out of the Kamloops Indian School in October 1964. None of those children were ever seen again.

A: Oh my god.

K: And the eyewitness, William Combes, who was about to talk about
it in London
died quickly in a hospital. He was given a lethal injection we have discovered and killed so he couldn’t testify. That was in February 2010. [2011?] I knew William, he was a friend of mine, he was one of the six who worked with us in Vancouver who had been killed because they were eyewitnesses of these things.

But the other incident had to do with two years ago I was invited to come to a Mohawk former Indian school, in Brantford, Ontario, the first school that had been set up in Canada. Set up by the Church of England. And when we were invited to start – to do some testing there we found on the grounds of the school where eyewitnesses had seen burials of children, we found bits of school clothing, bits of bones that turned out to be children’s bones, (hmm) all this clear strong evidence of yes, there’d been a grave there of children that had gone to these schools. When that clear evidence came out, it was January 2012, the guy who is one of the defendants in the latest case, Justin Welby, he was ordered by Queen Elizabeth to destroy that evidence and he sent a circular to the head of the Anglican Church in Canada, a guy called Fred Hiltz, he ordered this guy to make sure all of that evidence did not see the light of day. So no, it’s obstruction of justice. The destruction of evidence of a crime, all of that stuff, that these people are doing.

A: And it’s so ironic that it was actually the Queen herself, you know.

K: Oh yeah, well I mean, all of the royal families are involved in this stuff.

A: Up to they eyeballs. Well, the other thing I wanted to clarify for everyone is who is actually funding this, from the top down?

K: Funding which?

A: Just the whole pedophile ring. How did it even get to be this big?

K: Well, it’s very lucrative for one thing. Human trafficking is a massive industry all around the world. Just look at the figures. A 100,000 children in America go missing every year, and that means disappeared, not just grabbed by an irate ex-parent or something. But actually vanished. We had a Cree elder in Vancouver last week that 543 Cree Indian kids can’t be accounted for in the childrens aid system. That’s because they are being trafficked either for sexual purposes and maybe organ trafficking is also very big especially in the Pacific rim countries, coming out of China. But also for these sacrificial rites. Now we know that definitely children who are grabbed on their way to foster homes or orphanages or that, are prime fodder for these sacrificial cults. So that’s one aspect of it, as for as to where it is coming from.

The use of children for sexual blackmail purposes is a common tool of governments. The CIA admitted – there was an article in a paper in Washington DC just a few years ago that said that the CIA admitted that they run brothels in Thailand using child prostitutes to blackmail visiting Senators and Congressmen so they have dirt on these guys and they can control them. This happens. So it is governments, it’s corporate, and especially, the Catholic Church is the worst offender because they have the laws back to the centuries that say, when child rape happens it’s to be covered up, it’s not a crime. That’s what it says, that’s that law
. So that’s a green light, that’s to let every child rapist on the planet, knowing you can get ordained as a Catholic priest and get away with it.

A: Yes, we just talked about that the other day. Because I was brought up Catholic and I thought to myself, well, this was just a feasting ground, (Yup) for anyone unbalanced sexually.

K: Oh yeah. And also it’s right in the belief system. If believe that children are born depraved because of this queer thing called original sin, anything can happen to these children.

A: It’s so repulsive. I was also really surprised to see that you mentioned the Hell’s Angels, the Hong Kong Triad and other mobsters that you’ve actually determined that were heavily involved in this.

K: Well, this is from a few witnesses at the Vancouver area who describe this. There’s also a member of what’s called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canadian CIA, and he actually called me up last year and filled my ear with the fact that he actually had been part of a team that infiltrated this place in Vancouver, where they found remains of aboriginal women on the grounds of this home. And they scapegoated this one guy, his name was Willy Pickton, who has a sub-standard IQ and they claimed that he was the only serial killer. He was part of the cleaning crew but it involved many other people and some of these witnesses were naming who these people were. And the CSIS person as well said it involved very high military and political people including several Canadian Senators who are still in office, and you know, foreign underworld people who, it’s like what I said, the human trafficking network.

When you work on the ground you see this all the time. I have been working on the streets of Vancouver since the 1980s, so I’ve heard all of these stories before. But again, when something is genuine, coming from somebody who has experienced it, all that they have is their word, everybody is against them, they know they’ll get killed if they ever talk about it, and no reporter is ever going to report this anywhere,
the editor would never let the story see the light of day. I found that again, when you said, when the media ignore us, how I dealt with it, you got to become your own media. That’s what we’ve done.

A: Yeah. Well, now did they have a specific code of how they select these children. I remember reading, oh man, quite some time ago, there was an article that – the government – literally, like the Congressmen and the House of Representatives are very involved in this and supposedly, they have the connections with other male friends who are pedophiles that have their own children and they actually sell their children to the network.

K: Right. Well, it’s like private sub-contractors do this. There are contractors who gather children, kidnap them, keep them in houses – soundproof jails really, and use them as meat. They’re literally kept in cages, and then sent out. You know, you order
children. For sexual puposes, for torture, for killing for anything they want to do. And one of the people that I’m speaking with here on the East Coast, she has intimate knowledge of how this operates and I’m gradually piecing together the story from her, and it’s clearly a whole business that operates with the full knowledge of the police, the political powers. It’s kind of like for every honest cop there’s yet another cop who’s involved in this stuff and their own code is that they do not rat on each other, so this stuff carries on.

A: You also made mention of the Ninth Circle. Can you comment a little bit on what have you found out lately about them. I know that they go into every aspect of society, right?

K: Well, the Ninth Circle is from the book Dante’s Inferno, the Ninth Circle of Hell, is the place where people go when you’ve committed a breach of a trust, a traitor, somebody who has violated an oath, that’s seems to be their worst sin. Well, the whole idea of the Ninth Circle is that if you take people who have taken vows, supposedly to God, and then you get these people to kill children and violate the most basic innocence and goodness in humanity, they will acquire, in effect, satanic power through the death of these children. And this Ninth Circle has goes back several centuries.

is the name unless I have my Latin wrong, the Ninth Circle, I have to look that up. It was written up our site, the exact meaning of it in Latin.

Anyway, this Circle involves apparently a thing that – and this is referred to in Vatican documents which we entered into the court case in Brussels about the global child trafficking going on right now. This Vatican document refers to what they call ‘majesterial privilege.’ Now majesterium refers to the College of Cardinals which is really the power in the Vatican. ‘Majesterial privilege’ apparently is the right of any candidate for the Pope to have to go through this ceremony by which they are raping and torturing and killing children. To acquire ultimate power. And this is attested to by eyewitnesses and these documents and insiders, I mean this is inside information that is to be shared. As well as people like Toos Nijenhuis who witnessed it.

A: Kevin, I almost called you last week because someone had sent me a video of the testimony of a nun, her name is escaping me right now, and I know that you know who it is. She actually blew the whistle on going into the nunnery, the convent, and after I heard that video I was sobbing. I couldn’t even sleep that night. I had no idea. And she went into grand detail as to how they take these young girls that are virgins and it’s like standard operating procedure to basically punish them until they relinquish their will to have sex with the priests.

K: Yeah.

A: I was just in shock. Then she said they have baby after baby after baby and these babies disappear.

K: Yeah. When I was in Italy the first time somebody showed me this old church like in the twelfth century. They said the name of the area right in front of the church is ‘children’s graves,’ because that’s where they always buried the fetuses, and the newborn babies. As the result of the priests raping the nuns than the nuns getting pregnant from other people. It’s standard practice. This goes back many centuries. The way I got into this, I scratched the surface. I found a book on the Indian residential schools and your first reaction is to think, oh, this is some kind of aberration, this is a horrible thing because ‘they wanted to wipe out the Indians.’ No, it isn’t just that. It’s part of this bigger sacrifical tradition where children are not only expendable but the blood of the innocent, and they believe this, it’s right in their theology, the blood of the innocent is a source of life.

A: Wow. Now are you familiar with David Icke?

K: Yeah. As a matter of fact, his TV network is covering a lot of our stuff – The People’s Voice TV.

A: I was hoping so, because the two of you would just have a phenomenal radio show program, Oh my god!

K: Yeah, we are hoping to do that.

A: Yeah! I was curious what you thought about the archons because you’re going right into the archon network, and the fact that they live off the human blood and child sacrificing. What is your thought on that?

K: Well yeah, it’s kind like touching the elephant, you are describing different aspects of the same beast. So I don’t think anybody is wrong about, you know, we’re just
describing different things, (unhmm) we’re dealing with the same entity. And don’t forget it continually shifts its appearance in order to fool. I mean, Jesus called them the father of lies. They live through deception because they have to operate behind this fog of – well – of fear and of appearance so that we can’t really wake up to see what they are doing and that they are manipulating the human race. But they really are feeding on us, well, it comes down to that. They’re a form of energy parasitism. It is, I wouldn’t say a flock, but we’re the cattle in the pen and they feed on of us.

A: Well, they definitely are not of this planet, (No) you know. And they prey on us like parasites.

K: And they get our own people to do it and it’s amazing how easily human beings will do that to one another, as we know. But . . .

A: Well you see, Kevin, the thing is, a lot of the people that you are referring to – the question mark is – are they really people? Because, when you really get down to the human nature, when you are coming from your Divine Spark, you would never even think of doing these sorts of things.

K: That is true. And we can lose that spark, definitely, and then you become something else. And some people call it possession, and others – whatever. It’s the same thing, you lose that humanity. And don’t forget, and it’s so simple as what you have to do in any corporation to rise to the top. You have to – and there’s all sorts of tests that they do along the way. The best example of that that I experienced was, when my two best friends in seminary, they were ministers, on Vancouver Island with me. They were the two who were assigned to bring me down. Their mission was to bring in all of these false charges against me so that the church had an excuse to take me out the pulpit. And it was a test for them. And sure enough, because they were able to do that to their best friend they then went on – and they are actually in fairly senior positions in the United Church of Canada now.

A: Wow.

K: And for doing that, you know, it’s like if you can kill the innocence within yourself and in others, you’ve got the right stuff, you can rise up in the corporation. So that’s what the psychopathic system does. It selects for people like that and they’re the ones who are in charge – apparently.

A: My big question mark is, do they have a method to their madness. Do they have a very specific profile of the types of children they prey upon?

K: On which children? I’m sorry, I didn’t understand that.

A: The types of children, that they prey upon.

K: I think childhood generally is – they want to get the children as young as possible, the most innocent, they feed on that innocence, definitely. Also because children can be frightened the most easily, and to terrorize.

A: There you go.

K: And something in that, in releasing that, that chemical in the body related to terror, they feed off. So they want to instigate that in very young children.

A: That makes sense. I was just curious it if fell into the category of, you know, the Sirian race, keeping those blond hair and the blue eyes and has that be taken to an extreme . . .

K: Well, no, as far as I have been able to figure out – a lot of the research that we are doing – it’s clear that they take kids from every ethnic group. They really target the aboriginal communities.

A: And why is that?

K: Well, because Indians can go missing and nobody cares. Because they’re in Canada, they are not citizens, they are wards of the State. If you live on a reservation you are a complete dependant on the State, so you have no legal rights. The parent can not legally prevent – in the Indian Act of Canada you cannot – as an Indian parent living on the reservation – you cannot stop the government if they want to put you in a hospital and experiment on you. That happened during the swine flu – the bogus scare about the swine flu vaccine. They took Native kids off the reservations all through the north and they shoved needles in their arms without any parental permission at all. Because they can do that in the Indian Act. A group like that is just wide open for, you know, you can grab them anytime you want.

A: Unbelievable.

K: With no repercussions.

A: So are you seeing a signifcant difference between last year and this year as far as the way of which you’ve been able to get through the system, get things done, people stepping forward, have you seen a radical change from last year to this year?

K: Well, I’ve seen a shift happening. I know that it’s kind of like watching a plant grow, you spread seeds all over and some of the seeds look like they have fallen on good soil and in people’s minds that are open to this stuff and those people are beginning to take action. We have people, especially in the States, come forward and want to set up common law courts on a whole number of issues, like Chemtrails, fraudulent mortgages, that’s what we’ve been working with the farmers in South Dakota over the whole issue of judges colluding with mortgage companies to grab peoples’ farms and homes illegally. That’s a big one. I mean, in many of these issues people are wanting to adjudicate in their own way in their own communities through the common law courts. That’s directly from the work that we have been doing. Because they saw that look, if they were able to get the Pope to resign I mean the sky is the limit here. We can do this – there’s a group of mothers in New Jersey who are aiming at the Attorney General and Governor Christie for their role in aiding and abetting the child trafficking and rape in the child care system right here in New Jersey. People are seeing that citizens do have tremendous power once they discover that power in themselves.
A: Well, that’s the purpose of this interview with you tonight is to be able to review just some of the basics. And I kind of want to seque into that next. (Yup) You know, just to pick up from where we left off last time and start from the very beginning as to how do you set up a common law court. I thought we could go through (Sure) the Training Manual and start with the rules of evidence. Do you want to start there?

K: Sure. Well, I mean, it’s just basic rules of evidence is, if a person is bringing a case about somebody, you post something called a notice of claim of right. And you are saying that I am accusing this person of this and that. I need twelve people in the community to listen. You don’t have to have a position one way or the other, we want you just to listen because people have an inherent right or inherent knowledge of right and wrong, so you can adjudicate this matter. The person has to be named, the evidence brought against the person according to due process is – it can’t just be innuendo or hearsay like, ‘well, I heard that he did this’ – you have to bring in credible witnesses who saw something, who are not only willing to put an affadavit about it, but will appear in court to back up that affadavit and say, ‘yes, this is what I witnessed about the person.’ That is just basic due process – the assumption of innocence.

A: I was just going to say, I think it is cool Kevin, that the way in which the rules of evidence lie, is there’s a strict timeline, right?

K: Yeah.

A: I think that’s cool, if you can talk a little bit about that.

K: Right. Well, they have a term that judges love, it’s called
litigation, which means that you’re bringing the lawsuit against somebody because you don’t like them and you want to make their life miserable and you often see this in family courts when parents are going after each other, they just bring on litigation because it feels good and they want to ‘get’ the person. That’s not the purpose of the law. So when you are bringing a suit there’s usually a 30-day period in which it has to be, if not resolved, just by working it out in pre-trial conference, at least the adjudication begun, you can’t drag the thing out. If it’s legitimate you wouldn’t drag it out anyway, you would want some kind of resolution. There’s always a time limit, definitely. Edward Coke, he was a judge back in the 16 hundreds, who took on the king and said the king is not above the law, nobody is above the law, the law is King. And Edward Coke said, common law is simply common sense writ large. And that’s true. It is simply our common sense, you know, in action. That’s a good summary of the common law.

A: That’s a good point. I know I remember in the old days, we all used to sit around and say, I don’t really understand our court system because it takes like three years to get something to be heard by the judge, you know. (Yeah) And then it doesn’t really matter if you receive the court date because the opposing attorney can just keep filing appeals.

K: This is because the so-called law that exists now, the
court system, is a game between the lawyers and the judges. And in a common law court, there are no lawyers and judges, this is the point. (Yes) The people are the source of the law.
Juries, sheriffs traditionally, sheriffs who are elected by the community, and this is a great advantage that Americans have, they have that tradition still in place, local county sheriffs, they have the right, just as the justices of the peace do, to convene a common law court. Or any twelve citizens can. And the jury is the beginning and the end of the court. A judge is there as a magistrate, and not even a magistrate, he’s an adjudicator, he’s an advisor, on points of order, on points of law, he advises the jury but he doesn’t have the right to cancel their verdict, or dispel them or to change the court record or all of this nonsense that judges can do now. And the lawyers, actually have no role under the common law. Because the lawyer represents or re-presents a person. You’re casting a person in a different light when you re-present them. And people can only present themselves. They should never be represented by another. That’s the fallacy of the notion of re-presentative democracy, it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t work.

A: Good point.

K: So we can only represent ourselves. So there are no lawyers in a common law case. The plaintiff and the defendants are there in their own name, if they are not willing to be there to present a case then it’s not a legitimate case. They’ve got to be able to argue it, and you’re advised, by legal experts, about how to go about it and everything but ultimately, it’s citizens working things out. If they can’t work it out among themselves then you work it out in a common law court.

A: Yeah. And I have a list here that says, it’s only legitimate as a trial when the accused is given their rights, right? (Umhmm) they are afforded the chance to freely defend themselves, (umhmm) they are presumed innocent, not guilty, which is completely opposite of our court, (right) the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, so they have to prove guilt to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you talk a little bit about how is that different from our actual court system today, because we hear that bounced around a lot, but it’s not really true.

K: Well, because most cases are not even argued by juries anymore. The reasonable doubt doesn’t even enter into it. You know, this ludicrous thing called plea-bargaining that lawyers get together and they say, ‘well, just admit that you’re guilty, and we’ll reduce your sentence.’ It’s not based on truth, it’s based on manipulation. I remember in my first year in law, the law teachers were all telling me the same thing over and over. They were saying to their class, this isn’t about the truth or what is right and wrong, it’s what you can win for your client.

A: Wow.

K: That’s what they were teaching you in first year law. So where are the ethics? That’s actually why I quit law school because they were saying, literally, ethics play no role in the law. And I said, well, then it’s not the law, is it. Because that’s what the law should be.

A: My god. So now another thing is, the accused can not be detained without due process.

K: Right, that’s the old – one of the pillars of common law is
– that means ‘produce the body’ in Latin. There are two aspects to that. First, you can’t just throw somebody in prison indefinitely without having a trial. A very powerful tool is a writ of
that you can present to a judge saying, ‘you will produce this person in court today.’ So they cannot delay justice. It is written right there in Clause 40 of the Magna Carta, it says, ‘We will delay and deny justice for no one.’ So the Magna Carta is very important to read because it’s got all of these principles written a thousand years ago enunciated right in them. And the first act that really limited the power of the Crown, yeah.

A: Good point.

K: So
, that was the first aspect, and the second aspect to
is – we are using this now, we are writing a writ of
saying we want this case to be moved from a normal court into a common law court. And we’ve issued those writs against judges who are, for example, in the case in South Dakota, where there’s a guy in prison in South Dakota, a 77 year-old farmer because he was challenging the judge in the rulings he was making and the judge put him in jail for two years because he didn’t like his attitude, right? So we issued a writ of
saying, we want this case moved out of your court into a common law court convening in this community. That’s one of the things that we are working on. So these are powerful writs and judges can’t ignore these.

As a matter of fact, even the Supreme Court in America, Justice Scalia, said the other year, that the grand jury system is a fourth arm of government, it’s outside the judicial system, it’s a check and balance on the judges – the grand jury. He said the grand juries are convened to investigate matters, they’re not like courts, a grand jury will investigate – well, is there corruption going on? Is there crime going on? and then they’re decision has binding power on judges – you will now adjudicate this matter. So the grand jury system is another great bulwark, another advantage in America, that other countries don’t have, that most countries don’t have, the grand jury systems along with the county sheriffs.

A: Well, I do feel truly like all eyes are on the United States of America, I mean, it is really time for us to get up off our couches and take action, because there are so many things that we can take action on in a common law court. Well, I tell you what. You also mention, let’s see, both sides are both given equal time – I thought this was great – given equal time to file statements and evidence and make motions to the court and respond to the arguments.

K: Well, that’s right. You’ve got to give each side their fair time in something. In a court, in a legitimate lawful court, anything can be scrutinized. Usually you have a thing called examination for discovery or
, ‘see and say’ in French where you look at all of the evidence. And you can’t then later introduce evidence that you haven’t shown to the other side – which is actually what they did in my defrocking, after they tossed me out of the hearing they brought in all of this so-called evidence against me that I never saw. That’s totally illegal. Yet courts do it all the time. Well, to prevent that we give both the plaintiff and the defendant the right to look at anything, to challenge anything, the beauty of these courts that it’s the ultimate democracy in action, when you think about it. Anything can be scrutinized, anyone can be brought into the court, a king, a pope, a president, anybody, a head of a corporation, the most powerful, richest person on the planet is equalized in the common law court. I don’t know any other system in our society that does that. There isn’t one, frankly.

A: That’s awesome. And then the accused must appear promptly before the court. And that’s usually within seven days?

K: Yeah, it depends. Sometime it is 48 hours. Usually no more than seven days. At that point, a common law peace officer can go and detain them if they haven’t responded to the warrant.

A: Okay, and then you have examination for discovery is where you can demand relevance as it is in documentation. Are there any other aspects of relevancy other than it cannot be hearsay?

K: Yeah. It has to be verified by usually more than one person, especially in a more serious case, it’s important to note that there are two general types of the law – civil law and criminal law. Civil law is between individuals usually, damages that have been caused between individuals. And often that can be just sorted out. These are sometimes called tort offenses in the law. You know, you break somebody’s window and you have to compensate them for that, that’s civil law. Criminal law involves something having to do with issues that affect the whole community – murder, rape, genocide, corruption in the government, things like that, acts of war. These are criminal acts and there, there’s a different standard at work. For example, if you just do a crime as an individual, the law requires two things to have happened. You have to commit an act, and you had to have intended to commit the act, okay.

A: Okay.

K: Act and intent, both have to been there for a conviction to happen. So people often get off by saying well, I did this act but I didn’t intend to do it, okay. You need both of them together. But, if you’re a government planning the extermination of another group of people you don’t have to prove that every single agent of the government intended to do that, because they were following the rules, right?

A: Right.

K: So there’s an implied intent. If you’re operating the system, the best example is, if you’re a Catholic priest, you’re ordained, you know that under the law – Canon law,
– you have to cover up child rape or you would be excommunicated. That’s a criminal conspiracy involving every Catholic priest on the planet. They will collude in protecting child rape to keep their status as a priest, if you can imagine that.

A: Wow.

K: That is the involvement in a global criminal conspiracy that is harming and killing children. So they all are involved in that. There is an implied intent there even if one priest is not intending to do it. They are involved in a collective crime, right? So you see, there’s a different standard, when you are talking about a criminal act, than maybe just a civil act.

A: Yeah, yes. You know, not to seque away, I just to ask you this. Are each of the priests aware of this ritual with the nuns? I mean are any of the priests, are there any convents out there that don’t do this type of stuff? Was it just that particular convent that I heard about that was just absolutely atrocious?

K: No, of course, everybody knows. The point is, let’s say you’re imagine a newly ordained priest, you learn very quickly and that’s why there’s a lot of ex- priests and ministers out there because honest people can’t hack this and they quit or they get booted out like I was. So the system seems to weed out the decent people and the people who are left in there, especially if you become a bishop or a cardinal or a pope you can only get in that position by enforcing the policy. And you know full well what is going on. So all of this babble that Jorge Bergoglio saying these days that – he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Pope Francis says, Oh, there’s no organization besides the Catholic Church that deals with it’s own crimes the way the Catholic Church does. And then he turns around and he agrees with the Italian bishops when they announce that they will not report child rape to the police. So which is it? Are the going to report it or not? They can say anything they want to because they are a self-governing institution, right. (Wow) They’re not accountable to anybody and that is the purpose of common laws, yes, you are accountable, the Catholic priests are accountable under the law as is the pope which is why we are trying him at the moment.

A: I had a mentor once share this with me – I just shared it with a friend the other day and it really helped. And he said there are three types of people on the planet. You have the people that very, very dark and those that are dark are very obvious. And then you have people that are very much of the light and they are very obvious by their intentions and their joy and their love. And then you have the people who are grey and he said, so which ones do you think are the most dangerous? I said, well, the dark. And he said no, it was the grey, because they will be able to use the light to cloak themselves for the true intention of what they’re here to do.

K: Yes, that’s right. And the epitome of that is the church because that is historically where a lot of these crimes come out of because exactly what is going on. I mean if you talk about and I see this ad nauseum in Canada now. People say, who are in the church, well its true that these crimes happened but we gave money and we gave an apology and we did the right thing, now we can feel good about ourselves. And then I say to them, if it were your child lying in the ground somewhere what would you want? Money from the person who did it?

A: Well it’s not even just the child lying in the ground, what about everything they did to the child.

K: Well, exactly. That’s the whole point.

A: At least the child is in some sort of rest, you know, being dead.

K: But that’s right. The reality of course, is this stuff is happening as we speak and you can look at any Catholic church, or in any church really, and you know there’s is torture going on there of children and it’s being covered up at every level and I say there’s this numbness to the whole thing –

A: Yes.

K: – that I find mind boggling. I spoke at, you know, at Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Toronto, all these different movements, right? I make a point of bringing up the work I do and I get the same reaction from all the young people. They’re dumbfounded, they don’t know what to say. They’ll invariably say something like, Well, that’s not our issue.’ Well so okay, the murder of the next generation is not your issue, okay, well, what planet are you going to inherit?

A: But it is their issue because the Vatican is completely part of the monetary system.

K: Right, it’s the biggest corporation on the planet.

A: They’re all in bed with each other.

K: But of course, the church funds a lot of these protest movements. The Catholic Church funds every political party in Italy. Actually, every political party in the world gets a Vatican subsidy. They get tax payer’s money from 120 countries including the United States through these financial concordats so, I mean, the tentacles go everywhere.

A: You know Kevin, two questions and then I’ll get back on track with the common law stuff. I just had to ask you this. So are each of the Catholic Churches involved in ritual – are each one of them or is it like specific locations on specific sacred sites and land?

K: Yeah. There are specific churches. They usually pick big cathedrals with underground catacombs or basements, sub-basement areas that are sealed off that most people don’t know about. There’s one – I’ll give you an example. There’s a cathedral in Montreal, Canada, called
, Mary-Queen of the World, and every August 15 they have child sacrifice rituals there, according to an eyewitness. They also tend to do it on full moons and different satanic holidays. You know, they operate under the cover of youth groups or family activities going on on the church and then these kids go missing. They always have cover stories, they have police involved, they have compliant judges, it’s a very large network. And yeah, they use specific churches definitely, and a lot of the people in the pews and a lot of the priests don’t – well, they don’t want to know, let’s put it that way.

A: Right.

K: It’s not that they don’t know, they don’t want to know.

A: And I know you focus on the Catholic Church in particular. My husband was the subject of severe sexual abuse throughout his childhood and this was in a non-denominational Christian church, completely, totally into the whole pedophile network. In fact, not only did he work as an usher for the church, not only did he work with the brigade boys, his wife did too, with the girls. That’s what they do, that’s their front. They completely embed themselves in these churches. It’s like a little harvesting area for whatever children they want to focus their sights on.

K: That’s true. It’s a general phenomena in religious groups and you find this in non-Christian groups too. We have reports all the time from Muslim and Jewish groups all over the world. Buddhist communities suffer from this. Because that’s the last place that people traditionally are going to look for this abuse going on. You think this is people searching for God and truth and trying to help each other. That’s where the wolf can be among the fold, right.

A: Isssh yeah. Well, and my other question is I’m curious what do you feel is behind, what’s the agenda behind this announcement they’ve made that they are coming out on April 27th and discuss the UFOs and some sort of disclosure?

K: The Vatican you mean?

A: Yeah.

K: Well, that’s more distraction. Their whole house of cards is coming down. Hence all the grandstanding such a Obama showing up, for the photo ops with Pope, and the Queen going there. There’s this whole new alliance forming on earth between Russia and China versus the West and people are scrambling. It’s like watching on the eve of World I – all the alliances forming and people choosing sides and the Vatican is there playing both sides. But they are in serious financial trouble. And they have been tranferring lots of money out of the Vatican Bank recently to China, to German banks. And so you’ve got to distract people when the system is in crisis. So it looks like you are in charge. The criminals are not really criminals. All the stuff that they are doing are old Jesuit ploys. They have been doing them for centuries.

A: Yeah, yes, you’re right. Okay, so we talked about the rules of evidence. That’s pretty clear cut. And then it says the court convenes when examination produces no settlement of differences, okay. (Right) Now we are going forth and compile the case.

K: Right. You present the evidence and usually, in the case we’ve done so far, of course, the defendant never responded and so they are tried in what is called absentia, they’re absent. But they are given the opportunity to be present and if not then the plaintiff can still present their evidence. Like I said, the nature of the evidence is really important. It’s got to be thoroughly documented and not hearsay, and the things we’ve mentioned before.

A: Unhmm. Then you also have to have some sort of relief thought. Can you go over that a little bit?

K: Well, that is usually in the statement of claim. You see, the claim of right kind lays out the case. Usually, in a court document you lay out the statement of claim in point form: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This is the issue, this is the wrong that’s happened, this is what I want – the resolution that I want. And that’s your case. And then you can call any witness. You can subpeona anybody. That’s the power as well. A public summons is very potent in a common law case because it’s the main weapon that the court has to bring people in the court. And so that’s the whole procedure – the courts now are supposed to be following, but they don’t. They don’t even serve summons anymore – a lot of the corporate courts, you know. They have implied service where the person can say to the judge, yeah, I called him up and there was nobody at home and the judge says, ‘Okay, then consider him served.’ That’s completely bogus, right? But that’s the way these courts operate.

A: Because they are operating within their own law.

K: They’re own rules, not the truth, not what is just.

A: No justice whatsoever. So it says here, the claim is accompanied by evidence and documents and testimonies that are always showing beyond a reasonable doubt. Now I had a question for you on that. For example, what if you got into a situation where there was some collusion, like three people against this one person and they just were out to get them. What are some of the checks and balances to prevent that sort of thing.

K: The main check and balances the defendant can turn over the case by not showing up. They could garner their own witnesses. They can show, and as a matter in fact, to show a conspiracy like that, that would weigh against one side so it’s really not advised normally to even try something like that. But no system is foolproof – if there’s corruption is going on it can pervade any system. But the normal check and balances are the jury itself because twelve men and women looking at something, looking at the whole process as it is presented can normally tell whether something is true or not or if somebody’s being manipulated. You know, when you can talk to somebody you know they are lying or not. It’s an inherent human capacity we have.

A: That is true.

K: That is true in the jury especially.

A: Okay. So it says, you have to provide original documents, that’s not too difficult.

K: An original, not photo copies, right.

A: And then it says, those providing testimony must willing to come into the court to testify and affirm it’s their own statement. So they have to appear in the court of law.

K: Right. Normally you can get a notary to authorize that this a genuine document. But normally, without a notary – people often don’t know this but you don’t need a notary, a notarized document, if you have three signatures.

A: Oh, wow.

K: So three people that testify to something, that makes it a lawful document.

A: Now that does not apply though in this case – they have to actually physically appear.

K: Well, in the case of a pretty serious matter, yes, definitely.

A: Okay. Interesting. Then the plaintiff actually seeks their remedy, right? And this is interesting. They’ve compiled their case, they’ve provided their evidence and now what they do is they publish the notice of the claim of right. Can you talk a little bit about that?

K: Well, the claim of right comes right at the beginning when you’re gathering the jury. You have a right as a freeborn man or woman to defend yourself if you think you have been wronged. And there can’t be an impediment put in the way of that, by anybody. So that’s the beauty of the common law court.This is somebody who has taken action for justice in their own name, they aren’t relying on anybody to do it for you. And the courts are supposed to be convened to honor that. And to allow that process to happen. So that’s kind of the whole rationale for that.

A: Hmm, okay. So it says here, they’ll call for the community assistance and plaintiff’s right to have the case heard by peers and neighbors – that is just so cool. I mean we really literally are going back to the old West.

K: That’s right. Well, I mean it goes back further than that. It’s how village communities operated. Before – you’ve probably read stuff like they would have in the Middle Ages trial by ordeal where if there was a dispute you pick up swords and whoever won you would assume that God was on your side, therefore they are just. Or you’d have to grab a red hot bar and the one who had less burns on their hand meant God favored their case. That was the law in the Norman tradition. (Wow)

But the Anglo-Saxon or tribal law said no, people can just come together and decide for themselves because we all know what is right and wrong. (Yes) That’s natural law. That is born within us, it is not given to us or explained to us by a ruler. Which is the Roman or Papal or Admiralty law system – that we have to define for you what the truth is, you can’t ever find it out for yourself, you need a judge, you need a pope, you need a politician, you need a priest, you need somebody to tell you what is right and wrong. There’s that way of looking at the world or the other way.

Which is, no, we know what is right and wrong. We are the law, we are the government, we are the people – we the people – that’s the first three words in the US Constitution – We The People – there’s God, there’s the people, and then government under the people, not government over the people.

A: Do you remember Kevin, the last time we talked I brought up the Declaration of Independence?

K: Yeah.

A: I did a little more digging on that, I just have to read this to you. You probably already know this but, well, maybe you don’t, because you’re Canadian, right?

K: I’m half American. (laughter)

A: You’re American-Canadian. We’re all the same! Right?

K: Yeah, well. Anyway, go on.

A: Well, I remember a long time ago sharing this on a radio station and I thought, I’ve got to find that article or it will drive me crazy. Anyway, it says here, out of the 56 men this is what happened. Nine died of wounds from war, five were captured and imprisoned brutally. Several lost their wives, their sons and families. One person lost all 13 of his children. Two wives were brutally treated. Every single one of them was man-hunted and driven from their homes. (Yup) Okay. Twelve had their homes completely burned down. Seventeen lost everything that they ever owned. And the bottom line was not one of them retracted the pledge that they made.

K: That’s beautiful.

A: The Declaration of Independence in my opinion is one of the most beautiful document ever written, you know.

K: That right. That’s why, you know, there’s a movement actually now across America to restore the Republic and that is exactly what they say. That we’ve got to move back from the
government now to the
government. Which can come about through the grand jury system. Now I met these men who are in prison now for trying to do that. They were targeted by the FBI in exactly the way the English would target the signers of the Declaration. Because they simply were standing on the common law and saying government is really arbitrary, we have the right under the Constitution to remove the government and replace it. It says that right in the Declaration.

A: Unbelievable. Well, I think things have been changing though. I think the time is much riper now and so many more of us – are you familiar with what is going on at the Cliven Bundy ranch?

K: Yeah, yeah, I heard all the Oath Keepers got together and fought off the Feds.

A: And they came back the first time – the bottom line is it’s absolutely historical that they even left in the first place. (Yeah) so yes, there still is a possibility of a fight and a challenge. People are starting to recognize that if they step up and they step into their power and they combine their forces with their fellow community members they can get what they want.

K: That’s right.

A: And this is part of it. This is so important. So back to the notice of the claim of right. You said basically, at this point they are going to start gathering their jury. And they publish it in a local newpaper, right?

K: It can be not just a newspaper. You can post it in any public place – the library, town hall, anywhere, just as long as it is a public notice.

A: Okay. And the public notice, it only has to be in one location?

K: Well normally, it certainly would have to be in numerous places. They don’t ever give a number but the more people that know about it the better. Especially, if you’re trying to recruit a jury.

A: Okay. Now let’s talk about how do we form a common law court. It says here – within 24 hours of the notice of claim of right it is issued.

K: There are a number of ways. You can ask a sheriff to convene or a justice of the peace. Again those are locally elected officials. The whole idea is that it is coming from the community, accountable to the people, some far away cop or government person who isn’t accountable. Or the people themselves can simply convene the twelve and the jury. And that’s minimum twelve, it doesn’t have to stay at twelve. The grand juries usually have 27, I think, people in it. But at that point, you know, it is assumed that the people are going to be working in certain roles will have legal knowledge. For example, the adjudicator, who is the advisor, not the judge but the advisor to the jury, he has to have some kind of legal training or knowledge of at least the common law. Then the plaintiff and the defendant present their own case, there’s no lawyers involved, and the court officials, like the bailiff, court reporter, the court record is very important. And the court record is a completely, open public document. It can not be changed by anybody. It’s published immediately. Because it’s valuable,
what goes on in the court is owned by the community. It’s the people’s court.

A: Right. It’s open. Open disclosure. Go back for a second, Kevin. This is so important. Tell everybody why you do not involve a lawyer in this process. Or anyone that is within the legal system.

K: Because the first thing that a lawyer does is they take an oath to the court, and the court means the judge. So it’s a buddy-buddy system. They are serving one another. And the classic case I have about that is – the first case I was involved in naming of the Church as being involved with child rape in these Indian Residential Schools, there were two eyewitnesses who wrote in their Statement of Claim that they had found the dead bodies of children on the grounds of the Shubenacadie(?)
Residential School. The lawyer removed that from their statement of claim. And I said, why did you take that out? They didn’t want that left out, they were traumatized at a young age finding these corpses of kids. They want that in their claim against the Church. He said – this is a direct quote – the lawyer said, his name is David Paterson in Vancouver, he said, “I am an officer of the court and there are certain issues that I am not allowed to raise.” unquote.

A: Yeah. Yeah.

K: In other words, he can’t name the Crown as having killed kids. Therefore he’d have to remove that. Who was he representing? He is representing the Crown, not his clients.

A: And that is what people do not realize when they say that they passed the bar (Right) that is the accreditation regency, okay.

K: When they’ve passed the bar they’re inside on the helm of the deck of the ship.

A: Exactly.

K: They are on the other side of the bar. They are under Admiralty law now, not common law.

A: Bingo. So you basically have seven core officers. You have the court adjudicator, the public prosecutor, the defense counsel, the court sheriff, the bailiff, the court registrar, and the court reporter. Right?

K: That’s the basic. There could be more. You know, depending on the complexity of the case and that. For example, in a criminal case, there would be a forensic team that would work with the court and that sort of thing. Otherwise, that would be the basic structure.

A: Okay, so Kevin, let’s pretend like someone is listening to this interview and they’re really hot about going after the city for poisoning their water.

K: Right.

A: Okay. So what would be the first thing that they would do.

K: Gather the case. Make a case. Gather all the evidence. Including the eyewitnesses. And that’s the hard part. Most people don’t want to come forward – if you’re challenging the status quo you lose friends very quickly. You make enemies even quicker. And you have to find a way – this is why you need outside support – you can never tackle a case on your own. You’ve got to do it in conjunction with groups outside who can come into the community, won’t be as isolated and intimidated and to help you. So it’s really part of a bigger movement. So this is why we are trying to do that, like the case of this guy who is in jail in South Dakota who is challenging the fraudulent mortgages. It’s got to be part of the whole bigger perspective.

A: Yeah. And you know, power is in numbers. (Yup) And, frankly everybody listening – that’s Kevin’s and my goal is to get us all unified and to be able to work together to get some action going to bring about the change with some of these bigger topics, you know. Like the flouride and that kind of thing.

K: And there’s a kind of a middle step that we need to take. Before actually even convening these courts. People have to be educated again. They have forgotten what liberty is, they’ve forgotten what the law is, and they have to be educated again in it. And unless we have that going on people will not know what to do even if they did convene a jury. We get these comments all the time, ‘Oh, are we allowed to do this? Shouldn’t we be consulting a lawyer?’ No, no, no, they have to be educated in the liberty and the common law and this is why we can set up in any community these educational groups, to start doing that. To get it into the curriculum in schools. Meetings happen in the community saying, this is the law, come to our workshops and learn about it. We approached the local sheriffs in South Dakota, they have done that, they’ve got a few sheriffs to come to their common law workshops, where they learn all of these things and one of these sheriffs said after, he said, “I never knew any of this. They deliberately didn’t teach us about the common law. (Waa) Yeah, because they are only taught statute law. You enforce statutes. You gather money for the State. That is your role as a cop, right? But no, statute never trumps common law.

A: I know a bunch of sheriffs and they were very involved in their constitutionality and freedom and you’ll notice that, with sheriffs, they have a tendency to lean more that way than, let’s say, a police officer.

K: Right.

A: Because they are not imposing policy, they’re actually working for supposedly the law.

K: Well, they are elected, too. Your average cop and soldier are not elected. And like judges, or priests, when you are self-governing you think that you are God and you can do anything. That’s one of the sources of tyranny.

A: Well, if somebody was going to get their feet wet, it might be better to start on something a little bit less zealous, like a next door neighbor that is knocking down their fence over and over again, something like that?

K: It’s kind of like family law and divorce, if something like that can get so heated and petty that it becomes really adversarial very quickly. That’s why often in civil matters they have – it’s often the case where a judge could just step in and just mediate, and say, let’s just sit down and work this out, you don’t need a jury, let’s just work it out. So you often find juries happening in more serious cases than civil matters which can be just worked out when people calm down and it’s easier to work things out between a couple of people. Juries are needed when it’s involving much more serious matters like murder or something threatening the community, or children, and anything like that.

A: Hmm. Have you found the sheriffs necessarily with this whole operation that you have found them to be fairly receptive these days?

K: Well, not at first, because people are always also worrying about their job and their pension and is this lawful and everything. But you find a few that are leading us that are saying yes, it is not only lawful, but it is the way to recover what the American Republic should be and through that a light that is needed in the world again. I really believe that America was a light in the world for humanity.

A: Yes.

K: And there was a covenant going on there. It was said right there in the founding Charter that there is covenant between God and the American people, (Yes) to bring this in for humanity. When you violate the covenant, all bets are off. Then you’ve got to say we’ve got to build it again. It’s that simple. That’s what we are doing.

A: I love the thought that the United States is an amalgamation of every race, creed, and color. (Umhmm) You know what I mean? You know what I mean?

K: Yes.

A: We are so unique in that way. So I know we are getting close to the 1 1/2 hour time mark and we have so much more to go over. Is it okay to do this again with you?

K: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, when I’m over in Europe this next week we’ll have a lot more new stuff to report about how the court case is going –

A: Cool!

K: – on child trafficking against the so-called pope and these other people. So we will have a lot to report. I’ll connect on Skype with you.

A: Okay.

K: We can arrange an interview. But I just want to remind people, the
and the common law court actually has a website: The International Common Law Court of Justice

A: And Kevin, tell everybody the significance of the International Court of Justice, how does that fit into this whole process?

K: Well, it’s kind of an umbrella for these common law courts everywhere. It’s the mother I guess, of a lot of this thing was set up initially four years ago to be an example of how citizens can convene their own courts and have lawful standing under international law. So, it’s operating in Brussels, but again, under a lot of security because of the attacks they’re facing. And there’s a Belgian member of Parliament who has just named the Prime Minister there as a child rapist and I’ll be meeting with him this week and we’re going to hopefully have a press conference where we’ll be looking into how wide this child trafficking is spreading.

A: Wow. I know that they issued some pretty major rulings. Weren’t they responsible for putting out the notice of George Bush committing crimes against humanity?

K: Well, a different common law court did that. It was the Kuala Lumpur Citizens Tribunal. People have the right to form their own what are called tribunals of conscience that have standing under the law. So that other courts can take their verdicts and enforce them, issue arrest warrants. (Umhmm) So yes, these are not just symbolical decisions, they have legal weight behind them. That’s why I mentioned earlier in the interview that the police are really concerned with these stand down orders. They know that they are obeying criminal authorities and they can be called for it, they can be arrested. We can perform citizen arrests on anybody that is colluding with a criminal in high office. So all of that is in our hands, if we choose to exercise it or not.

A: I think, I just think this is fabulous. Let’s tell them Kevin, we have been talking about putting a workshop together in the Southern California area and Kevin and I are going to work together on that to really – I just feel that time is now for us to really –

K: Absolutely. I’ll be back in mid to late May. I plan to come down after a little rest. I plan to come during the summer and probably into the fall too, down the West Coast. So we definitely will work on that. We had the whole members of citizen jurors from California in the southern states in our first case – to volunteer. (Good) So there’s a lot of interest in that part of the world. Yeah, I’ll look forward to coming there.

A: I think it is going to be very successful. So everybody stay tuned. Just continue to support Kevin again. Please visit his website at
. Do you have a donation button up there, Kevin?

K: Yeah, there’s a Paypal button on the site and it’s the only way that I get around, I’m totally community funded.

A: Okay, cool. So please support him. This is so much bigger, bigger, bigger, than just child molestation even though that is an atrocity that we want to stop on this planet. But this is so much bigger if we really truly want to dismantle this manaical matrix this is one of the men to support. So Kevin, I honor you once again and I thank you for your time tonight. We are so grateful to have you already knowing – think about it, you went through this and worked with the common law court with one of THE MOST difficult cases out there and you’re having fabulous success, you know. That should be enough to spearhead all of us to get going.

K: I think so, I think that is important to say that, well, if we can bring down that guy, then we can bring down anybody. So I hope that is an encouragement to people.

A: Yeah. I totally agree with you.

K: Yeah.

A: So everybody, thank you so much for listening. We are going to make it an early night. And God bless everybody, and I love you all and we will talk to you next time. Thanks, Kevin.

K: Thank you.


Help Us Awaken the World
with Your Donations

I want to thank our beautiful friend Carol for the speedy delivery of this transcription.  I so appreciate it! You ROCK!

Copyright © Alexandra Silby-Meadors All Rights Reserved. You may copy and redistribute this material so long as you do not alter it in any way, the content remains complete, and you include this copyright notice link:http://galacticconnection.com/all-interview-transcripts/interview-with-kevin-annett-april15/

To Read More Interesting Articles, Go To:galacticconnection.com/daily-blog