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

microphone (1)Kevin Annett and Alexandra Meadors 3-18-2014
Galactic Connection.Com on BBS Radio
Alexandra: Good afternoon everyone. This is Alexandra Meadors of Galactic Connection.com and today is March 18, 2014. I received some very urgent Divine guidance to conduct this interview today. Many of you have written in wondering and searching for ways in which you can contribute to the Victory of the Light. Firstly, I want to remind every one of you that you support this Victory through your own individual healing. And by that I mean all the releasing of painful memories and prejudices and baggage that no longer serve you as a Master that is assisting in this progress of the Victory of the Light. But many of us strive to become more, to contribute more, and to make more of a mark on the this world and to this New Society. And I would like to present the following interview with Kevin Annett to do just that.
I am calling on each and every one of you to review your life and find the theme, connect the dots, reveal the common denominator of all of your trials and tribulations and jubilations and discover what sparks your interest, what fires your passion, and what on earth motivates you enough to pursue it at all cost, without the consideration of sleep, comfort, or monetary compensation. And what I mean by this, is what fires you up enough to talk, educate, and rally others to take notice and take action. It is no longer enough to remain withdrawn and internalized within your own spiritual growth. The Company of Heaven and the masses of humanity await the Masters and you know who you are. So it is time to establish the Kingdom of Heaven and to ignite your will To Become. So with this call I’m now going to introduce my guest Kevin Annett who has so astutely said, that ‘he is now who he is meant to be.’ And I ask all of you, have you found Who You Are Meant To Be? It is very important.
And Kevin comes from Canada. And what was very impressive and a lot of people have followed Kevin’s background and what really stood out was that he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013. He’s a community minister, a Human Rights consultant, a Field Secretary for the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State, which is the website http://itccs.org/. He has a very extensive background in anthropology, political science, and a Master of Divinity, which makes him very special. He was ordained as a clergyman in the United Church of Canada and held three pastoral positions. He also organized the first public inquiry into crimes in Canadian Indian Residential Schools and they were co-sponsored by the United Nations, which is phenomenal. He published the first account of crimes of Genocide in the Indian Residential Schools. And he has also established a ‘Friends and Relatives of The Disappeared’ in Vancouver and Toronto. He has forced the Canadian Government to apologize for the Indian Residential School and he continues to work – I mean constantly folks, for bringing all of this information to the surface and exposing the atrocities of what is going on within the Vatican and all of the information that’s needed to pursue the Common Law Courts of Justice. 
I could go on and on about Kevin – I welcome you today and I feel that we have very important things to discuss.
Kevin-AnnettKevin: Thank you.
Alexandra: And with that said I would first like to start out by letting everyone know that we all follow Kevin probably quite a bit on a regular basis and we are very well aware of some of the success stories that Kevin has brought forth. One being that the first Catholic Pope ever to resign was Pope Benedict the 16th. And what I wanted to ask you before we jump into any of the other stuff is, do you have any new updates about what is the status of Pope Benedict?
Kevin: We do, as a matter of fact. Thanks, Alexandra, first of all for having me on. I really appreciate it.
Alexandra: You’re welcome.
Kevin: You know, it is your kind of programs that that is getting out the truth about this. So we really rely on this kind of media, so thanks and hi everybody.
It’s funny that you ask that because just two days ago I spoke in Italy to one of our common law court organizers there. And what he told us was there are some interesting revelations recently about that whole status. It turns out that it’s their understanding that Pope Benedict is being held in the Vatican and he is about to -sometime over the next month or two there’s going to be an announcement that the present Pope Francis, who is really a caretaker, he is not actual full-blooded Pope, if you can believe it. Some of the signs of it is that he doesn’t wear the Papal ring, he doesn’t live in the Vatican, he has been walking around Rome without security, all of this indicates that he isn’t actually the Pope. It’s a deception, in fact. And what has actually happened is that Ratzinger had to be taken out of the limelight for a while because of all these scandals that are breaking loose and he’s being held in the background but he’s never lost that status.
And one of the reasons is because, or the signs of it is, a lot of the money in the Vatican Bank is being transferred into German banks. Obama and Queen Elizabeth are visiting this so-called Pope Francis during April and there’s some kind of big re-alignment happening, but in effect, what we are witnessing is a big deception. And we definitely can compel that by the information we are releasing. So it’s interesting how they’re kind of squirming and maneuvering to try to avoid the consequences of all their history of crimes.
Alexandra: Interesting. And I want to clarify with the audience that Pope Benedict is in fact an international fugitive from the law, correct?
Kevin: That’s right. We conducted a common law court, this is a modified court that was established in International law. We looked at all the evidence linking Benedict and the other figures like Queen Elizabeth and other Church and State officials linking them to crimes against aboriginal children in Canada, including child trafficking that
Pope Benedict actually approved the concealment of. And we even have letters with his signature on it ordering bishops to conceal evidence of these crimes. The verdict came down on the same month that he resigned. As a matter of fact, the way it happened was the Government – the Spanish Government issued a diplomatic note to the Vatican on February 6th, 2013. Five days later Ratzinger resigned. Because that diplomatic note said basically that they were considering issuing an arrest warrant against the Pope if he appeared on Spanish territory. For example, the history of the Catholic Church in trafficking children and political prisoners in Spain and also in Argentina, which is where the present Pope Francis comes in, he was engaged in that himself. After his resignation the two weeks later the verdict comes in on February 25th, saying that Benedict was guilty of crimes against humanity and was sentenced to 25 years in imprisonment under this common law verdict.
So they definitely knew that that verdict was coming down and he is hiding out to avoid the consequences of that.
Alexandra: Unbelievable. And for someone like you who’s done a massive amount of research between the crimes connected with the Church versus the State, how many, you know, how many peoples’ lives – how much blood is on the hands of the Vatican do you think over the course of the hundreds of years of the Vatican supposedly ‘being in power.’
Kevin: Well, you just have to think of counting over the centuries. There’s more death and suffering attributed to that one institution than any other in human history. And not only with the Inquisition, and all the years of colonialism, the laws which sanctioned the conquest of non-Catholic nations, it’s an enormous genocide and warfare. But at the present time as well, they have a policy within the Catholic Church which orders all Catholic priests to cover up child abuse and if they don’t they’ll face excommunication. That in itself, as our lawyers have pointed out, that isn’t just protecting them of the horrendous crime of child rape, it is also committing treason. It’s telling every Catholic in the world that they have to break the laws of their own country – their child protection laws – they have to subvert justice. That’s an act of treason. I mean, that really is a declaration of war against the people of the earth. And it’s that seriousness of it that has compelled these cases, you know, ranking it as crimes against humanity.   
Alexandra: Wow. I want everyone to understand, that one of the main reasons that Kevin and I are here today is because we want to unite forces to really educate and inform everybody on the nuts and bolts of what each of us can do to take action in our own communities, and in our towns, and in our cities, and bring this maniacal matrix and system that we’ve been in and bring it down.
But I loved what you said before, I heard you on another interview and you said that the key is, what are we going to put there instead?
Kevin: Right.
A: You know, what are going to replace it with?
 K: That’s the big focus of what we are doing now as a matter of fact, Alexandra. That’s the question that is before all of us now, because it’s one thing to expose the crime, that’s what we’ve done over – I’ve done I guess, and the people I’ve worked with for over twenty years now. The first stage was to expose the crime and document it. The second was to try to get justice for it, and we realized the courts are hopelessly corrupted because they are part of the same privatized corporate system that the Church is part of, so they’re unaccountable completely. The third stage was to set up our own system of justice – the common law court system. And that is part of reconstructing society that makes them just, makes them responsible to the people and make people see that that they are not subject to any government. Governments are subject to them. That the source of all power is we the people as a reflection of the Divine Law of equality and peace. And these rulers have usurped that power and we don’t owe any more obligation to them. As a matter of fact, this last month we have issued stand-down orders to all the police, to the politicians, the judges, connected to the Crown of England or the Vatican. Because these are criminal bodies, they’re corrupted criminal bodies now. So yeah, that’s very much where we’re headed now.
 A: Fantastic. How has the reaction been for that?
 K: Well, it’s quite something – I’ll give you an example. Some of our groups in England, in Coventry in Birmingham, England, have not only convened common law courts but they have issued these stand-down orders to the police. In some cases the police have actually said, ‘if you show us more evidence about this, you know, they can’t deny – that’s the thing – that can’t deny that these crimes have been committed by the Crown. There is more evidence coming out all the time, of the personal involvement with the royal family in trafficking children. And if people go to our website itccs.org, you can see these interviews with the eye-witnesses you can see the evidence. And so because of that, the police are definitely saying, you know, that you can begin to see the palace guards switch allegiance here. There was a royal marine, a retired royal marine who came on the radio – the BBC radio the other day – and actually said that this Queen needs to be arrested, she is about to violate her coronational oath and take the Church of England back into the Catholic Church which means that she should abdicate right there, because she’s not allowed to do that under her oath.
A: I saw that. I actually blogged that. I think that came from you. Yeah, so we are making incredibly amounts of progress. And I know that so many out there thank you, thank you, thank you for the constant incessant work that you do to bring this to the forefront. But what I want everyone to understand that as Kevin has just been stating he has set the stage so that now all of us can step forward and become, you know, active participants in this New Society. And by doing that we have to go out there and take our sovereignty back. We have to find the fire within our inner bellies and decide what is our core issue that we want to bring forward. As Kevin is going to show you today and talk to you today about. There are so many things out there that need to be addressed. And we don’t need to duplicate what Kevin is doing necessarily. What we need is for all of you out there to find what really resonates with you.
I mean, Kevin, actually I just started – just for kicks and giggles – I started to list all the disgusting things that make up this society and here are a few: chemtrails, GMOs, pesticides in our soil and our food, floridation of the water, EMFs, killing off our elderly – that’s a biggie, free energy not being brought to the forefront, the continuing the use of fossil fuels, coal, illegal taxation, the denying of our freedom of speech, dumping radioactive waste in the oceans, terrorism, cancer and the big funding behind the whole cancer machine, it goes on and on, AIDS, there are so many things out there that there are so many of us that are passionate about. I had somebody write to me you know the other day, they were a child of severe sexual torture and rape. And I basically said, ‘you know it, you feel it, you understand it, you’re compassionate to it, you should take the ball and run with it, you know. And that basically that is what you’ve done. I think it’s very interesting because it’s so obvious to me that you were Divinely placed into the ministry, for a lack of better terms, right?
K: Well, it’s funny the way that it happened – I wasn’t aware of this, even when I was in the church. It required a great personal loss to have my eyes opened. Because, you know, like all of us at some point in life, we’re quite complicit and we don’t realize that while swimming in that water, we don’t see it. We don’t see the crimes. I have a lot of understanding and sympathy for people who haven’t woken up yet. But nevertheless even a blind person can see now that there’s an assault happening against – and these are the three things that need to unite us – against our planet, mother earth, against our children, and against our sacred liberties as free born men and women. And those three categories are in fact the new trial divisions of the common law court. The cases that we are looking at fall in one of those three categories because they’re the most serious. I mean we are being assaulted and destroyed as a species, and it’s deliberate, and it’s a part of the whole history of the enslavement of the human race in which we are cattle to the rulers literally and we’re expendable. And there’s definitely a plan to wipe out a lot of us now and it’s underway. It’s happening, you just have to look up at the sky.
A: Yes. And on top of that, it’s evidential. I mean you can actually find written commentaries, articles etc., when they’ll just come right out in public and express what they think of humanity and it’s not positive.
K: No, that’s it exactly. The contempt that they show. This is the amazing thing. The evidence is all there in front of our eyes. I mean, when I show people documents that children were dying at the rate of 50% in these Indian Boarding Schools for over half a century, I say, ‘is that accidental?’ That couldn’t happen accidentally, it has to be deliberate. You know, a policy saying to Catholic Church priests, ‘you will cover up child rape when it happens,’ who is that serving? I mean, you know, it’s mind boggling that people can still look at the evidence and not come to the conclusions.
A: Talk a little bit about the policy. I know you’ve discussed it before but tell us how did you get your hands on that and is it something in writing that we can all review and spread the word about?
K: Yes. Okay, we are talking about something  ‘criminales solicitationas,’ that’s a Latin name, of a Vatican document. It’s the crime of solicitation. It was actually leaked to the London Observer newspaper in 2003. And we’ve re-printed it on our website, Hidden No Longer.com [http://hiddennolonger.com/] Appendix, No. 9. So you can read the whole thing there. It was a policy that was adopted in 1929 which was when the dictator Benito Mussolini created the present Vatican – he re-established the Vatican and the Vatican Bank. He created this policy that says that when children are harmed the incident is to be covered up. That is, when a priest or anybody of the Church rapes a child or harms him in anyway, the victim and the perpetrator are silenced, the police are not told and the whole thing is covered up and the clergy that don’t cooperate in that, they’re excommunicated on the spot.
So you know, it’s expecting that every priest around the world and every priest in the world is involved in the criminal conspiracy. They all know about it and they are obligated to help cover up the child murders, in fact. Because when this happens at an early age, your children are ruined for life by these things. So what is amazing is that governments allow this to happen. They not only allow it to happen, they fund this murderous institution doing it through tax concessions and all these agreements that the Vatican has with governments. They even funnel tax payers’ money into the Vatican Bank. So it’s incredible that this criminal policy is allowed to stand. That was one of the main pieces of evidence that we used to convict, you know, Ratzinger and these other officials which we are now using in the next case to convict Pope Francis.
A: Wow. Oh my gosh. You said something else. You said all of the priests are all participating in this so-called network. Have any of these priests, you know, any large percentage of them, have they come forth and communicated with you to assist you?
K: Yes, well unfortunately, there’s only a few serving priests that have done that because, let’s be clear here, the clergy may bear the major responsibility for this. People in the pews are kept ignorant, it is quite clear. In the Catholic Church you’re not even encouraged to read the Bible, because so much of what that is in the Bible contradicts with what is going on with the Catholic Church. The best example I like is where Jesus says – ‘Call no one father, because they have only one Father in heaven.’ Yet Popes are called ‘father,’ the priests are called ‘father,’ it’s such a refutation of basic biblical teaching. But not only are the people kept ignorant in the pews, but they are expected to fund these bodies and the clergy know all about it. We have to put a lot of liability and responsibility right at the feet of the ministers of the churches who are supposed to be helping their people not helping to rape their children. And, you know, it’s unconscionable. There are no words to describe the guilt of this institution.
A: It’s repulsive. And I’m a recovering Catholic. But one of the things that I wanted to always ask you was how do you respond to those Catholics who are out there that are very good people who probably think that you’re just completely obliterating what they consider to be sacred and true.
K: Well, no. All that I am pointing out what is true. We have the evidence, we have the documents and the level of child rape and trafficking in the Catholic Church is massive. You know, one Catholic bishop the first one that went to jail in America for child trafficking and helping of the trafficking of children. His name was William Lynn in Philadelphia. He was shown by the prosecution that a quarter of the priests were actively trafficking children in Philadelphia alone. That’s hundreds of priests. So this is epidemic and it’s because every child rapist knows that they can get ordained as a Catholic priest and be officially protected in that sickness. So I say to people, it’s not about me denigrating your beliefs, it’s about you funding criminal actions. No organization should harm children and get away with it regardless what they call themselves. No religion should be allowed to do that.
You know, what I say to people is, it says in the Bible, ‘Come out from these false institutions.’ You can practice your faith without being associated with these corporate institutions, these criminal bodies, and in fact, they are now legally criminal bodies. If people fund them they are participating in the crime under the verdict of the common law court last year. So they have to understand their own liability, either their moral responsibility and their own children are at risk. This is not about when I say to somebody, ‘you murdered a lot of Indian aboriginal children,’ they say, ‘Oh well, they’re Indians, who cares.’ The point is it’s their own children that are at risk that are sitting there in the pews.
A: You know, you made a good common about that. It’s not just about the Indians in Canada. I think about the countless number of boys and girls that have been molested within the Catholic institution and it’s never been recorded, it was never documented, and God only knows, how many of them disappeared. You know, because there’s such a connection between that and the huge pedophilia ring, you know, with the Royal Family and the Vatican and all of that is being blown wide open right now. Well so where do we want to go with this obviously is we want to take all of this information that you’ve found, that you’ve finally exposed very effectively, and we want to be able to put the power and for lack of a better word, the precedent of what you have done and put it in the hands of the people and so they can start taking action, right.
K: Exactly. And for that to happen, we need to awaken people – we have to educate them first and help them to overcome the fear. I can give you a perfectly example. I’m doing a mid-West tour right now, and in the community I’m working with – I don’t want to say yet – it’s in the mid-West in America. These are groups of farmers who have been fighting their foreclosures on their farms – these fraudulent mortgages that are being perpetrated with the collusion of court judges. And on that one issue alone you can go into the community and they are valiant fighting this. Most of their neighbors are too afraid to come forward because of what will happen to them and they are totally ignorant of what they are living under. They are not living under a lawful government, they are living under a corporate entity. As a matter of fact, they’ve produced documents showing that the executive office of the United States is actually a registered private company in the American list of corporations.
And so, you know, you have to waken people to the fact that no, you don’t have to obey this so-called law and system of authority because it is fraudulent, it’s not accountable, it’s running for a few private interests. So getting people to get to that first step is one thing, then organize them to bring out the alternatives. It’s happening. I see it happening all over, because I travel most of the time. And I see it happening everywhere. The big problem now is people’s fatal illusions that they can still somehow use this system to do something that’s really new. And that is people reclaiming the earth, reclaiming their children, their laws, their own churches from these crimes, these criminals.
A: Well on top of that actually living our lives the way we are destined to do, you know, because as basic as human beings we’re actually peace-loving individuals. But we have been conditioned, and we’ve been programmed, and we are being bombarded with technologies that are unseen, that affect the way that we become hostile and argumentative and difficult and even warlike with another. It is not the true Divinity of each and every one of us and so, you know, I loved it the way you were talking about should we be moving back to the natural law of equality or the Divine law. Can you talk a little bit about that?
K: Well you know, the natural law we’re born with it. The American Founding Fathers said that these liberties are unalienable. That means that we’re born with them. They are not given to us by some kind of ruler and then taken away which is kind of like the Roman notion of law, the Church’s notion of law. But the common law says that you’re born with these innate liberties, people are made to be peaceful with one another, and the laws are to serve people. A matter of fact, under the law, the true law, people who do not harm another, there is nothing – they cannot be restrained by the law in any way. If you are not harming your neighbor or their possessions or their life, then you’re not committing any crime and the law has no right to touch you about anything.
Well, what most of the so-called law in America and other countries now do, they go after people who’ve never committed any crime. You know, the private prisons in America that are filling up, the children that are being trafficked and the government system of child protection because these are private companies who get money for every child that was put in a foster home. So they have a vested interest in breaking up families. I mean, this whole system is the source of all of these crimes that we mentioned earlier. And like you said, it needs to be brought down.
A: And I mean, it just isn’t salvageable, folks. That’s the main thing, it’s not salvageable. It’s rotten to the core. And therefore, it does need to collapse. We need to spread the word that this is a good thing. You know, I mean it’s pretty close here that the financial system should be falling any time now, you know. And when it does, we’re going to be throwing a party! Because that’s the beginning of the end of these guys. And everybody should see it like that. It unfortunate that it’s only this audience and some of the others out there in the alternative media that are aware of that. It’s our job to get that out there. There’s too few of us to get it out there, compared to all of them.
K: Yeah, and things are coming down quicker than people realize. In the group I was speaking with – one of them works in a bank and they said they got a directive this week that basically money is frozen, it’s not to be transferred outside of the country. At the Vatican Bank, you’ve not been able to withdraw money from an ATM in the Vatican Museum for many months now. Funds are being frozen. It’s kind of like – if I were people I would get your money out now and find an alternate means of living very quickly because everything seems to indicate that a big collapse is coming.
A: I second that. I actually had a friend who came in through the implant removal process and he just wrote to me the other day, he is out of the country and is in the banking industry and he told me, he said that there’s just no question that something very major is going on because of all of the investing that he’s involved in, he said nothing is being funded. And he knows that just never happens. Like I mean, multiple projects are not being funded.
K: Well, and what you are saying about celebrating, that’s it exactly, like it’s an opportunity. In my own life when it was destroyed it was a gateway into this new life, a purpose that I was born into. And I didn’t know that in the old comfort and security in the illusions. So we are going to go through a painful birth process into this other world and, you know, another way of being in the world. Because it’s not even as though we have a choice. We have to go into it, otherwise we don’t have a future.
A: Well, and I actually challenge you on it being painful only because I feel like so many of the people that write to me they are already in a massive amount of pain.
(That’s true) And the reason for that is because everything in their lives has been resisted, locked, and sabotaged, you know.
K: That is a good point.
A: So how can it even get – my opinion is we’re literally walking into a door of freedom. The slate is open, it’s wide open. And it’s now time for us to create that which we have always dreamt of, and stop feeling sorry for ourselves, stop feeling like something is always preventing us from happening, because we are finally at that gateway like you said, to really make a difference. We can finally fulfill all of our dreams and wishes.
K: Well, yeah. And you know, its funny, that whole thing about it being painful. You’re right, absolutely. The illusion of pain is that at first it seems that way, but then once you get past through it you realize that, what was I worrying about that. I’m inherently not a slave, I have a every power in the world to withdraw from this system simply by not cooperating with it anymore. And by taking back the power we’re in the process of creating something that’s new. And that’s quite a miracle to behold actually.
A: Big time. To be alive during this historical time period. And I often have thought about that have you ever gone to a really good concert. And everybody in the auditorium is just totally in to it, they’re stomping their feet, they’re clapping their hands, they’re singing along with the rock band, or whatever band that you’re listening to – it could be a symphony for all I care, you know. And you just feel this synergy of the people. Well, that’s what we’re going into. We’re going to band together and we’re going to finally act as one, instead of allowing the disintegration of unity which is why they have succeeded all along. We need to stop being disunified.
K: Yes. It starts, you know, personally, everybody listening needs to do this simple thing. Go outside, take off your shoes, stand barefoot on the earth. There’s that natural harmony that we have – our energy needs to re-align with Mother Earth. And then our thoughts start clearing up. Our courage returns. Our love returns. Because we’re living in a electronic matrix that is totally designed to confuse us, to depress us, and captivate us.
A: Thank you so much for that. That’s beautifully stated. Now with all of that, let’s dive into the meat. We’ve got just a ton of stuff and I think the best way – what we want to do with everyone today is, we want to try to present this in such a way where it’s not intimidating and we’re able to give you guys kind of a starting point of where you can go and how you go about taking action. This is so exciting. And I thank you Kevin, for putting this all together. I mean really trying to simplify this so that all of us can really follow your footsteps with what you’ve done with the Vatican. And with that said, where should we begin? Should we go ahead and talk a little bit about the Act of 1871 and why that is significant?
K: Oh, you mean in America?
A: Yeah, yeah, for the American audience. (laughter)
K: Yeah, we can do that.
A: So tell me a little bit about why the Act of 1871 was so significant in the development of the United States of America today.
K: Well, I don’t have it in front of me so I can’t quote exactly from it. But in fact, at this conference that I was at yesterday there were some common law experts standing up and describing it. And essentially what happened was the American Republic was abolished. Now the United States of America with the original Republic and the Constitution enshrined in what I was talking about – the unalienable rights of the people who formed the government, so the model that they had was: there was the Creator, and humanity from the Creator, and then government from humanity. So all of it was in the service of humanity with God with the Divine Law. And that got subverted in 1871.
It did a couple of things. It replaced the United States of America with the United States, and that’s a corporate name, just like, everyone knows the corporate designations they carry on their ID – the capital letters is a corporation, not you, flesh and blood, and that corporate identity that they brainwash you to identify with so you can be caught up in their system. The same thing happened collectively at a national level. That’s what happened in 1871. It happened at the same time that the US Supreme Court was allowing personhood status for corporations. In other words, corporations had the same rights as a human being under the law. And that really created the whole corporate-driven society that we have now. But it abolished the American Republic. So when you look at what is happening now, it’s because of that whole thing that began back then. It was happening right after the Civil War when huge amounts of wealth were creating in big industry for the first time.
The example I like to use is, there was no time zones and no regulated sense of time in America until 1883 when the railway created it. Up until then, at one state you’d have a lot of little towns and it might be 11:03 in one and 11:25 am in an other or whatever, people had they’re own sense of looking up at the sky and figuring out where the sun was and their sense of reality was of that. It was all regulated into time zones by the railway because the trains had to run on time. And reading the debates in Congress, the Congressmen were very upset about this. They were saying this railway does not have the right to impose time on America. Those guys got bought off and silenced and that was imposed. So it’s kind of the corporatization that didn’t just begin a few years ago. It’s been a long process.
A: Yeah, and the other thing I’d like to add too is, this was the time, around 1871, do not forget, this was the time when supposedly that United States was clamoring for some additional funding, okay. And the country was in dire financial straits and desperately needed a boost in the economy, so to speak, and sure enough at that time the Rothschilds, you know, came skipping in as usual and thought, oh what better way to be able to dominate the land of the free and the home of the brave, as they say, by basically creating the United States of America into the corporation, which is in all capital letters. So a lot of people need to understand even though you say, oh, we need to go back to the Constitution, even the Constitution has been bastardized, okay.
K: Right.
A: I always say to people we really need to go back to the Declaration of Independence, because to me, that is one of the most beautiful things ever written on the planet. And it does go back, by the way, to un-lien-able rights. My husband pointed this out this morning, he said, “don’t say unalienable because what it really is is ‘un-lien-able,’ meaning they can’t put a lien against you.” Even though that is all that they ever do.
K: That’s true.
A: And the other thing that I thought was interesting for us to bring up was the Declaration of Independence. Are you familiar with the 56 men that signed that and what happened to them?
K: Oh no, go ahead and describe that.
A: Okay, so basically, the number one key ingredient here was the 56 men that signed the Declaration of Independence – they were appointed by fellow citizens of each of their colonies. And as many know, they met very secretively – you know, I always wondered why they had to meet so secretively, right – little did we know.
K: Umhmm.
A: And basically, of these 56 men, five were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War. Another two’s sons were captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died in the hardships of the Revolutionary War, and basically it goes on to say that of these 56 men, they were made up of lawyers, jurists, merchants, farmers, plantation owners and educators. I brought this up because I just feel like that’s where we are right now is – we need to become the next so-called 56 men that meet together and put our policies together and get aware about how the common law works and start taking our power back.
K: Exactly, and you said it in a nutshell. And there’s a big movement all over America to re-establish the Republic along the lines of the common law.
A: Yeah. And I think it’s really important. And you are such a mouthpiece for it. Now, so here’s where everybody gets, eenngh, they go, ‘no, I couldn’t do that, it’s legal, it’s like that legal stuff.’ So can you start out by defining what common law really is. How is it different from statutory law?
K: Right, well, that’s the two things that we need to keep in mind. There’s an absolute difference between common law and statute law. Common law resides inherently within nature and within the community of free born men and women. And common law for example, is based on the whole notion that people are not born with any authority over them and any authority imposed upon them is unnatural and unlawful. Even when they consent, I mean, consent in this society is having a gun held at your head and the big guy saying, you don’t disagree, do you? Right, that’s really how it operates in practice in this society. But common law is uncoerced, it’s based on consent, freely uncoerced consent, between people and it protects the inherent right of people, for example, the most basic is the right to raise your children and live freely and without fear. 
K: On the other hand, statute law – and the way one of the guys put it last weekend was, statutes have nothing to do with the law relating to people. Statutes are rules brought in by government to administer itself. So it begins and ends there with government. Statute law has no relevance to people’s ordinary day [ ] common law, because common law gives the liberties that we live under. Now the best example of that is something like the Magna Carta guaranteed right of free movement on the public highways. There’s no need for insurance or a driver license. Those are statutes that the government brings in to make money for itself. And they convince everybody, ‘Oh, that’s the law, we all need it.’ No, in fact, there have been court cases in America where people stand up and say, ‘I’m invoking my Magna Carta right of free movement, I use my own documentation showing that I haven’t caused any accident, and I’m a reasonable, careful person and I don’t need a license,’ and judges have accepted that. Because when you call the system on it, they know what’s going on and they know that an aware person can’t be intimidated into going along with a criminal action, which is to assume that a statute has authority over your life, which it doesn’t without your consent.
A: You know, you brought up a really good point. So for something really basic like somebody who gets a speeding ticket. Have you found that to be an effective way to go forth, and say, ‘No, I’m not going to pay a speeding ticket’?
K: Exactly. The cop comes your the window, he presents you with a ticket which is a contract. You see, in their system everything is a contract. And there are three parts to a contract: there’s the offer, the acceptance, and then there’s some kind of exchange of money or something else. And he’s making you an offer to enter into that contract. And if you sign that ticket you’ve accepted it and you’re bound by the terms of that contract. Well, you don’t have to sign anything. You haven’t committed any crime. You’re just not wanting to enter their jurisdiction, that’s all. And people have often done that and at that point when you challenge the system, they start bullying. They use fear and intimidation to try to get you to do what they want. The fact that they have to do that shows that what they are doing is not lawful.
A: Correct. Oh, totally. And going back to common law, now how do you feel about precedents. Because people have written in, and they’ve said, ‘well, precedents isn’t really the greatest thing considering a lot of the courts are very corrupt and they set precedents on something that’s not really going to be beneficial for the next party that is going to argue that case.’ What would be your response to that?
K: Okay, it’s called in the law, stare decisis, which means ‘the decision stands.’ Now there’s a kind of double-sided sword here because in terms of when people who come together in a common law court – don’t forget – this is jury-run – judges have no role in this. Judges are simply administrators, they’re not there to tell the jury what to do. In the common law, the source of all law and precedent, is the jury. And every case is new. So a jury’s decision cannot be based on a previous precedent, okay. But, once it’s established, the right of people to use previous decisions is a bulwark against tyranny.
Let me give you an example. In England, in the King’s courts they would drag people in, anybody the king didn’t like, anybody they wanted to tax, and the judges – and they did have common law courts then which say, no, the previous decision of courts that upheld the right of people, for example, to not pay taxes, to uphold the rights of the commons, which in England they had the shire communities that had their own sheriffs, they had their own courts, and that’s where you get the British and the American elected sheriffs, in the communities, who actually had the right to convene common law courts. They have the right to perform arrests. If there’s a known child-raping priest, a sheriff can go in and do that – serve a warrant. We’re actually working with sheriffs in America, to educate them about the common law. Because they’ve been brainwashed like everybody to think that statute law is the law.
A: Hmm, interesting. So you know, we are not really talking a ton of people that are necessary to be present to actually call a common law court together, correct?
K: That’s right. In America, common law courts are convened very simply. And it was interesting. Even in the US Supreme Court now Justice Scalia, a few years ago, made the statement that citizen-run grand juries are a fourth arm of government, they’re outside the legal system altogether. They are the right of the people to form a grand jury. Now what a grand jury is, it is not a jury in the normal sense. It’s an investigative body. So for example, they convene grand juries when they’re investigating crime and they will make a recommendation whether or not an issue should be adjudicated. So all you have to do is to establish a citizen-based grand jury, that can be between 12 to 27 men and women, and they can then convene either order a justice of the peace or they can convene it directly themselves as a common law court, which is traditionally 12 people from out of the community. They do that by issuing what is called a public notice of claim or a notice of writ and the person, the aggrieved party, posts the issue, the statement of what they want, they name the defendants, and they ask people to volunteer for a jury and then your off to the races.
A: And my plan is Kevin, is to go over this with a fine-toothed comb with you so people really feel empowered to move forward on this. And can you imagine all of these people that have signed up with Meet-Up groups? Especially on a local level. If you have a Meet-Up group in your city or your town and you are really fired up about say, Smart Meters, okay. Do you have Smart Meters up in Canada, by the way?
K: Unfortunately, yes. They are trying to force them on all of us.
A: Okay. And they are causing a ton of problems health-wise to a lot of people. Now can you imagine if you just rallied thirty of your local neighbors together, once they got informed and you called the common law court together you’re actually able to promote the change of law just by doing so.
K: You are. And as a matter of fact, people are doing that about the smart meter in Vancouver, Canada. There’s a group – we’re trying to convene a common law court there around that exact issue – the smart meters. As a health issue and also a human rights issue, because British Columbia Hydro is telling everybody that if they don’t have the smart meter they’re going to be billed an extra $30 a month automatically. Which again is just a form of intimidation and extortion. And there are also tactics people can use that are really powerful.
For example, in the case of a judge who has committed crime. The example right here is, there are judges in America that are helping mortgage companies defraud citizens to allow them to grab their homes and farms. And in the case right out here, one fellow, a farmer, issued what is called a True Bill, which in common law means you make a statement in a public newspaper, ‘I believe this judge is colluding in this crime. Here’s his name, here’s what he did,’ and you state it three times. If it’s not contested and published three times it becomes not a law, but a matter that has judicial power which means it can be held up as a fact, okay. And when they do that, when they did try this, the judge instantly buckled, because he knows that by doing that, by not contesting something, you’re saying, it’s called nolo contendere which means, ‘it’s not contested.’ In other words they’re agreeing, yes, I’m a criminal. We did that in the first common law court case and neither the Queen nor Pope Benedict challenged the fact that we are calling them child rapists and we’re saying they’re guilty of child trafficking. And they admitted it, by their silence that this was true.
A: You know, that brings me up to another topic which was, I just blogged maybe about a week or two ago, an absolutely repulsive article about they have now found human meat in some of these fast food restaurants, such as McDonald’s. And the first thing I thought to myself, when I started doing some digging a little further into it they talk about how a lot of this child trafficking, once they are done using the child, they actually go through their satanic rituals, they kill them, then they supposedly grind up the bodies and they sell them as meat to these fast food restaurants. Do you know anything about that? Does this kind of tie in a little with what you do?
K: Yes. One of the things that we are working on now is the whole satanic sacrifice networks, of which we have had two very solid witnesses coming forward. People can watch one of them. Her name is Toos Nijenhuis, she’s a Dutch woman, and her interview is at our site itccs.org, last May 8th. She was raised in these satanic ritual families. You know, women are what they call ‘breeders.’ They have children that are used in the ceremonies, the newborn. These sick people believe that you get the power off the blood of the innocent, the blood of the newborn. And in effect, it’s a form of spiritual vampirism. And they use the children in these families for that purposes. Now that’s Toos.
As for the second witness I will mention, they were raised in this family, they were participants in these rituals, they saw who was involved including Joseph Ratzinger, in this Dutch circle in a French Chateau in 1987, she saw him there. She saw Lord Mountbatten, the uncle of Prince Phillip. Queen Elizabeth herself was named by our witnesses as having abducted ten children from the Indian School in Canada in 1964 and they were never seen again. All of this goes on. And in one of the aspects of the rituals is the slaughter of children. Sometimes they are often hunted down in literally hunting parties. They are raped and murdered and then eaten. They are ritual cannibalists.
A: Good God.
K: It’s a test of loyalty. They use these tests to screen a member of the cult who wouldn’t eat the child and they’re instantly killed on the spot. So it’s a form of psychological brutalization to keep people loyal to the cult. So it’s not at all conceivable that that was a part of the process. I mean just get rid of the evidence, you know.               
K: Well, I found the same stories told to me – I first heard this almost 20 years ago from the aboriginal people who describe witnessing the same things especially in the Catholic Indian Schools. But it was also in the Anglican and the United Church schools. They all describe these same things happening.
A: Oh my god. And well, apparently, they found the same thing. They wanted to get rid of the evidence. And then there was something about since we all have part of our brain that is partially reptilian, right, they were actually speculating that perhaps
they were doing this to kind of trigger that reptilian side of us, by eating the meat of an actual human.
K: Yes, well, that’s another part of it too. We are talking about, there’s definitely an effort here to transform our species into something else. You know, that’s one aspect of it. You have to reduce people to that unconscious state often through fear by also through other means by manipulating them into something else.
A: Which is unfortunately where we have come, that’s the fork in the road that we’ve come to, isn’t it?
K: Yes.
A: So before we go any further can you talk a little bit about why is the Roman Catholic Relief Act, you talk a great deal about it, of 1813, why is that so important?
K: In America?
A: Just period, just generally.
K: Well, Catholicism, quite rightly, after the whole experience of the Middle Ages both in England, and in America, there were laws prohibiting Roman Catholics from occupying high positions of influence. And there was a reason for that. It wasn’t discrimination against a religion. It was recognized that the Vatican is a political power and it uses it’s agents in every area to subvert governments. As a matter of fact, the Oath of the Jesuits, and the present pope is a Jesuit, the first one in history to become a pope, and the Jesuit Oath is to destroy any government, anyone who is an enemy of the Pope. And they use dissimulation and deception and
all these manners to do that. There is solid evidence of tracing the Jesuits to the assassination of Abraham  Lincoln and John Kennedy. Because both of them were trying to fiddle with the Federal Reserve Bank, of course. And all of this money goes back to the Vatican Bank, as we know.
But by legalizing, by allowing Catholicism to operate, the Trojan Horse there was, within that so-called civil liberties issue was a fifth column of Vatican-trained agents who infiltrated every area of the government. So now look at a place like Georgetown University, Jesuit-funded, which is now the major think tank of all the politicians in Washington. Why is Obama constantly upholding the right of the Vatican to be immune to prosecution? Why is he visiting Rome? The Knights of Malta, who are the Secret Catholic Society, every member – every head of the CIA, every top official in the US Government for decades has been a member of the Knights of Malta. Even Nelson Mandela was a Knight of Malta. You know, it’s the secret organizations operating through the Vatican, that’s what these laws were trying to control. John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, said the Jesuits are the greatest threat to America. We can never allow them to legally operate in this country if we care about the liberty of Americans.
A: Wow. He actually said Jesuits?
K: Yes. He named the Jesuits. John Adams, Ben Franklin, these guys were all aware of it and that’s why – when you trace the history of the American Republic, it came out of that, really, that covenanted model of Christianity which came out of England, where people said the Puritans and the Congregationalists and the others said, the authority in a church lies totally within the congregation. We do not believe in bishops or hierarchy of any kind. The people must decide their faith, and similarly people have to decide their government. One flows into the other.
A: Wow. Now this Relief Act of 1793 apparently led to the Union of Parliament of Ireland or something like that. Now I know you’ve talked a lot about Ireland, which has made great inroads with some legislation or common law court verdicts that have been passed. How is that going? Something about the actual priests were not allowed to remain on the property, they have taken the property back for the people?
K: Well, what happened in Ireland was interesting. There is so much crime there, and so much evidence of this that the people were quite outraged. There were thousands of people outside the Dail, the Irish Parliament in Dublin. I participated in some of these. Something called the Ryan Report came out and it showed the extent of Catholic genocide in Ireland. And when it came out the Catholic Church of course, manipulated themselves to get on the committees. So they used made-up names, they modified the consequences legally on the Church, all that stuff, the usual kind of manipulation. But in response, the Irish government felt pressured to actually close their diplomatic office in the Vatican. They actually came out with legislation for the first time saying that if a Catholic priest who didn’t report child rape is liable to 5 years imprisonment even it’s been told to him in the confessional. So that was quite a step forward. Now in response, one of the reasons they had to do that was, there’s a top Cardinal in Ireland – Sean Brady – he actually said to Catholics, if you report child rape in priests you’re going to purgatory.
A: Oh my god.
K: Right. And this guy himself had personally protected rapists just like the Popes had. So Sean Brady has been kind of eased out as Benedict has been for a little while. But it stands. There is, in fact, a movement among Catholic priests called Not in Our Name, and they want to break away from Rome. They want to establish an independent church in Ireland. And all of this is like – we’re kind of seeing what happened 500 years ago in the Reformation. The Catholic Church is beginning to break up at the grassroots and that is why they are doing all these desperate measures.
A: Hmmm, right. And so really do you feel that the Roman Catholic Relief Act, do you think that that was really a major turning point in the enslavement of humanity? I know that there had been      a lot of things before that, don’t misunderstand me. But it seems like this was a very serious – I guess it involved the Catholics being able to be elected to all corporations, right? Okay.
K: That’s right. And don’t forget the immigration into America which was mostly a Catholic European population coming in. That was deliberate. America, in the early years, was overwhelmingly non-Catholic. And now it’s turned the other way. So that’s one of the reasons that Senators and Congressmen don’t want to investigate the Vatican, they’re afraid that they’ll be voted out of office if they do. But the the thing is, a lot of Catholics don’t support what’s going on in the Vatican either. And I talk to them everyday. They don’t like it, but they’re just kept ignorant about a lot of these things.
A: As we all are, you know. About everything. There’s nothing to not question, seriously. Now how does the civil and Roman law fit into all of this? Is that one and the same as statutory law?
K: They are really, when you look at it. There’s two streams, when you look at the law in history. One comes out of customary or natural law, that people within communities form among themselves, they call that common law. There was a strong root of that came out of England because the tribal Saxon people had the sense that authority was derived from their people. They didn’t really have kings and that kind of thing. The other stream in European history was what we call Roman law. It came out of Greek philosophy which said that people are inherently slave or free. The free people had the right to dominate slaves. And Roman property law said that human beings are basically cattle, they are property of other people. And the ruler will define for the people their rights or take their rights away, if they want. That’s the whole notion of what’s called the civil or statute law. We’ll define your rights for you. That’s Roman or Canon law, or Church law, they all believe that.
Which is in opposition to common law, which says, no, we are born with these liberties you can’t take them away. Even by intimidating us and forcing us to do your will, you still haven’t abolished our rights as free born men and women. So there are really two very different things and the only reason that governments use statutes is to make money. And to regulate their operation. But again, the statutes – this is something that people should burn into their memory – a statute has no legal standing without your consent. If you don’t agree, it has no standing or power over you.
A: Hmmm. Which means the ultimate nail in the coffin is putting your signature on something, right?
K: Right. Or going along with something that they have that has no right to insist that you do. There’s two ways they hook you into the system. It’s through your birth registration and your voting registration. And an example of that is, where in Canada we have a common law court challenging this child trafficking in the government system. There’s a family that we are working with, and this one woman had four children. The children’s agency came and grabbed two of them to traffick basically into foster homes. These two children – the only ones that they took were the ones who had been registered, who had birth certificates. The other two who hadn’t been, they couldn’t touch, they didn’t. You know, because, unfortunately parents don’t realize that when they register their child’s birth and get a birth certificate they have signed away their right to their own flesh and blood. They’ve allowed the child to be given a corporate entity and they are then are owned by the state.
A: Wow. Yeah, and of course, we all are the moment that we get into the taxation and we file taxes and our names are in all capital letters, right? Once again.
K: You can break away from that. You just write a letter saying that you are not that person and don’t forget, the word ‘person’ is misleading too. It’s a word that means –
persona is the Greek word for mask. So a person is not a flesh and blood man or woman. A ‘person’ is an identity created that represents you but then again ‘re-present’ is to take you and turn it into something else. So that’s why you should never have a lawyer that re-present you to somebody else.
A: Wow.
K: Yeah, I mean, it’s all about words. Words are the means by which that you’re either freed or enslaved – once you understand the meaning of these words.
A: I remember diving into this awhile back. We got the Blackwell’s Dictionary and we were just blown away by just one preposition in a sentence made all the difference in the world as to what it meant.
K: Right.
A: It could literally mean your death ticket if you were in a court situation. You know.
K: Yeah, I know. And like a word – here’s a very important for anyone who is silly enough to go into the courts. The judge will always say, ‘do you understand what I’ve said to you.’ ‘Understand’ actually means ‘stand under,’ stand under their jurisdiction. So the minute that you say, ‘yes,’ you’re under their jurisdiction and you’re standing under their unlawful authority, then you are caught. So whatever you are asked to do, always say ‘no.’ You just say no.
A: Wow. So now where did you find that sort of information? I remember studying up on that a long time ago, where did you get that kind of information? Where is the best place for people go to be more informed on that?
K: Well, there’s a couple of sources. I mean, first of all, I began to learn these things when I took a year of law.
A: Oh!
K: They try to teach you statute law but, you know, reading, just reading widely and looking it up on the internet on common law and this stuff, you learn these things from different sources. And you learn from practice too because when you try this in a court, it works. When you don’t walk into the bar. A court is set up – as you know – there’s a thing called Admiralty Law – (yeah) where if you don’t know –
A: Correct.
K: Okay, every court is designed like the prow a ship, the deck of a ship. And the judge is the captain. Now there’s a thing that was introduced by kings and queens and popes in England, in Europe rather, called admiralty law. When you’re on the sea, the ship’s captain, for reasons of safety, has absolute authority of everyone on it. You can’t have a vote on whether on how to sail a ship, you might all die. So the captain is a temporary authority. And you enter into in effect, a contract when you get on board. Okay, I will live under your authority but you have to protect me.
A: Umhmm.
K: And that’s what’s all governments should do, okay. You can rule for a while but if you’re not protecting us then the contract is off. Now admiralty law is not legitimate, it doesn’t actually apply to the land. But it can create admiralty law jurisdictions that you enter into by your own unconscious consent. And the court, an admiralty court, is exactly that. Now admiralty court has replaced the common law courts everywhere. 4:36 There are very few common law courts left in the system. That’s why we are creating them again. But when you walk in, the judge – you’re supposed to walk inside the little gate, you know, (Unhmm) the swinging gate – and if you stand outside that gate you can talk to the judge, you can say, ‘are you going to protect my rights?’ and if he doesn’t answer you don’t enter. Now he can’t make you enter. Even all the goons and sheriffs standing there in the world and they can’t make you enter that jurisdiction, you’ve got to do it willingly, right?
A: Right.
K: It’s like in all these myths and legends about the devil. You have to invite them in. Right? (Hmmm) Once you’ve done that then you’re under their authority. You’ve given up your natural liberties. So don’t enter their jurisdiction, period, it’s that simple.
A: Well, and also I remember that the fringe on the flag, right? Doesn’t that indicate that it actually is an admiralty law flag?
K: Right. If you notice, that the American flags are under admiralty jurisdiction because there are gold fringes which are like the naval – actually, originally it was a Rome Navy insignia. But a lot of this is related to the whole history of admiralty law which is how it leads you to subvert your authority and make you a slave. But don’t forget it’s not legitimate because common law supercedes all other jurisdictions, it’s universal because it is inherent in nature and it is inherent our flesh and blood being. So it takes precedence over all other legal systems.
A: Oh, I love that. The other thing I wanted you to elucidate us with, is the sol invictus. I was just so fascinated when I read up on that. Now is the sol invictus related to the Roman law or is it related to the Papal law.
K: Well, they are one and the same. Sol invictus, ‘the victorious sun’ it means. It was a term created by Emperor Constantine because back then the emperors needed to have a patron god. And Constantine’s family needed a god and they adopted – they didn’t actually adopt Christianity – they adopted the cult of the sun, so sun worship, which the Church again manipulated the words to make it mean, ‘oh, he meant the Son of God.’ No, no. They meant the SUN up in the sky. So what happened was, right before Constantine – if you do a bit of reading – there was an Emperor Aurelian. And he created this sol invictus cult that created for the first time this thing called – it was a system of emperor worship in Rome. And it took place in the late third century, and it created the emperor as something called dies et dominus which means ‘god and master.’ Suddenly the emperor ruled heaven and earth, not just the empire but he suddenly ruled heaven as well. And sol invictus became the cult out of which the Roman Catholic Church evolved. So now, the Pope is the intermediary between mankind and God. Not Jesus Christ, which is why the Catholic religion is not a Christian religion, it’s a Roman – it’s a cult of Roman emperor worship turned into the Catholic faith. So that’s, when you look at the historical research that is undeniable. I mean why else would they so blatantly contradicting basic Christian teachings about Christ being the intermediary between God and mankind.
A: Right. Also, doesn’t that tie in with the date of Christmas, December 25th?
K: Right. Well, that was the Saturnalis, that’s the Roman festival. You know the term diocese in the Catholic Church, it’s like a unit within the Church, that was a geographical province within the Roman Empire. All of the terms were incorporated. You know there’s a symbol people might know, it’s like a capital P with an X through it. (yeah) It’s on all the Catholic clergy garments. It was a Roman cavalry symbol. It’s a military insignia. The term ‘pontifex maximus,’ which means ‘great bridge,’ that’s the official term for the Pope, and that was the title of the Roman Emperor. And here’s the best one, I like – he’s called The Vicar of Rome. Do you remember hearing the Pope being called The Vicar of Rome?
A: Umhmm, unhmm.
K: The word ‘vicarious’ if you look it up it means ‘substitute’ ‘the replacement for.’ He’s the replacement of Christ. His title – it’s right there in his title – he’s replacing Christ. It’s a different religion. It’s not Christianity at all. It’s right there in the words.
A: Wow. Yet they intertwine and, all of that stuff. Well, that goes back to the Bible as well. If you look into the Old Testament, the Old Testament had very little to do with Christianity. It had everything to do with the Jewish faith. But they did whatever they could to keep everybody accepting. Now is this creation of the Church of Rome – how is that ultimately affecting us today? You know, what is that doing to us today?
K: Well, at every different level. You see, it was the first corporation in history – the Church of Rome created in 317 AD. And what it did was it spawned every European-derived government and system. It really prompted the corporate system that we live under now, this corporate tyranny. There are no governments anymore, it’s corporatized autocracy that we live under, an oligarchary.  And the model for that is in the Church of Rome. They are not only responsible for the conquest of the planet by European colonism, but it set up the corporate model today for government. And the best example of that – don’t forget that, a little history lesson, the Vatican was actually abolished in 1870. The George Washington of Italy, his name was Guiseppe Geribaldi. And he united all the Italians and they overthrew the Papal States. And they deposed the Pope in 1870, September 20, 1870. They abolished the – and for 59 years there wasn’t any Vatican. The Pope was a prisoner, and guess who re-established the Vatican? Benito Mussolini, the Fascist dictator. And he did that in 1929 when he created the Vatican Bank and the Vatican as – they were like the twin power in Italy. They co-ruled the country. And Fascism of course, the system of Fascism was co-created by the Catholic Church and Mussolini.
And it was copied by Hitler. And eventually, it was copied by all the modern governments. You know that, Fascism is really corporatism. It’s when the state and corporate interests including the church merge into one power that have absolute domination over everybody. And all the normal democratic systems and laws and everything are abolished. It’s only the State, the Corporate State that has absolute allegiance over everybody and control. That was pioneered – and if you look at the wall on the US Senate, look behind the Speaker right on the wall is the symbol of fascism, the fasciae. These are a bunch of sticks tied together with an ax handle on top and it was the symbol of the Pretorium Guard in ancient Rome, they gave the right to kill anybody they wanted. And it was Mussolini’s symbol, it’s in the symbol of the United States Senate, and it’s in Union Square, it’s all over the place – it’s in New York. It’s on all the government buildings. It’s a sign right there what we’re living under.
A: And you know, they’ve said many, many times, I mean, they basically, have shown us right in front of our eyes all that is going down, it’s just a question of can we can see it.
K: Right.
A: You know.
K: We need to put on a new pair of glasses, a new understanding. Then it’s clear what we are living under. And everything that you knew is suddenly gone. It’s a lie. And everything suddenly becomes, at least temporarily, it seems like a nightmare to the people. But then you get a power, you realize this knowledge has given me great power over the situation. I don’t have to be afraid anymore. Now we can get on to the job of creating the world the way it’s supposed to be.
A: Right. And I find it very interesting that the connection of 1929 with the huge stock market crash in the United States and –
K: There you go.
A: – yeah, and the direct connection between the Italians and the fact that there were so many Catholics in Italy. I always wondered why of that connection.
K: Well, Italy is a theocracy, it’s run by the Church. In 1929, don’t forget it was also the year that that law of ‘criminales solicitationas’ about the Church protecting child rapists was brought in the same year.
A: Oh my god.
K: Well, if you want to control people in a corporate state you’ve got to terrorize them at a young age. Because if you’re traumatized and raped at an early age you cannot challenge that authority anymore in your life, pretty much. It’s very difficult to get out from that. So it’s crowd control. Child rape and the organized system of child trafficking allowed and encouraged in the Catholic Church is all part of that mass mind control, crowd control. It makes sense after a while. Well, that’s the way that you control populations.
A: Wow. So now, what is your feeling about just the way of – you mentioned the way of the vertical arrangement known as ‘the State.’ That was very interesting. Can you expound upon that a little bit?
K: Well, along the lines that we were just saying about corporatism, and the modern state it has evolved. There’s no democracy, there’s no anything, it’s just corporatism. In any community it’s like normal allegiance is to our families or our communities, there’s the horizontal connections to the earth. Nobody is above anybody else by nature. We just work things out together. All of that has been abolished by corporatism. Every allegiance has to be to the State. So for example, a cop shows up and tells to do something that you have to obey. There’s a sign on the ferry system in Vancouver. There’s cameras everywhere. And they say that by walking into this area it is assumed that you are giving consent. Now that’s totally unlawful. And it’s assumed that you have to automatically obey that State. And the statutes somehow become law and they’re not. So it’s that kind of thing that we are all living under.
A: Well, isn’t it true that there’s quite a few of cities – I just heard that Los Angeles took down their cameras at the red lights, (that’s good) because they were determined to be unlawful and they proved that there was no be-ing there to actually say, yeah, I’ve busted you because you ran through a red light. And they based it on that.  Now tell me a little bit about what is an actual tort?
K: A court?
A: A tort, t-o-r-t. 
K: Oh, a tort, okay. Well, a tort offence is like when people hurt one another. Not a crime. A tort offence is like you get a rock and you throw it through someone’s window or you hit somebody. Torts are not even meant to be brought into a court, they’re just meant to be worked out among each other. So you sit down and you compensate each other and that’s that. That’s different from a crime. That’s why they have two general divisions of civil law and criminal law. And tort offenses are used – let me give you an example. These crimes in the Indian boarding schools were coming out they were not called crimes when they were first brought into a court. They were called tort offenses. (wow) So, well, they said, well, you damaged these Indian kids by denying them a proper education so you have to compensate them. 16:38 No, you tried to murder them. But it was framed in tort law so that there wouldn’t be any criminal liability against the perpetrators. So you then you try to convince everybody, well, we’ve apologized and we issued them money what more do they want? That’s the thinking of Canadians and the Americans on this issue. Because we’ve been blinded to think that genocide is some kind of tort offense, no, it’s a crime and should be in criminal courts.
A: I listen to you and I just keep saying ‘Wow,’ because they’re so audacious. They are just so audacious.
K: Yep. They’re contemptuous of us, as because they think we are stupid cattle who don’t know their rights and they aren’t capable of thinking and they think they can do anything they want to. It’s literally how they view us.
A: Well, we are going to change all that, aren’t we, Kevin?
K: We’re doing it.
A: That’s right. We’re changing that. So right now, here today, we’re going to move forward on people being able to take their power back, go and work on those topics
and issues that in the world that are super important to you, and bring forth a common law court. I know there are two types. There’s public and private. So do you want to talk a little bit about that, as far as the two basics?
K: In the common law court system?
A: Yes.
K: Sure. A lot of this is turning the law back into the hands of the people. And we’ve been brainwashed into the term of ‘taking the law into our hands’ is a bad thing. When you read the earliest Athenian writers like Solon or the ones who really fashioned the notion of what a republic should be, and they said the highest virtue of the citizen is to practice the law themselves, to be the law. So when people have a dispute, in a private court, they don’t even have to go to court, you just work it out among yourselves in an equitable manner. But when public courts are convened – common law courts – it’s very important because it’s a way to activate people into their identity again, as arbitrators of the law.
Now on a common law court, whether it’s public or private, judges are not present. You can have a judicial arbitrator – for example, let me explain this a bit. Traditionally there’s something called equity courts. And equity courts are over an issue involving two people and they agree to bring their dispute before an arbitrator, and he can just kind of work it out for them and say, well here’s the decision and they can agree go along with the decision. That’s kind of a minor dispute. But on the common law court the judge is supposed to be there simply to give the jury to give advice on points of law and procedure. They do not have the right to overturn the verdict or to rewrite the court record which is a right that judges now have – a power they take on themselves, they’re self-regulated. That’s why there is so much corruption. The jury is the ultimate source of authority. So judges are just there as advisors. And similarly in common law courts there are no lawyers. Because no one can re-present you. You have to present your own case. So lawyers are not even present.
A: Yeah, and I like the fact that also there really isn’t a lot of tolerance about the big drama of court presentation, you know, that you see so often on TV with the lawyers. Where they’re decimating the person sitting in the chair. You know, and all they did was to come and sit there to say that this happened to me and I’m done.
K: I’ll give you an example of that, Alexandra, what’s going on. In Minnesota, there’s a farmer, he’s actually from South Dakota originally, he’s sitting in a prison right now.
He’s a 77 year old man in a wheel-chair and they’ve got him sitting in solitary confinement. (Oh!) And do you know why? He was part of a common law movement here that was challenging these fraudulant mortgages and all he did was write an email to a judge saying under the US law because going back to the Constitution, if a judge, a judge is liable for sanctions and discipline if he’s caught in basically committing a wrong, okay. The judge said you’re threatening me and he sends him to six months of prison. Bang! Slam dunk! He’s in jail. Now he wasn’t threatening anybody. He was showing the law to the judge. So the judge has the right to lock him up and deny him of his liberties. He’s in solitary confinement. I just spoke with him on the phone and we’re trying to get – what we’re doing – it’s another weapon to have in people’s hands – is you can get a common law court to issue a writ a habeus corpus.
Now a habeus corpus is a very powerful thing. It means ‘show the body’ in Latin. And what it means is he can’t be held in prison for long. He has to appear before a public jury court, now that’s a Constitutional right you have as an American. Look in the Constitution under the 6th and 7th and 8th Amendments. It gives every citizen the right to an immediate justice within a jury-based public court. Not in front of a judge, but a jury court. You have that right as American citizens. And anyone who denies that right is violating the Constitution, is committing a crime. But, Eugene Polson just challenged the judge and suddenly all of his rights as an American are waived and he’s a political prisoner. He’s in the jail in Aberdeen, South Dakota, that’s where he is right now. We’re trying to, okay – a writ of habeus corpus says you got to produce the body, you’ve got to bring them into the court.
But there’s a second part to habeus corpus, and a writ of habeus corpus means you’re transferring a case from one court into another. And what we’re doing in the International Common Law Court is, we’re issuing writs of habeus corpus all over the world, if people are held illegally in jail. And we’re going to issue this writ of habeus corpus to this court that says that Gene’s case has to be moved into a different court, a common law court, where all the facts behind why he was incarcerated can be brought out. And this judge, and the people who put him there, are brought as defendants, as citizens, into this common law court. So it’s an enormous weapon in people’s hands, these writs of habeus corpus.
A: That’s outstanding. This is really funny. Well, in fact, enough of this type of injustice is happening, to the point that if we would just band together and through all of the programming and the mind control and the EMS and the poisons in our air, food, and water, it has really dumbed us all down and it is causing us to be so much less motivated than we had been in the old days. But you know, things are lightening up now. And we do have support from above. And so this is the right time to do this. And we are the power if we unite. So with that said, I know that there are some very basic players in the common law court. Can you kind of go over just in generally speaking, the plaintiff, the accused, that kind of thing.
K: Sure. Let’s take the steps. Okay, I should have mentioned this much earlier. We have produced a Common Law Court Training Manual. And it is up online at http://www.itccs.org/. That’s for the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State, itccs.org. You can look on the right hand margin and the thing says Common Law Training Manual. That’s the first draft, we’re still working on it. But in it they lay out the procedure for setting up a court, convened through a citizen, petitioning in the community to have twelve people come forward to adjudicate a matter. And you do it, and there’s a copy of this document – we have all of these court documents up online at itccs.org. And the first document is the public notice of claim. Or sometimes it’s called the claim of right. It says this is the issue that I want be addressed. It says for example, ‘I so and so, give public notice of my personal claim of right and lawful excuse to convene and establish a common law court under my liberty as a flesh and blood man or woman, and I do hereby call upon the support of all competent men and women to assist me in this lawful right.’ And they say that ‘I further give public notice of the right to convene a court, a jury of my peers to address the following issue,’ and you lay out what the issue is, the facts, and who are the parties that are named.
That makes the person a plaintiff. Now the court, the jury that creates a court, that includes a judicial administrator, an advisor which is sometimes called a judge, and the citizen prosecutor’s office who assists the plaintiff. Now again, he isn’t a lawyer, it’s legal people assisting the plaintiff to present his case, who will also assist the defendant if they want their help. A public summons is issued to the defendant, they have seven days normally to respond to it. Not responding means you’re not
contesting, and often in common law tradition it means that the judgment will then go against the defendant because they are not challenging it. You have, as well the plaintiff and the defendant and the jury, you have a citizen prosecutor office or a defense officer to help the parties. You have court sheriffs and bailiffs as security. The bailiff, for example, could take the jury members out to protect them and keep them isolated while they make their decision. You have a court reporter, and these are called courts of record. Courts of record means it’s a public record. The court secretary and the recorder that record everything, and it’s a public record. Anyone can look at the record afterward and there’s no right to be restricted. So that’s all the basic personnel in a common law court.
A: And it’s a whole lot simpler actually than what it just sounded like. When I dove into your training manual I was pretty amazed. And by the way, Kevin, I have some information I can send over to you that I have typed up that I think is going to help also.
K: Please do. We’re constantly revising it so everyone’s input is welcome.
A: So one of the things that I wanted to let everybody know, people freak out about law because they feel that it’s too convoluted, it’s too confusing, they have to have a law degree, they’re not capable of being articulate, they just want to say hey, this is the injustice and this is what was done. So the whole purpose of the plaintiff, right, is
the burden of proof is on their shoulders. Like if you have an issue you become the plaintiff. If you post this complaint or what have you. Now how do you go about writing all of that out, does it have to be provable, what are some of the specifications that they need?
K:  Well, you know, in due process, natural law says that the burden of the proof is on the plaintiff- the assumption of innocence on the part of the defendant – that’s kind of basic. It has to be based on verifiable evidence. So this isn’t heresay, it isn’t, ‘yeah, well I that heard that this guy did this.’ You have to have eye witnesses who are willing to swear affidavits that they saw something or witnessed something about the crime that’s referred to. They also have to – by swearing an affidavit you are automatically saying, yes, I will agree to appear in the court. They have to be willing to come and testify to this personally. And so the evidence, the rules of evidence is very important. It’s based on the assumption of innocence – the burden of proof. And they’re not – the accused is never to be detained without that due process. So it isn’t a vehicle by which one guy can just ‘get’ another because they’re out for vengeance. That’s why the disputes have to be resolved relatively quickly. There’s a term res judicata litigation where you are just trying to bring a lawsuit on somebody because you don’t like them. All of that can be prevented by simply saying that we have to show verifiable evidence. Especially in a really major matter involving criminal acts.
A: Yeah, I noticed that you mentioned something about if it involved the war, genocide, human trafficking or whatever, that the rules were are a little bit less stringent. Can you talk about that a little bit.
K: Right. That’s the issue of intent. Now in the law nobody can be convicted unless that it can be shown that they committed an act and they did it with intent. So for example, somebody accidently caused the death of somebody. You have to bring an issue of intent and that will kind of mitigate the sentence a bit. However, when you have whole groups in society committing crimes – and this was brought out in Nurenburg by a guy called Robert Jackson, who was the chief American prosecutor in Nurenburg. He said, there’s a different rule that’s applies here, different standards. Because if a whole society is conspiring to wipe out another group of people you don’t have to prove that every person in it had that intent to so. They are just going along with the flow, along with the predominant way of thinking and being and there’s an implied intent.
So for example, the Catholic priests are operating under this law criminales solicitationas, and it says if you don’t cover up child rape you’re excommunicated. You don’t have to have raped a child yourself, or covered it up yourself to be guilty of a crime. Because of your association with that criminal body
you are committing a crime. And there’s an understanding that there’s an implied intent for you to do that, okay. Just like you don’t have to prove that an SS Guard killed your relative for the Nazi Regime to be indicted for crimes of humanity. It’s the same thing here. It’s an implied intent when a whole regime is organizing genocide or child trafficking or whatever.
A: And so if you had something where you were aware of, like a mass number of graves, that right there is enough to open up a common law court, would it not? Just to start the process?
K: Absolutely. And that’s the evidence that we used, people can go to itccs.org, you’ll see up on the top – it says Common Law Court – Case No.1, “Genocide in Canada.” We have 150 exhibits posted there. And one of them or several of them have to do with the dig we did at the Mohawks graves where it shows that these are the bones of children. These are buttons off the school uniforms. So it’s proven that there are remains there, linking it to the Church of England. So yeah, all of that is again verifiable evidence.
A: I did also like – you did review the jury versus the judge. And I thought that was something really important to make sure that people understand that you are no longer working with just this one judge – the god of the law so to speak, who is bribable and who ignores due process and who will silence parties if he needs to, who will destroy court records, that kind of thing. That is no longer applicable, correct? because you’re dealing with an actual jury.
K: Right. I mean, you can corrupt a group of people like you can an individual, but the more people that you have of process in the decision-making, the more likely it is that that natural decency and understanding of things will prevail over manipulation and corruption. That’s why you have to stand on the jury system, because left to themselves men and women will come to a just decision. That’s the understanding of natural law because we are born with that inherent sense of right and wrong. You don’t have to teach somebody that it’s wrong to hurt a child, assuming they’re not a pychopath or whatever. They know it is wrong. And it’s that knowledge, that inherent knowledge of   right and wrong that we rely on in the justice system.
A: Very good point. So okay, so how many people need to be in the jury? Is it twelve like a regular court that we have now?
Kevin: Yeah. Twelve is the traditional number. But sometimes in citizen grand juries you can have as many as 27 people. In the first common law court case we did, we had 58 jurors. So really there’s really no limit to the number, but you have to have something manageable as well.
A: There is no limit on the number, okay. Then I also saw that you had to elect a prosecutor to conduct it on the case of the people.
K: If that is desired by the plaintiff. The citizen prosecutor office can appoint people to help them with the knowledge of the law, with procedure, how to formulate an argument, how to cross examine, all of that stuff. I mean technicians, legal technicians can be used to help, but not to control the process. It’s like what happens on the judges and the lawyers, the way they’ve arranged it – that’s why it’s so massively corrupt right now. It’s just run by them. They’re just the technicians, they should not be in charge. So it’s kind of that idea.
A: So who do you recommend is the best candidate for the citizen prosecutor. You know, 4:00 what type of background, you know what I mean?
K: Somebody with an awareness of the issue. If you’re prosecuting people over Chemtrails the person should have a knowledge of the issue. So an activist or someone who has a long history of researching it. But what’s mandatory is that they have to have the basic knowledge of the common law. One of the things that we are doing is organizing training workshops where we’re giving people that knowledge. Matters of legal process – they have to be fairly well-schooled in what due process and natural law and legal procedures are about. So all of that is really important and it also relates to the last aspect, which is really important, which is the verdict and the enforcement. And that is kind of the stumbling ground for a lot of people. Because they say, okay, you’ve got a verdict against the Pope or whomever, how do you enforce this, right?
And that’s a big part of our tribunal manual we created, because in common law the enforcement – and this is a basic principle – enforcement is in the hands of all the people. And that means – and you know we get the word ‘posse’ from the Latin term which meant – it came out of the – let me just read this – it’s from a book called ‘1215: The Year of the Magna Carta,’ “In England all persons who were the victims of a crime were expected to raise their hue and cry and apprehend the criminal. Now upon hearing this cry every able-bodied man in the community was expected to ‘do the utmost in his power pro toto posse suo to chase and apprehend the accused as a ‘posse.”’ So ‘posse’ has kind of lynch mob connotation. Posse is when all the citizens of a community stop a crime. They can also enforce the verdict of the court. So the common law sheriff will ask for assistance in enforcing the verdict. So that means you enforce it, whatever the verdict is. You would jail the person, or you’d monitor them – in the first case we did, this loss of property and assets by these leaders in the church, you enforce that.
That’s why in Canada we have had people go in to Catholic Churches and issue these enforcement orders, saying these buildings are now the property of the people. They’re not the property of the Catholic Church anymore, especially since they’re subsidized by our taxes. And we have the right to occupy them. And people have started doing that. They’ve gone in and opened day care centers in Catholic Churches and just taking over the churches. Because their property is forfeited by the fact that they’re a criminal body. So that’s what we mean by community enforcement.     
A: So that’s awesome. And it’s such an alien concept for so many people today to even think about working on a community level. We’re all so isolated, you know, we’ve gotten so into our computers and our cell phones and our technology that causes us not to look up to the skies, but to constantly be looking down into this piece of technology.
K: Yep, intentionally. They’re set up that way to be alienated and to dissociate people from their natural world and themselves.
A: Right.
K: That’s why we have to turn off all of these machines. I do that with my kids and others. I say, ‘you’ve got to turn these things off. They’re meant to confuse and to divide people. And also you know, what you’re talking about, the antidote to all of that is – in what were are talking about – in the process of recovering our power and identity as a community as sovereign men and women, we overcome a lot of these things that were done to us. Why should it be a foreign idea that we are the law, that we have the right to protect our children and stop perpetrators in our community when the police aren’t doing it. The police are helping the perpetrators.
A: Exactly. Exactly. And unfortunately, the police are getting paid by the very institutions and government agencies whatever it might be, that is really been proving themselves to be the enemy of the people, you know. It’s very convulated. Now you also need to elect an adjudicator, right?
K: Adjudicator. Well, that’s another name for the judge. Adjudicator’s just a legal advisor to the court.
A: Okay, now when you say advisor, how far do they go with advising?
K: They don’t have the power to overtly influence the decision of the jury. They can’t say do this, do that. They can give them advice but it’s got to be not in a directive manner. And they can’t in any way affect – they can’t overturn the decision, they can’t postpone the decision, or disband the jury. They can’t do any of that, they’re just a resource.
A: Okay. And then the next thing is you need to elect the sheriff and a group of peace officers. Now can you tell us a little about how successful have people been with that and how many peace officers do you recommend? Is it usually, has the number of peace officers directly correlated with the intensity of the –
K: Yeah.
A: Yeah okay, that’s what I thought.
K: There are two different things that we are doing here, it’s not only about the court, but the enforcement, that this enters into. Anyone can be elected as sheriff or common law peace officer in your community by the majority of your citizens. Especially in America this is happening all the time already. We also have the right to deputize existing police. And we have a form in the manual at itccs.org that says – we issue this to the police – and say, ‘we are asking you now’ – ‘requiring’ is the common law term – ‘we require that you stand under the jurisdiction and of the authority of the common law court. And if you’re not going to, you are ordered to stand aside because then you’re obstructing justice.’ And to tell you the truth, the police understand this and they do stand aside. This has happened when we’ve done
occupations of the Catholic churches. They didn’t intervene, because we hand them that document, we say that we are involved lawful protest. So that has worked. So in other words, you can elect your own and train your own, or deputize the existing police to do this. And that’s especially important when you are talking about enforcing these warrants and other things. 
 A: Well, I imagine that some of the best places to go are the women and men that are coming back from war and that are leaving the military service who have a pretty good background, you know. Yeah, I was going to say. And you’re really killing two birds with one stone you’re actually giving them back that passion. Because a lot of people in the military, they really are so wanting to protect and serve their fellow citizens.
K: Umhmm. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, there’s a group called the Oath Keepers of America. (Yes) And the Oath Keepers is serving and retired soldiers and police and sheriffs who say they’ve taken a 10-point oath. You can look them up online. Ten points to their oath – that says, ‘We will uphold the Constitution, we will defend the right of citizens, we will not violate their civil liberties, in other words, we will obey the law and not the existing corporate authority. And there’s Oath Keepers chapters all over. We’ve talked with them, we’re working with them and with county sheriffs, you know, to educate them about this. But we need to educate first, otherwise people will not know what they are doing and don’t know – like you said, it’s kind of disorienting at first when you’ve been raised as a slave all of your life and to say now ‘our shackles are broken, people.’
A: Right. And to do this in as peaceful and in as harmonious of a way as possible to once again present the injustice – and you know, sometimes I don’t know how you can do that when we know the atrocities that have been committed. But still, to take that higher path, it really is important. Now the next thing is, we also have to elect a local magistrate, correct?
K: That’s another name again for an adjudicator.
A: Okay.
K: You see, we don’t use the name judge and magistrate because those terms come out 12:00 of the Vatican, both of them. The magisterium – it means ruler. Magisterium is the name of the College of Cardinals in the Vatican. Magistrate means somebody who rules over everybody else. So we don’t even use that language. And an adjudicator is just somebody who – to ‘adjudicate’ means to negotiate using the law.
A: Hmm, good point. Okay, so basically those are the main players, right? So you have your jury that are at least twelve, you have your citizen prosecutor, you have your adjudicator, and then you have the plaintiff who actually brought forth their own case with regarding an injustice, and then you have the accused.
K: That’s right. And then the other people like the court reporter, the bailiffs and – and another thing is, you have the right to video and record; people have the right to make their own record of the court. So video cameras and all that is totally allowed in a common law court.
A: Wow.
K: It’s a public arena, okay, unless it’s been requested to be a private hearing or something. It’s a citizen run – we are the power don’t forget –  We the people – we are the source of all law and authority, not the government.
A: And I would imagine that – used to work with sheriffs and they are very different from police from the stand point that they work under a different set of so-called rules and regulations. And they were very much in support of the rights of the people.
K: Yeah, well they are elected and they’re accountable to the people locally. They know the people in the community, and that’s good and in bad, in the sense that they often reflect the attitidues. For example, some of the sheriffs I’ve talked with here in the Mid-west say, well I’m not going to do anything unless the people support it and they are not going to support this common law thing. So we have to educate people to say all that we’re doing is going back – it isn’t anything radical we’re doing, we’re just reasserting what people once had, you know.
A: Wow. And you of all people are one of the leaders        in this Kevin.
K: Well, you know, the problem with calling somebody a leader, I’ve initiated it but the other side likes to pick off the leaders and then demoralize them.
A: No, we don’t want that.
K: Well, I often say, ‘don’t be a follower, I don’t need you to follow me, I need you to stand beside me.’
A: Right.
K: Because we’re doing this shoulder to shoulder. And this is the way that it happens. So you can call me a veteran because in battles the veterans help – you don’t rely on the green recruits, you rely on the veterans to lead things, to keep the people going. Yeah, I’m that for sure.
A: Well now, talk a little bit about once the actual common law court jury is final, okay. Talk a little bit what happens once the entire court proceeding is completed and the verdict is reached, what happens then?
K: Well, the verdict is read by the jury, by the jury Chairman or the Chairwoman, the jury pronounces the verdict and the sentence. And, in other words, in the first case they were pronounced ‘Guilty’ by the unanimous vote of the citizen jurors of genocide of Canada. And then they brought in their own verdict which was 25 years of imprisonment, etc. Except actually there was one added opinion, it wasn’t a dissenting opinion. One of the jury in the case said, no, they deserves the death penalty, because they committed crimes against children and humanity. So that was registered and entered under advisement to the others. But the final verdict was not that. Once the verdict is issued then the enforcement occurs. The adjudicator orders the – this is the only time that the adjudicators has a right to order anything – they order the sheriffs to enforce the verdict. At that point he dismisses the jury, they are not a permanent body. Then he dismisses himself. The court ends. And the enforcement occurs. Then it is up to the sheriff’s office to enforce it – and the entire community to enforce it.
A: Isn’t it something like 24 hours from the time of the summons that it actually it is posted that the court has to be convened?
K: Absolutely.
A: That’s cool.
K: Yeah. I mean justice is supposed to be rapid, you know. It’s not supposed to be delayed. Things are either right or wrong. The issues that are important need to be responded to right away. But especially when they’re affecting the whole community, like a criminal matter does.
A: Well, and we’re so used to going into their court system trying to literally battle for our own rights and sovereignty. And what I loved about this was it basically states that once the jury is complete and they bring forth the verdict, which has to be unanimous, right? it has to be unanimous in order to reach it? Okay, and it can’t be appealed, that the truth itself is not mutable, that the defendant is either going to be pronounced innocent or guilty, that the verdict can not be revised or reconsidered, and then it’s enforced. How simple is that?
K: It is simple because the truth is simple. And things are either right or wrong, true or false. And that’s the natural law basis of understanding of things. Now if however, that if it can have been shown that there was evidence that was subverted or prevented from being brought to the jury, if there was tampering with the jury or some corruption involved, the case can be re-opened and you’d have to petition for that happen. This was assuming that it was done in an honest and correct matter. Yes, there is no need to appeal anything because the jury’s decision stands.
A: Hmm, okay. So now when people start doing this, because you’re really going to put a fire under everybody’s feet, I just know you are, where do you recommend that they typically hold these courts – the common law courts?
K: In public buildings – libraries, community centers, things that have accessiblity to people, court rooms. You can walk in and claim public jurisdiction, common law jurisdiction over the court space. People have already tried to do that. But a more neutral space – would even be churches, although there might be issues about that for some people. But definitely, I would say the best would be a community center that’s well-known and central, and freely accessible to the people.
A: Gosh, that’s awesome.
K: Don’t forget there’s a thing in the Magna Carta that’s a very important line, it says, ‘We shall not deny or delay or prevent justice for anyone.’  Deny, delay, or prevent, it’s beautiful when you think of it.
A: Deny, delay, or prevent.
K: We can not delay justice. It happens swiftly, right?
A: I like that. Ooo, I like that. So basically, what we are doing is we’re coming up with a more simplified system that doesn’t get caught – what about all these situations where the appealing party says, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, I’m going to place an appeal on this and I’m going to string it along for another three years. That can not happen, right? 
K: No, they don’t have the right to do that. There are strict regulations about the case, the duration of the case. Normally, any case could be presented within a week. That’s the time alotted for cases normally. And if it can’t be done in a week, often the case can be dismissed as frivolous, or the adjudicator or the jury could say, look work this out between yourselves. And the more that we do that, the more that we democraticize our society, when you think about it. People are working things out among themselves and not relying on these specialists who are serving basically corporate interests. 
A: I agree with that. And because we’ve not been brought up or at least been
positioned in a way where we have to be individually capable of working out our stuff with people, we tend to always depend to become very co-dependent upon the government. It’s very deliberate. I really want people to think about that. It’s very deliberate – the way in which we’ve been created into depending solely on the government to fix our woes. And in reality, I always go back to David Icke who says, ‘problem-reaction-solution.’ They’ve already positioned themselves in a way where, ‘Oh, you have a problem? Oh, we’ll give you a solution after you react to it. Here it is, it’s in our back pocket. Oh, we just happen to have this legislated like 15 years ago, you know.
K: Right. Well, it’s deception, and inherently, that is something that’s not lawful. If people have to lie and deceive it means that they’re doing something unlawful.21:00 Because the truth serves justice and the community – they are bound together. So this is just common sense, really. There was a guy, a judge, in 17th century England, Edward Coke, who literally upheld the common law against the King and it got him put in the Tower of London. And he said, that common law is simply common sense. That’s how he put it.
A: It is. It totally is common sense. I think that’s why it’s so alien to all of us because we’re so used to not being in a common sense society. Nothing in this matrix makes sense.
K: It’s also called the unwritten law. And again, they brainwash us to make us think that it’s a bad idea, the unwritten law. It’s unwritten because it’s already written in our hearts and our mind and on our souls – what is right and wrong. When things have to be written down that becomes a statute or a rule that governments can use to control people or to make money. And that’s again not really the law.
A: Well, I love the fact that you’re going back to the real core ingredients that we were in endowed with un-lien-able liberties, that no authority, law, government, or religion can diminish or abolish. How do people really get that they themselves are un-lien-able and that the law should be not harming anyone. You know, the Divine Law.
K: Yeah.
A: Where do they go from there?
K: It’s the road to liberty. And the restoring of the planet.
A: Well, you said this in another interview where I was listening to a quite while ago. You said that the freedom and you talked about Christ and everything, and do unto others as you would have others do unto you. And that really is the Golden Principle, is it not? That our freedom really gets down to as long as we don’t injure others parties.
K: Right.
A: You know, we should learn to live together.
K: As long as you don’t injure another party you have a committed no wrong, and you can not be tried and retained or anything by any power. And so, when you look at most of the people in jail now they’re not in there because they’ve hurt something or someone, they’ve been caught up into this stupid system that it profits off from people being in jail. And, you know, you have to realize now the more that we do this work I realize that it’s really a spiritual battle, for the soul of the human race.
A: It really is.
K: Yeah.
A: It really is, and we are at that moment, when we are right on the precipice of radical change with all of the things that are coming out right now. And this is such an important component to that. We must take the steps necessary to reclaim our own judicial system, our own way of exchange, the way in which we work with others cooperatively. Everything has to be re-written, or restarted, or re-vamped, reviewed. I mean seriously.
K: Right.
A: And that aspect, Kevin, in my opinion, that’s really exciting. Because you’re starting on a whole new project.
K: Well yeah, it’s kind of like another level up now. It’s like a spring board to the next level which is we have the steam but we need a piston to put the steam in, (Yeah) the common law court is that piston, and then we get movement. And people are scattered all over the place but we can start uniting in these common law movements and these courts. I just want to give bit of technical information to these people.
A: Sure, I just want to let you know that you have about five more minutes and so I was going to ask if you have any other – the technical information or anything else you wanted to announce, go for it.
K: Okay. The websites, first of all, for people to reach me. http://www.itccs.org/and http://hiddennolonger.com/ has to do with the genocide in Canada – all of our evidence. The first one, www.itccs.org is the Tribunal and the Common Law, well, the Tribunal over-view website. We now have a common law court website up as well. The International Common Law Court of Justice. It’s http://www.iclcj.com/, and all of our court cases are all posted up there as well and a lot of background information as well. And if people want to get hold of me you can reach me by my email: hiddenfromhistory1@gmail.com. Because I am on tour now all over North America and Europe and I’ll be especially in the States in the summer and the next coming months because there are so many common law courts forming. And I will come and help whoever wants to work in this direction.
A: Well, I wanted to let you know too we only went over just the basics today, everyone. So Kevin, if you are receptive we can go into a lot more detail in the next interview.
K: Absolutely.
A: Right now I just want to give everyone an overview of what it is, why it came about, why it’s so important to take steps now to move forward in this direction. So we’ll bring Kevin on again relatively soon and we’ll go into the real details of how to do this.
K: Yeah, and on March 31st, actually I’m in Brussels to convene the next court case. We are convening the court case against the present Pope Francis.
A: Really?
K: It starts on March 31st, the examination hearing and I’ll have a lot to talk about during April about that case and what is happening over there.
A: Fantastic. Well, thank you so much. I think a lot of our hearts and minds are with you, following you every step of the way. We’re so impressed with your tenacity and your courage and your willingness to really do what a lot of us wish we could do. We’re just lacking a little of the courage and the – I don’t know, maybe the wisdom to know how to make the connections to make it happen. We’re just grateful for that.
K: We often say,  Remember the children that are going to suffer tomorrow if we don’t, the earth is going to suffer if we don’t fight for it and that will give us the courage and resolve to carry on.
A: I agree. I agree. So thanks everybody for listening to Galactic Connection.com. As always I do appreciate the donations to support this website. I do a great deal of work to keep everybody posted on the daily occurrences around the world. So please consider giving a donation. Also if you have any questions on the implant removal process just drop me an email. It’s healing@galacticconnection.com. Take care everybody and have a wonderful rest of the week and we will talk to you all soon. Thanks again, Kevin.
K: Thank you.


Help Us Awaken the World
with Your Donations

I want to thank an anonymous friend for the speedy delivery of this transcription. Thank you and I didn’t even have to ask for help and it was offered! I so appreciate it!

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/kevin-annett-alexandra-meadors-transcripton-march-8-2014/

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