Reply to a Comment from Gazz

residential school children

I checked my stats today…. not a single hit from anyone in Canada.  Plenty of views from the UK though, likely in the wake of a few recent blog articles on the ‘occupation’ of a Coventry Church.  In honor of the Brits I thought I’d post this comment by a visitor to this site as I felt it deserved a thorough and ‘right proper’ reply.  The following was posted by Gazz:

Hello Admin,

While I’ve been following Mr Annett’s work off and on for a couple of years, I don’t wish to give comment on what is being disseminated here. My sole interest above all, is to bring to the fore those individuals responsible or those connected to them for the suffering/death of innocents both young and old.

I would like your opinion on two points ~

Are you of the opinion that Mr Annett is incorrect in his assertions of guilt levelled at the current ‘English’ monarch and, if his assertions are correct and provable, where do you propose Justice be served – in what court of law ?

Dear Gazz,

First let me say that personal perspective can taint peoples opinion about anything.  I am not a victim of the abuses dished out by Residential Schools here in Canada, nor am I a Native person, so I will not trivialize what happened to those children during the Residential School operations or make this response satirical as is the norm for most of my postings here.  I do, however, work with (and live amongst) a very large Native population in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and have had many experiences both good and bad that could be used to argue both sides of this politically charged question.

I believe what you are asking me requires a third question to be answered, and that is whether or not Native people are capable of obtaining their own Justice.  I say this because Mr. Annett has done much to subvert the attempts by Native people to do just that.

But let me get back to your questions.  You ask if I agree with Kevin or not if the Queen is guilty of what Kevin accuses her of.  My answer is partly yes and mostly no.  I agree with Kevin that the Queen by right of power failed to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the children at the institutions that the Church of England was in charge of.  She, by nature of her ‘monarchy’, became the stereotypical landlord and slave owner by implementing policies that so callously disregarded the fundamental human rights of Native children.  However, the Indian Residential Schools operated for nearly 150 years, so this was a legacy that Queen Elizabeth II inherited and did not create.  So, what can she be personally held responsible for?  Only those edicts and directives to those agents under her that directly or indirectly caused those children to suffer the way that many of them did.  The Queen and those officials of Government and Church under her authority, were negligent in their Fiduciary responsibility to those children:


An individual in whom another has placed the utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect property or money. The relationship wherein one person has an obligation to act for another’s benefit.

A fiduciary relationship encompasses the idea of faith and confidence and is generally established only when the confidence given by one person is actually accepted by the other person. Mere respect for another individual’s judgment or general trust in his or her character is ordinarily insufficient for the creation of a fiduciary relationship. The duties of a fiduciary include loyalty and reasonable care of the assets within custody. All of the fiduciary’s actions are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary. (

This is the only assertion made by Kevin Annett regarding the Queen where there exists evidence of her negligence of her fiduciary responsibilities.  Any claims of her ‘disappearing’ children for nefarious, blood sucking, Reptilian Agenda purposes is here-say and not provable due to the ‘witness’ being deceased and therefore should be left out of any discussions dealing with the law.

Your second question asks where justice would be served best.  I can best answer this by demonstrating where justice is already being served.  Recently, there was a class-action lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty and other damages brought by survivors of the Mohawk Institute in Brantford, Ontario for 900 million dollars:

“The survivors claim for compensation was framed as an action for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, assault, battery, breach of Aboriginal rights, breach of Treaty rights and intentional infliction of mental suffering.” – (

“The “Defendants” are the Government of Canada (“Government”) and
various church-related entities including: The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, The Dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, The United Church of Canada, The Methodist Church of Canada, and various Catholic entities (together called the “Churches”).” – (

For those victims and their families who wished to hold their abusers accountable, this class action suit gave them the means to pursue justice and financial compensation is a hit to an organizations’ bottom line that has repercussions to the top of the pyramid of power.  However, not all survivors are seeking ‘justice’… most have sought reconcilliation and healing which has allowed them to live their lives more at peace.

Please also remember Gazz, that there is no darkness without the light, and that many of the children who attended Residential Schools have fond memories of it and came out of the system unscathed.  Most survivors seek understanding and acknowledgement and are wise in their knowing that the only way to move forward is to free yourself from the shackles of the past.  For most, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been a means to do just that.

Now if we are to look at the laundry list of how Kevin has attempted to ‘get justice’ for the Natives (whose cause he has now abandoned for that of abuse survivors in your country) would you say Kevin was helpful or hurtful?

  • Infiltrated the first Tribunal in 1998 in Vancouver, befriending then slandering publicly many of those who sat as “judges”
  • Infiltrated the Circle of Justice which came about as a result of the success of the Tribunal, only to be asked to leave because Kevin stole and published without permission witness testimony
  • Vastly inflated the number of children who likely died at the IRS’s based on faulty scientific method to sensationalize and promote his book and dvd.
  • Put in danger the lives of several witnesses who Kevin claimed had eye-witness testimony of the rapes and murders of missing women from Vancouver’s Downtown East Side by publishing their names and addresses on the internet.
  • Compromised the investigation into the murders and disappearances of women from the DTES by going public with ‘details’ provided by the above mentioned witnesses and by refusing to co-operate with the RCMP officer involved in the case.
  • Infiltrated Occupy Vancouver and Toronto as a means of stirring radical support for his crusade against the Church and State
  • Infiltrated Six Nations Mohawks and lied about his intentions to NOT dig for remains at Mohawk Institute then convinced them that a small test dig would be completed and that Six Nations Mohawks would decide what would happen next.
  • Used his connections at Occupy Toronto to grand-stand and wave ‘children’s bones’ allegedly excavated at Mohawk Institute, made several videos and interviews claiming that the bones and other materials unearthed there were conclusive proof of the genocide of native people.
  • Lied about the forensic examination of the bones unearthed at Mohawk Insitute on several interviews claiming that they had been examined by the Chief Forensic Anthropologist (Dr. Doug Owsley).
  • When confronted about this lie and asked for documentation to prove his claim, he then claimed that he had sent the remains to Dr. Don Ortner (not a Forensic Anthropologist) who happened to be deceased at the time Kevin made this statement.
  • Has refused to apologise for the mistreatment of the Elders at Six Nations and disrespect shown to the children who died there saying it is their job to contact him to discuss it.
  • Has publicly slandered many activists who once supported and endorsed Kevin (including providing financial support) calling them ‘black-ops’, ‘paid agents of the state’, ‘government shills’ and the like.
  • Has used the group ANONYMOUS to hack into the computers and e-mails of his dissenters and to gather ‘intel’ to be used against them.
  • Claimed to have a lawsuit against various members of Church and State filed with the Court of Queens Bench and then turned against the citizen prosecutor calling him a liar when it turned out it hadn’t been filed.
  • Claims poverty and pays no taxes yet can afford several trips to the U.S. and Europe every year.
  • Has claimed that Doctors and Nurses at various hospitals in British Columbia murdered Native witnesses to IRS abuses.
  • Has claimed that there are at least 28 mass graves at IRS’s across the country.
  • Has claimed that a mass grave was unearthed at a RS in Alberta and published a photograph of skeletal remains that turned out to be a photograph of a mass grave in Syria from a National Geographic magazine.
  • Has claimed the little girl with smallpox featured on the cover of his book ‘Unrepentant’ was an American Indian taken in 1910, when the photograph is of a Bangladeshi girl taken in 1973 copied and pasted from a Wikipedia page on Smallpox.

The list could be longer Gazz, and unfortunately is growing with every claim Kevin Annett makes.  I suggest you read about the Nuremburg trial to see how it was conducted, familiarize yourself with the International Court at the Hague and see if what Kevin cooked up (some DVD’s of his old movie interviews) and a prejudiced Jury watching YouTube video’s passes the sniff-test for you.  If you have read this reply and still think that this is the kind of Justice you think victims of abuse need, then go for it.  But rest assured that I (and others) will be there along the way to expose him.

All the best,


One thought on “Reply to a Comment from Gazz

  1. Hello Heather, thanks for that response. I will indeed look further into what You have responded with. Regardless of Mr Annett’s ‘wrongs’, it is he who introduced me to the suffering outlined in his work. Before that I was ignorant.

    I have just watched the video in your article regarding the ‘ITCCS and it’s Puppets On A String’. It is apparent that Mr Annett has been creating a bit of a stir. That aside, I do wish that ‘English’ folk would consider the work of Mr Albert Burgess. His work details very well the criminality of the British parliament and the entry into the EU. His work shows the unconstitutional way in which entry was made and has had very little coverage. An extension of that of course is the position of the current monarch – now a ‘citizen’ of Europe – all be it a very privileged one!

    I won’t attempt any serious response to this article suffice to say, I have much homework to do. Thanks for the information here.

    Kind regards,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s