+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

  1. Link to Post #1
    Avalon Member viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th March 2010
    Posts
    3,683
    Thanks
    6,065
    Thanked 14,345 times in 2,176 posts

    Default Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Let's see where this goes...

    Breaking News: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia; United Nations asked to send Peacekeepers and Forensic Specialists as Trudeau and other leaders summoned to appear before Genocide Tribunal

    http://murderbydecree.com/2019/06/25...summoned-to-a/

    Viking
    You decide...your thoughts..your actions..your reality.
    Choose well.
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...are-the-change

  2. The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to viking For This Post:

    avid (26th June 2019), Axman (27th June 2019), Baby Steps (26th June 2019), Bill Ryan (26th June 2019), BMJ (27th June 2019), Did You See Them (26th June 2019), etheric underground (26th June 2019), Franny (26th June 2019), happyuk (11th August 2019), Hervé (26th June 2019), janus (26th June 2019), Jayke (26th June 2019), mountain_jim (26th June 2019), Nasu (26th June 2019), petra (9th July 2019), Satori (26th June 2019), silvanelf (26th June 2019), Sstarss (26th June 2019), Star Tsar (26th June 2019), Sunny-side-up (26th June 2019), sunwings (26th June 2019), Violet3 (26th June 2019), what is a name? (26th June 2019), yelik (26th June 2019), Zanshin (26th June 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    England Avalon Member Did You See Them's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th October 2015
    Age
    54
    Posts
    610
    Thanks
    2,155
    Thanked 3,446 times in 562 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Has this anything to do with the rumours involving the Royal family as claimed by William Coombes ?

    https://www.collective-evolution.com...ren-in-canada/

  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Did You See Them For This Post:

    avid (26th June 2019), BMJ (27th June 2019), conk (26th June 2019), janus (26th June 2019), Star Tsar (26th June 2019), Sunny-side-up (26th June 2019), viking (26th June 2019), Violet3 (26th June 2019), yelik (26th June 2019), Zanshin (26th June 2019)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Great Britain Avalon Member
    Join Date
    2nd May 2014
    Posts
    970
    Thanks
    4,047
    Thanked 4,191 times in 882 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Catholic Priest Kevin Annett has been trying to expose these horrendous crimes for years - it seems the 'Establishment and Church is more interested in protecting itself.

    https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/unre...adas-genocide/

  6. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to yelik For This Post:

    avid (26th June 2019), BMJ (27th June 2019), Did You See Them (26th June 2019), Nasu (26th June 2019), petra (9th July 2019), silvanelf (26th June 2019), Star Tsar (26th June 2019), Sunny-side-up (26th June 2019), viking (26th June 2019), Zanshin (26th June 2019)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Australia Avalon Member Zanshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th November 2013
    Age
    48
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    3,147
    Thanked 963 times in 190 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Yes he has yelic - forgive me, one minor correction - He's an ex-minister of the United Church of Canada.

    source: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Kevin_Annett


    In the 1980s, Kevin graduated from the University of British Columbia with a Bachelor's degree in anthropology and a Master's degree in political science. In 1990, he graduated from the Vancouver School of Theology with a Master of Divinity, and was subsequently ordained by British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada. In 1990-1991 he served in churches in rural Manitoba, and in 1991-1992 served at the Fred Victor Mission in Toronto, an outreach street-ministry of The United Church of Canada. He was appointed minister to St. Andrew's United Church in Port Alberni, British Columbia in 1992.

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Zanshin For This Post:

    BMJ (27th June 2019), Did You See Them (26th June 2019), Franny (26th June 2019), Nasu (26th June 2019), petra (9th July 2019), Star Tsar (26th June 2019), viking (26th June 2019), yelik (27th June 2019)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Australia Avalon Member Zanshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th November 2013
    Age
    48
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    3,147
    Thanked 963 times in 190 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    These international tribunals and common law courts have made great strides in exposing the global human trafficking and genocide, leading many to question why there appears to be no tangible result - justifiably so.

    The main reason centres around the organization that controls most legal institutions - the BAR society (for British Accredited Registry).

    Where the 'public' court system has been hijacked by these private, for profit, D&B registered, corporate entities - the problem always remains:
    Who is going to compel performance?.

    A properly recorded judgement, in any jurisdiction, can be duly apostilled (ie:authenticated); then introduced into another jurisdiction -
    providing that jurisdiction will accept it. So who's going to make them?

    Most of the people I have studied this information from have been broken by this club - either bankrupted, incarcerated or worse.

    It is not hard to stop them in their tracks - but they have every advantage on their side -

    time, money, process and custom, overwhelming force, guns,clubs, prisons, brainwashed thugs and highly compromised pedarests and other cretins to overturn any adverse decisions that do get forced through against the flow.

    They usually wear ya down in the end.

    When an attorney is admitted to the BAR an oath is sworn; first to the BAR, second to the court of jurisdiction and third to the client -

    Oh and any attempt to indict the monarch must be lett. (look that up in Black's law)

    That's what the Titles of Nobility amendment was all about - no esquires in government.

    So way to go ITNJ, ITCCS and anyone else who wants to record affidavits of fact, (something attorneys can't do) about
    all these crimes that may one day be fully prosecuted ,if everyone can band together and wrest control away from this
    insidious arm of World crime inc. (or whatever they call themselves).

    A bit rushed - posting as my battery dies.
    Last edited by Zanshin; 26th June 2019 at 16:32.

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Zanshin For This Post:

    avid (26th June 2019), BMJ (27th June 2019), Did You See Them (26th June 2019), Hervé (26th June 2019), Tam (26th June 2019), viking (26th June 2019), yelik (27th June 2019)

  11. Link to Post #6
    United States Avalon Member Valerie Villars's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th November 2017
    Age
    57
    Posts
    2,615
    Thanks
    23,957
    Thanked 17,159 times in 2,572 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    I just happened to watch a heartbreaking documentary last night on this very issue. It's on Amazon Prime. https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/deta..._c_D4dtpS_2_10

    The name of the documentary is "We Were Children" and it mainly follows two natives, a boy and a girl, who were subjected to horrendous physical and psychological abuse. It was well done.
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone when we are uncool." From the movie "Almost Famous""l "Let yourself stand cool and composed before a million universes." Walt Whitman

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Valerie Villars For This Post:

    avid (26th June 2019), BMJ (27th June 2019), silvanelf (26th June 2019), viking (26th June 2019), Zanshin (26th June 2019)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    4,210
    Thanked 6,871 times in 1,041 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Quote Posted by Zanshin (here)
    ***

    When an attorney is admitted to the BAR an oath is sworn; first to the BAR, second to the court of jurisdiction and third to the client -

    Oh and any attempt to indict the monarch must be lett. (look that up in Black's law)

    That's what the Titles of Nobility amendment was all about - no esquires in government.

    ***
    Please forgive me, but that is nonsense. I'm not singling you out and I do not seek to pick on or embarrass you. Nor am I protecting lawyers. Some are incompetent or complete crooks, but they are the exception, not the rule.

    When I was admitted to the practice of law some 40 years ago in the USA (New Mexico) I, like every other lawyer, took an oath to one thing: The Constitution of the United States of America. To uphold and support it; as well as other laws of the Land. (It was virtually the same oath I took when I was inducted into the US Army in 1970.) My goal was then, is now and always has been first and foremost to help people, and along the way to make a reasonable living in the process. I like to think I have succeeded.

    Lawyers, or attorneys if one prefers, in the USA do not take an oath to the "BAR" and they do not take an oath to the courts. Rather, lawyers are "officers' of the court" (meaning they have duties to the court as well as to their clients and the community), are regulated by the Supreme Court of the state(s) to which a lawyer is admitted, are subject to the rules promulgated by the states' Supreme Courts, and are bound by the rules of ethics and professional responsibility. If you want to gain an understanding of the myriad professional and ethical rules that govern lawyers and to which they are often held to account if they cross the line, start by getting a copy of the Code of Professional Responsibility governing the practice of law in any state of the USA and read that. These can be readily obtained on the internet. The American Bar Associations also has a set of ethical and professional guidelines that are considered aspirational, if not binding. (By the way, Bar means to be in court, and is technically the railing between the audience an the participants in the proceedings.)

    I just looked at my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe Seventh Edition (1999). The word "lett" does not appear therein. The word "let" does. "Let" has several meanings, most of which do not apply to what you may be driving at. For instance, one definition of "let" is to rent property. "He let the house to the Smith family."

    Another is to allow or permit. "She let the children play in the pool."

    This may be the definition of the word "let" (not "lett") as you intend to use it in your post. That is, one must be allowed or have permission, as you say, "to attempt to indict the monarch...", whatever that means.

    Lawyers do not have titles of nobility simply by virtue of being sworn in as a lawyer. Not in the USA at least. I cannot speak to other countries, such as England and the distinction drawn there between Solicitors and Barristers and what is a much more archaic judicial system with respect to the ceremony and other trappings that adhere to and are followed in judicial proceedings in England. But I can speak to the fact that in the USA lawyers are not conferred any title of nobility by any governing authority.

    You may be referring to "Esquire." (Look it up.) An esquire is a member of the English gentry ranking below a Knight. That term is not limited to Barristers, solicitors (or lawyers)--it applies or at one time did apply to many walks of life in England at least. Use of esquire is a convention that arose between lawyers long before any of us were alive. I eschew use of esquire and I do not use it at all when referring to myself or to any other lawyer. That word is in my view pretentious and elitist. But, being an "esquire" in no way prevents a lawyer, or any other professional person using "esquire," from being in government.

    Apparently, it is that word that led to the notion that lawyers hold a title of nobility and thus Article 1, Section 9, clause 8 of the US Constitution is implicated. But, that clause is not implicated and has no application at all to preclude a lawyer, or any other esquire, from holding any elected or appointed office or position of trust in the USA. Article 1, Section 9, clause 8, reads:

    "Titles of Nobility. 8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

    So, in short, in the USA, the National government (nor a state) can constitutionally confer a title of Nobility on anyone, and any person who holds a title of nobility may not accept anything of value from any foreign sovereign or country--unless Congress consents to it. The purpose of this clause is to attempt to establish and maintain loyalty of each US citizen and person to the national government and the united states, or states united. Whether that goal was ever achieved and maintained is highly doubtful. (What should we think of US citizens who have been Knighted in England? People such Alan Greenspan, for instance. Or people with dual citizenship? There are many such people.)

    Things are whacky and bizarre enough in this world we live in that are demonstrably provable and need urgently to be fixed, without muddying the waters further with unsubstantiated and pointless ideas that do not advance the ball and achieve any useful purpose.

    My apologizes if I have ruffled any feathers.
    Last edited by Satori; 26th June 2019 at 18:02.

  14. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Akasha (10th July 2019), BMJ (27th June 2019), Constance (26th June 2019), Hervé (26th June 2019), Nasu (26th June 2019), Sunray (27th June 2019), Tintin (11th August 2019), Valerie Villars (26th June 2019), viking (27th June 2019), Wansen (12th August 2019), yelik (27th June 2019), Zanshin (9th July 2019)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Avalon Member avid's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2010
    Location
    NW UK
    Posts
    2,180
    Thanks
    28,308
    Thanked 9,225 times in 1,950 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Esquire - used to an addressee instead of Mr on postage since I was tiny, we used to send letters to A. Jones, Esq as a reverential term, often affectionately! Usually to single men.
    Blimey, pretentiousness actually occurred in our ‘minion’ classes!

    Back to extremely important topic of uncovering the vile atrocities against native women and children in Canada, and probably throughout The Americas.

    Definitely a cover-up to deflect guilt from those who are at their most disgusting, and probably still are....
    Last edited by avid; 26th June 2019 at 18:15.
    The love you withhold is the pain that you carry
    and er..
    "Chariots of the Globs" (apols to Fat Freddy's Cat)

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to avid For This Post:

    BMJ (27th June 2019), happyuk (11th August 2019), petra (9th July 2019), Satori (26th June 2019), viking (27th June 2019), yelik (27th June 2019), Zanshin (9th July 2019)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Australia Avalon Member Zanshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th November 2013
    Age
    48
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    3,147
    Thanked 963 times in 190 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by Zanshin (here)
    ***

    When an attorney is admitted to the BAR an oath is sworn; first to the BAR, second to the court of jurisdiction and third to the client -

    Oh and any attempt to indict the monarch must be lett. (look that up in Black's law)

    That's what the Titles of Nobility amendment was all about - no esquires in government.

    ***
    Please forgive me, but that is nonsense. I'm not singling you out and I do not seek to pick on or embarrass you. Nor am I protecting lawyers. Some are incompetent or complete crooks, but they are the exception, not the rule.

    When I was admitted to the practice of law some 40 years ago in the USA (New Mexico) I, like every other lawyer, took an oath to one thing: The Constitution of the United States of America. To uphold and support it; as well as other laws of the Land. (It was virtually the same oath I took when I was inducted into the US Army in 1970.) My goal was then, is now and always has been first and foremost to help people, and along the way to make a reasonable living in the process. I like to think I have succeeded.

    Lawyers, or attorneys if one prefers, in the USA do not take an oath to the "BAR" and they do not take an oath to the courts. Rather, lawyers are "officers' of the court" (meaning they have duties to the court as well as to their clients and the community), are regulated by the Supreme Court of the state(s) to which a lawyer is admitted, are subject to the rules promulgated by the states' Supreme Courts, and are bound by the rules of ethics and professional responsibility. If you want to gain an understanding of the myriad professional and ethical rules that govern lawyers and to which they are often held to account if they cross the line, start by getting a copy of the Code of Professional Responsibility governing the practice of law in any state of the USA and read that. These can be readily obtained on the internet. The American Bar Associations also has a set of ethical and professional guidelines that are considered aspirational, if not binding. (By the way, Bar means to be in court, and is technically the railing between the audience an the participants in the proceedings.)

    I just looked at my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe Seventh Edition (1999). The word "lett" does not appear therein. The word "let" does. "Let" has several meanings, most of which do not apply to what you may be driving at. For instance, one definition of "let" is to rent property. "He let the house to the Smith family."

    Another is to allow or permit. "She let the children play in the pool."

    This may be the definition of the word "let" (not "lett") as you intend to use it in your post. That is, one must be allowed or have permission, as you say, "to attempt to indict the monarch...", whatever that means.

    Lawyers do not have titles of nobility simply by virtue of being sworn in as a lawyer. Not in the USA at least. I cannot speak to other countries, such as England and the distinction drawn there between Solicitors and Barristers and what is a much more archaic judicial system with respect to the ceremony and other trappings that adhere to and are followed in judicial proceedings in England. But I can speak to the fact that in the USA lawyers are not conferred any title of nobility by any governing authority.

    You may be referring to "Esquire." (Look it up.) An esquire is a member of the English gentry ranking below a Knight. That term is not limited to Barristers, solicitors (or lawyers)--it applies or at one time did apply to many walks of life in England at least. Use of esquire is a convention that arose between lawyers long before any of us were alive. I eschew use of esquire and I do not use it at all when referring to myself or to any other lawyer. That word is in my view pretentious and elitist. But, being an "esquire" in no way prevents a lawyer, or any other professional person using "esquire," from being in government.

    Apparently, it is that word that led to the notion that lawyers hold a title of nobility and thus Article 1, Section 9, clause 8 of the US Constitution is implicated. But, that clause is not implicated and has no application at all to preclude a lawyer, or any other esquire, from holding any elected or appointed office or position of trust in the USA. Article 1, Section 9, clause 8, reads:

    "Titles of Nobility. 8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

    So, in short, in the USA, the National government (nor a state) can constitutionally confer a title of Nobility on anyone, and any person who holds a title of nobility may not accept anything of value from any foreign sovereign or country--unless Congress consents to it. The purpose of this clause is to attempt to establish and maintain loyalty of each US citizen and person to the national government and the united states, or states united. Whether that goal was ever achieved and maintained is highly doubtful. (What should we think of US citizens who have been Knighted in England? People such Alan Greenspan, for instance. Or people with dual citizenship? There are many such people.)

    Things are whacky and bizarre enough in this world we live in that are demonstrably provable and need urgently to be fixed, without muddying the waters further with unsubstantiated and pointless ideas that do not advance the ball and achieve any useful purpose.

    My apologizes if I have ruffled any feathers.

    No apologies necessary Satori, feathers unruffled - if my post strikes you as utter nonsense, as though I just parroted ill-informed rantings gleaned from cursory net searches, then the fault is mine.

    Please forgive the poorly composed venting that comprised the previous post – restricted by time as I was, I should have just held my own counsel, as I more usually would, certainly at least till I had access to a copy of research I was referencing. Having initiated this exchange, I am now obligated to respond with the goal of clarifying my position regarding a subject I feel lies at the very core of the tyranny of oppression – the nuts and bolts, if you will, of a system that facilitates the control of the many by so few.

    I would note at the outset of this response, my initial reaction was to capitulate, accept your assessment of my position and terminate membership of this forum – as failure to rebut would invalidate many past and most future assertions I might care to make.

    Having for years now, endured most people’s acceptance of the ignoratio elenchi arguments promulgated by the likes of Quatloos and Snopes et al, as grounds for the contemptuous, summary dismissal of, an area of study I have devoted years of time and effort to – I find myself wearied almost beyond the summoning of the energy required to respond.

    Be that as it may, I acknowledge my effort in half measure, with said previous post, has created the rod for mine own back. Moreover I do not seek to impune, in any way, the efforts of those striving to assist others - especially those pursuing a career doing just that.

    I acknowledge the inherent, gracious integrity of the many that follow the ethic of service to others within the structure per se. If I have in any way caused offense or perceived slight against individuals or the higher aspirations of society’s institutions, I apologize unreservedly. It was not my intent.

    In fact I must thank you Satori for, by holding me to a high standard of account, you have forced me down rabbitholes I haven’t visited in years – refreshing my original intent to strive for self determination through taking responsibility for controlling my contracts – a path not for the faint-hearted, where whiners and revilers need not tread.

    *********

    First, to address specifically, the definitions improperly developed.

    Sans the second ‘t’, the definition as I perceived it, for the word ‘lett’ does appear in Black’s 4th under ‘let’ –

    LET, n. In old conveyancing. Hindrance; ob-struction; interruption. Still occasionally used in the phrase "without any let, suit, trouble," etc.Gustafson v. Ursales, 3 Ohio App. 136, 139

    An example of the specific use of the word with this definition can be found in –

    The oath of the privy council:
    you do swear by almighty god to be a true and faithful servant unto the queens majesty as one of her majesties privy council
    you will not know or understand of any manor of thing to be attempted done or spoken against her majesties person, honour, crown or dignity royal but you will lett and withstand the same to the utmost of your power and either cause it to be revealed to her majesty herself or to such of her privy council as shall advertise her majesty of the same
    you will in all things to be moved treated and debated in council faithfully and truly declare your mind and opinion according to your heart and conscience and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you or that shall be treated secretly of in council and if any of the said treaties and councils shall touch any of the councillors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as by consent of her majesty or of the council publications shall be made thereof
    you will to your uttermost bare faith and allegiance unto the queens majesty and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre eminencies and authorities granted to her majesty and annexed to the crown by acts of parliament or otherwise against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states, or potentiates and generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to her majesty
    so help you god.

    Whether the dropping of the second ‘t’ for lett in Black’s Law dictionary is just typical of the ‘Americanisation’ of the English language or speaks more to a deliberate obfuscation through ‘legalese ’ of the specificity of certain words and terms is more speculation than I am prepared to examine in this post.
    I note that net searches for the word ‘lett’ produced no results congruent with this usage, nor indeed, Bouvier’s.
    Similarly searching the term BAR produced results limited to terms defined as acronyms and slang, eg: http://acronymsandslang.com/definiti...r-meaning.html

    *********

    I did not mean to imply some secret ceremony is undertaken upon admission to the Bar – rather that the client’s status in court is plain to see for those who care to educate themselves, where ignorance of the law is no excuse. I do however question the usage of the title Esquire or the knighting of US citizens (or Australian citizens for that matter) being passed off as merely some quaint custom.

    Whilst you maintain that lawyers in the US do not ‘take an oath to the Bar’ I assume there is no dispute that failure to comply with the code of ethics could result in disbarment. Add to this the manner in which attorney/client relationship is addressed in Corpus Juris Secundum and perhaps the logic behind my assertion will become more apparent.

    See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client:
    The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

    Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)

    Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.

    See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424

    *********

    An example of oath for admission to the Bar in Canada (the jurisdiction Annett is attempting to compel performance in) demonstrates a marked difference between the U.S. and Commonwealth countries -

    I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will not seek to destroy anyone's property. I will not promote suits upon frivolous pretenses. I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things will conduct myself truly and with integrity. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So help me God.

    Where the liege in this oath is obvious, the preamble of the constitution US citizens take an oath to, masks the liege much more subtly.
    In short, unless one is a direct bloodline descendant of the ‘Posterity’ then one is not a party to the constitution.

    This is not the place to enter into whether the debt incurred by the ‘revolutionary’ war was the reason for the constitution in the first place, how that debt affects the British/US relationship and the reasons behind the actions of Hamilton or what the war of 1812 was all about; where another obscure definition might apply –

    CONSTITUTOR. In the civil law. One who, by a simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Inst. 4, 6, 9.

    It would perhaps suffice to show by virtue of the Padelford decision that most Americans have little knowledge of how the constitution really applies to them.

    Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah
    14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64)
    "No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."

    I defer to David Williams to best explain true intent of the master wordsmiths who crafted that document in this fine presentation.
    The first 20 minutes should suffice for those pressed for time.



  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Zanshin For This Post:

    Satori (9th July 2019)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Australia Avalon Member Zanshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th November 2013
    Age
    48
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    3,147
    Thanked 963 times in 190 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;



    As pointed out by avid - back to the topic of uncovering the truth of these massacres.

    I came across this article where Trudeau accepts the Indigenous inquiry's finding of genocide although
    reluctantly prompted to admit as much in public.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...g-of-genocide/

    Published June 4th this comes 3 weeks before Kevin Annett published as referenced in viking's OP.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Zanshin For This Post:

    avid (9th July 2019), petra (9th July 2019), viking (9th July 2019)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    7th July 2016
    Location
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    4,983
    Thanked 4,512 times in 1,253 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Quote Posted by Valerie Villars (here)
    I just happened to watch a heartbreaking documentary last night on this very issue. It's on Amazon Prime. https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/deta..._c_D4dtpS_2_10

    The name of the documentary is "We Were Children" and it mainly follows two natives, a boy and a girl, who were subjected to horrendous physical and psychological abuse. It was well done.
    Wow. I haven't seen this, but I DID see one in the 'People who watched this also watched...' section, called The Boys of St. Vincent. It's based on true happenings in the city where I live. I recall thinking it was very well done also (I wasn't offended), but somehow I don't remember any of it anymore - maybe I repressed it.

    In response to the OP, I'm flabbergasted there's a website called 'murderbydecree.com' dedicated to exposing atrocities against indigenous peoples and their children. As much as this kind of stuff turns my stomach, I can't ignore it - because I refuse to live in a delusion.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to petra For This Post:

    avid (9th July 2019), viking (9th July 2019), Zanshin (9th July 2019)

  23. Link to Post #12
    Australia Avalon Member Zanshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th November 2013
    Age
    48
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    3,147
    Thanked 963 times in 190 posts

    Default Re: Mass Graves of Indigenous Women and Children uncovered in British Columbia;

    Arjun Walia's self described 'somewhat corroborative look into the claims of Kevin Annett' regarding Pope Francis as
    to his alignment with the views of Vatican insider Carlo Maria Vigano.

    Quote Evidence suggests Pope Francis might help facilitate Vatican pedophila and satanic rituals

    In Brief

    The Facts:

    Vatican insider Carlo Maria Vigano, “Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana Apostolic Nuncio,” has accused Pope Francis of facilitating sexual abuse of Children. Author and journalist Kevin Annett has done the same presenting some disturbing evidence.
    Reflect On:

    How has the sexual abuse of children been allowed to carry on in places of high power in influence for so long? Who is exactly involved? Does this go all the way to the top?
    https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/articl...tanic-rituals/

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts