Final Verdict is Rendered in First Common Law Court Case against the Vatican and Canada for Genocide

Pope, Queen and Canadian Prime Minister found Guilty of Crimes against Humanity and Sentenced to Twenty Five Year Prison Terms

Court Orders them to Surrender by March 4 or face Citizens’ Arrests


Pope Benedict will go to jail for twenty five years for his role in Crimes against Humanity, and Vatican wealth and property is to be seized, according to today’s historic verdict of the International Common Law Court of Justice.

The Brussels-based Court handed down a unanimous guilty verdict from its Citizen Jurors and ordered the citizens’ arrest of thirty Defendants commencing March 4 in a Court Order issued to them today.

The verdict read in part,

“We the Citizen Jury find that the Defendants in this case are guilty of the two indictments, that is, they are guilty of committing or aiding and abetting Crimes against Humanity, and of being part of an ongoing Criminal Conspiracy”

The Jury ruled that each Defendant receive a mandatory twenty five year prison sentence without parole, and have all their personal assets seized.

The Court went on to declare in its Order No. 022513-001,

“The Defendants are ordered to surrender themselves voluntarily to Peace Officers and Agents authorized by this COURT, having been found Guilty as charged.

“The Defendants have seven days from the issuing of this ORDER, until March 4, 2103, to comply. After March 4, 2013, an International Arrest Warrant will be issued against these Defendants”.

The guilty parties include Elizabeth Windsor, Queen of England, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, and the head officers of the Catholic, Anglican and United Church of Canada. (A complete copy of the Verdict, the Court Order and a list of the Defendants is enclosed on the accompanying you tube link).

The guilty verdict followed nearly a month of deliberations by more than thirty sworn Citizen Jurors of the 150 case exhibits produced by Court Prosecutors.

These exhibits detailed irrefutable proof of a massive criminal conspiracy by the Defendants’ institutions to commit and conceal Genocide on generations of children in so-called Indian residential schools across Canada.

None of the Defendants challenged or disputed a Public Summons issued to them last September; nor did they deny the charges made against them, or offer counter evidence to the Court.

“Their silence told me a lot. Why wouldn’t innocent people defend their own reputation when accused of such horrible things?” commented one Juror, based in England.

“These crimes were aimed at children, and were a cold and calculated plan to wipe out Indians who weren’t Christians. And the defendants clearly are still covering up this crime. So we felt we had to do more than slap their wrist. The whole reign of terror by state-backed churches that are above the law has to end, because children still suffer from it”.

The Court’s judgement declares the wealth and property of the churches responsible for the Canadian genocide to be forfeited and placed under public ownership, as reparations for the families of the more than 50,000 children who died in the residential schools.

To enforce its sentence, the Court has empowered citizens in Canada, the United States, England, Italy and a dozen other nations to act as its legal agents armed with warrants, and peacefully occupy and seize properties of the Roman Catholic, Anglican and United Church of Canada, which are the main agents in the deaths of these children.

“This sentence gives a legal foundation and legitimacy to the church occupations that have already begun by victims of church torture around the world” commented Kevin Annett, the chief adviser to the Prosecutor’s Office, who presented its case to the world. (see, November 6 and January 30 postings)

“The verdict of the Court is clearly that these criminal church bodies are to be legally and practically disestablished, and their stolen wealth reclaimed by the people. Justice has finally begun to be be served. The dead can now rest more easily.”

Court officers are delivering the Order to all the Defendants this week, including to the Canadian Prime Minister, the Queen of England and to Joseph Ratzinger, the retiring Pope Benedict who is avoiding arrest within the Vatican after suddenly resigning two weeks ago.

The citizens’ arrests of these and other Defendants will commence on March 4 if they do not surrender themselves and their assets, as per the Court Order.

These actions will be filmed and posted at here in the coming week, along with further updates from the Court and its Citizen Agents.

Please see the accompanying you tube video.

Issued by the Central Office, The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State

25 February, 2013







It’s how things work. You wonder why on earth politicians make decisions which are obviously not in the public’s interests. Who are the handlers?

Ken Livingstone on Mi5, filming, Kincora Buys Home:

This is one very big reason for pursuing the political paedophile issue. It is important to discover the identity of well-protected political paedophiles. The handlers don’t want them to be discovered as that would put an end to manipulation. Consequently, they are well protected from publicity. This means that children continue to be at risk of abuse and death as long the protection continues. And the handlers can continue to hold power over politicians.


So what’s the obsession with reporting paedophilia on the blog? This crime is one of the few remaining taboos and is therefore a very powerful tool for those who wish to control. Supply a perverted politician (not to be confused with “those in power” ) with under-age sexual partners, ensure that there is a record of what transpires and control is ensured. Being exposed as a paedophile does not just lead to the loss of a job. It is the end of everything and a crime to boot. There’s a lot to lose. Hence those who have been set up are very easily controlled.

Am I suggesting that this has happened at any time on the Isle of Man? I have absolutely no evidence for this allegation and therefore can say no more. I can neither confirm – nor deny! However, we all know where our major legislation comes from and there are many references to paedophile politicians in the UK. Tom Watson MP is pressing for investigation of parliamentary paedophile rings. It’s certainly caused consternation and the Savile, Cyril Smith stories continue to be reported. At present this is all the mainstream media (MSM) is reporting. Just restrict investigations to the dead and dead-beats and this ensures the present day political paedophiles are protected.

Hence the need for online media to report what is already known (quite a lot) and to push for further proper investigation. Bloggers continue to report the details that MSM prefers to ignore and in unspoken collaboration we continue to link and spread the news – because MSM cannot be depended upon to do this. At this stage it is unlikely that the stories will be picked up on by mainstream. Further fixed and fudged investigations are an insult to the victims and will not stop the rot.

Another blogger explains why the online pressure is essential and ongoing:

Before I talk about the primary topic of this post, about how internet users appear to self-organise to achieve a mutual goal, I’d like to address some of the criticisms that some people are making about the way that internet users are coming to terms with the implications of the paedophile abuse scandal which will hit the MSM soon enough.

One criticism is that internet users should leave the entire reporting and investigation to the police, honourable politicians, and professional journalists.

Let me remind those that hold this view that 30 years ago when the Elm Guest House scandal first broke, the police were no less scrupulous, the MPs were no less honourable, and the journalists were no less professional than today and still it all got covered up.

Let me remind those that hold this view that 20 years ago when the North Wales child abuse scandal was the subject of enquiry, that the police were no less scrupulous, the MPs were no less honourable, and the journalists were no less professional than today and still it all got covered up.

And let me remind you that 10 years ago when Operation Ore was investigating VIP child pornography consumers that the police were no less scrupulous, the MPs were no less honourable, and the journalists were no less professional than today and still it all got covered up.

But today there will NOT be a cover-up because this story will never go away until justice has been served because internet users will not allow it to be forgotten, we will continue to speak out about child abuse until the perpetrators have been brought to justice.


As consumers we have clout. If a company does not fulfil its obligations we can take action against them. Surely the same must apply to an organisation that demands money by menace while not adhering to the conditions within its charter. This has to be a case for the Office of Fair Trading. Strangely, I hear not a squeak from the otherwise so-protective government department. Could this have anything to do with the fact that this is legalised extortion? However, while the BBC has been given the right to demand money by menace (yes, menace – what happens if you don’t pay up?) the following video reveals 10 good reasons why we should cancel the licence.

This is not a payment-dodging tactic it is a suggestion for action that can be taken against the broadcaster based on facts. Number one: BBC is far from unbiased (Unbiased information is a condition of the BBC charter). The video goes on to scrutinise BBC frontmen and looks into the secret NGO cabal that paved the way for the climate change propaganda which the BBC openly admits to, it seems. After all it has declared that there is no supporting evidence to deny climate change and therefore the broadcaster refuses to tolerate sceptics.

The footage has been obtained from varying sources and is well worth viewing.

The second video, an excellent edition of The Corbett Report, looks at the ‘establishment mouthpiece’ and how we can all take action by refusing to pay for our programming. Basically. it’s freeman action, which seems to work. However, if you have doubts about that particular course of action surely we must have a case against the BBC as it is clearly contravening conditions of the charter. Why not simply refuse to pay on the basis that the BBC is not complying with its side of the deal? How would they have a leg to stand on? I wonder how the OFT would advise? 🙂


Ted Heath’s paedophilia and the disposal of his abused victims has been frequently mentioned by online media. These allegations were made while he was alive and he made no attempt to refute them. Online news sources continue to cover stories of high-level paedophiles, often pointing out how malleable political perverts become. GCHQ can do its utmost but frankly this stuff is not going away. So if you can’t prevent discussion of this topic you might have to seek another solution: How about sacrificing the ‘reputation’ of the dead and admitting that stories of political paedophiles are true while at the same time ensuring that the Brits get a clean bill of health and a bit of Brasso on the halos? This could be achieved by hauling out the old arch-enemy  – the Germans! That is simply my opinion.

Make up your own mind about the following interview with Michael Shrimpton, barrister, former Tory MP with an insight into British intelligence. MS also spells out how Heath made life easy for his handlers:


So Savile was a satanist. Not at all surprising. Unfortunately, paedophilia has frequently been linked to satanism. Despite the mainstream revelation it seems that the media is taking further damage limitation action. We are told he was a satanist who worked alone. He was just a weirdo we are led to believe. Furthermore, we are informed that prime ministers, royalty and the well-heeled who hung out with this pervert knew nothing about his so vile tendencies. Operation Yewtree continues to pick up has-been celebrities and deceased politicians. How convenient that the investigators have managed to draw a blank at present-day political paedos. These people operate in all levels of society and the well-heeled and influential can operate with impunity. That’s the only difference between plebs and political paedos.

A BBC documentary, The Secret Life of a Paedophile, informs us how charismatic paedos worm their way into high-level positions working with children – in advisory roles.

We must have transparency in Isle of Man child protection services. We need to know what is going on.

View it if you can stomach it:


My guess is that the well-heeled paedos are getting very twitchy. There is a lot of muck around. What to do? How about making paedophilia socially acceptable? It’s not the first time this has been tried. These sickos will try and tell us that sex between adult and child is non-harmful. Oh yeh? Try telling that to abuse victims! How can anyone possibly think it is ok to force themselves on children? We hear of horrific injuries to small children caused by sexual abuse, how can that be OK? It isn’t. It’s disgusting, depraved and demonstrates a complete inability to control sexual urges even though this can cause dreadful harm to the victim.

Yet it seems that the politically-correct lobby are attempting to convince us that there should be no paedo witch-hunting. And who is going to politically correctly protect those without a lobby – the vicitms? We have seen it before, Paedophile Information Exchange in the 70s was attempting to make it all sound quite normal.

….when the Protection of Children Bill was put before Parliament in order to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under-16s Harriett Harman was at the forefront of the NCCL response.  Signed by Harriett Harman in April 1978, the NCCL’s formal response to the Government proposals to reform sex laws dubbed a “Lolita’s Charter” was unbelievable.

Harman argued that, “…childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage…Although this harm may be of a somewhat speculative nature, where participation falls short of physical assault, it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations. We suggest that the term ‘indecent’ be qualified as follows: – A photograph or film shall not for this purpose be considered indecent (a) by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); (b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder.”

Tom Watson on the recent Guardian article:

Jon Henley had a piece in yesterday’s Guardian, entitled “Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light”. He’s received a furious response on social media and I can see why. Many involved child protection will find it hard to see it as anything other than the commentariat’s backlash, a contrarian response to a public outcry over recent revelations about child abuse by the rich and famous.

That may be harsh, and I felt a considered response was important. These thoughts are my own, but I have lent heavily on the work and advice of Dr Liz Davies, a leading academic in the field of child protection.

In a brief Twitter exchange, Jon pointed me to the final two paragraphs of his article. Quoting senior lecturer Sarah Goode he writes, “If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don’t have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won’t label paedophiles monsters; it won’t be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us.”

It’s worth reading comments on his blog too.

Hands off children! There is no other way to see this. Children have little enough clout as it is. Paedos don’t need a protection lobby – children do.




Since we have seemingly handed over our Child Protection activities to the UK, on a plate, it is essential to be aware of how things work  – and don’t work – in the adjacent island. There is a glaring dichotomy in the behaviour of SS in the UK. The UK SS seems to favour proactive intervention – some might call it interference. There are innumerable  reports of cases where it appears that SS have been so interfering that the result of their actions has amounted to child abuse. There is something very wrong within British SS and other  countries have become aware of this as a result of ex-pats being at the receiving end of British child ‘protection’:

The concerns as to the workings of the child care system in the UK is also of concern to other governments, on September 12th The Daily Telegraph reported that “The Slovakian government has such ‘serious concern’ over the workings of Britain’s ‘family protection’ system that it plans to challenge the legality of the policy in Strasbourg. In an unprecedented move, a foreign government is threatening to take Britain to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to challenge the unusual readiness of our social workers and courts to remove children from their parents for ‘no sound reason.’”

At the same time the “unusual readiness” to intervene is not perceptible when it come to institutionalised child abuse. While SS is happy to harass families on flimsy evidence social workers seem somewhat tardy when it comes to investigating abuse in child care institutions:

Could it be a possibility that these constant reports of child sex abuse involving influential figures have never been properly investigated, or prosecuted, because the security establishment are using these cases to blackmail and control establishment figures in politics, the media, the arts and other sectors of the establishment elite? Has there been an ongoing subversion of our democracy by rogue elements within the security service establishment? Whilst protecting us from our enemies beyond these shores is the security apparatus harbouring the enemy within? Is democracy being subverted with the intention that the people of this country be firmly tied to the yoke of totalitarianism?”

From my perspective the mere possibility that the security services could be using paedophilia and blackmail to control UK politicians is extremely disturbing. It might explain why the democratic process seems, increasingly, not to be working in this country?

You can’t fail to identify the issue there, can you? While SS is known to intervene too readily in some cases the establishment seems to plug its ears and shout “la la la” when institutionalised abuse is mentioned. Frequently, the claims allege the involvement of politicians and the well-heeled. Well, you can’t treat them like plebs, can you? But the unfitting deference is not only criminally negligent it could permit politicians to be manipulated. If you can stretch your imagination to encompass the thought that there could be one or two black sheep in the political fold then you can also imagine such persons could be used for ill purposes.

While SS say they need confidentiality and ever-increasing powers to operate successfully in child ‘protection’ their intervention in institutionalised abuse is conspicuously absent. There are frequent reports that probes have been prevented by very senior figures. Why would that be? Well to a pleb such as myself it would seem that the hoi poloi are hounded and harassed while the well-heeled are protected to the extreme. Those in positions of power can ensure they are not investigated while child stealing remains a highly profitable activity and powerful and protected paedos are supplied with victims. Or how do you see that?