When the Killers conduct the Autopsy, don’t expect the Truth: Canada evades its Genocidal legacy to mask its ongoing crimes

A Commentary by Kevin D. Annett

June 6, 2015


Whenever the winners of a war write its official history and pronounce absolution on themselves, the results are both tragic, and comic. Canada demonstrated that in spades this past week when the government-run “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (TRC) released its “official” report on the homegrown church-and-state slaughter of thousands of native children in the so-called “Indian residential school” system.

Despite the rapturous attention the TRC report received in the world press, it said nothing we didn’t already know, and that I personally didn’t broadcast to a deaf world as far back as June of 1998. What the TRC report did do was to cast a thick veil around Canada’s crimes of the past in order to protect its crimes of the present, like institutionalized child trafficking.

To the uninformed, and to those who somehow consider it legitimate for criminals to investigate themselves, it is a convincing enough veil. All the right words were used in the TRC report, concealed of course by horror-softening adjectives: an antiseptic term like “cultural genocide” becomes a substitute for the truth of tortured bodies, sterilized genitals, and violated and torn little children tossed into mass graves at night. Can 50,000 dead innocents really constitute simply a “cultural” extermination?

Besides, regardless of its beguiling doublespeak and outright lies, the TRC report could hardly have unearthed any type of truth about crimes in the residential schools when the primary perpetrators of those crimes – the Catholic, Anglican and United Church of Canada – were given years to destroy incriminating evidence, trash or hide documents, silence eyewitnesses and obliterate grave sites stuffed with their young victims.

Any judge that allowed a suspected killer to do such a thing would obviously be charged with aiding and abetting crime, and removed from his office. But that’s precisely what the TRC – whose Directors were nominated by these same churches – allowed them to do.

At what even the media called the “circus like atmosphere” at the TRC forums, any residential school survivor who wished to speak had to submit their statement to the TRC officers for screening and censoring before they could make them. Then they got a whopping ten minutes to make their statement. Yet Church officials who used the forum to spout their “we were only trying to do good” propaganda had no such time restrictions placed on them. “It was disgusting, like sitting in the same room with my rapist and having to go through it all over again” one old Cowichan woman said to me after a TRC event in Victoria, BC.

Even worse, whenever survivors mentioned the names of their torturers or those who’d killed children, it was all carefully stricken from the TRC transcripts. That fact alone goes far to disqualify the TRC from any claims at legitimacy or legality: something the global media seem to be ignoring.

“How can all this crap produce anything but a total white wash of our genocide?” bemoaned Squamish Chief Gerry Kiapilano to me after sitting through an early TRC forum in Vancouver.

A white wash is precisely what the TRC report produced, seven years later. But if one can stomach sifting through its hundreds of politically correct, lawyer-crafted pages, much of which is distraction and padding, the ultimate strategy of the report does emerge: namely, to minimize the total dead body count in the residential schools so as to “prove” that the genocide wasn’t intentional.  For if there’s no intention, there is no crime, under the law.

Half the children dead is clearly a deliberate genocide, whereas one tenth of them dead is simply “negligence”. And so the TRC spin machine went to work to convince us that, rather than the figure of 50,000 and more dead children yielded by a simple calculation of the constant 40% plus death rate that was the norm for nearly a century, only “four of five thousand” kids actually died.

That low a figure, spread over more than one hundred residential schools, means that according to the TRC, only fifty children died in the entire system every year, or one death for every second school! Such a grotesque Holocaust denial is not only absurd but disproved by all of the records, which routinely report dozens of deaths at individual schools every year, especially in the west.

Given such bald faced deception, it’s hardly surprising that the TRC chairman, a corpulent puppet Indian named Murray Sinclair, recently issued the lie that “the (Canadian) government stopped publishing residential school death records in 1920”. That’s an odd claim to make, even for a sellout, since I have time and again found and published such government death records that span the years 1889 to 1969. I even sent copies of them to Murray.

If the intent of these “schools” wasn’t genocidal, then why did that enormous death rate of 40% to 60% never subside, decade after decade? And why was it present the very first year that the western residential schools opened, in 1889? (www.itccs.org)

Neither the TRC, nor anyone in Parliament or the media or the universities, has ever bothered to address these questions, any more than they are searching for all of those missing children in the twenty eight mass graves documented by me across Canada. For to do so would be to point towards the obvious conclusion that the TRC was established to avoid: that Canada and its churches deliberately exterminated tens of thousands of children, and that this genocide machine has never been turned off.

The massive trafficking and torture of aboriginal children through the government’s “child care” and foster care system; the continual murder of reserve Indians for their lands and resources; and the “Agenda 21” plan of depopulating indigenous nations to one tenth of their present levels by mid-century are the hard indicators of these ongoing Canadian crimes that the TRC was set up to conceal.

Fortunately, there is a little matter called International Law, which ever since the Nuremberg judgements has clearly said that citizens under a proven criminal regime like Canada are not only obligated but required not to pay it taxes or obey its laws. Such a regime, in fact, has lost its right to govern, and it must be replaced by a new political arrangement that is lawful, and that reflects the will of the people.

In short, more than damage control was at work in the TRC fiasco. The very survival of that corporate redundancy called the crown of England is at stake, especially now that patriots have proclaimed an alternative to it and to genocidal Canada, through the new common law jurisdiction of the Republic of Kanata. (www.kanatarepublic.ca)

Rather than the neat resolution hoped for by its blood soaked creators, the TRC has unwittingly opened the door to the disestablishment of Canadian church and state as convicted criminal actors, by confirming that thousands of children died at their hands. None of us are compelled to cooperate with genocidal institutions, and indeed, to do so is to collude in a crime against humanity.

Amidst a similar revolution against the British crown and its tyranny in 1778, Thomas Paine observed that regimes that are collapsing tend to make decisions that are increasingly suicidal, as if seeking out their own destruction. Christian Canada and its sponsors in London and Rome have borne out this axiom. The only question now is whether We the People of Kanata will take advantage of such an historic opportunity, and cleanse our country once and for all of its legacy of institutionalized mass murder.


Rev. Kevin D. Annett is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and an award winning author, film maker and broadcaster who has led the campaign to expose and prosecute Genocide in Canada. He is a founding member of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (2010) and is an adviser to the newly-established Federated Republic of Kanata (2015). His websites are www.itccs.org , www.hiddennolonger.com , www.kanatarepublic.ca and www.KevinAnnett.com . He can be contacted through hiddenfromhistory1@gmail.com and c/o 386-323-5774.

Let the Spin Begin, Again :

The Canadian media finally “discovers” the mass graves of Indian children

A Commentary by Kevin D. Annett





Bone sample found at Brantford residential school mass grave, November 2011

It was eighteen years ago this month that I first handed to a Vancouver Sun newspaper editor a list of possible mass grave sites of Indian residential school children on Canada’s west coast, based on government documents and statements from eyewitnesses who buried children there. I and these witnesses were flatly ignored: not only then, but every other time over the subsequent years that we presented such evidence  to the same newspaper.

Year after year, despite all our public protests, forums, and documenting of the location of the mass graves of these children, the Vancouver Sun’s indifference to the worst crime in Canadian history continued. And this same blind eye approach was replicated by every other “mainstream” media outlet across Canada – even when,  in December of 2011, these media received from me evidence of bone and clothing samples unearthed from the Brantford residential school mass grave.

But lo and behold! Suddenly this past week, as if I’d never spoken to them, the Sun newspaper finally reported on residential school graves! I wasn’t mentioned in their article, of course; nor was the word “genocide”, or any of the hundreds of witnesses to these crimes that our work has given voice to since 1997.

Instead, a young, fresh faced graduate student nobody’s ever heard of received front page billing for her supposed “identifying” of children’s graves at the United Church residential school in Brandon: one of the very sites we had named to an oblivious Sun newspaper in March of 2008.

Did somebody say spin doctoring?

This past week, I searched for our eyewitnesses in Vancouver’s downtown eastside. I didn’t find one of them. They’re all gone now, either dead, bought off or drifted off somewhere. So it’s safer these days for the killers in church and state to talk about the undeniable mass graves of their victims, through carefully manicured media stories that lead us nowhere.

That’s what the guilty do, after all: and they do it successfully, thanks to the cowed  indifference and the five second memory of not only the drugged up public, but the legions of bought and paid for academic “experts” on our home grown Genocide that killed many tens of thousands of little children.

These days, I feel a lot like a solitary survivor of a lost continent, or people: watching as history gets rewritten, and reframed, so that the official truth, the land, and all the arrangements stay in the same bloody hands. But like my old buddy Joe Hendsbee, a blacklisted communist longshoreman used to tell me,

“When they gotta keep telling their Big Lie, over and over, it just proves they’re fucking desperate.”

Paraphrasing Joe, the author of The Art of War, Sun Tzu, once wrote,

If an enemy commander repeatedly speaks soothing but false reassurances to his people, he has lost his power.

The Canadian establishment has in truth lost its power, and stands exposed as a corrupt and murderous regime, along with their sponsors in London and Rome: something that all the King’s horses and all the media spins won’t alter one bit. And nothing is absolved, and nothing can be healed, as long as that regime totters on, like a condemned ghost.

And that, dear readers, leaves matters in your own trembling hands. There is nothing compelling you to believe, or fund, or obey murderers in high office, or their laws. Why so many of you who are aware of these genocidal crimes continue to do so I chock up to habitual behaviour rather than deliberate collusion. But ultimately, that’s no defense, of course. For nothing has been absolved, and nothing healed.

Let me repeat that: Nothing has been absolved, and nothing healed.

Every crime, like every action, has its consequence that cannot be denied: that’s simply the Law of Nature. And so one of these days, when the child killers who wear clerical robes along with their paid journalistic hacks awaken to the fact that there is no escape for them or for their deeds, we will witness – even here in Canada – one of those lovely historic moments when the little shit on the big throne tumbles and falls.

And that’s up to us.



Everything I need to know I learn under fire by Kevin Annett

We need a new kind of courage and capacity to act these days, wherever we are. Here is an offering towards that priceless gift.


The shots whizzed over my head as I hugged the ground and desperately searched for cover in the tangled forest. People were hunting me. Cries of unseen attackers came from all around as I tried to think and plan. But everything was happening too quickly. A sudden movement in front of me made up rise up through the foliage and aim my gun at whoever was approaching. We both fired at the same time …

Later, I remember lying on the ground after I had been hit in the chest, feeling some satisfaction that I had also bagged my assailant. And so chuckling aloud, and raising my arm up high, I stumbled from the battlefield as the conflict still raged around me, and shots were fired in ever-intense staccatos as the attackers overwhelmed our position.

“You get anybody?” another green clad warrior asked me back at the camp.

“One” I replied. “But they flanked our postion pretty quick”

The man nodded grimly.

“It’s hard to keep people together under fire” he observed, like the veteran he was.

That was my day, on February 10, 2013: perhaps an unusual way to celebrate 57 years of existence, but for me, not that unusual.

Carol sprung my birthday gift on me that week with more than merriment, knowing me as well as she does. I figure all those years of my childhood playing war with the other kids on my Winnipeg street had something to do with the visceral excitement I felt when I learned that I’d be out in the field that day, engaged in desperate battle using something more than words.

Paintball warfare is run on rules and reasonable conduct, in theory, whereby once you’re beaned by somebody you’re to remove yourself from the war and drag your pitiful ass to the sidelines. But all that nicety got chucked out the window once the shooting started that day: including by yours truly.

After all, you don’t survive, let alone triumph, by following the rules.

After I got shot the first time and dutifully left the battlefield, I thought, this is ridiculous. Screw these formalities.

So in the next round, Carol and I found a perfectly concealed snipering position behind some tangled tree trunks, where we had a full field of fire on the slope where our attackers had to come through if they were to hit our team in the rear. Knowing the terrain and who we faced, we ambushed three of the attackers. I was hit twice in the process, but I never announced that to anybody, and I kept on shooting until we’d smashed their offensive and won that battle.

Under fire, everything changes, and becomes clear very quickly. And real combat emblazons onto you, as does life itself, four basic rules of survival:

1. Know the Terrain and the Enemy

2. Stand on ground of your own choosing by first knowing your own forces and situation

3. Prepare for the unexpected, and

4. Do the unexpected with audacity and boldness, striking for the decisive point

It’s amazing how those rules can get you through any tight spot or unwinnable situation, even against enormous odds. I know they have for me: today, and for many years now.

That wonderful man, the ancient Athenian statesman Solon who created the notion of direct democracy, said that it is an offense for any citizen to shrink from controversy. But even more to the point, Solon declared,

“To know your purpose you must first know the times”

This is not a time of peace. Our world and our lives are at war, as much as mind-numbing techniques and learned conformity try to shelter us from that truth, and keep us dutifully paying the taxes that fund our own demise. War, after all, is any act of force where one adversary tries to force his will upon another, according to another great guy, Karl von Clausewitz.

I won’t waste time trying to unpackage why it is that so many of our fellow men and women walk about in a war, yet imagine they’re safe and sound, and in need of obeying the will of governments and churches and other corporate criminals who are warring against them. So I am not addressing that mass of civilians, but those who like me know the times, and ourselves, and have already raised the standard of battle in defense of all that is under attack.

Anybody who holds to the delusion that we live in something called a democracy where politicians are in charge and will respond to protests and “demands”, have violated the first rule of war: to know the real nature of both the terrain and the enemy. To hold to our delusions in the face of our experience is to be precisely like the young guy I saw in the paintball battle who rushed towards the well-entrenched enemy position without once looking about or estimating the opposition. He lasted about ten seconds.

Old style “activist” groups like Occupy – and I’ve witnessed the rise and fall of so many such one-dimensional “protest” movements since my entry into the struggle in 1973 – undergo the same fate as that soldier boy who ignored the truth of what he faced. They fail because they don’t understand what they’re confronting today: not a responsive “democracy”, but a corporatocracy that is impervious to polite, rational and peaceful petitioning.

If you doubt this, just ask the west coasters now living as legal slaves under the corporate oligarchy called the “Trans-Pacific Partnership”.

Even if a particular crop of “activists” is genuinely aware of their enemy, their tactics are invariably so predictable that they can do nothing but be routinely and easily outmanuvered. The system long ago learned how to contain and manage demonstrations and “demands”. Ritualistic placard waving is about as threatening to those in power as a “letter to your senator”, and is designed, like voting, to channel and neutralize real change.

And yet despite this, so many fervent protestors studiously ignore the wisdom of veteran radicals like Saul Alinsky, whose basic maxim of political struggle – echoing our own Four Rules of War – was simply to always go outside the experience of your enemy in everything that you do.

In short, never do the obvious - especially in the face of corporate enemies who know the score, own the system, and can overwhelm your small guerilla army when you rely on conventional methods of warfare. And above all, never play by the rules of the system, like “seeking justice” in their gangster-run courts.

One Sunday in the spring of 2007, fifty of us in Vancouver seized the largest catholic cathedral in town during a mass. We struck unannounced and hoisted a banner about the aboriginal children murdered in catholic Indian schools. And we did so on our terms, in a way that could not be managed or co-opted. We reclaimed that space and sent a shock wave throughout the country.

That same month, and in obvious response, the government first began talking of issuing an “apology” for the Indian schools slaughter; the corporate media across Canada reported our action and our movement for the first time; and panicking catholic lawyers deluged me with phone calls, pleading for the handful of us not to occupy any more of their churches because, quite simply, their collection plate revenue and achilles heel public image were being threatened.

Our brief action went completely outside the experience of the enemy, since we knew the terrain of battle, and acted unpredictably, striking audaciously and powerfully at the decisive point. Our small force negated the power of its much bigger enemy by striking at a vulnerable point of its system, on our terms: just like dear old Sun Tzu advises in his Art of War.

Brief occupations are one thing, but real power consists not of protest at all, but in permanently undoing the power of institutions by replacing them altogether with new creations of our own, from the ground up. That is called revolution.

We’ve begun to do that now, of course, through our budding common law courts and the lawful Republic of Kanata. The point is, we’re not protesting or demanding anything, anymore. We’re reclaiming and taking back. We’ll be publicly defrocking known child raping priests and expelling them from our communities; seizing the premises of such churches and announcing that henceforth, they’re under new management; and arresting convicted war criminals of church and state, while making the police either stand down or join us.

It’s all about dislocating your enemy on your terms, not theirs. But the final measure of one’s effectiveness in doing that comes down to a question of leadership: a seasoned command with a vision and experience to unite your force in sustained battle. And that presence of a seasoned leadership is exactly what is most often missing among us.

Without it, we are so much unfocused steam that will dissipate at the first blow, or defeat; or even worse, be captured and harnessed by the system into its own engine.

During my paintball battle, for instance, as our Red team prepared to assault the Blues, most of us milled around and asked each other, well, what should we do? What is our plan and strategy? Only when Carol and I laid out a plan of attack and assigned positions for everyone did we come together as a unit.

Life, and politicial warfare, and even spirituality, is always like that. Lead your people, with a vision and a purpose: otherwise, all is undone quickly once you’re all under fire as disunited individuals.

Most of this is common sense; but it is a knowledge only acquired and internalized under the conditions of battle. That’s why everything that really matters is learned under fire.

My paintball battle happened nearly three years ago now, and my seventh decade looms up ahead of me. Gazing back down those years, I don’t see a lot in the way of a career or comfort to point to in my life, nor any of the “accomplishments” all my peers and family expect from one like me. Instead, I hold something more rich and enduring: the legacy of a devoted life from the age of seventeen, and my capacity to persist and endure through every betrayal and defeat, in the manner of any veteran of a long war.

Knowing myself in this way, and knowing my enemy, makes me more than a threat, as it does any of us who consecrate ourselves to our revolution from below. And such a knowing reduces who and what we really face to less than a problem, once those of us thus consecrated  proclaim by our deeds that now is the time for audacity, in this war to the death.

Karl von Clausewitz, perhaps, says it the best:

A people can value nothing greater than their own freedom and dignity, and must defend these with their last drop of blood. There is no duty as sacred and no higher law. The pernicious belief that one can secure these without conflict and by avoiding danger is both false and poisonous. Danger can only be met with virile courage joined with a calm and firm resolve and a clear conscience. These virtues alone form the true leaders of a people and bring into being the martial forces that can win the deepest and cherished dreams of humanity.


www.KevinAnnett.com , www.kanatarepublic.ca , www.itccs.org

The Trial of Stephen Harper: A Not So Fictitious Account

In the Supreme Court of the Federated Republic of Kanata, in Winnipeg, Anishnabe sovereign territory, in the former province of Manitoba

​Case D​ocket 32114: 01-13-2021

The People v. Ste​ph​en Harper, and others in absentia

In the matter of Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes committed by said parties against the People of the Nations

This is an official court transcript and as such a public record that may not be tampered with or altered.

Judge Laura Standing Bear presiding.

The opening session of the State’s case against the ​D​efendant commenced at 9:03 am on January 13, 2021 in the Peoples’ Hall of Justice on the Anishinabe nation.

The Court: Is the State ready to present its case?

Peoples’ Prosecutor: Yes, citizen judge. I’ll dispense with our opening statement which was made last week in pre-trial depositions. I call our first witness: the prime minister in the former so-called dominion of Canada, citizen Ste​phen Harper.

A disturbance in court, some rude remarks.

The Court: I remind those in attendance that this court will be conducted with dignity and due process. Comments like those are understandable, but they will not be tolerated.

The witness is sworn in.

Prosecutor: State your name, occupation and residence.

Witness: I am … my name is Ste​ph​en Harper. I live, well, here in Winnipeg, now.

Laughter in court.

Prosecutor: And your occupation?

Witness: Now, well, I work as a helper at the Group Home on Sherbrooke street …

Prosecutor: That would be the Dumont Recovery Centre?

Witness: Yeah … that’s right.

Prosecutor: And prior to your work there, citizen?

Witness: I was, uh, at Stony Mountain Penitentiary.

Prosecutor: Correct. For the past four years, in fact. Now citizen Harper: You have already been tried and found guilty in another court for complicity in crimes against humanity, and for treason. Isn’t that correct?

Witness: I suppose.

Prosecutor: You are here today, citizen Harper, as an expert witness in ​one of ​the most important human rights case ever brought before our Republic: the concealment of mass murder and genocide against our nations. Do you deny this?

Witness remains silent.

The Court: The witness is obliged to answer.

Witness: I don’t deny it, no.

Prosecutor: So let me begin by asking you to describe your personal knowledge of the cabinet decision of April 28, 2007, in which your government launched something called a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”, the so called TRC. Do you recall that?

Witness: Yes, I do.​

Prosecutor: Citizen Harper, tell the court the purpose of that Commission. And please, spare us the official line.

Witness: Well, the initiative ​for that didn’t come from us, at all, really. It was a recommendation from the Privy Council, from London, and naturally from the churches …

Prosecutor: I didn’t ask you who was to blame, citizen. We’ll get to that. I asked you to describe its purpose.

Witness: We called it information control. An official response was needed to the obvious criminal acts in the Indian residential schools.

Prosecutor: And why was that?

Witness: People were talking …

Prosecutor: About the death of children … about their mass murder, in fact.​

Witness: Exactly. They were starting to name names of ​the killers. Senior men; men with reputations.

Prosecution: ​Top c​hurch men?

Witness: Yes, sure, and many others. We needed to head things off with our own inquiry that could, you know, ​put a lid on things.

Prosecutor: ​And by that you mean stop the truth from emerging?

Witness: Certain truths, yes.

Prosecutor: Like?

Witness: Compromising evidence about, well, actions that could be interpreted as something more than beating ​or raping a child.​

Prosecutor: Genocidal acts?

Witness: That’s a loaded term.

Prosecutor: But accurate, in this case?

Witness: I suppose.

Prosecutor: There’s no supposition involved​, Mr. Harper​. In November of ​1907, the so-called Crown of England laid out a plan to wipe out our native nations under the guise of these so-called Indian residential schools. And yet your “official” inquiry into this failed to mention the staggering death toll that resulted from this plan. The ​more than ​50,000 children who never came back.

Witness: Legally, we couldn’t. We had an obligation to the crown as ​its ​sworn officers.
Prosecutor: Precisely. But you might read something called the Nuremberg Principles, Mr. Harper. No legal obligation justifies war crimes.

Witness: Look, it wasn’t just us! The churches had most of the blood on their hands. That’s why they pushed ​so hard ​for the TRC …

Prosecutor: We know that, citizen. And the Privy Council, the so-called Crown of England. They approved the TRC.

Witness: Of course. And the churches appointed the Commissioners.

Prosecutor: Much like a criminal choosing his own judge and jury, wouldn’t you say? (pause​, mild laughter in the Court​) So tell us what this TRC did, exactly.

Witness: It managed the information, like I said. We had our own ​official version of wh​at went on in the schools, a whole bunch of professors we hired to spin the whole thing not as genocide but, I think we called it, “a well intentioned and humanitarian ​policy towards the Indians ​that went wrong”.

Prosecutor: And you expected people to believe that?

Witness: Well, why wouldn’t they? People wanted to believe that.​


Prosecutor: Citizen, I’m reading from a cabinet document from that time, ​​minutes from your first meeting about the TRC, actually. At one point, you comment to your Indian Affairs minister, a Mr. Jim Prentice, “We’ll have everyone believing these schools were a good thing, by the time we’re through.” Prentice, to his credit, replies, “But sir, how do you conceal all those graves? The death records are out there now. We’ll look like we’re covering it up” And you respond, “Not a cover up. Jim. Just containment. The usual protocol. The Force has never let us down.” (pause) What did you mean by that?

Witness: I can’t remember very clearly …

Prosecution: By “the Force”, you meant the former RCMP, did you not?

Witness: Yes. With some help from CSIS.

Prosecution: We have their archives. We know how both of those agencies went about “containing” the evidence of the Canadian Holocaust. It’s quite an impressive list … even to the point of eliminating news reporters and burning down ​peoples’ homes. But maybe you’d like to comment what the RCMP had to do with this TRC of yours.

Witness: You might ask them. I wasn’t privy to their special ops.

The Court: Citizen Harper, you must answer to the best of your recollection.

Witness: Honestly, I don’t know, except to say that they had their people in among the TRC Commissioners, monitoring the ​public ​forums, and weeding out trouble spots.

Prosecution: Weeding out?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecution: Can you give us an example?

Witness: Well, the people who wouldn’t play ball. The witnesses who tried naming names or telling where the children had been buried. They were, uh, discouraged.

Prosecution: How?

Witness: Threats, or the usual bribes. Dirty tricks. But when that didn’t work, more direct measures were used.

Prosecution: How more direct?

Witness: Whatever it took.

Prosecution (to The Court): Citizen judge, I’d like to switch gears for a moment because this is very relevant to our broader case.

The Court: Proceed.

Prosecution: Citizen Harper, were you aware of an internal document from your cabinet known as CS 101, issued by the so-called Privy Council office

​and the former government of Canada on March 13, 2008?

Witness: I was aware of it, yes.

Prosecutor: In what capacity?

Witness: As the Prime Minister. I attended the Privy Council meeting in an ex-officio capacity.

Prosecutor: Meaning, you couldn’t vote?

Witness: No.

Prosecutor: Interesting. Go on.

Witness: The document was also called PC 3909X.

Prosecutor: Was that a standard designation for a Privy Council document?

Witness: No. Any document designated ‘X’ meant that it was never to be published or even filed.

Prosecutor: A secret document?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: Describe the contents of CS 101, known also as PC 3909X.

Witness: Well, it was part of something our cabinet had begun the previous year, after consulting our City of London counterparts …

Prosecutor: When, exactly?

Witness: In early May of 2007, after the Merasty thing …

Prosecutor: Merasty?

Witness: He was an MP from Saskatchewan, one of yours … uh, I mean, you know, an indigenous politician. He was the first

​and only ​one to raise the matter of missing residential school children in the House of Commons question period.

Prosecutor: To be clear, that would be the late Gary Merasty of the Cree Nation?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor (to The Court): Citizen judge, I wish to retain this witness for separate examination about the death of Mr. Merasty.

The Court: Granted.

Witness: I don’t know anything about that …

Prosecutor: Citizen Harper, continue your description of CS 101.

Witness: Alright. Our cabinet came up with a plan we called the CS program, after the death rates in the residential schools became widely known …

Prosecutor: CS?

Witness: It stood for Clean Sweep. It built on previous information control operations done by the Mounties and the United Church, but it went much further.

Prosecutor: This was in addition to your TRC containment operation?

Witness: Nobody ever trusted the TRC, not really. There were too many uncertainties about opening even part of the residential schools history to public scrutiny. We couldn’t predict what might come out. So CS 101 was our insurance policy. Our back up. It authorized extreme measures to keep the whole thing buried.

Prosecutor: By ‘the whole thing’, you mean what?

Witness: By god, you know what I’m talking about … those damned places!

Prosecutor: We’re still talking about the Christian internment camps your government called Indian residential schools, correct?

Witness: Yes. Obviously.

Prosecutor: And what were the extreme measures sanctioned by CS 101?

Witness: Everything. Anything that would keep it out of sight and mind.

Prosecutor: Such as?


Witness: Black ops. Fake media accounts and scam releases. Misinformation and smear campaigns. Destruction of evidence. Silencing of witnesses …

Prosecutor: Silencing?

Witness: Yes.

The Court: The witness will clarify his meaning.

Witness: Anybody who had seen murders, or done burials, or anything more serious than the person injury lawsuits
well, they were to be stopped.

The Court: Clarify.

Witness: Bribed. Threatened. If that didn’t work, eliminated.

Prosecutor: Killed?

Witness: (after long pause) Yes.

(Cries in the courtroom)

The Court: ​O​rder, please!

Prosecutor: And this policy was approved by your cabinet, and you?

Witness: Unofficially, yes. There was just too much at stake.

Prosecutor: Indeed. (pause) Now citizen, in your opinion, was CS 101 a success?

Witness: I would say so. At least, at first. But the whole issue was too big to contain. Too many people had started talking. Eyewitnesses. Even the local band councils started opening up some of the children’s graves, after the Brantford dig got so much news. Besides, the world knew about it after that fucking documentary film got out …

The Court: There will be no swearing in this court, citizen.

Witness: Sorry.

Prosecutor: So how long did you continue CS 101?

Witness: It was never formally discontinued. Some rogue elements in CSIS continued doing their own private operations, even after our government fell.

Prosecutor: After the first Kanata referendum​?​

Witness: No, no, when we declared the Emergency Measures Act, just after the ​second ​referendum results were announced, you know, back in 2016, or was it seventeen?

Prosecutor: Yes, the dissolution of Parliament and the Constitution. Who can forget? (pause) So even during all the troubles that followed, leading up to our revolution, citizen, your special CS 101 operations continued?

Witness: Well, yes, naturally, especially because of all the trouble. The special ops broadened. Everybody in Ottawa was panicking, especially the Mounties and the Special Section​, who had the most to lose. The last thing we wanted was for all of that garbage to be made known.

Prosecutor: But it was made known, wasn’t it?

Witness: Eventually. Some of it, at least.

Prosecutor: There is more?

Witness: A lot of things were destroyed. Death records. Forensic reports. All the human remains we had, and what was in the church crypts …

Prosecutor: Crypts?

Witness: That was their word for it, not mine. (pause) The churches retained physical specimens of children beneath many of their largest residential schools, especially those connected to the Indian hospitals. They held them in these sub-basement vaults they called crypts. There was a big, old one under that Anglican school in Brantford. The catholics were big into that ​shit ​too. I assumed there was some cultic, sacrificial significance to all that, but I never bothered inquiring …

Prosecutor: Never bothered?

Witness: Of course not. We’re talking about the Vatican, and their partners.

Prosecutor: Go on.

Witness: There were many human experiments in the schools, of course, especially after the Paperclip era, all the military interest in getting healthy human specimens. Drug testing, skin grafting, sterilizations, plus the usual child trafficking. We inherited all that, we didn’t start it. But it left a lot of corpses to dispose of, frankly, along with all the kids dying of the usual stuff, diseases, starvation. The Mounties handled much of the body disposals, along with private contractors, and their specialists … it wasn’t a problem until the Merasty thing, and the Mohawk reclamation digs in Brantford.

Prosecutor: Tell us about that.

Witness: There never was a Crown treaty covering the Mohawks, so we’d have sparked an international incident if we’d have forced our way onto the Brantford site, where those digs began on Mohawk land … we were really in a jam …

Prosecutor: Are you referring to the excavations of 201

​1​? At the so-called Church of England school in Brantford, Ontario called the Mush Hole?

Witness: I’m sick of that word.

Prosecutor: Was CS 101 deployed against the Mohawks?

Witness: Big time. But it didn’t stop them, completely.

Prosecutor: Why not?

Witness: Again, too much international exposure. It was all over the internet. Plus some smart asses in Europe took notice and sent their own investigators over to Brantford.

Prosecutor: Did your program kill any Mohawks at that time?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: How many?

Witness: I don’t know. A few. Older people, some of their key elders. One or two young firebrands.

Prosecutor: How?

Witness: I didn’t do that end of things. I do know that drug overdoses and car accidents weren’t unusual. Sudden heart attacks. But most of the others were dealt with less harshly or were just scared off.

Prosecutor: Then as an accessory to murder, citizen, can you explain why CS 101 failed in that case?

Witness: I don’t know, exactly. Maybe because it didn’t require many of the Mohawks to bring out the dirt. That year, some of them went over to Europe with verified bone samples from the graves, to the European Parliament in Brussels …

Prosecutor (to The Court): On that point, citizen judge, we’d like to enter some video footage from the Brussels Tribunal of

​November 2012 as evidence.

The Court: Agreed.

Prosecutor: Mr. Harper … I’m sorry, but I find it difficult to call you a citizen … let me ask you about where the churches were in all of this cover up and assassination. Did they know about CS 101?

Witness: Why, yes, naturally. They’d been doing the same thing for decades. It was their problem, after all.

Prosecutor: Their problem?

Witness: They founded the schools, and kept them open despite all the deaths. They made a bundle off those kids. They demanded that we cover for them and destroy the evidence, right when the first lawsuits began in 1996. Hell, do you know how many child rapists still operate in those bloody churches? It was small wonder they had their own version of CS 101.

Prosecutor: Really?

Witness: Yeah, really. In case you think it was just us doing all this crap …

Prosecutor: Go on.

Witness: They fired and blackballed any of their clergy who spoke out or who wouldn’t go along with the cover up. Went after their families and trashed their reputation. They ​destroyed documents, dug up and destroyed graves, and they even arranged some convenient deaths, if the truth be known.

Prosecutor: Can you name any of those deaths, Mr. Harper?

Witness: That

​damned ​minister. The one who started the whole thing, out west.

Prosecutor: Eagle Strong Voice.

​Witness​: If that’s what you call him. We had another name for him.

Prosecutor (to the Court): Again, citizen judge, we’ll need this witness to depose during our separate examination about the death of Eagle Strong Voice.

The Court: Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Witness: I want to go on record as saying I knew nothing, personally, about that killing. I thought it was unnecessary but London overruled me. That was a church operation. They took out that Annett guy, Mr. Strong Voice or whatever​, after he’d uncovered their child sacrificial network, and its links to London and Rome.

Prosecutor: It’s odd you’d say that, Mr. Harper, because the former church officials in our custody say that your government knew of their plan concerning Eagle Strong Voice, and you gave it your unofficial consent.

Witness: That’s a lie.

Prosecutor: You will have the chance to face those who make this claim, Mr. Harper. They include the former Moderator of the United Church, a ​Mr. Gary Paterson.

Witness: Never heard of h​im​.

The Court: Progress, please.

Prosecutor: Now then Mr. Harper, I just have a final question for you, for now. It involves the ultimate purpose of all of this crime and cover up. It seems odd that you would risk the survival of your own government, at such an unstable period in our history, to simply conceal crimes that the world was discovering anyway.

Witness: Odd? What do you mean?

Prosecutor: Why, yes. Would it not have been wiser politically to admit these crimes, and not make things worse with all your obvious obstructions of justice?

Witness: We tried to appear to admit things. That was the whole idea behind the TRC.

Prosecutor: But Mr. Harper, surely you know that that farce made the cover up all the more obvious.

Witness: I know that. We were just buying time.

Prosecutor: Not enough, as it turned out.

Witness: No. And after all, there was more to it all than a bunch of missing children.

Prosecutor: Yes?

Witness: Of course. Think about the bigger picture. (pause) We were a fuel pump for America, and China. Who sat on the oil? Who did we have to keep down to fix the price at what America and China would permit? It was that simple. If the Indians ever felt they could bring us to trial in some international court for the residential school killings, or for how we really got their land, my god, just think of the repercussions! Here, and abroad. Think of what would come out, now, about what still goes on.

Prosecutor: Like what, Mr. Harper? What still goes on?

Witness: Find somebody else to tell you. I’m done.

The Court: You must answer the question, citizen.

Witness: I’m done. You know that. I’m a dead man.

A disturbance in the court.

Prosecutor: If the sheriffs could step back, please, citizen judge …

The Court: You will release the witness. Thank you. Now please sit back down, citizen.​

Witness: I’m a dead man already, you know that? And so are all of you.

Prosecutor: What does that mean?

Witness: You’ll find out.

The Court: The witness will answer the question.

Prosecutor: Tell the court what still goes on, Mr. Harper.

Witness: Why? Will that make it stop?

Prosecutor: It will, if we have anything to say about it.
Witness: The naiveté here … my god …

The Court: You will tell this Court the full truth, Mr. Harper. You said you’re dead already. You said we are too. What does that mean?

A disturbance in the court.

The Court: Mr. Harper?
Transcript Ends at this point.

www.itccs.org , www.hiddennolonger.com