Talk:International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State

	This Pseudolaw related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Move to his name?

It really is just one guy, and he has quite the history. Move to his name? Or is this better known publicly at present? - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is going to Google his name, they're gonna Google the org; leave his name as a redirect to this. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 14:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much a decider - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wonkette loves us!

"Let’s see what the nice smartass skeptics at RationalWiki have to say about ITCCS ..." - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! I do like that description of RationalWiki. --Yukabacera (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Silver rating? Bronze is fine too

Am I do something? Am I do something yet? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work! I shuffled the sections so they're in rough order of likely notoriety. Could do with a polish and the writing tone understated a bit more. But the material's there. I'll have a poke at it - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated, David! I've always done my best to be a steady contributor to the site - been here, what, around 11 months now? And I agree that bronze is where it's currently at; it's not silvery yet. But it could get there! There's also a whole bag of youtube stuff, interviews he's done and there's been some kind of silly (though noteworthy) vendetta between Annett and other cranks (who operate the "Stop Kevin Annett" blog, and who also defaced the webpage for the Republic of Kanata around last summer - the site is down now instead). His twitter could contain other interesting stuff and so on... there's literally so much cranky shit around this guy that a man risks drowning in it. I kid you not. Also, I agree the language is a bit too much right now at times - this was my first draft written almost a year ago, and I've learned much about "wiki-tone" and generally writing educationally in english since then. Thanks anyways buddy, hit me up if you want some particular sources or suggestions on this freeman muppet. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

An interesting question for somebody with the wherewithal to figure it out

Okay, I recently started reading about this guy, and ended up with a question that seemed kinda conspiracy-upon-conspiracy. Recently, Annett was going to be involved in a "free speech" talk at UBC, along with Lauren Southern. The whole thing looked like a mess. It was ultimately cancelled, and I won't get into the details here (I'll leave that for someone with the ability to figure it out to do so). In any case, it looked to me in the end that the third (of three) guests, "George Brown," was actually a fictional creation of Annett. If you look through the student group's statements (the group that was putting on the "debate"), they mention never having talked to him, but only having done so through Annett (and they are apologetic to him, for some reason). Looking into George Brown, he appears only to exist online in articles and interviews related to Annett (for many years). He's held out to be an RCMP officer in the downtown Eastside of Vancouver who knew all about the Pickton murders and all sorts of government cover ups and conspiracies related to them, so he would likely be mentioned somewhere else if he actually existed. Further, if you look into how the "debate" at UBC was actually cancelled, you end up with a sneaking suspicion that Annett expected it to be cancelled, and this was his plan all along--"George Brown" would never have to be seen in public, once again. It actually looks like Annett had a plan to torpedo the entire event at the last minute so he wouldn't have to show up (i.e. there was a series of "demands" framed in particular academic language delivered to the organizers at the last minute, demands which obviously could not be met with the event going forward in its intended manner, along with the consequence that, if they were not met George Brown [and so also Annett] would be unable to attend due to the amount of "trauma" that would be inflicted on Brown [but remember, he was hardcore RCMP officer involved in all sorts of nefarious stuff before; doesn't sound "soft"]).

After all that, there was a bunch more stuff I found (I tried to be as succinct as possible above), but it all made me come to the conclusion that Annett probably made this guy up and has been using him for years as an Indigenous RCMP member with inside knowledge of all sorts of stuff that Annett wants soundbites for. It kind of blew me away that it looked like all of these groups had taken George Brown's existence for granted (and made me think that I might be the one going nuts), but nonetheless. Is there anyone here with the requisite skills to try and find out if this is truly in fact all Annett's concoction, and if it is, to expose it? Perhaps the best evidence I have was the fact that I asked some professors highly active in this area, and they had never heard of George Brown, which seems like the best piece of evidence against his existence, but which I can provide no corroboration for online. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2604:3d08:1a7a:4470:c0c1:8be8:a141:98eb / talk / contribs}