Go Back   Scotland Discussion Forum > Culture > Clans

Notices


Fraud . Steven L. Akins of that Ilk.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 14th January 2011, 15:44
Duthill Duthill is offline
Quarantined Users
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Otautahi , Te Wahi Pounamu (NZ)
Posts: 1,410
Steven L Atkins fraudster of that ilk is too thick to read between the Lord Lyon's lines
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 14th January 2011, 15:48
tig's Avatar
tig tig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 2,014
same paste again!!!!!!

if he knew anything about scots law hed know it doesnt work on precedent so his copy n pastes only make him look more stoopid
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 14th January 2011, 15:54
Auld Chiel Auld Chiel is offline
Quarantined Users
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duthill View Post
Steven L Atkins fraudster of that ilk is too thick to read between the Lord Lyon's lines
The following response from Lyon Court Rothesay Herald, Sir Crispin Agnew, has been given in regard to the matter:

Quote:
Steven Akins of that Ilk has not been officially recognised by the Lord Lyon as chief of the clan.

That does not mean that he is not chief of the clan. All it means is that no Akins has ever applied to the Lord Lyon to be confirmed in the plain undifferenced arms of Akins, so there is no judicial determination of the issue.

Under Scots law a person may call themselves what they like, provided they do not use their name for fradulant purposes. However a person is unlikely to be referred to by a territorial designation in an official document, unless they are the person, the son or grandson of the person, who was so officially recognised by the Lord Lyon. The general rule is that everyone (mostly) knows their grandfather, but further back than that you have to prove it.

Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt, QC.
Rothesay Herald, Court of the Lord Lyon
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 14th January 2011, 16:00
Duthill Duthill is offline
Quarantined Users
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Otautahi , Te Wahi Pounamu (NZ)
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auld Chiel View Post
The following response from Lyon Court Rothesay Herald, Sir Crispin Agnew, has been given in regard to the matter:

Quote:
Steven Akins of that Ilk has not been officially recognised by the Lord Lyon as chief of the clan.

That does not mean that he is not chief of the clan. All it means is that no Akins has ever applied to the Lord Lyon to be confirmed in the plain undifferenced arms of Akins, so there is no judicial determination of the issue.

Under Scots law a person may call themselves what they like, provided they do not use their name for fradulant purposes. However a person is unlikely to be referred to by a territorial designation in an official document, unless they are the person, the son or grandson of the person, who was so officially recognised by the Lord Lyon. The general rule is that everyone (mostly) knows their grandfather, but further back than that you have to prove it.

Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt, QC.
Rothesay Herald, Court of the Lord Lyon


As I said , Steven L Atkins fraudster of that ilk is too thick to read between the Lord Lyon's lines .
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 14th January 2011, 16:06
Auld Chiel Auld Chiel is offline
Quarantined Users
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duthill View Post
As I said , Steven L Atkins fraudster of that ilk is too thick to read between the Lord Lyon's lines .
again, I refer you to the following:

Quote:
"Clan Chiefs" and "Clan Chieftains"

While Scottish law recognizes the existence of Scottish Clans, Chiefs and Chieftains,[7] this recognition is only one of social dignity or precedence, and as such does not involve any interest which the law has jurisdiction.[8] The Lyon Court can make a recording of the dignity of a chiefship acknowledged by attestation, but can not declare judicially a chiefship.[9] Further, no Scottish court can exercise a jurisdiction to determine disputes of competing claimants to a chiefship or chieftainship;[4][10] to quote Lord Aitchinson in the Court of Session: "Historically the idea of a chief or chieftain submitting his dignity to the arbitrament of it Court of law is really grotesque. The chief was the law, and his authority was derived from his own people.".[4]

Scottish clan chief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 14th January 2011, 16:19
Duthill Duthill is offline
Quarantined Users
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Otautahi , Te Wahi Pounamu (NZ)
Posts: 1,410
More accounts of fraudulent documents that were peddled by the racist fraudster Steven L. Akins .

Quote:

Problems with "Lebor Feasa Runda: A Druidic Grammar of Celtic Lore and Magic" By Steven L. Akins.

I will begin with the first and most serious problem with the book. The source material for this book has only ever been in the possession of MR Akins. He also claims to only have a "German Translation" of the work, not the original Early Irish. The story of how this book came to light (according to Mr. Akins) is rather fantastical, and unbelievable.

Next the criticism over the actual name in old Irish would be Lebor Fessa (or possibly Fesso) Rúnae (1) not Lebor Feasa Runda. Which leads very nicely into the major criticism, which has been pointed at this work. The pages of German text that Mr. Akins has posted online (2) appear as hand written pages, and that the German on the pages resembles English translated to German via a web translation service (like Babblefish, or Google Language) (3). This has been attested to by a number of native German Speakers as well.

So lets move past these glaring flaws in the premise of the book and look at the content.

I will have to first note that the book has been written in a style to try and emulate "High Shakespearian English" or to appear like "King James Bible". It is anachronistic and distracting. If one were translating a German text to English for a modern audience, one would use modern English I would have thought.

If we jump right into Chapter on3: of Tir nan'Og and the Aes Sidhe.

In old Irish this would have been Tír inna n-Óc and in moden Irish Tír na nÓg. Either way he has spelled it wrong. He also confuses the Túatha Dé Dannan with the Aes Sídhe (which unlike his spelling of Tír na nÓg is old Irish). The Aes Sídhe are the "people of the Mounds" which is whom the decendants of the Túatha Dé Dannan became. The Túatha Dé Dannan themselves are not the Aes Sídhe.

This chapter revolves around a "creation myth" that bears more resemblance to other "more classical" indo European peoples than the Gaels. Namely the Greeks and Romans.

Akins would have us believe that before time there was but one deity "Domnann. Now whom he thinks this deity is, is unclear. He claims that this Goddess was a goddess of Darkness. I think that he means Domnu (Old Irish), whom is possibly the primordial Goddess of the Deep Ocean, and the Fomaire (aka the Túatha Dé Domnann or people of the goddess Domna/Domnu). Whatever the case. Domnann was "alone" and from the Darkness came Net god of Disruption.

Who is Net? Again I am guessing Neit (Néit, Nét, Neith) a god of War. He is said to be the husband of the Morrigan (4). No where is he said to be "God of Disruption".

Domnann and Net give rise to Ernmas and Tuireann. HE calls them "Goddess of the Earth" and "God of the Sky". Which while fine Indo-European iconology is not really accurate. She is a Mother god (not an Earth mother!) who is mother too three trinities of the Túatha Dé Dannan: Ériu, Banba and Fódla, the trinity of war goddesses the Badb, Macha and the Mórrígan (who is also named Danu), and also a trinity of sons, Glonn, Gnim, and Coscar as well as two other sons (Fiacha and Ollom)5, 6. Similarly Tuireann meant "thunderer" .

Now this would mean that the Morrigan has married her Grandpa! Very incestous. Not your typical Irish way of handling things!

Next we get a very Indus valley type myth of to Ernmas lying beneath Tuireann and begetting Bel. Except Bel is not an Irish deity. Bel is a Semetic deity, not Indo-European. Rather Bile. Who is indeed a "shinning one" and "bringer of light". Also begat was Danand (he means Danu, the genitive form of "Danu" is Danann, and the dative Danainn( Here Akins decides that she is a "moon Goddess" which is strange. Because here name in Proto-Indo-European may be reconstructed as *d'nu and means flowing water. A River. Not the moon. He has stated that it actually means "menstral cycle" for flow. He has no proof of this, he just states this. So we have Danu moved from a River Goddess to a Moon Goddes.

From here a lot of Begatting and a lot of other things go on.

Somehow Akins also decides that Net and Domman had other children who got thrown out for being naughty little imps (Cain and Able any one?). He calls these the Fomoraig. He means the Fomorians, Fomors, or Fomori (Irish Fomóiri, Fomóraig). Whichin old irish is, fo muire (Modern Irish faoi muire), "under the sea". It is interesting that he thinks this. Because that is more closely related to the idea of the Titans than the fo muire.

He then goes on to say the fo muire after being thown out of home went to "Lochlann". This is very interesting. Because in Gaelic. Lachlann is Scandinacia. (7) This usage was first noted by the Annals of Ulster in 853. A little late for Akins timeline.

Next we ger some more interesting behaviour. Apparently Brighid (Daughter of the Dagda) was supposed to be married to Tuireann (hmm more incest), but Cerna (more on that soon) the "Irish Horned God" fell in love with her at first sight, and long story short, got thrown out of Tír inna n-Ócinto Tech Duinn (the realm of the dead) and became "Donn the Dark one".

There is a really huge problem here. Donn was a King of the Sons of Míl (the first Gaels to come to Ireland). He was the first of the ancestors (Sinsir) to die on the actual soil of Eire, and as such became the God of the Dead. He was never a Túatha Dé Dannan! The other name he is known by is Da Derga (the Blood read God).

Cerna. Has never been recorded as an Irish being of anysort. Be it Túatha Dé Dannan, the Son of Míl or whatever. Rather this seems to be an attempt to take Cern, which is a name associated with Cernunnos.

Chapters two through 5 are takes on the standard series of "invasions" of Ireland. They are written in the same "High english" that Akins likes to use. They are short, and they are not as good as the other versions out there.

Next the Túatha Dé Dannan show up in Ireland.

The First Battle of Mag Tuired. First I would note that Akins uses many sources for this cahpter. None of which he cites, indeed he cites nothing in the entire book. One glaring example is the passage "All around black robed Druidesses with unkempt hair hanging over their faces ran to and froe between the ranks of Warriors...." (8) compare this to the description of Tactus (9) on the sacking of Mona during the Icene uprising.

Next we have the Reign of Bres and the coming of Lugh. Both are versions similar to that commonly cited. But again in the style Akins seems to want to write this in. For whatever reason Akins then inserts the Quest of the Sons of Tuireann in here. We then get the second battle og Mag Tuired. Again it does nto vary much from the other versions, but the language detracts.

Lastly in part one there is the gaedil. Akins seems hooked on the book of invasions as a source of material that is 100% correct. The Sons of Mil were the First Gaels in Irealand. He cites that Donn was the first to die on the soil of Ireland. Despite Donn being Cerna earlier! Thus We are to believe from the earlier chapters that Cerna was a member of the De Dannan's but also a Son of Mil?

That is the end of part one. A thoroughly disjointed mish mash of Irish Myth, legend, and some fantasies from the author.

Part Two starts with "The Ways of Magic". Here the author makes a telling mistake. He says that all things in the mortal world are made up of 4 parts, earth and air and fire and water. The 4 classical elements. However the Irish did not follow this idea. Their idea of elements was 9 fold called duile. (10) and (11) To this he adds the modern "fifth" element "Spirit" as a linking force. What the author obviously does not know is the Irish had a three fold cosmology of Earth and Sea and Sky. This was linked togeher by fire. What this also shows is this is not authentically period as claimed. No mention of duile!

The next chapter sells the common myth that the celts began the day at dusk rather than dawn. There is no proof that this is so. Even if it is poetically attractive. HE then goes on to list the "13 months) which to be honest shows he has been reading too much of the White Goddess. I say this because the so called "Celtic Tree Calander" is a modern invention. Robert Graves is the main perpetrator. He took the idea that there aare roughly 13 full moons in each year, and said that the Celts must have followed this, and then gave the name of 13 of the 20 orgional Ogam/Ogham to the months. From here various new agers and Neopagans, with out regard for facts, or culture have gone on to form what is known as the "Celtic Moon Astrology".

The next chapter ragards Ogam. If the Author would have us believe the antiquity of these writtings it would be Ogam. Which is the old Irish. Ogham is modern Irish. Yes I am quibling, howver the mix of old and new Irish is a train wreck! HE also claims that Oghma created the Ogham. Which is the common legend (and one I follow) yet he also claims Ollamh Fodhla in the 8th century BCE was using Ogham. Evidence shows that Ogam was not being used before the 3rd century CE. The language of the first 4 acime shows this. The 5th acime (the forfeda aka extra letters) were created to use borrowed words.

After Ogham we get Boibel Loth. Here Akins tries to cram into the chapter the story of Scota daughter of the Pharaoh, the Sons of Mil, and the Kinf of Scythia. No proof is offered...


Amazon.com: The Lebor Feasa Runda: A Druidic Grammar of Celtic Lore and Magic (9781440102820): Steven Akins: Books
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 14th January 2011, 16:34
Auld Chiel Auld Chiel is offline
Quarantined Users
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duthill View Post
More accounts of fraudulent documents that were peddled by the racist fraudster Steven L. Akins .
What relevance does something that someone posted in a review section on Amazon.com in regard to a book that I published have to do with anything? You can quite easily go on Amazon.com and post a review claiming that any book by any author that you happen to dislike is a pack of lies, or whatever. It bears no relevance to the issues you are arguing at hand. Obviously the person posting that review is barely literate.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.