Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fraud . Steven L. Akins of that Ilk.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fraud . Steven L. Akins of that Ilk.

    In or about 2001 an American, Steven Akins, styled himself as Steven L. Akins of that Ilk, Hereditary Chief of the name and arms of the Clan Akins[5] and even An t-Acainaich Mor.[6] Steven created a clan badge, crest and tartan for his clan[7] and petitioned the Lord Lyon King of Arms to claim the right to use a coat of arms of an alleged ancestor and legitimize his clan. On April 15, 2001 an article in the Sunday Mail, a Scottish newspaper, stated that Steven Akins allegedly attempted to bribe a Glasgow man in aiding him in his bid to be recognized as chief of Clan Akins. Akins allegedly wished to plant a forged tombstone with a coat of arms inscription, accompanied with forged genealogical records to prove his family was based in Lanarkshire in the 1700s.[8] Steven Akins' petition was ultimately rejected because of fraudulent information.[7][9] The Clan Akins Society headed by Steven and his wife, which had charged $15 per year membership,[8] has since become defunct.[7]

    Clan Akins
    That moron , Steven Akins must think that the rest of the world is as insane as he is , eh

  • #2
    i think you should also mention he goes by the name AULD CHIEL on here

    dont believe a word he says


    (can the mods on here stop him giving false info and advice to people)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Duthill View Post
      That moron , Steven Akins must think that the rest of the world is as insane as he is , eh
      Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. 613:

      " From an allowance of proof the Court excluded all questions relating to the chieftainship and the relative positions of the parties within the clan, holding that neither chiefship of a whole clan nor chieftainship of a branch of a clan was a legal status justiciable in a court of law, but had the character of a social dignity only, and, accordingly, that the Lord Lyon had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of who had right to the chieftainship either directly or incidentally when disposing of the claims for supporters and for a birthbrief. [..] Observations: [...] on the meaning of "chief" and "chieftain" in the law and practice of arms, with opinion by the Lord Justice-Clerk that in the recorded cases in which a Lord Lyon had made a declaration of chiefship the declaration had been merely a ministerial act and not a finding in his judicial capacity upon a disputed question."
      Lord Justice-Clerk, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 636:
      "There is no instance in the registers of any judicial decision by Lyon in a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship. The only instance founded on by the petitioner was the finding by Lyon regarding the chiefship of Clan Chattan on 10th September 1672 [...] It will be noticed that this declaration proceeded simply upon a perusal by Lyon of evidents and testimonies from "our histories, my own Registers, and bands of Manrent" and that it was in no sense a finding pronounced in a lis or contested process. It vouches nothing beyond that in this particular case Lyon made a declaration of chiefship. Similarly, the matriculation of the arms of the chief of the M'Naghtons proves nothing [...] This is not a decision in a lis: again it is simply a recording of the dignity of a chiefship acknowledged by attestation. The only other case to which reference need be made is the case of Drummond of Concraig [...] This is the only instance to which we were referred of a chief of a branch being mentioned, and it is only designation. It is not a declarator or a declaratory finding of chieftaincy. In none of the writs which were before us can I find any support for a conclusion that Lyon at any time either claimed, or exercised, a jurisdiction to determine disputes as to which of competing claimants to chiefship or chieftainship was to be preferred."

      Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657:

      "I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan. [...] The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law. It was decided in the case College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1911 S.C. 1054), that Lyon has no jurisdiction except as is conferred by statute, or is vouched by the authority of an Institutional writer, or by continuous and accepted practice of the Lyon Court. [...] in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms. There is direct authority, by way of precedent, for Lyon considering an acknowledged chiefship of a clan as incidental to a grant of arms with supporters. The case of Macnaghton (13th January 1818, Lyon Register, vol. ii, p. 172) is a case of that kind. But it is a different thing altogether to say that in a case of dispute Lyon has jurisdiction to determine and declare who is chief. For that no precedent has been cited to us. In my opinion, it is outwith his jurisdiction to decide because (1) at best it is a question merely of social status or precedence; (2) this social status is not one recognised by law; and (3) and, most important of all, it depends, not upon any principle of law of succession which can be applied by a Court of Law, but upon recognition by the clan itself. Like your Lordship, I am at a loss to understand how any determination or decree of Lyon ever could impose upon a clan a head which it did not desire to acknowledge."

      The Stair Encyclopaedia of Scots Law writes (vol. 6, p.485, para 1018; footnotes are between brackets):

      "With regard to the Lord Lyon's jurisdiction in relation to the question of precedence there is considerable doubt. The question was considered by the Court of Session in litigation between the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, where Lord Johnston remarked that: 'the present question [that is the question between the two colleges] must be disposed of without a full examination into the history of the matter, which might adduce information which is not before us at present.'[1911 SC 1054 at 1061, 1911 2 SLT 134 at 138, per Lord Johnston] In that case the court decided that Lyon had no jurisdiction in the question of precedence bebause: 'a right of precedence by itself is not a legal entity which can properly be made a matter of judgment that can be enforced by a court of law.'[1911 SC 1054 at 1064, 1911 2 SLT 134 at 139, per Lord Mackenzie]

      Comment


      • #4
        how many times is that youve copied and pasted the SAME drivel that your own family posted on the web?

        it does nothing for your argument and still confirms you as a charlatan


        ill ask you once again.....why then if lord lyon cant decide about clans and their chiefs(as your nonsense post claims) did you ask him for his approval?

        and you only claimed he didnt have any right to do so AFTER he rejected you and your claim

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tig View Post
          how many times is that youve copied and pasted the SAME drivel that your own family posted on the web?

          it does nothing for your argument and still confirms you as a charlatan


          ill ask you once again.....why then if lord lyon cant decide about clans and their chiefs(as your nonsense post claims) did you ask him for his approval?

          and you only claimed he didnt have any right to do so AFTER he rejected you and your claim
          I petitioned Lyon Court for recognition of my hereditary coat of arms as "ancient arms" (i.e. arms that predate the establishment of Lyon Register in 1672). Lord Lyon Blair determined that although my ancestral coat of arms predated Lyon Register, their use in America in the 1660's was not under the jurisdiction of Scotland and therefore he was unable to recognize them as ancient Scottish arms. There was never any question or ruling made by Lyon Court in regard to my being chief of the Clan Akins, nor in regard to the status of Akins as a Scottish clan.

          Comment


          • #6
            there was never any question about it because its not a recognised clan

            you just made it up

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tig View Post
              there was never any question about it because its not a recognised clan

              you just made it up
              See the legal determination and definition below:

              Evidence in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean:

              P.220) (Q.) "In your view, what does the word "clan" mean? (A.) It has a general meaning of family, ordinary meaning of family, but there is a peculiar sense in which it is used for this quasi-feudal organisation in the Highlands, or you might say feudal organisation. (Q.) But its primary meaning, I think, is family? (A.) Yes. (Q.)In your view, did the clans in fact consist either of persons linked by blood or persons linked by reason of place of dwelling in a territory? (A.) That is the defination of the Act of Parliament. (Reference Acts 1587 & Act of 11 Sept, 1593 A.P.S., IV, p. 40) (Q.) Do you see a reference there to the pretence of blood or place of dwelling? (A.)Yes. (Q.)Are those familiar terms? (A.) Quite familiar. Pretence means claim....(Q.) So that in your view do you get this dual element entering into the composition of the clan, blood-relation and place of dwelling? (A.) Oh, yes, you have both.

              Evidence of the Very Rev. Lachlan Maclean Watt, LL.D., Bard of the Clan MacLean Association: (P. 517) (Q.) (Referred to Mackenzie's "Works," II, 574, 618: (Q.)Do you deduce that Sir G. Mackenzie considered that from a heraldic point of view the "head of the clan" the "chief of the clan" or the "representer of the family" all meant the same thing? (A.) I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of "Head of a Family" and "Head of a Clan." He was a Highlander and he knew that clan means a family. Clan and family mean exactly the same thing."

              Comment


              • #8
                Steven L Atkins fraudster of that ilk is too thick to read between the Lord Lyon's lines

                Comment


                • #9
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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:

                    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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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 .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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:

                        "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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          More accounts of fraudulent documents that were peddled by the racist fraudster Steven L. Akins .


                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              because the people in the know know your spouting lies thats why

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X