The Indictment of Judge Lawrence E. Kahn
by The Common Law Kid
July 17, 2017
The landmark case, Case NO: 1:16-CV-1490, now in the Federal District Court of Northern New York, filed December 14, 2016, that pits We the People against our general and state governments and the judiciary at every level, town, village, city, state, district, federal, you get the picture, has a heading that reads “Grand Jury, Sovereigns of the Court, We the People – Against – U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, et al, Defendants” is something every American ought to be interested in.
And, by the way, this “et al” from the heading of this case is quite remarkable. To see this list go to nationallibertyalliance.org/docket, scroll down a little and under Papers Filed click on “1002 List of Defendants.” It’s a helluva list and will give you a general idea of the scope of this case.
Also, if you do read the list of defendants know that every single defendant that’s a government official on that list has a duty, by law, to respond to We the People. And if they don’t respond once the crimes reported, described and cataloged by We the People in these filings against We the People all across this country then these government officials are all guilty of a serious crime: 18 USC §4 – Misprision of felony provides: Whoever, having knowledge of the commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
But this article’s entitled “The Indictment of Judge Lawrence E. Kahn.” So, what’s up with that? To understand why this judge is being indicted, it’s important to understand what’s a Court of Record. Court of Record is a wonderful thing and if you’re American it’s your birthright and the most important thing to the health, welfare and safety of you and your family. What’s super disappointing is that you won’t find a single one in operation anywhere in our country today. Well, not until now, anyway, because We the People have opened one up. And it’s the landmark case mentioned in the opening paragraph.
A Court of Record is a badass thing. It’s so wicked awesome it’ll make your chest well up with pride if you’re a God-fearing good American who actually has a handle on what it means to love liberty and despise tyranny. You know, Thomas Jefferson used to end his correspondences after signing his name with “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” If you like those kinds of words, if those words spark something inside you or maybe light a brush fire in your mind then a Court of Record is for you.
A Court of Record has no judge. A Court of Record’s judge and jury is the jury. There is a traffic cop in there, so to speak. He sits where the judge does but he’s not a judge, he’s a magistrate. He decides nothing and has no authority to do so. He and the prosecutor have no right to speak to the jury in private and most certainly have no right to tell them anything about how they are to think or that they only decide on the facts and not the law. No, no, no. Not in a Court of Record. In a Court of Record, twelve of your peers, from your town, decide your fate and the BAR Association of America has no sway, no power, no say, no nothing in a Court of Record. You know, the way God intended. Seriously, check out the Holy Bible and you’ll see it’s in there the way God wants us to run our governments and solve our disputes. And as far as making America great again, Courts of Record are exactly what made America great in the first place. Well, that and the Common Law Grand Jury, of course. But the two go hand in hand.
Anywho, in accord with standard rules and procedure, a random selection process appointed Magistrate Daniel J. Stewart to this case, as magistrate of this Court of Record. And, after some time, after a ton of papers and affidavits were filed in the case, and after a great deal of deafening silence from the randomly-selected Magistrate, Judge Lawrence E. Kahn waltzes in like he owns the place. Judge Kahn, from some Color of Law, unlawful position – Color of Law equates exactly to fraud, by the way – decides that he’ll just trespass on this Case and summarily throw it out on bogus grounds. Those grounds being that We the People are somehow not the Sureties of the Peace*(See next paragraph for explanation of Sureties) and that We are an artificial entity, specifically a corporation, partnership or association and that, as such, We must have legal counsel authorized to practice before this court. And because We don’t, Judge Kahn is throwing out the case altogether. Well, I will say in Judge Lawrence E. Kahn’s defense, federal judges do this kind of thing all the time. However, in most cases, when a federal judge does this kind of thing, they do so from a fraudulent position, a place of no authority whatsoever.
* Sureties Of The Peace: If anyone has been dispossessed without the legal judgment of his peers, from his lands, castles, franchises, or from his right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided by the five and twenty jurors of whom mention is made below in the clause for securing peace. Moreover, for all those possessions, from which anyone has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseized or removed by our government, we will immediately grant full justice therein. Magna Carta Paragraph 52.
And, of note, what really ticks me off profusely is that Kahn writes, in his haphazard Order to Dismiss, that the federal defendants asked the Court to dismiss on the grounds mentioned above and that “the Court agrees.” Well, first off, We the People are the Sovereigns of this Court and these evil, arrogant federal defendants DID NOT ask the Court anything because they never noticed Us about it and never filed anything in the Case about it. In other words, they illegally skirted standard process and procedure. The first we heard of it was this bogus Order to Dismiss. Also, the Court DOES NOT agree because We the People are the Court and We the People never agreed to any of this fraudulent, poppycock, balderdash nonsense.
It’s like this, Constitutional educator KrisAnne Hall said in a lecture I heard not too long ago that it’s perfectly natural for the state and employees of the state to try to centralize power as all of history shows this tug of war between We the People and the state as We the People try to secure and maintain our rights while the state tries to take them away. Kris Anne Hall, in that lecture, said that what’s unnatural today is that We the People aren’t tugging back.
Well, We are now.
This past Wednesday, July 12, 2017, We the People as the Sureties of the Peace, the Grand Jury, came together and unanimously decided to indict Judge Lawrence E. Kahn for concealment, trespassing on the case, and other crimes against We the People. This is a historic moment. A wonderful moment in American history. Thank God. And praise Him. We’ve finally woken up enough to tug back. And not a moment too soon.
The Myth of the Thin Blue Line
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
- John Adams
by The Common Law Kid
April 22, 2017
Out shopping recently, I struck up a conversation with an off-duty police officer moonlighting as a security guard at a local grocery store. I was eager to see if this cop, an older gentleman, had any understanding of common law; our true American heritage; the very law our country was founded upon. He didn’t.
By the way, for those who are unfamiliar, the common law is a set of customs based upon Biblical principles where We the People in the form of a jury – twelve peers – decide what the punishment for any crime will be and whether or not written law will even be applied. We the People also decide how the victim of any crime will be restored, understanding this is the number one goal of any controversy before us.
Seeing that finding common ground with this officer was not likely to happen, I just cut right to it. “The codes, rules and regulations you and your fellow officers consistently enforce are not actually the law; they’re codes, rules and regulations; interpretations of the law; predominantly uninformed and misguided, born from the inherently flawed mind of man. And that legislating our behavior isn’t the government’s job.”
The officer came back with the pat cop response, “We’re the thin blue line between chaos and civility.” He went on to say that without cops there would be mayhem in the streets.
The Thin Blue Line theory posits that if there were no government protection furnished by the hand of state police then chaos would rule and civility would be nonexistent. This is a silly notion; an untenable argument.
Consider this, how many crimes do cops actually prevent? Without having a single statistic before me isn’t it obvious that in the great majority of instances cops show up after a crime’s been committed? The number of crime scenes where cops show up after the crime’s been committed versus the number of crimes cops actually prevent has to be, bare minimum, ten to one, respectively. Probably greater. Probably much greater. In other words, the chaos prevention heavily trumpeted by the Thin Blue Line theory is pure fantasy. If one takes into consideration that, by and large, cops only prevent crimes when they’re actually physically visible to would-be criminals, and that cops don’t promote civility and most certainly don’t inhibit chaos then the Thin Blue Line theory begins to disintegrate.
Also, it’s a cop’s job to enforce codes, rules and regulations above all else. It’s not their job to protect We the People just as it’s not their job to solve any crimes. The standard narrative offered by TV and the government says the opposite but the cops actually know the truth. From an article posted December 11, 2014, at Zerohedge.com entitled "The ‘Thin Blue Line’ Serves No Purpose,’ the author writes, “Law enforcement organizations have even argued in the Supreme Court that their job is NOT to prevent crime but to enforce the law after the fact, and they have won using this assertion.”
But it’s worse than that.
The Thin Blue Line – law enforcement – actually promotes chaos and a degeneracy of civility. From the same Zerohedge article just cited: “What government law enforcement is admitting to in its argument [to the Supreme Court] is that it does not provide security… The only service police provide is to clean up the mess left over when the carnage of a crime has subsided.” Then the author sums it quite well by adding, “If law enforcement has any purpose at all, it is to keep the public in check and in line – to promote the farce that without government protection, chaos will rule.”
Here’s where the chaos comes from and where the civility degenerates. When you ask someone or some organization for protection, in time, they become your master. Also, when you don’t do for yourself the things you should, you begin to degenerate individually and collectively as a community.
For example, back during the lifetimes of our founding fathers, if they experienced an uprising, what might equate to a spate of gang violence today, regular folk like you and me, under the auspice of the county sheriff, would pick up their guns and quash the uprising. Can you imagine a county sheriff doing that today? First off, I imagine the sheriff would have a hard time finding enough people trained and armed in his community to handle such a thing. Secondly, I suspect most people, win asked to assist the sheriff, would decline, unwilling to leave the comfort of their living rooms and televised sporting events.
Now, the fact that our government, as well as We the People, have utterly neglected the four militia clauses in our Constitution plays a large role in this despicable disposition. We are no longer in position, no longer capable of getting off our rear ends to do what needs to be consistently done in our own communities. Remember what I said about those you ask to protect you and how they inevitably become your master? Seriously, go to YouTube and type in the search bar ‘Police Brutality’ and see how many videos come up. Oh, and be prepared, if you’re a right-minded individual, to be disgusted and outraged. Also, set aside a good block of time because, damn, there’s a lot of them.
I call on another founding father, Benjamin Franklin, to drive my point home: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
To review, when We the People don’t do for ourselves the things we should do for ourselves – like providing our own protection – we effortlessly slide into immorality and degeneracy. Not only do cops not provide protection they encourage us to become shiftless and lazy, forsaking our duties to ourselves and to one another. If we wish to keep our quality of life and our country we had better start doing for ourselves, and soon. Reviving local militias all across the country would go a long way toward saving ourselves, our communities and our nation because the Thin Blue Line Theory is just a myth.
Ignorance In Action
Governor vs Sheriff in Texas
by The Common Law Kid
April 3 2017
Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, seemingly emboldened by President Donald Trump’s recent Executive order concerning so-called “sanctuary cities,” and the withdrawing of federal funds to those cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, has demonstrated great and woeful ignorance by requesting his state’s legislators draw up statutes that would allow him to remove elected officials from office if they don’t comply with state and Federal Immigration policies.
But he’s not alone.
In Austin, Texas’s most liberal city, Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, and the Travis County leaders who back Sheriff Hernandez are also acting in grave ignorance. According to an Associated Press article on the matter Sheriff Hernandez said the city’s jails would no longer honor most federal immigration detainers. Austin’s sheriff announced after President Trump’s inauguration that going forward her jails would only honor immigration holds in murder, aggravated sexual assault and human trafficking cases.
The sheriff and the governor both seem to have their hearts and minds in the right place. Sheriff Hernandez, quoted in a FoxNews.com article said, “I respect the job of our state leaders, but I will not allow fear and misinformation to be my guiding principles as a leader sworn to protect this community. Our community is safer when people can report crimes without fear of deportation. I trust the court system and our judges to assess the risks and set appropriate bonds and conditions for all who are incarcerated.”
Well, for those of us who’ve gone outside of mainstream sources, specifically all mainstream media, all grade schools, middle schools, high schools, every college and every university, to learn our true American heritage and history, we can see several problems with this line of thinking. First off, sanctuary cities are Constitutionally unknown. In other words, they have no right to be. Peering into it just a little, it seems as if these immigrant havens are also very attractive to criminal illegals. During a recent White House Press Briefing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said as much citing a few relevant examples, one where illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez, deported five times already, with seven felony convictions, shot and killed a 32-year-old woman walking with her father along a pier in San Francisco. Local authorities had released Sanchez despite the fact Immigration & Customs Enforcement agents had placed a detainer on him. Regrettably, Sanchez admitted his presence in San Francisco was due solely to the city’s status as a sanctuary city.
Next, the idea of trusting the court system and judges to assess risks and set appropriate bonds and conditions for all incarcerated is utterly laughable. This is the same court system and same judges who routinely incarcerate innocent Americans daily for nothing more than code violations. Not to mention, hi-jacking every single person run through their courts into jurisdictions unknown violating, at the minimum, their Fifth and Seventh Amendment rights to Due Process, Trial by Jury and Common Law courts.
Now to Gov. Abbott. The governor has the right idea striving for strict enforcement of immigration laws. Please keep in mind, in America we’ve never allowed immigrants into our country willy nilly. Consider that amongst the grievances listed in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of 1776 one proclaims ‘He(King George III) has endeavoured to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither.’ Even some thirteen years prior to the ratification of our Constitution immigration law was a staple of American government. Also, it should go without saying, the notion of ignoring just and right law in hopes of helping the downtrodden is clumsy, thoughtless and Pollyanna. To do so is to sacrifice the safety and security of your own community. From such a compromised position the notion of helping another is folly. Put another way, you must first secure your own oxygen mask before helping others secure theirs. Where Abbott strays from the reservation is his desire to gain statutory power to remove elected officials. Quick note, as this is thoroughly unconstitutional, any such statute, coming from any source under the sun, is null and void from its inception.
Refreshingly, Texas Representative Lloyd Doggett said in a statement, “Neither Governor Abbott nor the Legislature have any authority to remove a duly elected sheriff, whose office is established by the Texas Constitution.” Rep. Doggett added, “The governor shows contempt for both the Texas Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.”
In conclusion, having your heart and mind in the right place doesn’t cut it for the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. Both Governor Abbott and Sheriff Hernandez could benefit greatly from a healthy dose of education and understanding of our American Common Law heritage and American Jurisprudence. Neither of these elected officials will find such teachings and instruction through mainstream avenues. If this writer could ever gain audience with either I would direct them to Brent Winters’ Excellence of the Common Law, Lysander Spooner’s Trial by Jury, the Anti-Federalist Papers and nationallibertyalliance.org to become an NLA member and take the free Constitution and Civics Courses. Upon completing such readings and coursework these officials’ discretion would be greatly informed and their constituents would benefit the most.
The Myth of the Thin Blue Line Pt. II
The Good Cop Argument
“Policing is broken. Tragically, it has been broken from the very beginning of the institution. It has evolved as a paramilitary, bureaucratic, organizational arrangement that distances police officers from the communities they’ve been sworn to protect and serve.”
– Norm Stamper, former Seattle Police Chief
by The Common Law Kid
May 29, 2017
Justin Hanner, a former police officer in Auburn, Alabama, was fired for blowing the whistle on speed trap ticket quota mandates when he taped his commanding sergeant saying “Officers will have one hundred contacts per month, minimum … Do not be the one who does not get one hundred.”
In the same interview with John Stossel, Hanner goes on to say that such policing is counterproductive; sitting in speed traps all day makes for reactive policing, meanwhile, you’re not patrolling the neighborhoods and deterring crime. “And once a crime happens, you show up after the fact, take a report and file it, then you go back to writing tickets. No one’s patrolling the neighborhoods to protect and deter.”
Please note that the police work described above has absolutely nothing to do with protecting and serving. It does accurately describe the ground floor of statewide and nationwide racketeering; the next floor up being judges, courtrooms and the state offices and employees who process citations and the like. It’s a system designed to fleece We the People all without due process of law.
Traffic citations, also known as bills of attainder, are like paying the state protection money and the cops who are supposedly there to protect us are simply the goons who extort money and, many times, other property, from We the People. And the judges who reside over such matters in courtrooms are the Dons – with the full force of the state/government behind them – who drop the hammer on us in administrative fashion, branding us with their summary judgment entries onto our permanent records. Again, all without due process.
Now to the good cop argument. Former Officer Hanner was a good cop. Of course, in today’s world and within today’s police forces, no one like Officer Hanner is a cop for long. This is my point. A good cop knows the difference between right and wrong. A good cop will take exception with many orders he receives from his superiors because, in general, those orders have little to do with keeping the peace and protecting the people; see part I of this series, The Myth of the Thin Blue Line for more on this.
If the good cop takes exception with such orders more often than not then the good cop will most likely not be able to stomach his chosen profession and will soon be looking for a new line of work. Or he’ll simply get fired like Officer Hanner.
But, does this mean there are no good cops? Sadly, the answer appears to be yes, there are no good cops. And the best you’re likely ever going to get are some decent cops here and there who can live with looking the other way while being constantly immersed in a culture of questionable behavior.
Let me make it simple. Cops, like people in any other line of work, are motivated primarily by two objectives: One is to perform their jobs well enough to remain employed and secondly cops are motivated to rise through the ranks by promotion to higher positions that offer both a better salary and greater job stability.
But consider what we can gather from Officer Hanner’s experience as a police officer. He and his fellow officers were commanded to go out and write citations that brought in money for their police department at the expense of deterring crime. In other words, policing is now a business and has nothing to do with protecting and serving. This is true all over the country.
What’s a good cop? A good cop is a good person. Someone who knows right from wrong and has the integrity to do right by himself and his creator with whatever is before him in any and every circumstance. Forsaking their stated goal of protecting and serving in favor of generating income by issuing bills of attainder that trample the God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to due process will leave a bad taste in any good cop or good person’s mouth. This bad taste will eventually lead those with integrity to either quit the job or buck the system resulting in their dismissal. This is the long and short of it. This is the truth. This is the good cop argument.