9th Circuit Rules Mormon Mafia Judge did not follow the rules

By Christopher Hansen

Once again the truth is leaking out to the public about the corruption in the (alleged) Halls of Justice. Las Vegas Federal Judge Jones, of the IRS Mormon Mafia connection, obviously wanted (needed?) the defendants in an IRS case of Kahre/Loglia convicted. They were not.

Read the story of the IRS loss here: http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue08/coverstory.php

[The reason this reporter calls these men the Mormon Mafia is because I belong to the same religion and their actions disgust me. Their actions should not reflect upon the church nor its teachings which teach against such disregard of the Constitution. Mitt Romney and Harry Reid are other obvious members of the Mormon Mafia as they openly embrace Socialism which is doctrinally REJECTED by the church and warned against yet many of its members are openly Socialists.]

Jones obviously wanted Kahre convicted. So much so that he did not follow the rules. Judge Jones even went so far as to try to silence Kahre’s attorney, William Cohan, and hinder his ability to vigorously defend his client by slapping him with criminal contempt of court citation. The 9th Circuit overturned that contempt of court because of Judge Jones’ blatant disregard of the rules. (See the ruling below.)

In this reporters humble opinion, Judge Jones is a criminal, a tyrant and a traitor to the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend against domestic enemies, such as himself, that would try to harm defendants instead of being impartial as required. Naturally the only penalty that this judge will receive is the hopeful humiliation this article may case him as his treachery is exposed. Judges should be protecting the rights of the accused from over zealous prosecutors instead of threatening Defense attorneys with contempt.

It appears, from the record, that this judge not only threatened Kahre’s attorney but also protected the government’s prosecuting Attorney, IRS Mormon Mafia connection, Gregory Damm, and found no “Conflict of Interest” even though Deputy Attorney General Damm told a room full of lawyers that the trial “was personal.”

Read the full quote here: http://www.independentamerican.org/2008/08/06/one-of-the-mormon-mafia-removed-by-9th-circuit/

Many of you my not know that Bobby Kahre sued DAG Damm for violations of RICO. Those violations were caught on video tape. To see them go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VJ3son-ha8

Read more about it here: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2007/Kahre–RICOvDOJprosecutor.pdf

Then Damm retaliated by indicting Bobby Kahre. Of course the civil trial against Damm, and other IRS and FBI federal criminals, was placed on hold while the criminal trial proceeded. Even after all this, Judge Jones allowed Damm to stay on the case. It must be asked: How can a prosecutor that is being sued by a defendant, and a Federal District Court has ruled that there is enough evidence to proceed to trial, be allowed to continue to prosecute the same man that is suing him? The prosecutor is supposed to have no personal interest in the case. Does the Department of [in]Justice not have enough attorneys. This reeks of impropriety.

The following is from the Standards of Conduct for U.S. Attorneys:

Conflicts of Interest. Employees may not engage in outside activities that create or appear to create a conflict of interest with their official duties. Such a conflict exists when the outside activity would: …(2) create an appearance that the employee’s official duties were performed in a biased or less than impartial manner (5 C.F.R. § 2635.502);

As found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/4mdoj.htm#1-4.640

Acts, by Damm, under color of law that deprived Bobby Kahre of his Constitutionally guaranteed rights is an “outside activit[y] that create[s] or appear[s] to create a conflict of interest with their official duties.” This is because violations of the Constitution are not within the scope of a prosecutor’s duties. But good ole’ boy Judge Jones left Damm on the case.

Bobby Kahre’s Attorney is William Cohan. Attorney Cohan “frustrated” Judge Jones because he was doing such a great job in the trial to convince the Jury that Kahre was innocent, (which he is). Judge Jones obviously wanted a conviction. Judge Jones should only have wanted justice but he did not even follow the rules of justice.

The Ninth Circuit ruled:

The record demonstrates the district court is frustrated with Petitioner’s lead counsel, William Cohan. The district court acknowledged as much. This frustration appears to have affected how it has conducted hearings involving Petitioner’s counsel and other defense counsel. We therefore find that reassignment is warranted. While reassignment will involve some duplication of effort, we find it would not be “out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.”

Jones was “frustrated” because Cohen was getting the truth to the jury

YES! Judge Jones was at last removed and will be replaced for the new trial. Hopefully the new judge will not be a Mormon so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and preserve at least “the appearance of fairness.” But we shall see. Judge Dawson of the Irwin Schiff trial was also a Mormon and as we all know who followed Schiff’s trial, the Constitution was not allowed in Dawson’s courtroom.

It is obvious that the IRS is desperate to cover up their fraud. They refuse to acknowledge that silver and gold dollars minted since 1986 AD are in circulation and are legal tender. They are trying to force Americans to judge the value of silver and gold dollars by Federal Reserve Notes which this reporter, Booby Kahre and anyone with the ability to read knows are not dollars but only the promise of payment IN DOLLARS. They are IOUs. They are mere coupons. The problem is that Congress has not defined what a dollar is but they have defined these silver liberty dollars to be: ONE DOLLAR.

But the IRS knows that if the truth gets out about what dollars really are that they will be out of business, as they should be, and so they are pulling out all the stops to convict Bobby Kahre and Alex Loglia. Even if it means that judges fail to follow the rules or even care about the appearance of propriety.

Call Senator Reid and Senator Ensign and tell them it is time to impeach Judge Jones as he is not in “good Behaviour” (Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. After all if this is not bad behaviour, what is?

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
William A. COHAN, Esq., Appellant, Robert David Kahre, Defendant.
No. 07-10376.
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2008.
Filed July 8, 2008.

Gregory V. Davis, Alan Hechtkopf, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Robert L. Ellman, Eric Johnson, Esq., Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William A. Cohan, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, pro se.

Lynn E. Panagakos, Law Offices of Lynn E. Panagakos, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, for Appellant.

William A. Cohan, Ross C. Goodman, for Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00121-RCJ-(RJJ).

Before SCHROEDER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and FAIRBANK,FN* District Judge.

FN* The Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM FN**

FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

William A. Cohan, Esq. (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of contempt issued while he was representing his client in a lengthy multi-defendant criminal trial. The conduct giving rise to the contempt order occurred during Appellant’s cross-examination of a government witness. The grounds for the order included the following: (1) misleading the court and the jury; and (2) willful violation of a court ruling. The district court informed Appellant that he was being cited for contempt approximately one hour before holding a summary contempt proceeding. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the order of contempt was issued orally. The court did not sign and file an order reciting the specific facts on which it relied in holding Appellant in contempt.

When a district court utilizes the summary contempt procedures described in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 42(b), the judge must certify he “saw or heard the contemptuous conduct” and the contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk. These procedural safeguards must be strictly followed. United States v. Marshall, 451 F.2d 372, 374 (9th Cir.1971). The district court did not comply with the procedural safeguards contained in Rule 42(b) and therefore, the contempt order must be reversed. See Matter of Contempt of Greenberg, 849 F.2d 1251, 1253-55 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Cohen, 510 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.2007).

Further, when considered in the context of the entire record on appeal, there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal contempt conviction on either ground on which the district court relied. Accordingly, further proceedings would be inappropriate.

REVERSED and VACATED.