Mormon Mafia Judge Jones Removed from Kahre Case Says 9th Circuit

By Christopher Hansen

For those of you waiting for the whole news and nothing but the news about the Mormon Mafia v Bobby Kahre and Alex Loglia, I finally have the whole ruling (below). (Please note that this reporter is LDS and repeats that these Mormon Mafia Members do not represent the Church.)

And what a wonderful ruling it was. This reporter was informed from, very reliable sources, that this type of a Writ of Mandamus was last granted over 30 years ago. In other words: It was a miracle.

Somebody had to really mess up (Judge Jones) and somebody (the 9^th Circuit) had to realize it and do something about it. Thank God that the 9^th Circuit did something! Now if only Congress will impeach this Judge Jones for not having “good Behaviour,” in office, justice may still be found in America. But don’t hold your breath folks. The New World Order needs Judges like Jones that obey, even when they get caught doing so instead of following the Constitution.

Lisa Rasmussen, may her name forever be spoken with reverence when the name of lawyers that actually care about the law and justice are mentioned, filed for this Writ because Mormon Mafia Judge Jones had removed her as Bobby Kahre’s legal counsel in obvious violation of the 6^th Amendment to the Constitution.

For the millions of you that have never read it, it can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You see it was evident, to this reporter, that Judge Jones and co-conspirator J. Gregory Damm knew something had to be done to stop the brilliant young Lisa Rasmussen from helping William Cohan (Who just had Jones Contempt of Court citation against him thrown out by the 9th Circuit) with Bobby’s defense. After all the jury in the first trail had not convicted anyone, and there had been 161 false charges they could not make stick. This had already made the IRS and the government look bad and it was obvious that Jones could not have that happen again. What would his friend and Mormon colleague Judge Dawson of Irwin Schiff conviction fame, say over drinks if Jones could not convict Kahre? (Please remember that the Constitution will not be allowed in Judge Dawson’s courtroom).

Jones, after all, knew how close total acquittal had been. Why if it had not been for few loyal government workers, whose pay checks may have been on the line, voting to convict against all the evidence, these “evil” Tax Avoiders, could have been acquitted. And what would that have done to the tax/serf system? People all over the United States could have started demanding their Congresscritters supply them with the legal definition of what a dollar was (Loins and Tigers and Bear Oh MY!) Or why it takes 17 Federal Reserve Notes (those green worthless irredeemable paper notes you carry around in your wallets and call dollars, (information on FRNs supplied or those of you that don’t care about your liberty but may want to start taking an interest now)). NO! It was obvious that this uppity Rasmussen woman had to be kept out of HIS courtroom.

Her client in the first trial, after all, had been acquitted, and the Mormon Mafia could not allow that to happen with Kahre. Bobby was the big fish. He was, after all, the man that was suing J. Gregory Damm and IRS agents for crimes commited which were caught on tape.

watch?v=2VJ3son-ha8

watch?v=EDSs757MgdY

Bobby was the one that had exposed Jones’ ruling in Nevada largest bankruptcy case (before he was moved up the Black Robe Priesthood hierarchy to District Court) and how it may be tied into fraud or misuse of Jones’ authority as a Bankruptcy Judge. (Was Jones being paid off? We may never know if Bobby is convicted.) Kahre was the one exposing the World Bank for stealing American labor to pay for their pet New World Order projects all over the world and ensure Americans were debt slaves to every country on Earth.

This Bobby Kahre person was the one that was actually paying people in gold and silver dollars minted by the U.S. Mint and bypassing Jones’ and Damm’s puppet masters, the Federal Reserve Banksters, by not allowing these New World Order thieves to collect their “fair share” of Americans wages and send them to Haliburton, Mexico and (insert foreign country here).

Why if Kahre was to be acquitted the Religion of the Black Robe and its prophet Karl Marx could be exposed and there could be a bloodless New American Revolution caused by Americans just using gold and silver dollars minted by our own government by the authority of the U.S. Congress, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005112—-000-.html to conduct business instead of using Federal Reserve Notes. Jones and Damm both knew, as did other IRS and government Mormon Mafia Members working to convict Kahre, that if Americans started using these legal tender gold and silver dollars currently being minted that almost no one would owe an income tax.

That may cause these government and Bankster criminals to be out of work or lose their pensions. Something had to be done. After all on Feb. 11^th, 2008AD Greg Damm said to William Cohan in a room full of Defense Attorneys, “Bill, it’s personal. You threatened my job and my pension.”

But the Justice System, established by our God inspired Founding Fathers still works, sometimes, and this was one of the times it worked. Judge Jones was removed from this case because:

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.

Why was Judge Jones frustrated? Obviously because William Cohan was exposing the truth in Judge Jones’ Courtroom and unlike Mormon Judge Dawson in the Irwin Schiff Star Chamber case, Jones was unable to stop the truth, or at least a large enough part of it, from getting to those jury members that did not have a personal financial interest in the case, like the few government employees on the jury that voted to convict.

Therefore, Lisa Rasmussen could not be allowed to help Cohan defend Kahre. She was simply too good an attorney to risk getting a solid conviction the Mormon Mafia needed to cover their past crimes and their devotion to the Civic Religion of Marxism, the IRS.

But Lisa Rasmussen would not allow for these criminals to violate the Constitution so she took it to the 9^th circuit and they listened. And they ruled correctly. And they removed Judge Jones.

Lisa Rasmussen should be thanked personally by every man, woman and child that care anything for justice. And may all Americans have the opportunity to have a such an attorney help them if they are accused of any crime. After all every man is innocent until proven guilty even if Judges Jones and Dawson don’t think so.

We will now wait and see what will occur. This reporter seriously doubts that the government will give up but will still go forward with some other judge. They are honestly desperate to cover the IRS/Federal Reserve/World Bank/International Monetary Fund fraud. Prosecutor Gregory Damm is out for personal vengeance and will be paid by the Government to seek that personal vengeance unless some other, few and far between honest, judge removes him for conflict of interest or for prosecutorial misconduct as is so obviously deserves.

The odds against an acquittal are indeed enormous since they allow Federal Government employees on the jury who, naturally, have a financial stake in keeping the government bloated. There can, of course, be not even the appearance of impartiality since even a new Judge will know that the IRS can make his life miserable if he does not bring in a conviction. “So Judge X. You had best convict this Kahre fella or we are going to audit you till Hell freezes over.” And if you do not think that is in the back of every judges’ mind then you must believe that there were weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and the “Magic Bullet Theory.”

So all you freedom lovers out there. What are you going to do about this? Will you write a letter to your Congresscritters demanding the impeachment of Jones? Will you write the Attorney General and demand the removal of J. Gregory Damm as prosecutor? Will you call your newspapers and demand to have more reports on Jones and Damm to expose them? Will you write a letter to the editor? Will you stop voting for Republicans and Democrats that refuse to tell you what the legal definition of a dollar is? Or will you just watch the trains rolling by your front window taking your former friends off to the camps?

“Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws.” Banker Mayer Amsched Rothchild

Here is the ruling.

United States Court of Appeals,

Ninth Circuit.

In re Robert David KAHRE, Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF NEVADA, Respondent,

The United States of America, Real Party in Interest.

No. 08-70954.

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2008.

Filed Aug. 1, 2008.

William A. Cohan, William A. Cohan PC, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, Michael J. Kennedy, Federal Public Defender, Reno, NV, Lisa A. Rasmussen, Law Offices of Lisa A. Rasmussen, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.

No Appearance for Respondent.

J. Gregory Damm, Carlos A. Gonzalez, Eric Johnson, Esq., Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Jared E. Dwyer, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Real Party in Interest.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:05-CR-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.

Petitioner Robert Kahre seeks a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its sua sponte decision striking his substitution of Lisa Rasmussen as retained local counsel in his upcoming criminal trial. Petitioner sought the substitution after a trial resulted in the acquittal of some defendants, and a mistrial as to Petitioner and other defendants, who now face a second trial. While we understand the difficulty of managing this long and complex case, we find the district court did not conduct sufficient inquiry before striking the substitution of counsel. This Court thus does not have a clear record to evaluate the disqualification. We therefore grant the petition for writ of mandamus. We remand to the district court with instructions both to vacate its order striking Petitioner’s substitution of counsel, and to conduct further inquiry on the issue of attorney disqualification. This Court also grants Petitioner’s motion for reassignment to a different judge.

I. Petition for Writ of Mandamus

To issue a writ of mandamus, the Court weighs the factors set forth in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977):

[W]hether (1) the party seeking the writ has no other means, such as a direct appeal, of attaining the desired relief, (2) the petitioner will be damaged in a way not correctable on appeal, (3) the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law, (4) the order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules, and (5) the order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression.

Cole v. U.S. Dist. Court, 366 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioner establishes the first two factors, and the last two factors do not apply here. See id. at 816-17, 820, 823 n. 13. As discussed below, the key third factor-clear error-is present because the record does not show that a “compelling purpose” justified abridging Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. See United States v. D’Amore, 56 F.3d 1202, 1204 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054, 1055-56 (9th Cir.1993)) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment …. may be abridged to serve some ‘compelling purpose,’ “ including “prohibiting representations that involve a conflict of interest, or an ethically unfit lawyer.”). The district court failed to conduct “inquiries … important to [a] decision that a compelling purpose would be served by denying the defendant his qualified constitutional right to hire counsel of his choice.” D’Amore, 56 F.3d at 1205.

The district court stated that a conflict of interest arose from (1) Ms. Rasmussen’s earlier representation of a former co-defendant, Joel Axberg, who was acquitted at the trial, and (2) Ms. Rasmussen’s participation in a joint-defense agreement, allegedly the basis for the sharing of confidential communications used to cross-examine government witnesses. However, the district court did not inquire about whether Ms. Rasmussen’s successive representation or participation in the joint-defense agreement would impair her ability to represent Petitioner or breach her duty of confidentiality to Mr. Axberg or any other defendant. See Fitzpatrick v. McCormick, 869 F.2d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Stites, 56 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Henke, 222 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir.2000). As a result, there is insufficient information to conclude whether Ms. Rasmussen had a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The district court also cited the timing and impact of the substitution. Although the district court asserted that the substitution was inappropriately made one week before trial, the court should have inquired whether the substitution would delay the trial. See Lillie, 989 F.2d at 1056.

Last, the district court concluded, without adequate inquiry, that Ms. Rasmussen had over-billed and misrepresented facts to the court. Disqualification for these alleged ethical violations may constitute a sanction, which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cole, 366 F.3d at 821. The district court did not provide these protections.

II. Motion for Reassignment to Another Judge

Petitioner has asked for reassignment. In the absence of a showing of personal bias, this Court must determine whether “unusual circumstances” warrant reassignment to another judge upon remand. In re Ellis, 356 F.3d 1198, 1211 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (citation omitted). In making this determination, this Court looks to the following factors:

(1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.

Id. (citation omitted). A finding of one of the first two factors would support reassignment. United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.1986) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988 (1986).

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.” Ellis, 356 F.3d at 1211.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED to the district court with instructions to vacate its order striking Petitioner’s substitution of counsel and to conduct further inquiry on attorney disqualification; MOTION for reassignment GRANTED.

C.A.9 (Nev.),2008.

Kahre v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nevada