Judicial Terrorism: The State vs. Robert and Danille Kahre

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

German dissidents
Hans and Sophie Scholl were half-way through their show
trial
before the notorious Judge Roland Freisler when their
parents Robert and Magdalene arrived at the courtroom.

The outcome
of the trial wasn’t in doubt; Hans and Sophie — who were on trial
along with their compatriot in the White Rose resistance, a young
father named Christoph Probst — had admitted to composing and distributing
seditious leaflets urging opposition to Hitler’s war and domestic
tyranny.

As Christians
the Scholls understood their duty to the truth; as German patriots
they understood the necessity of bringing down the regime that was
destroying their homeland. Hans and Sophie had learned their values
from their parents, but the intrepidity with which they defended
them was their own.

Denied entrance
to the courtroom, Magdalene pleaded with a guard: “I’m the mother
of two of the accused.” “You should have raised them better,” sneered
the guard in an act of malice that was both deliberate and gratuitous.

The circumstances
were different, and the sentence imposed on the victim much less
severe than execution via guillotine, but there was more than a
hint of the same cruel statist sanctimony in the lecture given by
U.S. District Judge David Ezra when he sentenced Danille Kahre to
five years’ probation earlier this month.

At the time
he pronounced sentence on Danille, Ezra — who was less histrionic
than Roland Freisler, but just as contemptible in his dogmatic collectivism
as that Communist-turned-Nazi jurist — had already sentenced her
husband, Robert Kahre, to fifteen years in prison. Turning to the
subject of the four Kahre children, Ezra
insisted it was Danille’s duty to teach the children to serve and
worship the government that is tearing their family apart
.

Danille must
not allow her children to experience “hatred for government or for
people who participate in government,” Ezra
pontificated
: “If, as a result of that trauma [of seeing their
parents unjustly imprisoned], that turns them [the children] against
their own country and leads along a path of hate and retribution,
they will have lost their promise.”

Like the sibling
freedom fighters Hans and Sophie Scholl, Robert and Danille Kahre
understand that the government ruling us is our country’s deadliest
enemy. This authentic patriotism is as inscrutable to David Ezra
was it was to Roland Freisler, and for the same reason: Each of
those judges was a creature of the regime he served, and both of
them defined “justice” as vindicating the power of the state in
any and all circumstances.

After being
acquitted on the basis of the same facts in a previous trial, Robert
and Danille Kahre
were found guilty by a federal jury of “tax crimes”
— a charge
that describes the efforts of productive people to avoid having
their honestly earned wealth stolen from them by the world’s most
vicious criminal syndicate. In this particular case, the method
used by the Kahres — owners and operators of a large and successful
construction company — protected their earnings, as well as those
of the people with whom they worked, and underscored the pervasive
criminal fraud practiced by the regime.

In operating
their construction business, the Kahres paid workers as independent
contractors, rather than “employees,” in gold and silver coins minted
by the U.S. government. The employees were able to sell those coins
— which were assigned a face value by the government, not by the
Kahres — at the much higher market value. The contractors then claimed
a tax liability based on the government-assigned face value of the
coins, not their value in Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs).

This is, if
you will, the obverse of the
government’s claim that gold and silver minted currency are “legal
tender” only for their face value.
The Kahres simply reverse-engineered
the logic of the legal tender laws in an entirely defensible application
of the commandment to render unto Caesar only that which
is Caesar’s: If the government is content to perpetuate the fraud
that a Gold
Eagle fifty-dollar coin
is worth only that amount, and not the
$1171 and change it presently commands on the market, then the tax
liability of that coin should reflect its fraudulent face value.

The Constitution
has never authorized the federal government to create “money”
in any fashion, let alone that of printing tastelessly decorated
rectangles of rag paper it calls “dollars.” The Constitution permits
only the use of gold and silver as legal tender. Contrary
to popular assumption, the function of “coining” gold and silver
does not mean that the government was authorized to “issue” money
of any kind.

Financial analyst
and monetary
historian
Bill Denman points out that “coining” money “is simply
a metal stamping process and regulating the value thereof is determining
the size, weight, and firmness of the coin and stamping that information
on its face.”

Section 14
of the 1792 United States Coinage Act specifies that “it shall be
lawful for any person or persons to bring to the mint gold and silver
bullion, in order to their being coined…. And as soon as the said
bullion shall have been coined, the person or persons by whom the
same shall have been delivered, shall upon demand receive in lieu
thereof coins of the same species of bullion which shall have been
so delivered, weight for weight, of the pure gold or pure silver
therein contained….”

“In other words,”
summarizes Denman, “anyone who owns gold and silver bullion (not
just the mining companies) can take it to the mint and have it converted
into certified coins and then spend them into circulation.
It is not necessary to have government, or banks, `issue’ currency”
— that is, it is not necessary under the terms of the Constitution
and the 1792 Coinage Act, which is still in effect.

Under the existing
“legal tender” laws, and the system of inflatable fiat money inflicted
on our nation in 1913, spending constitutional money at the government’s
artificial face value would be imponderably stupid. But the very
existence of government-minted gold and silver coins is usefully
subversive of the official fictions on which the Regime’s fraudulent
monetary system depends.

In 1985, Congress
passed the Gold
Bullion Coin Act
, which instructed the government to mint and
circulate gold coins in denominations of $50, $25, $10, and $5.
This produced an anomalous result: The same government that was
issuing worthless Federal Reserve Note scrip was actually circulating
constitutional currency as well (albeit in a fashion far removed
from that authorized by the Constitution). This created a de facto
dual monetary system, a fact not lost on the Kahres and a few others
who understood the implications.

As Liberty
Watch magazine pointed out more than a year ago
, the supposedly
criminal “tax fraud” practiced by the Kahres was actually perfectly
legal under the dual system created by the feds: Given that there
were two systems with two wildly different standards of value, which
one was the correct standard for measuring taxable income? Nothing
in any law or precedent dictated that it was necessary to use inflated
FRNs for that purpose.

Accordingly,
the Kahres paid their contractors in real money, thereby effectively
wiping out their tax liability under the rules that the government
itself had established. Nothing in federal law (including the “laws”
dealing with the income tax, or federal court precedents) prohibits
what the Kahres did in opting to paying those who did work for them
in real money, and then turning the Regime’s fraud against itself.

It must not
be forgotten, however, that government is a criminal enterprise
that enjoys an effective monopoly on interpreting the laws that
supposedly restrain it.

Tax “evasion”
is a supposed crime that injures nobody but the parasite class,
but that is the class that operates the state’s apparatus of coercion,
extraction, and propaganda.

This is why
on May 29, 2003, a platoon-sized (or larger) paramilitary force,
exhibiting the boldness such people display only when they’re serenely
confident that their targets are unarmed and helpless, assaulted
the Kahre family’s Las Vegas business office.

Acting on a
warrant subsequently found to be legally defective, the strike team,
a pack of militarized mouth-breathers from the FBI and several local
SWAT teams, busted down an unlocked chain-link gate in an
APC before swarming the property.

Computers were
seized; helpless senior citizens and women were brutalized and held
for a prolonged period in 109-degree weather, forbidden to get a
drink or use the bathroom. One of the victims (Kahre’s sister) was
so severely abused that she required medical treatment. Security
cameras were disabled in an unsuccessful effort to suppress the
details of the criminal assault. Kahre himself was arrested by a
separate task force while conducting business at his bank.

All of this
was done, remember, to someone who was not accused of a violent
crime. Had Kahre been a criminal kingpin accused of victimizing
others through violence and fraud, he would have been treated with
much greater deference by the Feds — perhaps as a gesture of “professional
courtesy.”

The same Regime
that has lavished trillions of dollars on politically connected
swindlers at Goldman Sachs has no moral standing — or legal authority
— to punish the Kahres. But when has any criminal oligarchy — be
it Nazi, Soviet, or US-federal — required actual authority to carry
out its crimes?

Like Roland
Freisler, David Ezra is a sycophant in robes, a servant of a dying
Regime.

“You know the
war is lost,” Sophie Scholl chided Freisler during her trial. “Why
don’t you have the courage to face it?”

Ezra is intelligent
enough to recognize the truth about the system whose bidding he
did in sending Robert Kahre: The monetary regime created in 1913
— a system of institutionalized fraud, expropriation, and deceit
in the service of war and tyranny — simply cannot endure. What eventually
replaces it may be something even worse, but its trajectory is set,
and its destruction is inevitable.

I earnestly
hope that Danille Kahre spends every day until the Regime’s overdue
and well-deserved demise tirelessly cultivating within her children
a righteous and proper hatred for it and all of its works and pomps
— as well as a principled contempt for the invertebrate and despicable
specimens who serve it, of whom David Ezra is a suitably wretched
example.

May each of
us blessed with the responsibility of raising children do likewise.

December
2, 2009

William
Norman Grigg [send him mail]
publishes the Pro
Libertate
blog and hosts the Pro
Libertate radio program
.

The
Best of William Norman Grigg

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare