In my sixty-six years I have been witness to the diminishment of freedom and liberty in my state and my country. At the federal level we have statutes and even whole divisions of government never contemplated by the founders, much less authorized in the constitution’s Article I, section 8 defining the limited powers of the national government. Vermont has mirrored the federal excess.

Of even greater concern is the administration of our laws. Our attorney general is supposed to defend the state, but has not sued the federal government for assailing the health care programs our legislature has created. Worse yet, with some 80 attorneys scattered in every department of government, the equal access to justice is unbalanced with some civil offences taking priority over more serious matters. The progressive candidate wants greater enforcement and more regulation of the clean water and clean air acts, further reducing opportunities for jobs in Vermont as her backers in CLF desire. Particularly irksome is the republican candidate alleging I am not qualified for attorney general to LSC republicans. Sadly I was not invited to the publicly funded AG debate on VPR to refute the lie. Yet, he has only been in Vermont for three years and has far fewer legal degrees than I do and much less relevant experience. His is limited to a small corner of his duties as an assistant states attorney.

Vermont needs some fresh air in the attorney general’s office where too often political concerns have determined prosecutorial discretion.

With a BS in engineering, a license in many states as a PE, a masters in environmental law, a doctorate in law, a certificate in dispute resolution, and studies for an LLM in human rights and international law where I was on the law review, the republican candidate for attorney general has the nerve to call me unqualified to the college republicans at LSC. He is also the one who after promising to appear for the only televised debate on CCTV in Burlington, failed to appear so he could lie to students. In addition to all this I have a great deal of practical legal experience, arguing before the 2nd circuit and practicing in the international forum. Moreover, I have executive experience in and out of government, which is why I argue that I would bring the 80 AG’s into one office to better allocate resources. Additionally, I would join the many suits to overturn the federal health care bill which undermines the work of our legislature because it is a duty of the office. I certainly would not opt for greater enforcement and more law as the progressive seeks with her backers, the CLF.

There are few opportunities for voters to look at what is perceived as the down ticket office of attorney general, resulting in the continuation in office of someone who does not serve as a servant of the people. A great deal of explanation is needed to understand that the only statewide office not in the Vermont Constitution is in reality, perhaps the most powerful elected office in the state because prosecutorial discretion allows political considerations to intervene in the dispensing of justice. But I digress owing to my desire for substantial justice without procedural justice allowing a soft on crime regime to flower.

The video of the debate is below…

But before you spend the time to watch the whole thing, let me set the stage for you. The invitees were Progressive Charlotte Dennette, Liberty Union (now revealed to be socialist) Rosemarie Jackowski, Libertarian Karen Kerin, Democrat William Sorrell, and Republican Aaron Toscano. Jackowski did not attend, but sent a garbled statement that moderator Eli Harrington, program director from the Vermont Council on World Affairs, read for the viewers. Toscano, who had promised to attend, did not show up. I learned the next morning that he instead attended a college republican event. That left me facing the two big statists, Sorrell and Dennette.

Although it was not apparent due to the format, it is easy to dispose of CLF shill Dennette as a serious candidate because she ignores the US Constitution. She rants about the clean water act and the clean air act, neither of which are within the powers the constitution provides in Article I, Clause 8. While we all want clean air and water, it is clearly a matter for the states and the people who may be aggrieved by the actions of a particular property owner; and they have recourse legally in the courts.

Dean appointee and soft on crime Sorrell is equally easy to dispose of. Before delving into our differences legally, I must address his response to getting more bangs for the buck from his office as ridiculous in these economic times because he indicated a need for more staffing, while I made him cringe by proposing bringing all the attorneys general under one roof so allocation of resources could be more efficiently utilized. This demonstrates the difference between someone with real world management experience and a political appointee who has been there too long. At a cited cost of over $50,000.00 per year per prison bed, the question of defining non-violent offenders was sought as a question. Both of the liberals spoke about court diversion and other wishy-washy programs, when the Vermont constitution very clearly calls for “hard labor”. I pointed out that there are many tasks not being performed by the state that these offenders could be providing, and then needing only a dormitory to house them and feed them for their sentences, freeing the prisons for the violent and dangerous criminals.

Asked to explain why we were running under our party affiliation, I was stunned to hear Sorrell launch into his mother’s role in democrat politics, almost as if he does not share that party’s views. It is curious indeed that he has no better understanding. I explained that I am a libertarian because that most clearly represents what our founders of the nation and state embraced, liberty as long as it resulted in no harm to others and the dispensing of justice if harm results. Shockingly, Sorrell launched into his ideations concerning prevention, causing me to cringe in horror at the notion of offending the first amendment by making thoughts, words and actions wrongful in his eyes. God save us from such thinking. Other questions that we never got to would have led these two drones ever deeper into the statist swamp so it was fortunate for them we did not get there.

The summary statements were of the same ilk by the other two, but mine was laser like pointing out that Sorrell had been there too long and pointedly stating that his ideation of prevention is not law. I also chastised Dennette regarding VY, as I was fortunate enough to be one of the engineers on the project and fully understand that the reactor and its turbines are good for 100 years, despite the cooling towers leaking river water that is used to cool the process water that is in stainless steel piping to maintain the de-ionized water that is a must for the reactor system to not carry radioactivity. So VY is really very safe. The nonsense about having more hydro dams completely ignores both conservation and environmental concerns as it prevents migratory fish from making it back to their spawning grounds. I cited the loss of Atlantic salmon, shad, and at least one other species of fish that used to be found in abundance, but in declining numbers in the White River in my lifetime. Finally, I hammered Sorrell for claiming to protect families, when he has done nothing to protect children and the elderly. Apparently, they do not count as a part of the family, but not surprising since he had no response to the cyber crime problem that is defrauding the elderly without even the FBI caring because it emanates from outside the US. Please do watch the video.

Karen Kerin was interviewed by The Woodchuck Report’s Bonnie Scott.

Topics discussed include the office of Vermont attorney general, property rights, gun rights, healthcare, commerce clause, stare decisis, permits, government employee pay and more…

A government of, for and by the people threw off the nobility of the England, but the yoke has again been put on us by a mere union – the lawyers bar. And it is crystal clear when one considers that to be an appointed judge; one must first be a member of the bar for some years; the only importance of which is to learn the procedure that prevails today in place of sustenance. It even reaches to the U. S. Supreme Court. If you doubt it, consider the “commerce clause” that is the alleged source of authority for many statutes we detest. The commerce clause came about and was a driving force for the constitutional convention, because the states were trying to tax one another as was seen in the NY & NJ battles over ferrying rights.

Article III, section 2 of the constitution reads, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority…” Nothing in the constitution gives the courts the right to make law. That has not deterred the court from expanding on the commerce clause far beyond its original intent. For example, the Roosevelt administration enacted a law requiring an allocation from the Agricultural department for producing certain crops. In Wickard v. Filburn, the court not only did not hold the law unconstitutional, but instead ruled that the farmer, who was growing wheat on his own land for his own use had violated the law, because he was disturbing the “stream of commerce’’. The court has grown the commerce clause into the monster that has eaten our economy, spawning numerous laws that have no legitimacy under constitutional scrutiny. The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, and even the Obamacare foray into single payer socialized medicine are but a few of the examples of statutes lacking constitutional authority, but claiming cover under the Supreme Court expansion of the commerce clause.

None of this could happen without the tacit approval of the bar. Despite their oath to protect and defend the constitution, lawyers have doggedly pursued court rulings as if they were law. Why? It makes their job a mystery to the laity because the laity does not have ready access to the court rulings. When one looks at the plain language of the constitution and when in doubt refers to the original intent that is easily obtained by asking for it at the library of congress, one realizes that the bar has hoodwinked the people. This is somewhat surprising because the law schools teach that “case law” is not law, but may be persuasive. To be persuasive it must be vey nearly congruent and one must accept the notion of “stare decisis”; the legal doctrine that says once decided a matter should not be upset. Is it any wonder that Shakespeare said, “First kill all the lawyers?” He was more prescient than more modern playwrights. He must turn in his grave reading legal briefs today that are larded with citations to case law, with rarely reference to the constitution that is in fact the supreme law of the land as stated in Article VI, clause 2 of the constitution.

Can we reverse this terrible state of affairs? While we still have the ballot, we can elect members of congress who will pass legislation requiring the courts to adhere only to the plain language of the constitution and the original intent of the founders. Congress can also specifically overturn the commerce clause beyond the original purpose of preventing the states from taxing each other. Indeed, if the commerce clause is restored to its original purpose, we could buy health insurance in any state, increase competition, enhance the free market and save people countless dollars. But the bottom line is the voters need to wake up and put the fifth column in its place by voting for people who will support the constitution.

Never before in the history of the republic, has anything as egregious as the appointment of a dictator of our medical care occurred. Alas, the grinding efforts of the current administration have come almost full circle with the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency charged with implementing Obama care’s socialized medicine. Not one hearing before the Senate for confirmation was held, nor was any even scheduled. Yet, we now have a literal dictator that has praised England’s socialized health care system. (Note: I have had first hand experience with that system and it is truly frightening in its sweep of non-care. I was, under objection, given what was reportedly a physical consisting of my blood pressure, my temperature, weight, height and my medical history. That is far from my annual physical in this country and far from discerning any possible problems for early intervention.)

Under Obama care, there is supposed to be a 50% reduction in Medicare, shifting costs to Medicaid. How many of us can afford such a reduction in medical care? I am 66 years old and have private insurance that likely will go away as cost shifting makes my insurance unaffordable. Will you fare any better? We should all be complaining loudly to congress. While it likely will fall on deaf ears, please consider the fall back position and elect me as the Vermont Attorney General so I can sue to end this travesty along with the many other states doing so.

I need your support and your contributions so I can counter the media that favors socialized medicine. Contributions are very limited in Vermont to a maximum of $400.00, but I am far more interested in many small contributions. My web site, www.karenkerin.com, lists various ways you can help and contribute. Please help me help stop this destruction of the insurance we were compelled to pay for before we are cheated again. Please tell yours friends, neighbors and relatives of the horror that we face.

Nothing is more distressing than injustice where justice should prevail. Yet the evidence demonstrates that is the state of affairs nationally and in Vermont. Most recently, we have a Justice Department lawyer in the civil rights division resigning a top career job because political leadership dismissed a case of voter intimidation in Philadelphia by the “new black panthers” after the case was already won. The story is even worse as racial matters further make the case an outrage. There have been claims of voter irregularities in Vermont, but between the Secretary of State (a liberal lawyer) and the attorney general, the issues have died without any media pursuit of the truth. It gets worse.

In several instances of police shootings where considerable evidence suggested wrongful actions by the police, the attorney general found no wrongful actions. In one case in Brattleboro, a civil case resulted in a cash settlement. Yes, life has a worth in dollars in the eyes of the legal system, but justice can’t be had. More recently, another mentally disadvantaged person was shot and killed by a SWAT team of state police. It gets worse. The father, step mother and brother hastening to the scene are intercepted and handcuffed with the father being arrested and charged, although the charges were ultimately dropped. What were they being prevented from seeing? We will never know as a following law suit by the father resulted in a loss to him based on testimony by the very officers that shot his son. Does it sound suspicious? The media apparently didn’t think so as they have been largely mute.

To practice law, you must be a member of the bar, the lawyers union. You cannot be a judge unless you are a member of the bar for some years. Virtually all of the states attorneys are members of the bar and an increasing number the side judges are members although there is no legal requirement for membership in either. The attorney general, the only state wide officer not in the Vermont Constitution, is not required to be a member of the bar, but certainly should know the law and particularly the constitutions of the state and nation. That is not what we see in the courts, where so called “case law” is cited as authority. It is not authority and even the law schools teach that it isn’t, but it may be persuasive according to the so called mainstream of legal thinking. Spend some time around a law school and you will soon discover that the mainstream of legal thinking is what the liberal professors there think.
Our justice system needs help.

Many people do not realize that the constitution does not give the bar control of the judiciary.  Yet, unless someone is a member of the bar, they cannot be a judge or countermand the so called mainstream legal thinking.  That mainstream is frequently in direct contradiction to Article III authority in the constitution.  Karen will work hard to reverse that and restore the government to the people.  It is after all our government, not a new nobility of elites.

For sixty-six years I have been a staunch republican, but over the last few years I have been astonished at how many office holders elected as republicans embraced a different philosophy. The ideal of less government, lower taxes and less regulation of our lives, appeared to fall by the wayside, when it seemed advantageous for a republican to sacrifice principles to stay in office. I did not come to this easily. It was the product of examining the votes of legislators in view of the enormous growth of the body of laws. The evidence is beyond dispute.

When I was born, four months before D-Day, Vermont Statutes were a single volume about three inches thick. That held steady until the early 1960’s when the laws began to mushroom, ending with our current “Vermont Statutes Annotated” occupying three of my bookshelves. By what constitutional provision do annotations (prior court decisions) attain the status of law? How in the world did it suddenly become necessary to have such a prodigious growth of law in less than fifty years? The answer is in many parts.

First of all, the supreme law of the land is the U. S. Constitution per Article VI, Clause 2. By extension, the supreme law of Vermont must be the Vermont Constitution, as far as it is in conformity with the supreme law of the land. Any statute, whether federal or state that is contrary to the constitutions is without authority, although that is not the same as unconstitutional because the power to make that declaration resides with the courts when the machinery of government works properly and an offended party brings suit. It is the constitutions that represent the standards by which I must examine the government and the elected people who comprise the operators of that government. Clearly, as evidenced by the enormous growth of government and Vermont laws, the two major parties have not been faithful to the constitutions because legislation bringing us to this bloated government could only happen with the agreement of the two.

Second, there has been a huge shift of authority away from a government of, for and by the people to a government of professional politicians, the lawyers union and bureaucrats. Elections have become nothing of substance and all about popularity and slick PR. Obviously, the ability of large parties makes possible slick PR with political science majors and advertising gurus conjuring 4-5 word catch phrases that get repeated endlessly. That is particularly destructive of good law and too often stands in direct contradiction to the constitutions. Most annoying is one third of our government is only open to the members of the lawyers union, also called the bar. Nothing in the constitution of the nation or the state authorizes this surrender of a critical part of the government to a new nobility, after the founders fought to get us free of the one in England. I care nothing about lawyers and their mainstream of legal thinking today, as the measure must and always be the constitution.

Third and finally, after many years of being in the chorus, I have finally recognized that the incessant bickering and finger pointing between the two major parties serves only one purpose. That purpose is to distract us from what they are doing. The media loves it because it gives them instant stories. We, the people, are poorly served as the distraction keeps us from observing the facts and it is the facts that are making a wreckage of our constitutional republic.

As a libertarian attorney general, I will work in a non-partisan way to restore the laws to what the people have always thought they were, so help me God.

I do not consider myself to be a politician, but I do abide by the unwritten rule of not speaking ill of an opponent. That said I must express my disgust with both state and federal government:

• Lawmakers have enacted a health care bill federally that purports to compel folks to purchase health insurance to be funded by others, unlike Medicare which is available only to people who have paid for their social security. It is pretty clear that the scheme will drive out many practicing doctors and no law can force them to practice medicine. What kind of nonsense is federal legislation and the state knock off of that legislation? Doctors may refuse to treat such patients lacking either regular insurance or Medicare. That is useless a division of the people as senior citizens are denied Medicare benefits they paid for and younger folks are taxed more heavily to support the schemes of the lawmakers.

 

• When Mexican President Calderon spoke to a joint session of Congress roundly condemning Arizona for passing a law to help protect their citizens, I was appalled to see my president and most of the congressional members applaud him. It particularly upset me to discover that all three of our congressional members were among those rising to applaud. It is outrageous that any member of congress would applaud a foreign leader attacking one of our united states. While it is not treason, and might be tough to make a case that it is seditious, it is certainly in very bad taste not befitting a Vermonter as well as unethical.

 

• The energy bill congress is currently considering will cause a dramatic increase in costs to all of us for heating, transportation, and electric power. And then, we have the current off shore well in the Gulf with the oil spewing from the sunken drill rig. Shockingly, those very deep well rigs are not being allowed to explore in the shallower off shore areas because environmental groups oppose such safer drilling. Clearly, the environmental groups deserve a share of the blame. In Vermont the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is denied an operating license renewal by renegade legislators. Why, when that will increase the cost of electricity for Vermonters? Would it not be smarter to continue using Yankee until there are inexpensive alternatives? In fact, there are at least two viable alternative small scale nukes that would comport with distributed generation, thus reducing the need for high voltage power lines running over the mountains while providing GREEN energy for communities seeking lower costs.

 

• Vermont has a swarm of unelected boards, commissions, and advisory entities that seem to stand athwart any opportunities for businesses to provide opportunities. Indeed, the courts seem to support these groups when they block any development. In the early 1960’s there was only one book of Vermont Statutes, but today there are three bookshelves of “Vermont Statutes Annotated”. The annotations are the comments of unknown editors citing Supreme Court decisions as if they were law, (case law the lawyers call it). In fact, the court does not make law for that is the job of the legislators, yet reading court documents one finds them peppered with citations to court rulings on the thin claim that they are persuasive. That is patently false. The founders accepted the court having the power to declare a statute unconstitutional, but that is the extent of their law making and unmaking powers. Why should Vermont accept this nonsense which flies in the face of a government of, for and by the people? It is our government, not belonging to the lawyers union, but to the people and it is causing terrible hardship in the Green Mountains.

Q: Why isn’t the Vermont Attorney General in the Vermont Constitution as a state-wide office?

A: That is a fair question, for which there is no provable answer. It has been speculated that after the state supreme court did the updates to the constitution, they either felt it was outside of their mandate or consciously determined to keep that office under the thumb of the court. It is only possible for the court to control the AG if he or she is a member of the bar, which Karen is not.