The QAnon kid: a judicial custody coup

How a weaponised court violated civil and constitutional rights to reward a kidnap

Over the last seven years I have suffered multiple civil rights violations because of my outspoken activism, most notably my ‘deplatforming’ and censorship off Amazon, Patreon, Medium, YouTube, Twitter, Mailchimp, and many more services. My ‘crime’ was to exercise my free speech rights to write about Q. These raw intelligence dumps — ‘Q drops’ — form a military backchannel. Among other functions, they act as a catalyst for the public to explore the misdeeds of state-endorsed criminal enterprises. A civilian militia of ‘Anons’ — the modern Pamphleteers and digital Minutemen — use open source intelligence to map these networks and expose them, untainted by surveillance and spying.

Initially the social media hashtag ‘QAnon’ was used to locate other Anons investigating the Q drops, no matter what their take on the matter, be it accepting or skeptical. This label was then hijacked, likely via rogue intelligence agencies covering up their own crimes, using well-worn counter-intelligence techniques. Their controlled public front, the legacy mass media, sang a unified chorus, decrying as deranged and dangerous anyone who looked at primary source data of institutional corruption. The topic of ‘QAnon’ became a live wire in public debate, as the masses were polarised via social engineering.

In September of 2024 I got to see up close a unique family court custody case in America with national and international repercussions. A child had been taken across state lines by its father and step-father in violation of a custody agreement, and not returned when asked by the mother. This is not an uncommon event, and constitutes federal custodial interference and parental kidnapping, both criminal offences, as well as state crimes in both jurisdictions. It also aligns to the State Department definition of familial trafficking, which distinguishes commercial trafficking from other forms of exploitation, such as in this case.

Yet the court rewarded the kidnappers, not even admonishing them, while punishing the mother as if she were a criminal, imposing onerous and punitive conditions upon her relationship with the child. Her only ‘wrongdoing’ was to associate with me, ‘Mr QAnon’ — with all the judicial opprobrium directed at myself for exposing the crime. The offered justification for the kidnap and trafficking of the child was a hypothetical risk of exposure to ‘QAnon belief’s, whether directly from myself, or via the mother. This is a proper scandal — the state-sanctioned theft of a child from its lawful guardian based on protected political speech!

The bulk of such family court hearings are of an ordinary level of social controversy, where the parents who follow the law cannot agree on the basics of custody and contact, and require an adjudicator. Some are high-conflict cases, where there may be abuse, non-compliance, and manipulation of court proceedings. Then there is a level of extreme custody cases, with full-on alienation, fabricated claims, and miscarriages of justice for parents whose rights are trampled. Next up is a level of lawfare with state-level aid for violation of constitutional rights, and judges acting as narrative enforcers, not neutral arbiters.

This case is beyond all of those. You could practise family law for multiple lifetimes and never encounter anything so exceptional. It is that bad.

This case is extreme as it has almost every possible level of institutional failure: manufactured jurisdiction, admitted criminal conduct ignored, political speech used as a pretext for custody removal, the protective parent isolated and asset-stripped, child trafficking criteria fully met and rewarded financially, multiple constitutional violations, naked judicial misfeasance, and officer of the court misconduct. It takes a minor local family dispute, trots straight through federal deprivation of rights under colour of law, then ‘hyperspaces’ it beyond the legal stratosphere, via attachment to domestic terrorism, international war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

It is “so far out there” that military intelligence interest is likely triggered, not that we will ever be told directly.

What makes this case uniquely interesting and important is that it validates the very ‘bogeyman’ story of state-endorsed child trafficking that was attached to the ‘QAnon’ label — which the public was told was bogus. This case not only refutes the media slurs, via an existence proof of persecution. It also repulses the specific ‘QAnon wrap-up smear’ (from the FBI) that was marketed by the media, mislabelling concerned members of the public as potentially violent insurgents, reflecting the J6 debacle.

This case is the epitome of a system that has abandoned all allegiance to constitutional law and equitable jurisprudence in the pursuit of narrative control.

Let’s get the essentials down first, and from the transcript of the hearing establish the baseline that the father who took the child, with the stepfather’s admitted collusion, did so unlawfully.

Counsel: What is your visitation schedule with your daughter according to that schedule?
Father: Two weeks in the month of September.

Counsel: And what is the required notice for scheduling those visitations?
Father: I believe 30 days.

Counsel: Did you give the requisite 30 days notice before you showed up and brought your daughter back to [State] on this previous visit?
…
Father: Yes and no. But for the date. Let's just remember the date that I picked her up. No.

Counsel: No, you did not. So would that be a violation of your order that you were previously ordered by the court?
Father: Yes.

Counsel: Yes? So is a violation of a court order an illegal act?
Father: If that is how the court deems it? Yes.

Counsel: Yes. So if the court deems a violation of an order as an illegal act and that illegal act be taking your child across a state line, would that satisfy the definition of trafficking being illegally moving someone across state lines?
Father: Would it be a violation of the custody order? Yes. Would it meet the definition that you provided of trafficking? Yes.

This isn’t a technical misunderstanding about visitation dates; it is flat-out defiance of an existing court order. Under the United Nations definition (Palermo Protocol), trafficking includes movement of persons (especially minors) for the purpose of exploitation (which includes removal from legal guardianship, concealment, or emotional/financial manipulation). That is what happened here, as the intent was to sever the relationship with the mother.

Under US Federal law (Trafficking Victims Protection Act), trafficking in persons includes:

“The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion…”

When the victim is a child, no coercion is needed to meet the definition. In this instance, we have both transportation and fraud (perjury; false motions; theft of marital assets; deception about residence; violated court orders; manipulated jurisdiction; and intent to exploit for money, control, or isolation).

This is a full-blown child trafficking incident, and the above is an admission to a federal crime, done under oath, repeated verbatim from an official court recording. A child was taken across state lines in violation of a standing custody order, and without knowledge or permission of the custodial parent — a verified parental kidnapping. So who the criminal party is here is not under debate.

Yet… what happened next was a textbook reversal of the victim and offender, and deployment of fifth-generation warfare techniques to discredit and isolate the mother, and distract the bench to focus on myself, someone not a party to the case, and had never met the child in person.

As both men were waging financial war on the mother, leaving her close to penniless, I had raised attorney fees for the civil custody case from my readers, and had accurately named the crime. We will skip over how the mother was being falsely accused of abandoning the child and having no permanent residence: the faking of jurisdiction (and hence ultra vires hearings) deserves a special article of its own. Sticking to the ‘QAnon hysteria’ for now, I was being attacked by opposing counsel for having labelled the kidnap of the child by two men for financial gain as ‘trafficking’, which was admitted to as above.

They had submitted my social media posts and articles as ‘evidence’ of trafficking fanaticism, as if it were innately wrong to accuse a ‘respectable’ professional man of what he actually did. Opposing counsel did their best to paint me as a ‘concern’, a political extremist, defamer, ideologist, unstable, and rabble-rouser. The character assassination campaign covered everything from weather warfare, debt slavery, and child sex trafficking, to adrenochrome harvesting, blood letting, domestic terrorism, visa fraud, delusional belief systems, and influence over a cult-like following — a toxic stew of projection, inversion, and psychological warfare. Insane stuff for someone not actually involved in the case and only sitting at the back of the court as a public observer!

Via my relationship to the mother, I was painted as an unwelcome influence on a minor, messianic delusionist, mobile subversive, parental displacer, and professional manipulator of public opinion.

The father (who did little fathering over the years) had encouraged the turncoat stepfather to testify against his own wife, with both men admitting to colluding. An ethically challenged attorney had decided to aid them to present the crime as the conduct of concerned parents. Now, the problem is that when you actually are a child trafficker, and justify your acts on the basis of these even more heinous crimes, then you voluntarily propel yourself into a whole new league of criminal endeavour and consequences.

The absolute desperation to paint the ‘QAnon conspiracy theorist’ truth-teller in the room as being the wicked one has potential blowback of historic proportions. It is never a good idea to traffic a child, but to weaponise federal and military anti-trafficking initiatives as cover is a special kind of stupid.

This is especially true when the court lacks subject matter and geographic jurisdiction, rendering its orders void ab initio. In this case, the villains have not only surrendered their right to silence, and admitted to familial child trafficking on a formal public record, they have also obstructed national security programs by attacking aligned civilian actors such as myself. It isn’t just abusing a local court via lawfare to steal a child; it is elevating the case into an extension of transnational criminal cartels subject to military tribunal jurisdiction. And for absolutely no gain whatsoever, as the court had no authority in the first place: the child’s home state was not where the court was, and there was no emergency to justify its intervention.

“Not clever” doesn’t begin to describe how epically unfortunate this legal strategy ends as it unravels. Turning a family dispute into a national security issue, corrupting the moral map of a child in the process, is not a wise course of action.

The cruel twist in this case is the so-called ‘temporary’ order issued by the judge, which was a naked political hit-job, guilt by association, and sabotage of the mother’s relationship to the child. He couldn’t cite the QAnon-themed slurs outright, as that is protected speech, and I have committed no crime. Instead, there was a carefully crafted order that offered no rebuke for the actual child trafficking criminals, found no unfitness in the mother, yet transferred custody to the kidnapper. I was chastised for using the ‘trafficking’ word, despite it being exactly the term the Federal government uses in this circumstance, as my usage could imply sex trafficking. The ‘QAnon’ smears were treated as true, without evidence, and acted upon as if I were an existential threat should I ever spend time with a child I had never met.

As with the manufactured jurisdiction, the order is also deserving of deconstruction as a separate article, so people can see how biased judges edit reality to fit a predetermined outcome. I was pilloried in the order as my public fundraising for the mother could lead the child (who has no social media account) to discover that her own father has committed crimes against her, and hence form a negative opinion of him. The mother was banned from saying anything bad about the man, implying she was gagged from telling the child about being a victim of crime.

Mere association with people with “unapproved beliefs” who expose crime makes you “unstable”, “concerning”, and even “defamatory”. The whole case revolved around purported “QAnon” so-called beliefs, not actual understandings of Q or Anons, and definitely not actions. Yet I was not even called to the stand as the acknowledged expert on the topic.

The precedent this case sets is a horrendous one. As it happens, it was an appointed Democrat judge who issued the temporary order, and who was standing for election, yet lost to a Republican, who then doubled down on the injustice. It says that the children of conservatives, people of faith, dissidents, whistleblowers, and outcasts are targets for removal under judicial cover. You don’t need to prove any harm to the child, or demonstrate any wrongful behaviour. All you need to do is utter the socially acceptable call sign for ideological non-conformism — ‘QAnon’, ‘antivaxxer’, ‘homeschooler’, ‘radical’, ‘anti-government’, ‘gun nut’, ‘social media influencer’, ‘prepper’ — and custody is to be removed.

That is an extremely dangerous step to take: any semblance of equal justice under the law is eliminated. As the mother testified: “We cannot allow stolen custody to become earned custody with enough time and manipulation. When perceived stability is obtained via deceit, it is neither legally nor morally sustainable.”

Are family courts enforcers of narrative, or arbiters of law? The stealing of the ‘QAnon kid’ tells us that they are acting as the former, while offering a simulation of the latter. This particular case is a potential landmark civil rights matter, as it has an exceptionally clean evidence chain, admitted criminal conduct that is rewarded, and multiple severe constitutional breaches. If judicially-aided and politically-motivated child kidnapping is allowed to stand, then society is heading into a very dangerous place. Allowing those who expose trafficking to be punished, while the perpetrators get paydays, is wickedness.

Yet what they fear most is exposure, and your attention of this matter is already helping to put an end to it. Please spread the word far and wide — as your own children or grandchildren could be next.

I had a chocolate milkshake. With whipped cream.