New Hampshire Woman Charged With Impersonating Prosecutor To Drop Her Own Case

Lisa Landon

We have seen plenty of people arrested for impersonating police officers but Lisa Landon, 33, is accused of the fairly rare crime of impersonating a prosecutor to get her own charges dropped in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire.  It may have worked except for an expert who inquired if she was no longer needed for a competency evaluation on Landon.  It turns out the need may be greater than ever.

Landon was facing charges of stalking and possession of methamphetamine.  She then filed as a prosecutor in three cases to dismiss the charges in last November and December. This was done through the court electronic filing system.

She then allegedly got carried away with her new authority and filed an order falsifying a decision to waive filing fees in a lawsuit against Hillsborough County as well as an order on behalf of a relative to halt guardianship proceedings involving Landon’s child.

She now faces one charge of false personation and six charges of falsifying physical evidence as well as indictments of burglary and theft.

Prosecutors are not mentioned in the state code but clearly fall under the “law enforcement” category:

104:28-a False Personation. – Any person who knowingly and falsely assumes or exercises the functions, powers, duties, or privileges incident to the office of sheriff, deputy sheriff, state police officer, police officer of any city or town, or any other law enforcement officer or investigator employed by any state, country or political subdivision of a state or country, or who wears or displays without authority any uniform, badge, or other identification by which such sheriff, officer, or investigator is lawfully identified, and with the intent to be recognized as such, shall be guilty of a class B felony.

 

 

 

17 thoughts on “New Hampshire Woman Charged With Impersonating Prosecutor To Drop Her Own Case”

  1. It appears the court electronic filing system has an issue with identity verification.

    Because verifying someone’s identity matters, whether it’s notarizing a document, voting, or filing court papers.

  2. I have to tip my hat to her and her chutzpah. This audacity has to be admired for all of the wrong reasons…..8^)

  3. I visit the Turley blog because I am eminently confidant that I will perceive an accurate presentation of law and it’s “manifest tenor” which Professor Turley accomplished in this very article.

    For example, the “manifest tenor” of 104:28-a False Personation as cited by Professor Turley herein:

    104:28-a False Personation. – Any person who knowingly and falsely assumes or exercises the functions, powers, duties, or privileges incident to the office of sheriff, deputy sheriff, state police officer, police officer of any city or town, or any other law enforcement officer or investigator employed by any state, country or political subdivision of a state or country, or who wears or displays without authority any uniform, badge, or other identification by which such sheriff, officer, or investigator is lawfully identified, and with the intent to be recognized as such, shall be guilty of a class B felony.

    The related perpetrator has clearly committed a crime.
    ___________________________________________

    Professor Turley, please take a moment to assess and describe the clear English language, the “manifest tenor,” in Article 1, Section 8 below:

    Article 1, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;…
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    We can all read that, in the sphere of public assistance, Congress has the power to tax for ONLY “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth.

    We can all read and know, definitively, what was included and excluded.

    General is most succinctly defined as ALL, ergo, “…general Welfare…” includes only commodities and services used by all people such as roads, water, post office, electricity, sewer, telephone, trash pick-up, etc., or those which cannot reasonably be provided by free enterprise in the private sector, which has varied with the passage of time.

    Laws and programs that provide any form of financial assistance for individuals, or groups smaller than ALL, are unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, cash payments, food stamps, rent control, social services, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., – substantially expensive programs all.
    ___________________

    Additionally, referring to its “manifest tenor,” if the Constitution requires merely a “citizen” for Congress or the Senate, how and why does it differentiate between the requirement for a “natural born citizen” for president?

    Were the Founders engaged in whimsy and folly when they made use of the phrase, “natural born citizen,” from the text of the Law of Nations, 1758, which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting…” according to a letter written by Ben Franklin in 1775, and which was quoted in the Jay/Washington letter of 1787?

    If the Constitution does not reference a superior form of citizenship, “natural born citizen,” why does the Constitution state “natural born citizen” rather than merely “citizen” in its presidential requirement?

    If Kamala Harris is a “natural born citizen,” who is NOT?

  4. This woman would have been better off if she impersonated the DA, she could have collected money from George Soros and get paid for her troubles.

  5. dangers of “e-filing.” regular clerks eyeballing papers in the real three dimensional world, would have caught this before it fooled anybody. but that’s now “the old days”

  6. I don’t see anything wrong with this. If a man can become a women because he wants to, why can’t this twit become a prosecutor??? And here is an interesting thought! If she is sent to prison for this, will the state provide here with free college and law school so that she can “transition” into a Prosecutor??? Because they do for trannies.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. You embody the truism that it is better to keep your mouth shut and allow people to imagine you are an idiot, than to open it and prove you are.

    2. I concur. If Americans may be compelled to give over wealth in the form of affirmative action with reference to matriculation and employment, for example, a criminal should be allowed to “take the law into his own hands.” That should be eminently logical when cycled through the powerful cognitive processes of communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

  7. Not “we then filed” but “she then filed.” If your proofreader were as adept at proofreading as he is at censorship, it might be as well.

Leave a Reply