Time: Sat Feb 08 17:32:06 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21088; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:30:35 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 17:25:56 -0800 To: <ncbarpts@earthnet.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: "The Lawless Rehnquist" Cc: [address in tool bar] [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] "The Lawless Rehnquist" by John E. Trumane January 28, 1997 William H. Rehnquist is a lawless man. In a lecture today at the University of Arizona's Law School, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that federal judges should be punished for serious crimes, like tax evasion. A student then drew his attention to the Supreme Court's decision in 1920 which immunized those judges from income taxes. The U.S. Constitution specifically guarantees that their pay shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Rehnquist then replied, "There has been a change in doctrine." The class has now been barred from discussing any contemporary issues, on orders from the Law School's Dean of Academic Affairs. What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it. Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes. The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the boundaries of any particular State. They are territories, possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone. A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious. In his discussion of John Marshall's immense contribution to the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Chief Justice made an important point of discussing the role of dissenting opinions by other members of the high Court. When queried about contemporary practices, however, the Chief Justice deferred the matter to the end of the class. It was then that the Dean of Academic Affairs explained that contemporary practices would be off-limits, on orders from Rehnquist. Is the Chief Justice becoming a bit sensitive about dissent, particularly when those dissenters sit beside him, and decide to oppose him? Consider, for a moment, the words of Justice Harlan, whose brilliant dissent in Downes v. Bidwell has already earned him a permanent place of well deserved honor in American history. Listen to Harlan explain why the slim 5-to-4 majority in that case was wrong, flat wrong. Quoting now: "The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially and practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. "I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. "It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. And so, against these immensely moving words, we judge the Chief Justice to be a lawless radical, bent on destroying the very constitution which he is sworn to uphold. When presented with clear authority that federal judges cannot be taxed, including a seminal decision in 1920 which upheld the immunity, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment, Rehnquist glibly states that there has been a "change in doctrine" [sic]. How wonderful! What he is saying, in effect, is that the Supreme Court has aggrandized to itself the baseless power to invent doctrines according as the wind should blow, not according to the wishes of the very People who ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America, the People whom he should serve. The net result is low fascism, and it is high time we faced the terrible truth about our lawless government leaders. For fascism arrives without fanfare, like tooth decay or dry rot, creeping in, behind closed walls, until the very foundation is washed away, forever. This author received today proof that federal judges are now being blackmailed. In the 1930's, newly appointed federal judges were forced to sign contracts agreeing to the income tax, or they simply were not appointed. Despite the clear and established immunity against taxation of their pay, federal judges are now being presented with the following criminal choice: either agree in writing to waive your fundamental immunity, or forget about serving as a federal judge. Forget about integrity; forget about judicial independence; forget about justice. You may attain the lofty title of Justice, but you will enjoy that title in name only. It is no wonder that well in excess of 80% of the American People are now disgusted with government, and all of its agents. Our Chief Justice is clearly a criminal if he continues to advocate taxation of federal judges, in the face of supreme laws which maintain the contrary. Federal judges are also heavy investors in the United States Prison Industries, now the fifth largest enterprise of the whole American economy. Need we say any more? Yes, we need to say more, because the incarceration rate in the land of the free is now the highest in the world, by wide margins. You can thank William H. Rehnquist for that honorable distinction. None will dare to call it treason. # # # Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\LAWLESS.wp5" ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ====================================================================From ???@??? Sat Feb 08 17:32:06 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21088; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:30:35 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 17:25:56 -0800 To: <ncbarpts@earthnet.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: "The Lawless Rehnquist" Cc: [address in tool bar] [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] "The Lawless Rehnquist" by John E. Trumane January 28, 1997 William H. Rehnquist is a lawless man. In a lecture today at the University of Arizona's Law School, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that federal judges should be punished for serious crimes, like tax evasion. A student then drew his attention to the Supreme Court's decision in 1920 which immunized those judges from income taxes. The U.S. Constitution specifically guarantees that their pay shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Rehnquist then replied, "There has been a change in doctrine." The class has now been barred from discussing any contemporary issues, on orders from the Law School's Dean of Academic Affairs. What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it. Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes. The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the boundaries of any particular State. They are territories, possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone. A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious. In his discussion of John Marshall's immense contribution to the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Chief Justice made an important point of discussing the role of dissenting opinions by other members of the high Court. When queried about contemporary practices, however, the Chief Justice deferred the matter to the end of the class. It was then that the Dean of Academic Affairs explained that contemporary practices would be off-limits, on orders from Rehnquist. Is the Chief Justice becoming a bit sensitive about dissent, particularly when those dissenters sit beside him, and decide to oppose him? Consider, for a moment, the words of Justice Harlan, whose brilliant dissent in Downes v. Bidwell has already earned him a permanent place of well deserved honor in American history. Listen to Harlan explain why the slim 5-to-4 majority in that case was wrong, flat wrong. Quoting now: "The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially and practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. "I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. "It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. And so, against these immensely moving words, we judge the Chief Justice to be a lawless radical, bent on destroying the very constitution which he is sworn to uphold. When presented with clear authority that federal judges cannot be taxed, including a seminal decision in 1920 which upheld the immunity, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment, Rehnquist glibly states that there has been a "change in doctrine" [sic]. How wonderful! What he is saying, in effect, is that the Supreme Court has aggrandized to itself the baseless power to invent doctrines according as the wind should blow, not according to the wishes of the very People who ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America, the People whom he should serve. The net result is low fascism, and it is high time we faced the terrible truth about our lawless government leaders. For fascism arrives without fanfare, like tooth decay or dry rot, creeping in, behind closed walls, until the very foundation is washed away, forever. This author received today proof that federal judges are now being blackmailed. In the 1930's, newly appointed federal judges were forced to sign contracts agreeing to the income tax, or they simply were not appointed. Despite the clear and established immunity against taxation of their pay, federal judges are now being presented with the following criminal choice: either agree in writing to waive your fundamental immunity, or forget about serving as a federal judge. Forget about integrity; forget about judicial independence; forget about justice. You may attain the lofty title of Justice, but you will enjoy that title in name only. It is no wonder that well in excess of 80% of the American People are now disgusted with government, and all of its agents. Our Chief Justice is clearly a criminal if he continues to advocate taxation of federal judges, in the face of supreme laws which maintain the contrary. Federal judges are also heavy investors in the United States Prison Industries, now the fifth largest enterprise of the whole American economy. Need we say any more? Yes, we need to say more, because the incarceration rate in the land of the free is now the highest in the world, by wide margins. You can thank William H. Rehnquist for that honorable distinction. None will dare to call it treason. # # # Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\LAWLESS.wp5" ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ====================================================================From ???@??? Sat Feb 08 17:32:21 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22474; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:34:05 -0700 (MST) with NJE id 5066 for AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:36:10 -0700 V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7959; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:36:10 -0700 V2R3) with TCP; Sat, 08 Feb 97 16:36:09 MST (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAB11109 for <AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:33:53 +0000 Message-ID: <19970208233349.AAB11109@LOCALNAME> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:34:06 -0700 From: Paul Nixon <colt45@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Subject: Re: Quote To: Multiple recipients of list AZRKBA <AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU> > >This is from Cesare Brecaria's "Of Crimes and Punishment" >Thomas Jefferson was very fond of this book and quoted it >often. Ah. Thank you, sir. I knew someone amoung the learned hereabouts would be able to answer my query.
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail