Time: Sat May 10 13:55:17 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA09980; Sat, 10 May 1997 11:11:26 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA11683; Sat, 10 May 1997 11:11:19 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:54:09 -0700 To: fwolist@sportsmen.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Article III Judges (not nomme de guerre) >> <snip> > >>> Various post have given the false impression that a Federal >>> Article III judge is vested with the Judicial Power of the >>> United States. This is not true. If you read Article III sec. 1 >>> of the Federal Constitution it clearly says the Judicial Power >>> of the United States is Vested in certain Courts not the >>> Judges of those Courts. What a patriot needs to do is establish >>> he is in a Court in possession of the Judicial Power of the >>> United States. Do this and the Judge is bound to follow the >>> procedures of such a court. The condition that the Judge pays >>> Income tax is immaterial. > > >> Objection. This contradicts the holding >> in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920). >> C.J. Rehnquist admitted, before a class >> of the University of Arizona Law School, >> that ALL federal judges are currently >> paying federal income taxes on their pay. >> Why is that? See "The Lawless Rehnquist" >> in the Supreme Law Library at URL: > >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Objection overruled. > >Paul has already been informed that Evans has had the teeth taken >out of it by repudiation, as well as Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 >(1939) being overturned. Do more research Paul. I already have, and I was waiting for this retort, which I fully expected, and counter below. /s/ Paul Mitchell Oh yea, and keep >your mouth shut unless you know what you're talking about, okay. UCLA Law Review cited O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277, for repudiating both Evans and Miles by holding that a non-discriminatory general income tax may be applied to federal judges without diminishing judicial compensation within the meaning of the compensation clause. See Vol. 24, pages 308-350. But, this is the language from the UCLA Law Review. In contrast, the O'Malley decision was founded on false and rebuttable premises: 1. that there is only one class of citizen (there are two); and, 2. that all judges are citizens, when there is no law requiring that a judge be a citizen of either class. As my original mentor said: "Read the cases." For these reasons, O'Malley is ill-founded and is being challenged in all our litigation on this subject. See "The Lawless Rehnquist" in the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com As for the rest of your comment above, I will not grace it with a response. /s/ Paul Mitchell ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail