Taxing compensation of federal judges held to be unconstitutional in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)
----- Forwarded Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:26 PM
Subject: taxing compensation of federal judges held to be unconstitutional in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)
> I have a Senator from Rhode Island choking on his own words,
> time to nail him with this info.
Here you need to understand that the Performance Management and Recognition System
("PMRS") is STILL found in the Internal Revenue Manual, EVEN THOUGH
Congress repealed that program in 1993:
Recommend to Treasury, monetary awards of $10,001–$25,000
($5,001 or more for Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) Cash Awards)
for any one individual or group
Recommend an additional monetary award of $10,000
(total $35,000) to the President through Treasury.
So, Federal Judges as a whole want the world to think that
they too are paying their "fair share" -- all the while the IRS
is greasing their pockets to the tune of $25,000 CASH
for every INDICTMENT of a tax protester, and another
$25,000 CASH for every conviction of a tax protester.
(Never mind that the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998 prohibits the IRS from branding anyone as a
"tax protester or any similar designation".)
The President gets $35,000 CASH for each such INDICTMENT
and another $35,000 CASH for each such conviction:
> You have stated in your material that by congressional mandate,
> no federal judge can be taxed.
> Can you provide that mandate and where to find it?
Article III as interpreted correctly in Evans v. Gore:
Here the Constitution expressly forbids diminution of the judge's compensation, meaning, as we have shown, diminution by taxation as well as otherwise. The taxing act directs that the compensation -- the full sum, with no deduction for expenses -- be included in computing the net income, on which the tax is laid. If the compensation be the only income, the tax falls on it alone; and, if there be other income, the inclusion of the compensation augments the tax accordingly. In either event the compensation suffers a diminution to the extent that it is taxed.
There have been specious efforts and propaganda claims
that the precedent in Evans v. Gore was overturned;
however, my office disputes every one of those bogus claims
chiefly because the holding in Evans v. Gore was correct --
for all of the solid reasons stated in that judicial precedent --
and because of the true meaning of "judicial precedent"
as explained in the Anastasoff decision here:
(latter got me thrown OFF the campus of the Univ. of Arizona!)
(discusses the PMRS "kick-back racket")
Appellant expressly claims the fundamental Right to courts
of competent jurisdiction, with presiding judge(s) who qualify by
Law. The prohibition against taxing judicial pay is one such
qualification. See 3:1. Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), is
now controlling, notwithstanding the so-called 16th amendment,
because said "amendment" never repealed 3:1. Repeals by
implication are not favored. See U.S. v. Hicks, [cite omitted]
(9th Cir. 1991). The only reference to "Immunity", as such, is
found in the Clause which guarantees Privileges and Immunities to
Citizens in the several states, like Appellant. See 4:2:1.
Appellant argues that no federal judge is presently
qualified to preside on the instant cases, even for
preliminaries, whose pay is being diminished by federal income
taxes. See also Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965),
which admitted undue influence upon federal judges by the IRS.
Evans has never been overturned (see Shepard's Citations),
notwithstanding a UCLA Law Review article which alleges the
contrary: "The Constitutional Guaranty against Diminution of
Judicial Compensation," Vol. 24, Dec. 1976, p. 308 at 332, n. 94.
C.J. William H. Rehnquist has argued, before the University of
Arizona Law School in January of 1997, that Evans supra was
overturned by O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
Appellant disputes the main holding in O'Malley supra, for being
predicated upon the following two false and rebuttable premises:
(1) there is only one class of citizens (there are 2); and,
(2) all federal judges are citizens of either class (but no
federal law requires judges to be citizens at all).
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Hello Mr. Mitchell,
You have stated in your material that by congressional mandate, no federal judge can be taxed. Can you provide that mandate and where to find it? I have a Senator from Rhode Island chocking on his own words, time to nail him with this info.
Would you like to make a nice residual income? Get started today! Team up with Alex Jones' Infowars - Youngevity Business Team for ultimate health, wealth and happiness!