c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE January 22, 1997 Disclosure Officer Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, D.C. Subject: Hon. James H. Hancock Dear Disclosure Officer: Please provide Us, as soon as possible, with a certified copy of the credentials of one James H. Hancock, employed as a federal district judge in the United States District Court ("USDC") for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division. Judge Hancock alleges that he is currently an Article III judge [sic], but he is also paying federal income taxes on his judicial compensation, in violation of Article III, Section 1, in the U.S. Constitution, which has never been repealed or amended. In a recent ORDER issued from the wrong court, Judge Hancock stated that he would be positively thrilled to learn from some authoritative source that he is exempt from federal taxes. Evidently, Judge Hancock does not consider the U.S. Constitution to be an "authoritative source"; I do hope I have not drawn the wrong inference from his ORDER. We refer you (and Judge Hancock) to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), which held that judicial immunity from diminution of their compensation must be sustained, notwithstanding the so-called 16th amendment [sic]. Our research informs us that this decision has never been formally overturned, notwithstanding allegations to the contrary which have been published in the UCLA Law Review. During calendar 1996, I did witness a copy of stationery from the "Article III Judges Division" [sic] of your offices, which had been transmitted through the United States Mail to Me from Carol S. Sefren, Chief, Judges Compensation and Benefits Branch, Article III Judges Division (see attached response). Can it be that your office continues to misinform federal judges that they are authorized under Article III, even though those very same judges are paying federal income taxes on their judicial compensation, in violation of Article III, Section 1, and in violation of the standing decision in Evans v. Gore, and even though all federal district judges currently preside over the USDC, and not over the District Court of the United States ("DCUS")? See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1921). If this is the case, permit Us respectfully to request that you cease and desist this practice at once, because it is misleading, not only for all the judges on your payroll, but also for the public at large whom those judges were appointed to serve, with integrity and without undue influence. See also Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), to appreciate how far our judiciary has deteriorated since the decision in Evans. Please respond as quickly as possible. Until We receive your certified response, important litigation must be put on hold. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness email: supremelawfirm@altavista.net website: http://supremelaw.com copy: James H. Hancock, Senior United States District Judge William H. Rehnquist, C.J., U.S. Supreme Court parties listed in PROOF OF SERVICE, State v. Kemp litigation files # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Alabama v. Kemp