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Constitution, which  has never  been repealed  or amended.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