Editor's note:

A fully linked version of this file
can be found at Internet URL:

   http://supremelaw.com/press/rels/lawless.htm


The following version of this file
is being maintained for redundancy.



                     "The Lawless Rehnquist"

                               by

                 Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
                Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
                   and Private Attorney General

                        January 28, 1997
                       All Rights Reserved


     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, 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.


                             #  #  #