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