Time: Tue Oct 29 08:32:37 1996
To: autarchic@juno.com (John H. Freeman)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LeRoy
Cc: 
Bcc: Liberty Law

At 09:29 AM 10/29/96 EST, you wrote:
>
>On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:33:05 -0700 (MST) Paul Andrew Mitchell
>[address in tool bar] writes:
>
>>>The two paragraphs above are inconsequential in any case.
>
>>>1)   Judge, voluntarily applies signature to tax return.
>>>2)   Judge, voluntarily seals the signed instrument in correctly
>>>     addressed envelope and voluntarily affixes correct postage.
>>>3)   Judge, voluntarily deposits said envelopes in out-going United
>>>     States Postal Service box.
>
>>>Non-existent compiling law, regulation, rule, or statute.
>>
>>You are forgetting the Public Salary
>>Tax Act, yes?  See also Lord v. Kelley,
>>in which judge admitted extortion and
>>undue influence by the IRS upon the
>>court's decision.
>
>On the contrary, all judges hold their
>positions voluntarily.  They agreed
>voluntarily to the terms and provisions
>as a condition of their employment.

... and the Constitution is the supreme
Law of the Land, which they must take
an oath to support and defend, as one
of the major conditions of employment,
and that Constitution prohibits diminution
of judges' salaries in Article III, 
Section 1.  See Oath of Office, and
Evans v. Gore.


>
>If, they did not agree, they are free to
>find employment elsewhere.  One cannot
>lawfully be compelled to affix their seal.

They CAN be lawfully compelled to 
take the oath as a condition of
employment.  No oath;  no job.
That was the intent of the 
Framers.


>
>Without the affixed seal, the Instant
>Robbery Squad (I.R.S.) would return
>any tax return, with a "request" for the
>seal.

We are drifting off point here.
See above.


>
>/s/ John Freeman
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail