Federal Judges Disqualified from Hearing Income Tax Cases?

[psholtz]

Some interesting points from the famguardian Web site:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Fo...sQuestions.htm

* Federal Judges are paid by the income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code
* Conflicts of interest of federal judges are prohibited by both 28 U.S.C. §455 and 28 U.S.C. §144.
* Personal financial conflicts of interest of federal employees are also prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §208(a).
* Any federal judge who is either paid by internal revenbue taxes or who is beholden to IRS extortion is subject to such personal financial conflict of interest.
* The only kind of judge who would properly rule on a matter concerning the income tax without having a blatant conflict of interest is a judge whose salary does not come from Congress or who is a volunteer, because 41% of federal revenues now come from income taxes according to the Treasury Financial Management Service.

Is it possible to get a federal judge recused from a tax case on these grounds?

[mertensv16]

No. The fact that the judge is paid by the U.S. is not grounds for recusal. See U.S. v. Zuger, 602 F. Supp. 889 (D. Conn. 1984), aff’d, 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 805 (1985); Atkins v. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028 (Ct. Cl. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1009 (1978); Salman v. IRS, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9745 (D. Nev. 1989); Booth v. IRS, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29044 (10th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Goldston, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79591 (D. Colo. 2007).

Moreover, as the Zuger court remarked, “If such claim were not dismissed as farsical, on its face, it would further violate the time-honored Rule of Necessity, United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1980), whereby a judge is not disqualified to try a case because of personal interest if there is no other judge available to hear and decide the issue.”

[Livefire]

What he is saying is that one only has a right to an impartial judicial officer ONLY if it suits government interests. Typical of lawyers and their ilk.......

[mrg]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Some interesting points from the famguardian Web site:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Fo...sQuestions.htm

* Federal Judges are paid by the income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code
* Conflicts of interest of federal judges are prohibited by both 28 U.S.C. §455 and 28 U.S.C. §144.
* Personal financial conflicts of interest of federal employees are also prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §208(a).
* Any federal judge who is either paid by internal revenbue taxes or who is beholden to IRS extortion is subject to such personal financial conflict of interest.
* The only kind of judge who would properly rule on a matter concerning the income tax without having a blatant conflict of interest is a judge whose salary does not come from Congress or who is a volunteer, because 41% of federal revenues now come from income taxes according to the Treasury Financial Management Service.

Is it possible to get a federal judge recused from a tax case on these grounds?

I do not think "income tax" actually goes to "pay" for any function of DC's occupation junta, other than to service a portion of the interest on its "debt."

Actually, I do not see how anyone or anything actually is "paid" for at all under the terms of the Federal Reserve ponzi scheme.

It is all debt--what do you think the phrase "passing the buck" really means anyway?

Seems to me these "courts" are either military, quasi-military, or commercial contract, and of the kangaroo variety on either side.

Its all done by ex post facto bill of attainder anyway.

That the so called "plaintif" (United States?) purports to "pay" both the so-called "judge," as well as the DOJ "prosecutor," and often, the "defense" "attorney," as well, and that they all share a "fraternal" "interest" in which the target is of the least concern, seems collusive enough to "recuse" the entire "system."

At the end of the day, DC will do as it pleases--it has armed corporate municipal mercenary troops.

For instance, the IRS says and does whatever it wants, and the captured target has the burden of proving otherwise--that is how it works.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mrg

I do not think "income tax" actually goes to "pay" for any function of DC's occupation junta, other than to service a portion of the interest on its "debt."

Actually, I do not see how anyone or anything actually is "paid" for at all under the terms of the Federal Reserve ponzi scheme.

Good points.

For instance, the IRS says and does whatever it wants, and the captured target has the burden of proving otherwise--that is how it works.

Indeed.. piracy upon the high seas.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Livefire

What he is saying is that one only has a right to an impartial judicial officer ONLY if it suits government interests. Typical of lawyers and their ilk.......

Don't be such a drama queen. Federal judges may be paid with federal money but their salaries are fixed accoridng to law, so that none of them gets bonus for siding with the IRS against taxpayers, etc. By the same token, since most of their income is their federal paycheck, the IRS audits can't scare them (when's the last time you heard of a federal judge being nailed for tax evasion?).

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

No. The fact that the judge is paid by the U.S. is not grounds for recusal. See U.S. v. Zuger, 602 F. Supp. 889 (D. Conn. 1984), aff’d, 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 805 (1985); Atkins v. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028 (Ct. Cl. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1009 (1978); Salman v. IRS, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9745 (D. Nev. 1989); Booth v. IRS, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29044 (10th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Goldston, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79591 (D. Colo. 2007).

Moreover, as the Zuger court remarked, “If such claim were not dismissed as farsical, on its face, it would further violate the time-honored Rule of Necessity, United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1980), whereby a judge is not disqualified to try a case because of personal interest if there is no other judge available to hear and decide the issue.”

Goes to show precisely how sick and self-serving the so-called Tory Loyalist "judiciary" (BAR) really is.

the time-honored Rule of Necessity,

Law of no law.

Controlling force; irresistible compulsion; a power or impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct.

Black's 6th

Uncontrollable compulsive impulse, unable to exercise any self-restraint.

That is the stuff of the psychopathy of "civilization."

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Don't be such a drama queen.

Federal judges may be paid with federal money but their salaries are fixed accoridng to law, so that none of them gets bonus for siding with the IRS against taxpayers, etc.

By the same token, since most of their income is their federal paycheck, the IRS audits can't scare them (when's the last time you heard of a federal judge being nailed for tax evasion?).

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Don't be such a drama queen. Federal judges may be paid with federal money but their salaries are fixed accoridng to law, so that none of them gets bonus for siding with the IRS against taxpayers, etc. By the same token, since most of their income is their federal paycheck, the IRS audits can't scare them (when's the last time you heard of a federal judge being nailed for tax evasion?).

I was referring to the bottom paragraph of mertensv16 post quoting the Zuger case. That application of the law of necessity pretty much trashes the "time honored" tradition of having a impartial judicial officer if it suit governmental interests. No drama, no exclamation point used in my previous post. I just have a way of cutting thru volumes of verbiage and stating the heart of the matter. This goes further than income tax issues.

As for the income tax, I like referring to the Grace Commission Report of 1984, where it states that due to govermental inefficiency, that not a single penny of collected income taxes actually pay for any goods or services government uses

http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

[Shoonra]

The "Rule of Necessity" is at least as old as the notion of impartial tribunals. It holds that, as a generality, because it is necessary to have a judge to hear a case, if all judges are equally interested in the outcome then any judge is acceptable to preside.

In practical terms, for example if there is a court case whose outcome affects the, say, pensions of all the judges, then any judge may sit on the case, since all the judges are equally "invested" in the outcome. Or in some of those Montana Freeman type cases, where the Freemen thought that filing bogus lawsuits and liens against every judge in the state would somehow prevent any judge from presiding at their trial, in fact the equality of the prejudicial influence means that there is essentially no impediment to any judge sitting on the case.