research help, please

Another thread got me to thinking, and I can't find anything I'm looking for.


1) By law, judges pay no income tax. Well, not supposed to. There's a Supreme Court case that decided that (one of the things I can't find).


2) But there's also a "something" I used to have that documents how the IRS "monitors" judges.


Where this is going:


The court's mythical "reasonable man" would not be out of place for wanting to verify that the judge WAS "impartial" regarding matters of the IRS, i.e., was not "paying income taxes," etc.


Or, conversely, how can a judge, yielding to pressure from the IRS, be expected to be "fair and impartial" in matters regarding income taxes?


Randy

[rushpat]

I think your answer (and more) is found here:


http://www.paperadvantage.org/TopTenCourts.html

[wirlwind]

http://www.paperadvantage.org/TopTenCourts.html & See if that will make it easier to get to. I'm lazy- I just like to be able to click on something. &Thanks.

Thanks, y'all...


That'll get me started. I don't remember if it's the Internal Revenue Manual, or what, but "something official" (I know it wasn't in the codes or statutes) stated clearly that the IRS maintains files on judges (not sure if it was "all," or just feds...).


And not sure about the income-tax thing, either, if it's "all" judges, or just some. I'll find it...again.


Again, thanks.


Randy

Ah, here 'tis:


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=245


U.S. Supreme Court
EVANS v. GORE , 253 U.S. 245 (1920)
253 U.S. 245
EVANS
v.
GORE, Acting Collector of Internal Revenue.
No. 654.


This case (1920) said, "Don't touch the salary of judges." And everyone was happy.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&amp ;invol=277&pageno=282


<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><FONT size=2>U.S. Supreme Court
</FONT><FONT size=2>O'MALLEY v. WOODROUGH, 307 U.S. 277 (1939)
</FONT>307 U.S. 277
O'MALLEY
v.
WOODROUGH et ux.
No. 810.


This one (1939) said, "Screw that. Judges are no different from the rest of us."


Randy</FONT>

Well if the IRS can put the screws to the judge he will most certainly be biased. Upon your demand he must recuse himself. Then wait for a judge that isn't biased. Don't hold your breath.


Sidebar: That phrase "recuse himself" has always bothered me. It sounds like something the judge might be doing under his black dress while hiding behind the bench. Just a thought.


Jim

Jim,


Are you suggesting that judges pound something other than the gavel?


Randy

Randy,


"This one (1939) said, "Screw that. Judges are no different from the rest of us."


I don't mind them being just like the rest of us. It's a matter of WHERE they do it.


Jim

I found it! I found it!& Woop! Woop! (helps to be a truck-driver to understand the "woop woop")


Anyway. here's a link to the thing about IRS' "monitoring" of judges. I followed the directions to get back to the original, but the site was having problems. (I had done this years ago--the info IS completely accurate.)


http://iresist.com/ice/Judges%20Unde...rveillance.htm


Oh yeah. I'm going to have lots of fun with this one.


Randy

Randy, You are gonna love this one: Combining parts of two posts in this thread;

From me:

Sidebar: That phrase "recuse himself" has always bothered me. It sounds like something the judge might be doing under his black dress while hiding behind the bench. Just a thought.

And from Randy:

Are you suggesting that judges pound something other than the gavel?



Now check this out:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0624041pump1.html

Jim