DERIVED FROM SOURCE:  IRS Humbug, Frank Kowalik, pp. 27-33.

---

The judges' actions with regard to their own salaries provide the evidence that they cooperated with those in the legislative and executive branches of government.  Their conduct is evidence of concealing the illegal kickback program.  The executive and legislative branches of government must now depend on Federal judges to keep the illegal kickback programs as a source of income to the U.S. Treasury.

Had the Federal judges fought the legal issue of their basic rights as an employee the Act of 1862 would have fallen and the "individual income tax" as enforced today would not exist.  There is no lawful way it can be deemed that a Federal Government employee agrees in advance to an employment agreement where the conditions of the kickback changes at the discretion of Congress or anyone else.  Treaties cannot be broken.  This results in the kickback being legal in part, and in part illegal.  The kickback a Federal Government employee agrees to when he/she first takes a job with the Federal Government is legal, but, when changes unilaterally made by Congress create a higher kickback the portion which constitutes the change is illegal.  The illegal portion is a debt obligation which the Federal Government employee is forced to discharge.  Being forced to pay a debt obligation constitutes involuntary servitude.  You cannot agree in advance to involuntarily serve the Federal Government (or anyone else).  To force someone to do so is to ignore the laws under the First, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

To show that the Federal Supreme Court Justices actually cooperated with the legislative and executive branches of government in bringing the President and judges taking office after June 6, 1932, under the Federal kickback program, even though they avoided impairment of their own employment contracts, let's look at what they said in 1938 when they used Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney's 1863 letter to the Secretary of the Treasury.  Following are several excerpts from the Taney letter as used in O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1938):

At page 288.  The Act in question, as you interpret it, diminishes the compensation of every judge three percent, and if it can be diminished to that extent by the name of a tax, it may in the same way be reduced from time to time at the pleasure of the legislature.

The justices know the law requires equal treatment.  They know the U.S. Constitution prohibits the diminishment of everyone's compensation for services by any means other than an agreement entered into on a voluntary basis prior to employment.  They also know Art. III, Sec. 1, which prohibits the diminishment of compensation of Federal judges, was placed into the Constitution of the United States to keep the employment agreements of Federal judges separate from other Federal Government employment agreements so that all Federal judges could answer any legal question regarding labor contracts other than their own with objectivity in mind.  They are no longer capable of reviewing violations of Federal employment agreements or any issue with regard to the Federal kickback program as a disinterested third party, making their participation devisive and their opinions, extended as case law, oppressive upon persons who are not Federal Government employees.

Though those who constructed the U.S. Constitution probably did not anticipate a Federal kickback program, the Supreme Court Justices in 1862 understood section 86 for what it was and chose to act only to prevent their own employment agreement from being impaired.  They could have made their contracts "from time to time at the pleasure of the legislation." BY the statement of Justice Taney in 1863, it also can be assumed justifiably that the Justices knew of the plan of Congress to force it on the balance of society by belief.  For this belief to be established and sustained, the cooperation of Federal judges was required and gained.  This is documented by their conduct and recorded opinions.

The "income" kickback program changes at the pleasure of Congress.  And, as we now know, all persons (whether working in the private sector or for a government entity) have been forced into the Federal Government's illegal kickback program.

O'Mally opinion at pg.  288:

The Judiciary is one of the three great departments of the government created and established by the Constitution.  Its duties and powers are specifically set forth, and are of a character that requires it to be perfectly independent of the two other departments, and in order to place it beyond the reach and above even the suspicion of any such influence,  the power to reduce their compensation is expressly withheld from Congress, and excepted from their powers of legislation.

Note that they avoided using the term "powers of taxation."  The justices knew the legislation they were discussing was not a "tax" (direct or indirect).

The Judiciary's independence would have been secured had they objected to the law on the legal issue of civil rights that apply to all in society, namely the violation of the Fifth Amendment by illegal, unilateral impairment of existing employment contracts through a forced debt obligation which results in the deprivation of property without due process of law.  Also, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is violated when no choice is provided--when a person is deprived of freedom of expression as to the changes in his employment agreement.

Congressmen, most being lawyers, knew they had no lawful right to use the power of their elected position  to arrange for the deprivation of property under the pretense of law; and the IRS and all other Federal Government employees are on notice as to what is includible and what is not includible in "gross income" by the I.R. Code and Regulations.  To control the property of natural persons not includible in "gross income" through the force of undue influence not only violates the Constitution and laws of the United States but those of the states as well.  The enforcement of the debt obligation created in this fashion is prohibited by civil rights laws and brings up questions of conspiracy with intent to defraud (subjects that will be discussed later).  For now, back to Justice Taney's letter discussed in the O'Malley opinion.

At pg. 288.  "

Language could not be more plain than that used in the Constitution.  It is moreover one of its most important and essential provisions.  For the articles which limit the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government, and those which provide safeguards for the protection of the citizen in his person and property would be of little value without a judiciary to uphold and maintain them, which was free from every influence, direct or indirect, that might be possibility in times of political excitement warp their judgments."

Here the Chief Justice Taney admitted, and subsequent Justices concur, that they knew their duty was to protect the citizen in his person and property.  Still, they chose to ignore that duty and protect only their own person and property.  By choice, they indirectly stated that they person and property of all other Federal Government employees was not entitled to protection form such deprivation.

When the Justices did not fight the 1862 law on the primary civil rights legal issue, they permitted illegal impairment of all other Federal Government employment contracts and permitted debt obligations to be forced upon all Federal Government employees but themselves.  These Supreme Court Justices proved their judgment could be influenced and controlled by people in the other branches of government, and they paved the way for the cooperation between all Federal judges and employees of the IRS, the Justice Department, and members of Congress.  By the continued conduct of cooperation in concealing the illegal nature of the kickback program, U.S. judges provide evidence that they chose NOT to uphold their duty as the branch of government created as a check and balance on the executive and legislative branches of government.  Their duty is to assume that government under the law exists.

Getting back to the O'Malley opinion, pages 288-289, we see Justice Taney's letter said:

Having been honored with the highest judicial station under the Constitution, I feed it to be more especially my duty to uphold and maintain the constitutional rights of that department of the government, and not by any act or word of mine, leave it to be supposed that I acquiesce in a measure that displaces it from the independent position assigned it by the statesmen who framed the Constitution; and in order to guard against any such inference, I present to you this respectful but firm and decided remonstrance against the authority you have exercised under this act of Congress, and requires you to place this protest upon the public files of your office as the evidence that I have done everything in my power to preserve and maintain the Judicial Department in the position and rank in the government which the Constitution has assigned to it.  [emphasis added]

Here the Federal Judges state they are concerned with upholding the Constitutional "rights" of the Judicial Department.  A government entity does not have rights--it has duties.  Hence, to protect such rights is a subjective position which violates the judges' duty to be objective.

Those who accept jobs with the government have the duty to uphold the rights of all under the laws of the Constitution of the United States.  Federal judges would have complied with their duty if they had fought for their contractual rights on the general civil rights that all persons have, rather than claim a special privilege status, they would have upheld their personal rights and secured the rights of all others at the same time.  Hence, they did not do everything in thei8r power to maintain the independence of the Judicial branch of government.  Indeed, they did everything in their power to ultimately make the other branches of government dependent on them.

These Justices set the standard for all Federal judges.  To this day Federal judges compromise their independence when they permit the use of U.S. courtrooms for the illegal enforcement of the IRS service (the imposition of illegal kickback programs upon persons in society).

Continuing with what the O'Malley Court said at pg. 289:

The letter of the Chief Justice was no answered and, at his request, the Court, May 10, 1863, ordered the letter entered on its records.  In 1869, the Secretary of the Treasury requested the opinion of Attorney General Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar as to the constitutionality of the Act construed to extend to judges' salaries.  He rendered an opinion in substantial accord with the views expressed in Chief Justice Taney's protest.  13 Op.A.G. 161.  Accordingly, the tax on the compensation of the President and or judges was discontinued and the amounts therefore collected from them were refunded--some through administrative channels; others through action of the court of claims and ensuing appropriations of Congress.  See Wayne v. U.S., 26 C.Cls. 274, 290; 27 Stat. 306.

The U.S. judges' compensation for the performance of personal services, just like all other employees, is not subject to a law which impairs the obligation of the agreement of employment.  However, as a result of Justice Taney's letter, you can see that the U.S. judges were placed in a class, among citizens, above all others.  Their right not to be forced to accept an obligation that does not exist in law, or by employment agreement, was observed.  Violation of the civil rights of all other Federal Government employees was permitted to stand, and the U.S. judges actively participated in these violations by concealment.

By claiming and receiving special status, Federal judges provided power that was implied and used by the IRS that does not exist under law.  The limit of IRS power is to administer to the return of income disbursed to Federal Government employees as a result of their employment agreement.

Only through false belief can IRS employees continue to force their will upon all natural persons (Federal Government employees as well as persons working in the private sector and for other governmental entitles) by imposing conditions based upon vague laws passed by Congress.  Vague laws are enacted because lawyers in our society permit their use by not challenging them.

At pages 289, 290 the O'Malley court went on to say:

In 1889, Mr. Justice Miller, a member of the Court since 1862 said:

"The constitution of the United States has placed several limitations upon the general power [of taxation], and...some of them are implied.  One of its provisions is that neither the President of the United States (Art. II, Sec. 1),  nor a judge of the Supreme or inferior courts (Art. III, Sec. 1), shall have his salary diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, or during his continuance in office.  It is very clear that when Congress, during the late [Civil] war, levied an income tax, and placed it as well upon the salaries of the President and the judges of the courts as those of other people, that it was a diminution of them to just that extent."  [emphasis added]

These judges had a duty to declare the law unconstitutional instead of arranging for special privileges.  Constitutional restrictions made it equally unlawful for the compensation of all Federal Government employees to be diminished under the pretense of law when it was in fact a unilateral employment agreement change.  The conduct of the Federal judges was taken by Congress and the IRS to imply they had power to pave the way for the illegal Federal kickback programs manifested through the filing of a "U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns."  The O'Malley case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1938, four years before the enactment of the Victory Tax which was used to infer that an "income tax" had been imposed upon the compensation everyone receives in exchange for their labor.

The intent of the Federal judges to cooperate with the legislative and executive branches of government in 1862 to start the Federal kickback programs was just as clear by their conduct as is the conduct of Federal judges today.  Today, the intent of the Federal judges is to cooperate in perpetuating the false belief that the IRS has uninhibited power over a person's liberty and property.  Though maliciously unlawful, the results of that power is real.  The evidence is in the fear of the IRS which exists among the U.S. public.

The I.R. Code provides the full extent of the IRS power.  It is notice to IRS employees and judges of just what is and what is not includible in "gross income" under Subtitle A of the I.R. Code, and will be revealed to you.  While most IRS employees hold jobs so limited in scope they would not be cognizant of their illegal activities, Federal judges and lawyers have no excuse.  U.S. judges have placed themselves in a "Catch 22" situation.  If they allow a Federal Court to be misused in order to force an illegal kickback on property not includible in "gross income" or aid in depriving persons of their liberty by misuse of laws, they are acting illegally.  IF they claim ignorance of who is subject to the I.R. Code laws and what property is includible in "gross income," they are admitting they do not know the law.  Either way they confess they are not competent to retain their jobs.