She looked at Judge Narragansett. "You quit over the same
case, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Judge Narragansett. "I quit when the court of
appeals reversed my ruling.
The purpose for which I
had chosen my work was my resolve to be a guardian of justice. But
the laws they asked me to enforce made me the executor of the vilest
injustice conceivable. I was asked to use force to violate the rights
of disarmed men, who came before me to seek my protection for their
rights. Litigants obey the verdict of a tribunal solely
on the premise that there is an objective rule of conduct, which
they both accept. Now I saw that one man was to be bound by it,
but the other was not, one was to obey a rule, the other was to
assert an arbitrary wish - his need - and the law was to stand on
the side of the wish.
Justice was to consist
of upholding the unjustifiable. I quit - because I could not have
borne to hear the words 'Your Honor' addressed to me by an honest
Shrugged, 35th Anniversary Edition, Ayn Rand, p. 651]
Some federal courts have suggested in their rulings on tax-related
issues subsequent to the We The People Truth in Taxation Hearings that
they are the
best and only
proper organization within the state and federal governments that is
qualified to investigate and rule on the facts and evidence revealed
in these IRS Deposition questions. They say that it is frivolous
for groups like We The People
to petition Congress using this evidence and that the Congress or the
Executive branch are not
adequately empowered to directly address the issues raised in a way
that will influence the situation meaningfully. To these arguments
we say "humbug" and we will now proceed to explain why.
Whatever the federal courts may think they can and cannot
do, the following facts are certain:
- Federal jurisdictional
- Under our constitutional form of government, the federal
government has no "police
powers" within states of the union. See
Leisy v. Hardin,
135 U.S. 100 (1890) and
Great IRS Hoax, section 4.9.
- "police powers" are equivalent to legislative jurisdiction.
The Infernal Revenue Code found in
is federal "legislation." and therefore is limited to federal
territory and property unless explicitly and unambiguously specified otherwise.
U.S.C. §255 and the caselaw addressing it abundantly confirms
that the only way that the federal government may acquire exclusive
territorial jurisdiction within a union state is by state cession
in writing and that this cession must occur by the authority
of an act of the state legislature. Otherwise, the federal
government has no jurisdiction within states unless specifically
granted by the federal
- In personam federal jurisdiction is conveyed upon a person
independently of territorial jurisdiction if the person is a
"citizen of the
United States" under
- In order to be a "citizen
of the United States" under federal law and under
§1401, one must have been born inside the
United States on
of the United
States. Being born within the borders of a state of
the Union and not on federal property
a person from being a "citizen
of the United States" under
Click here for further details. See also Section
14 of the IRS Deposition Questions for evidence supporting
- The only other type of jurisdiction the federal government
can have is subject matter jurisdiction, and nowhere does the
Constitution confer the right to regulate or tax transactions
relating to other than foreign and interstate commerce.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution and
paper #45. The
Sixteenth Amendment did
subject matter jurisdiction into states of the union for income
taxes because 1:9:4 and 1:2:3 of the Constitution were not repealed
by the Sixteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly
that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new powers of taxation".
See Stanton v. Baltic Mining,
204 U.S. 103 (1916).
- As confirmation
of the above facts, there are NO IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS authorizing
any kind of enforcement of subtitle A income taxes under
Part 1 of 26 C.F.R. as required by the Federal Register Act,
U.S.C. Chapter 15 or by 26 C.F.R. § 601.702(ii). No
Act of Congress can have any affect on the public at large
unless and until the enforcement provisions have been published
- Therefore, the
Revenue Code Subtitle A income tax is "special
law" that applies ONLY to elected or appointed officers
of the United States government and corporations involved in
foreign commerce under
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
- Jury problems:
- The only persons who can serve as federal jurists or grand
jurists are "citizens
of the United States" under
§1401, where "United States" means the
U.S.C. §1865(b). This excludes the majority of people
born in states of the Union, most of whom are either state citizens
only or "non-citizen
nationals" under 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(21) and the
Click here for further details.
- Any attempt by a federal court to use a jury trial to prosecute
an issue affecting a person who is a state only citizen or a
National", which most Americans living in the states are,
is a violation of the
Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury composed of one's peers.
A person who is not a "citizen
of the United States" cannot and should not be judged by
a jury composed of persons who are only "citizens of the United
Sixth Amendment also requires an
Such an impartial jury
be composed of any person who might have a conflict of interest.
Such persons who might have a conflict of interest include any
"citizens of the
United States" sitting on the jury who is now in receipt
of the proceeds of income tax revenues or who could at any time
in the future also be in receipt of such monies. This
rules out everyone who draws a government paycheck, social security,
welfare, Medicare, etc, including every politician, every judge,
etc. This explains the basis for the following two Supreme
"A tax, in the
general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution,
signifies an exaction for the support of the government.
The word has never thought
to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit
v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]
"To lay with
one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen,
and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none
the less robbery because it is.. called taxation."
Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]
- No person sitting on a jury can be a person in receipt of
the proceeds of robbery undertaken in the name of
and taxation without having a
of interest. See
U.S.C. §597 entitled "Expenditures to influence voting".
You will note that the jury process is a voting process.
“Do not follow the crowd [majority] in doing wrong.
When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice
by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to
a poor man in his lawsuit.”
23:2, Bible, NIV]
- Conflict of interest
of federal judges:
- Federal judges presently are paid by the income tax under
A of the Internal Revenue Code. This was not always
the case. In fact, before we had the income tax starting
in 1945 (the Victory Tax), nearly all federal revenues were
derived from other than income taxes and mainly occurred on
excise taxes from foreign trade. These types of taxes
have always been authorized by the Constitution.
- Conflicts of interest of federal judges are prohibited by
U.S.C. §455 and
- Personal financial conflicts of interest of federal employees
are also prohibited by
U.S.C. §208(a). Any judge who is either paid by internal
revenue taxes or who is beholden to IRS extortion is subject
to such a personal financial conflict of interest.
- The only kind of judge who could 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
Click here for our report on the federal budget derived
directly from government sources.
- Any judge suffering from a conflict of interest is most
certain to try to keep out of evidence any evidence which might
be prejudicial against an income tax that pays his paycheck
and his retirement.
- Any judge who pays the
A income tax and who is beholden to the extortion of the
IRS is likely to be affected by a conflict of interest in the
event he rules against the IRS or the Department of INjustice
in any tax-related proceeding.
- The above types of judicial corruption are the very same
injustice complained of in our very own Declaration of Independence.
Now we have the same problem all over again and maybe its time
revolution, this time against federal tyranny by our own government:
of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts
be submitted to a candid world:
. . .
"He has made Judges dependent on his [the IRS' and the legislature's]
Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and
payment of their salaries."
- Conflict of interest
among those who supervise Federal Judges:
U.S.C. §134(a) and
U.S.C. §144(b) also say that federal judges may hold office
only during "good behavior". The Congress may remove a
judge who is not demonstrating good behavior.
- Because Congress are the
who can remove judges, and because Congress are the ones who
benefit most directly by illegal enforcement of income taxes,
then there is a built-in incentive for them to look the other
way if a federal judge rules improperly on an income tax issue
and in such a way that favors the government by maximizing illegal
revenues from income taxes.
- Federal courts are
prohibited from ruling on rights in the context of federal income
- Any person you talk to about the legality of the federal
income tax will tell you that the main problem is its oppression
of their Constitutional rights. And yet, the federal courts
are precluded from ruling on the subject of rights or status
- There is only ONE place inside the country called United
States where Congress has the legislative jurisdiction to suspend
the enforcement of Constitutional rights. The
they are permitted to do so is on federal
in which the
Bill of Rights
does not apply. See
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
- Consequently, there is only one place where federal income
taxes upon natural persons under
A of the Internal Revenue Code can therefore be authorized
and still be consistent with the constitution. That place
is in the territories
and possessions of the United States, all of which are listed
48 of the United States Code.
- Any attempt by any judge to enforce or impose an income
tax in any area other than federal
or abroad is utterly without jurisdiction and amounts to criminal
extortion and treason against the rights of sovereign Americans
under the Constitution punishable by Death under the Constitution.
If you want even more reasons why trying these issues in federal
court won't work, see section 8 of the
questions entitled "Courts are closed".
"And you shall take no
bribe, for a
bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous."
23:8, Bible, NKJV]
destroys a wise man's reason.
And a bribe debases the
7:7, Bible, NKJV]
"For where your
treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Matt. 6:21, Bible, NKJV]
The important thing to remember is that ALL of the above conflicts
of interest would be eliminated if only four changes were made in the
enforcement of the federal income tax that everyone falsely believes
that they owe:
- The law very clearly stated in
§1 that natural persons (people), unless they are elected or
appointed officers of the United States, are neither the subject
nor the object of the revenue laws and are "nontaxpayers".
- The IRS Publications
were modified to reflect the truth and specific IRS employees were
held accountable for the constructive fraud and downright lies they
put in these fraudulent publications.
Click here for why this change is needed.
- The Internal Revenue Code was changed
to plainly and unambiguously state the truth, which is that that
only revenues derived from taxes on commerce external to the states,
including foreign commerce and interstate commerce, is taxable.
All judges, jurors, prosecutors who
receive any kind of federal benefit derived from Subtitle A federal
income taxes must recuse themselves from any connection with litigation
concerning income taxes.
The above changes reflect the way the original
Constitution funded the federal government and it created a judicial
system and a republican
government system that was totally free of any of the above conflicts
of interest which have been used to corrupt our system of government
and transform our
Republic into a totalitarian
is the way God himself describes the corrupted dilemma we find ourselves
in because we have abandoned the path laid by our founding fathers,
as described in
Alas, sinful nation,
A people laden with iniquity
A brood of evildoers
Children who are corrupters!
They have forsaken the Lord
They have provoked to anger
The Holy One of Israel,
They have turned away backward.
Why should you be stricken again?
You will revolt more and more.
The whole head is sick
[they are out of their minds!: insane or STUPID or both],
And the whole heart faints....
Wash yourselves, make
Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Rebuke the oppressor [the IRS and the Federal Reserve and a corrupted
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow [and the "nontaxpayer"]....
How the faithful city has become a harlot!
It [the Constitutional Republic]
was full of justice;
Righteousness lodged in
But now murderers [and abortionists, and socialists, and democrats,
and liars and corrupted judges].
Your silver has become dross,
Your wine mixed with water.
Your princes [President,
Congressmen, Judges] are rebellious,
Everyone loves bribes,
And follows after rewards.
They do not defend the fatherless,
nor does the cause of the widow come before them.
Therefore the Lord says,
The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel,
"Ah, I will rid Myself of
And take vengeance on My enemies.
I will turn My hand against you,
And thoroughly purge away your dross,
And take away your alloy.
I will restore your judges
[eliminate the BAD judges] as at the first,
And your counselors [eliminate the BAD lawyers] as at the beginning.
Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful
1:1-26, Bible, NKJV]
So according to the Bible, the
real problem is
corrupted lawyers and judges and people who are after money and rewards,
and God says the way to fix the corruption and graft is to
eliminate the bad judges and
lawyers. Whose job is that? It is the
even more corrupted Congress! (see
28 U.S.C. §134(a)
and 28 U.S.C.
"O My people! Those
who lead you cause you to err,
And destroy the way of your paths."
3:12, Bible, NKJV]
"The king establishes
the land by
justice; but he who receives bribes overthrows it."
29:4, Bible, NKJV]
Can thieves and corrupted judges and lawyers and jurors, who are
all bribed with stolen or extorted tax dollars they lust after in the
pursuit of socialist benefits, reform themselves if left to their own
"When you [the jury]
saw a thief [the corrupted judges and lawyers paid with extorted and
stolen tax money], you consented with him, And have been a partaker
50:18, Bible, NKJV]
"The people will be oppressed,
Every one by another and every one by his [socialist] neighbor [sitting
on a jury who
was indoctrinated and brainwashed
in a government school to trust government];
The child will be insolent toward the elder,
And the base toward the honorable."
3:5, Bible, NKJV]
"It must be conceded
that there are rights [and property] in every free government beyond
the control of the State [or any judge or jury]. A government
which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, liberty and property
of its citizens, subject at all times to the disposition and unlimited
control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all
a despotism. It is true that it is a despotism of the many--of
the majority, if you choose to call it so--but it is not the less a
[Loan Ass'n v. Topeka,
87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 665 (1874)]
Consequently, it is completely ridiculous for a federal court, a
U.S. Attorney, or a judge in such a court to be saying that
they are the
only suitable place
to try a case related to the facts and evidence documented in the We
The People Truth in Taxation Hearing or in our
IRS Deposition Questions. As a matter
of fact, it is this very corrupted court and Department of INjustice
that is most likely to have a prejudice against hearing such issues.
The most likely place in which
any court would
be least prejudiced to try an issue relating to federal income tax would
be in state court, but even that court would not be without conflict
of interest if that state receives any kind of federal money or subsidies.
This kind of money flow, incidentally, is also nowhere authorized by
the Constitution, and anything not explicitly authorized by the Constitution
is prohibited by implication and reserved to the states under the
Tenth Amendment. It is prohibited because it is the essence of
socialism and the
antithesis of a
government founded on individual rights. This is not just a legal
question, it is a question of morality in a nation besieged by greed
and covetousness and idolatry and class warfare between the haves and
the have-nots. Americans are misusing the machinery of government
and their electoral power to institute this war against each other to
promote and expand socialism and the government is aiding and abetting
them to expand its power to that of a totalitarian socialist democracy.
This is unconstitutional, unlawful, and morally and spiritually reprehensible.
Here is what the Supreme Court said about this socialist v. capitalist
contest the first time it ruled against a federal income tax:
I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions
of such gravity that they go down to the
very foundations of the government.
If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of
Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end?
The present assault upon
capital [theft of people's property and labor in the name
of taxation and socialism] is but the beginning.
It will be but the stepping
stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political
contest will become war of the poor against the rich; [with the government
and the ballot box as the weapon and the robinhood] a war of growing
intensity and bitterness.”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,
157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]
With so many glaringly obvious
interest, it simply boggles the mind to consider how any reasonable
person could conclude that a federal court would be the best place to
rule on the evidence or conclusions found in these questions or on any
income tax matter. Should the fox be in charge of deciding whether
he can eat the chickens? The only reason a person would appeal
to such a corrupted court to begin with is because their Constitutional
Rights have been violated and their
servants in Congress
REFUSE their absolute legal duty under the
First Amendment Petition Clause to remedy the egregious wrong, and
yet these same courts can't rule on rights to begin with, nor are most
of them even willing to demonstrate that they have
Article III jurisdiction sufficient to even hear a case on rights!
In the case of federal income taxes, federal courts can therefore act
as nothing other than an administrative court devoid of enforcement
authority relating to the invasion of constitutional rights. The
reason is because these courts are acting in an
Article II and
Article IV capacity when ruling on federal tax issues, which means
that their rulings can only apply to
territories and possessions
of the United States under
Title 48 of the U.S.
Code. Anyone who would appeal to such a court absent proof
that they were not a "U.S.
citizen" is worst than criminally stupid.
For those who stubbornly and ignorantly cling to the idea that a
federal court is the correct forum in which to try such issues, I have
a few very pointed questions I want you to answer as indicated below.
- Please identify the specific authority within the Constitution
that authorizes the collection of direct taxes upon persons who
are neither "U.S.
citizens" nor "aliens"
and who reside on nonfederal land within states of the union?
The Supreme Court said it wasn't the
Sixteenth Amendment in the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining,
204 U.S. 103 (1916). So what amendment was it, exactly,
because before the
Sixteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in Pollock said
direct taxes weren't authorized? See Pollock v. Farmers
Loan and Trust,
157 U.S. 429 (1895).
- Please identify how a judge who is paid by an income tax can
hear a case on income taxes and not possess a conflict of interest
in violation of
- Please explain how a person may obtain a redress of grievances
against his constitutional rights in a court that cannot rule on
constitutional rights in the context of federal income taxes as
- Please explain how congress by legislation can suspend the enforcement
of constitutional rights within states of the Union under
§2201 within the context of federal income taxes if these taxes
apply to states of the Union?
- Please explain how a person can pay a voluntary donation to
the government, which is fraudulently called a "tax"
by the IRS, without in effect bribing a public official in violation
of 18 U.S.C.
- Please explain how a person can sit as an impartial juror and
rule on an income tax issue before the court if he is (or will be)
receiving the proceeds of income taxes extorted from the defendant
in violation of
- Please explain how the court can recruit jurors who are peers
of a defendant who is
not a "U.S.
§1865(b) requires that all jurors in federal court must be "U.S.
- Please explain how a person born in a state of the Union and
not on federal territory
or property can be a "citizen
of the United States" under
§1401 if he was not born on federal
territory or property?
- Please explain how a person living in a state of the Union,
not residing in the federal United States [federal
zone], who is neither an elected or appointed officer of the
United States government can submit a tax return involuntarily without
violating his constitutional rights and subjecting himself to later
criminal prosecution based on the information he submits?
- Please indicate how a person can indicate on their tax return
that they are under duress without being subject to a
- Please indicate how a federal court can admit into evidence
a tax return that was filed under duress and in which the government
was unable to define any statute within Subtitle A of the Internal
Revenue Code that made a person
liable for the
- Please indicate how the IRS can penalize and charge interest
for unpaid taxes against natural persons (people) when the Constitution
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 10 of
the Constitution specifically forbid
Bills of Attainder,
which are penalties not imposed by a court?
- Please specify how the IRS can
change a return
if the only evidence that is admissible in the verification of returns
is a signature under
penalty of perjury as required under
§6065 while at the same time, none of the documents provided
by the IRS to the alleged "taxpayer"
are under penalty of perjury, and in most cases don't even identify
the person you are even dealing with?
- How can I sign a tax return document under penalty of perjury
stating it is true without
the answers to these clearly conflicting constitutional and legal
questions in the face of a hypocritical
who absolutely refuses to answer them and who would rather see people
die of hunger than answer them?
- How can a court or a judge claim or infer that a person gave
their voluntary consent to pay a tax if that person is completely
unaware of doing so and claims instead to be under illegal duress?
- How can a person pay a tax that is mandatory instead of voluntary
and still live in a free country in which the government derives
all its just powers from the voluntary consent of the people as
Declaration of Independence requires?
- How can an attorney who is defending a tax freedom advocate
and who is also licensed by the same court he is litigating in front
of or by the judicial branch of any government claim to be free
of conflict of interest? How can this same attorney claim
to objectively administer and zealously defend the
rights of his client
if he could have his license to practice law pulled or be sanctioned
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for doing so?
- How can any judge of good conscience, after having been made
fully aware of all the foregoing
of interest created exclusively by the illegal enforcement of
our income tax laws claim to be administering justice and to be
doing so completely free of conflict of interest in the process?
- How can a judge declare the truth about these matters without
putting his law school buddies, his golf buddies, and most of his
attorney friends who "practice law" (synonymous with deny justice
in most cases) into jail in the process and making himself into
a criminal for having denied justice to so many people in previous
trials he has heard in which he ruled unjustly because of ignorance
about the matters mentioned here? Are criminals capable of
policing themselves? Do they just walk into the nearest courthouse
and declare themselves guilty and sentence themselves properly?
Who polices the police? Earth calling the federal
judiciary? (Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life
- How can a government that the founding fathers designed as the
the sovereign people claim any right greater than the people it
serves? People can't legally steal property from each other
or enslave each other so what gives the federal government the right
to STEAL income
taxes from the sovereign people it is supposed to serve or enslave
them? See our
Natural Law information
for further details. See also the following for further details:
- “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A
servant is not greater than his master.’”
- “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can
be valid. To
deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater
than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that
the representatives of the people are superior to the people;
that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their
powers do not authorize, but what they forbid…[text omitted]
It is not otherwise to be supposed that the Constitution
could intend to enable the representatives of the people to
substitute their will to that of their constituents.
It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed
to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature,
in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the
limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the
laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.
A Constitution is,
in fact, and must be regarded by judges, as fundamental law.
If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between
the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.”
[Alexander Hamilton (Federalist
Paper # 78)]
Oh, and by the way, the above questions
are the same questions
I am going to ask during voir dire of the next federal judge who hears
any case that concerns me and the issue of federal income taxes.
To the above questions, I will add the following additional questions
when I'm questioning the judge as well:
1. Admit that this proceeding concerns the issue of payment of “federal
2. Admit that you pay what is commonly referred to as “federal income
taxes” collected under Internal Revenue Code.
3. Admit that your salary is derived from federal income taxes collected
from me personally for those years that I paid them.
4. Admit that if the monies I paid to the IRS were paid under duress
and absent the authority of law, then these monies amount to a gift
and a bribe of the public officials who will spend them in violation
of 18 U.S.C.
5. Admit that those who collect financial benefits from the federal
government are adversely influenced to vote in favor of politicians
who would continue the flow of those benefits in violation of
18 U.S.C. §597.
6. Admit that you do not know what statute within the Internal Revenue
Code makes me “liable” to pay federal income taxes and therefore are
operating on presumption in concluding that I owe a federal income tax?
7. Admit that “presumptions” violate due process under the
unless clearly authorized by federal law.
8. Admit that if you ruled in favor of me in this proceeding relating
to the income tax issue, and if others on a large scale imitated you
in doing so and imitated me in raising the same issues, that federal
revenues from income taxes would inevitably go down.
9. Admit that if the truths exposed in
Great IRS Hoax book were widely known by every American and admitted
to by the U.S. government, then there is a reasonable possibility that
federal revenues would go down by approximately 41% identified in section
Great IRS Hoax.
10. Admit that if federal revenues went down significantly, then the
result could eventually mean the a drastic downsizing of the federal
government, the possible elimination of your job, and/or the reduction
of your payroll and/or retirement benefits.
11. Admit that because of the foregoing facts, you have a personal financial
interest in this proceeding.
12. Admit that if you were paid exclusively from taxes on imports from
commerce only with foreign countries as the
originally required under
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, that this conflict of personal financial
interest would be eliminated because you would no longer either be paid
from income taxes nor would you have to pay them.
13. Admit that there is no way to eliminate or reduce the personal financial
conflict of interest in this case without one of the following options:
13.1. You being paid from revenues connected
only with foreign
commerce, instead of from the general revenues produced by the IRS.
13.2. You surrendering your entitlement to federal retirement benefits
or at least that portion which derives from Internal Revenue Taxes….OR
13.3. Having an impartial jury, none of whom are collecting government
benefits derived from income taxes, to rule on the issues at hand.
14. Admit that without taking the steps in the preceding question to
eliminate stated conflicts of interest, that for you to hear this proceeding
amounts to a conflict of interest in violation of
18 U.S.C. §208(a).
15. Admit that when a financial conflict of interest exists, that you
have a moral and legal duty
to recuse yourself from this proceeding and recommend ways to your supervisors
to rectify any conflicts of interest that might exist.
to the provisions of
5 U.S.C. §557(d),
please now fully disclose for the record the dates and particulars of
any ex parte contacts you have had with anyone relating to this case.
If you want a funny example of how corrupted our political system
has become and how the bribery has biased our judgment, watch the movie
entitled The Distinguished
Gentleman featuring Eddie Murphy. It is far more truthful
than many people want to admit.