Fair trial

[Spideynw]

My other thread was leading up to how I can get a fair trial. Anyways, from another direction, how can I get a fair tax trial when the judge is employed by the plaintiff? For example, in any U.S. court case, the U.S. is the plaintiff and the judge is employed by the U.S. Or do you all think trials are fair when the judge is employed by the plaintiff? And I don't see how it can be relevant how the plaintiff chooses the judge. Meaning U.S. courts like to claim the judge is independent because he is not elected. But so what? The judge is still an employee of the state and the state is the plaintiff. That seems like a conflict of interest to me. If Wal-Mart accused me a of stealing something from one of their stores, and they setup a court, where the judge was a Wal-Mart employee chosen by Wal-Mart management as opposed to being voted in by the employees, that would not make me feel any more secure about the trial being fair. Would it for you?

[Paul]

The conflict is hard to avoid, but keep in mind that a federal judge has life tenure, and the government cannot cut his or her pay. There is nothing that the government can do to him or her, as an employer, to sway the judge's opinion.

You might keep in mind that the judge is also a taxpayer, and has that incentive to rule against the government.

[wserra]

how can I get a fair tax trial when the judge is employed by the plaintiff?

As Dan already pointed out, the govt is not the plaintiff in tax trials, whether in Tax or District Court. But I understand your point, and believe there to be a short but dispositive answer.

Judges rule against the govt in tax cases every day. If that doesn't happen based on the theory you want to employ, then maybe the problem is the theory and not the judge.

[Famspear]

My other thread was leading up to how I can get a fair trial. Anyways, from another direction, how can I get a fair tax trial when the judge is employed by the plaintiff? For example, in any U.S. court case, the U.S. is the plaintiff and the judge is employed by the U.S. Or do you all think trials are fair when the judge is employed by the plaintiff? And I don't see how it can be relevant how the plaintiff chooses the judge. Meaning U.S. courts like to claim the judge is independent because he is not elected. But so what? The judge is still an employee of the state and the state is the plaintiff. That seems like a conflict of interest to me. If Wal-Mart accused me a of stealing something from one of their stores, and they setup a court, where the judge was a Wal-Mart employee chosen by Wal-Mart management as opposed to being voted in by the employees, that would not make me feel any more secure about the trial being fair. Would it for you?

First, Spidey, you're still confused on legal terms.

It is incorrect to say that "in any U.S. court case, the U.S. is the plaintiff." We've already been through this.

In a court of law, the plaintiff is the party who commences the lawsuit or litigation. The party being sued or prosecuted is the defendant.

In federal tax cases, the U.S. government is usually the defendant (in Tax Court, the defendant is called the "respondent"). There are exceptions in certain bankruptcy cases where the U.S. government could be the plaintiff in what is known as a 505(a) determination. There are other exceptions, such as where the government sues over an erroneous refund, etc.

Your argument that the federal judges are not independent fails because, as law professors will tell you, it "proves too much" if it is to be accepted. Under that line of reasoning, for example, a certified public accountant (CPA) could never be independent of the company he audits, since the CPA firm is paid from the funds of the company.

Indeed, under your line of "reasoning," it would appear that no person could ever be independent of anyone who pays that person.

Federal judges rule against the federal government in tax cases all the time. Federal judges also rule against the federal government in other kinds of cases where the federal government is a party.

Your argument is akin to the old tax protester argument that federal judges are "afraid" of the Internal Revenue Service, and thus will not rule against the IRS. Anybody who has had extensive dealings with IRS employees -- and with federal judges -- knows that this would be a silly argument.

I have been studying tax protesters for about 12 years. I have never, ever, seen even one tax protester come up with any evidence at all that any federal judge has ever exhibited any fear of the IRS in making a court ruling.

[Spideynw]

The conflict is hard to avoid, but keep in mind that a federal judge has life tenure,

So long as everyone keeps paying taxes.

and the government cannot cut his or her pay.

So long as everyone keeps paying taxes.

You might keep in mind that the judge is also a taxpayer, and has that incentive to rule against the government.

When was the last time it was ruled people don't have to pay taxes?

[Pottapaug1938]

The other thing, spidey, is that you have to consider what the alternative would be. If we didn't have judges as "employees of the state", they would have to be employees of some private entity. I strongly doubt that any such judges would be as insulated from "pressure from above" as they are -- at least in the federal system and states where they are not elected, or subject to recall efforts based on political ideology rather than the proper application of the laws.

In fact, judges can be impeached and removed from office, or otherwise disciplined, if they are found to be ruling other than impartially of fairly. Just ask that former judge in Pennsylvania, who is going to prison for railroading juveniles who appeared before him into a for-profit detention center operated by a crony of his. Here in Massachusetts, I've seen more than one judge -- all politically well connected -- removed from office for judicial misconduct.

In short, spidey -- the system we have may not be perfect in every last detail; but it's far superior to any other.

[Famspear]

......The judge is still an employee of the state and the state is the plaintiff. That seems like a conflict of interest to me. If Wal-Mart accused me a of stealing something from one of their stores, and they setup a court, where the judge was a Wal-Mart employee chosen by Wal-Mart management as opposed to being voted in by the employees, that would not make me feel any more secure about the trial being fair. Would it for you?

This part of your argument deserves additional consideration.

Your analogy is not -- analogous.

In the case of a federal judge, it's not as though he or she is "chosen by management" in the same way you are arguing.

You can think of "management" in this case as being the Justice Department (in federal tax cases in U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Court, or Court of Federal Claims) or the IRS (in Tax Court). Federal judges are not appointed by the Justice Department or the IRS. They're appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Neither the President nor the Senate are involved in day to day decisions about the application of tax law. The IRS administers the law, and the Department of Justice prosecutes those charged with federal tax crimes.

The federal judge hearing your case was probably not even appointed by the current President. Further, a federal judge (even a Tax Court judge, who is not appointed for life) CANNOT BE FIRED for rendering decisions against the IRS, etc. Not only that, but the PAY OF A FEDERAL JUDGE CANNOT BE REDUCED -- for ANY reason, much less for the reason that he or she rules against the IRS. So, where is the supposed "lack of independence"?

Your analogy to Wal-Mart management appointing a judge, etc., doesn't work.

[Famspear]

When was the last time it was ruled people don't have to pay taxes?

It's not the job of a federal judge to rule that "people don't have to pay taxes." It's not the job of a judge to simply rule against laws the judge doesn't like.

It's the job of a judge to interpret the law as it is.

The law is: People must pay federal income taxes.

A better question is: When was the last time that a federal judge ruled that a particular taxpayer didn't owe a particular tax that the IRS contended he or she owed?

And the answer is: That happens all the time.

[Spideynw]

First, Spidey, you're still confused on legal terms.

It is incorrect to say that "in any U.S. court case, the U.S. is the plaintiff." We've already been through this.

In a court of law, the plaintiff is the party who commences the lawsuit or litigation. The party being sued or prosecuted is the defendant.

In federal tax cases, the U.S. government is usually the defendant (in Tax Court, the defendant is called the "respondent"). There are exceptions in certain bankruptcy cases where the U.S. government could be the plaintiff in what is known as a 505(a) determination. There are other exceptions, such as where the government sues over an erroneous refund, etc.

The point is really irrelevant. Either way, the judge is employed by the opposing party.

Your argument that the federal judges are not independent fails because, as law professors will tell you, it "proves too much" if it is to be accepted. Under that line of reasoning, for example, a certified public accountant (CPA) could never be independent of the company he audits, since the CPA firm is paid from the funds of the company.

Correct. CPAs are not independent. Your point?

Indeed, under your line of "reasoning," it would appear that no person could ever be independent of anyone who pays that person.

Correct. And what is wrong with having an unpaid judge again to ensure that he is independent? That would seem to be the only way to have a fair trial.

Federal judges rule against the federal government in tax cases all the time. Federal judges also rule against the federal government in other kinds of cases where the federal government is a party.

When was the last time a federal court ruled that we don't have to pay federal income taxes, at all, ever?

Your argument is akin to the old tax protester argument that federal judges are "afraid" of the Internal Revenue Service, and thus will not rule against the IRS.

Where did I say anything about judges being afraid? The reason they would rule against me is because it is in their best interest I pay, so they keep getting a paycheck.

[wserra]

When was the last time a federal court ruled that we don't have to pay federal income taxes, at all, ever?

When was the last time a federal court ruled that we can go into Fort Knox with a shopping cart and help ourselves?

Why should a judge rule something that isn't the law?

[Spideynw]

When was the last time it was ruled people don't have to pay taxes?

It's not the job of a federal judge to rule that "people don't have to pay taxes." It's not the job of a judge to simply rule against laws the judge doesn't like.

It's the job of a judge to interpret the law as it is.

The law is: People must pay federal income taxes.

A better question is: When was the last time that a federal judge ruled that a particular taxpayer didn't owe a particular tax that the IRS contended he or she owed?

And the answer is: That happens all the time.

A judge recently ruled in a district that the health care bill, in it's entirety, is invalid. Try again smart guy.

[Spideynw]

When was the last time a federal court ruled that we don't have to pay federal income taxes, at all, ever?

When was the last time a federal court ruled that we can go into Fort Knox with a shopping cart and help ourselves?

Why should a judge rule something that isn't the law?

How is the trial fair, given that the judge works for the opposing party?

[Famspear]

By the way, Spidey, do you remember the credit that people received on their 2006 Form 1040 federal income tax return, line 71, for the federal telephone excise tax?

Do you know why that credit was there on that form?

Because the IRS had been losing every court case with taxpayers over meaning of the law that imposed that tax. The IRS argued that the law meant one thing, and the taxpayers argued that the law meant something else. The courts ruled in favor of the taxpayers, over and over. The IRS lost so many big cases that the IRS eventually gave up and refunded or credited essentially all taxpayers for the overpaid excise tax (not just the taxpayers who were involved in the court cases).

[Spideynw]

......The judge is still an employee of the state and the state is the plaintiff. That seems like a conflict of interest to me. If Wal-Mart accused me a of stealing something from one of their stores, and they setup a court, where the judge was a Wal-Mart employee chosen by Wal-Mart management as opposed to being voted in by the employees, that would not make me feel any more secure about the trial being fair. Would it for you?

This part of your argument deserves additional consideration.

Your analogy is not -- analogous.

In the case of a federal judge, it's not as though he or she is "chosen by management" in the same way you are arguing.

You can think of "management" in this case as being the Justice Department (in federal tax cases in U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Court, or Court of Federal Claims) or the IRS (in Tax Court). Federal judges are not appointed by the Justice Department or the IRS. They're appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Neither the President nor the Senate are involved in day to day decisions about the application of tax law. The IRS administers the law, and the Department of Justice prosecutes those charged with federal tax crimes.

How is it relevant how the employee is chosen? Give me a freaking break. He is still an employee of the opposing party.

The federal judge hearing your case was probably not even appointed by the current President. Further, a federal judge (even a Tax Court judge, who is not appointed for life) CANNOT BE FIRED for rendering decisions against the IRS, etc. Not only that, but the PAY OF A FEDERAL JUDGE CANNOT BE REDUCED -- for ANY reason, much less for the reason that he or she rules against the IRS.

Unless of course everyone stops paying taxes. DUH!

So, where is the supposed "lack of independence"?

THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE WORKS FOR THE OPPOSING PARTY AND HIS PAYCHECK IS DEPENDENT ON ME PAYING.

[Famspear]

When was the last time it was ruled people don't have to pay taxes?

It's not the job of a federal judge to rule that "people don't have to pay taxes." It's not the job of a judge to simply rule against laws the judge doesn't like.

It's the job of a judge to interpret the law as it is.

The law is: People must pay federal income taxes.

A better question is: When was the last time that a federal judge ruled that a particular taxpayer didn't owe a particular tax that the IRS contended he or she owed?

And the answer is: That happens all the time.

A judge recently ruled in a district that the health care bill, in it's [sic] entirety, is invalid. Try again smart guy.

I think you've just helped me prove my point.

[Spideynw]

By the way, Spidey, do you remember the credit that people received on their 2006 Form 1040 federal income tax return, line 71, for the federal telephone excise tax?

Do you know why that credit was there on that form?

Because the IRS had been losing every court case with taxpayers over meaning of the law that imposed that tax. The IRS argued that the law meant one thing, and the taxpayers argued that the law meant something else. The courts ruled in favor of the taxpayers, over and over. The IRS lost so many big cases that the IRS eventually gave up and refunded or credited essentially all taxpayers for the overpaid excise tax (not just the taxpayers who were involved in the court cases).

Just because a judge rules in favor of me sometimes, does not make the court fair. A fair court requires an independent judge. How can a judge be independent when the judge works for the opposing party?

[Famspear]

No, Spidey, you're playing with words.

The federal judge is not the "employee" of the tax collector. An employee is someone who works under the control and supervision of another person, called the "employer". Under the arrangement, the employer has the power to decide WHAT is to be done, and HOW it is to be done.

Neither the Justice Department nor the IRS have any power to determine how a federal judge is going to rule in a federal tax case -- or in any other court case.

It may be technically correct to say that a federal judge is a federal government "employee" for some purposes -- I'm not going to split hairs on that issue right now.

Your argument, however, is really that a federal judge is not "independent" of the IRS or the DOJ. And we've explained to you why you're wrong.

[Spideynw]

A judge recently ruled in a district that the health care bill, in it's [sic] entirety, is invalid. Try again smart guy.

I think you've just helped me prove my point.

And that would be?

[Spideynw]

The federal judge is not the "employee" of the tax collector.

Um, as far as I know, the state is always the opposing party and the judge works for the state. Not only that, but his pay is directly influenced by whether or not I am forced to pay or not! How long would judges stay employed by the United States government if they said no one has to pay taxes?!!! If you cannot see the conflict of interest, than I don't know how else I can point it out to you. And I don't see how I can get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest.

[Famspear]

The federal judge is not the "employee" of the tax collector.

Fine. The tax collector is a part of the United States government. The judge is part of the United States government. Hence, the judge is part of the organization of the opposing party. Not only that, but his pay is directly influenced by whether or not I am forced to pay or not! How long would judges stay employed by the United States government if they said no one has to pay taxes?!!! If you cannot see the conflict of interest, than I don't know how else I can point it out to you. And I don't see how I can get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest.

Again, you seem to be trying to argue that you want to get a federal judge to rule that you don't have to pay taxes -- if only he weren't "part of the United States government", then maybe you could get what you want.

And I'm saying that it's not the job of a federal judge to rule the way you want him to rule. It's the job of a federal judge to interpret the law -- to follow the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal income tax is valid. It's being applied correctly, except in specific instances where the courts rule against the IRS.

You still haven't demonstrated how there is a "conflict of interest." What is the judge's economic interest in ruling in favor of the tax collector? Are you saying that you really believe that federal judges rule the tax law constitutional BECAUSE they don't want to lose their source of income? Again, if that's your belief, I would say that you don't know much about how federal judges think.