Fair trial

[Spideynw]

...
How can a judge be independent when the judge works for the opposing party?

Because it's his or her job.

Judges do not operate in a vacuum. Other than those who are elected, by and large they obtain their status via competence and performance. Granted, there will be bad apples but to imply that the entire judiciary system is unable to rule fairly as a result of them being 'employees' is absurd ab initio.

So you would be okay with Wal-Mart accusing you of stealing from them, setting up a Wal-Mart trial, and Wal-Mart appointing the judge? You would feel that is fair?

[LPC]

I'm not going to spend time arguing with Spidey because it's clear he's made up his mind, but I do want to point out a couple of things.

As others have already pointed out, a federal judge is not an "employee" in the usual sense of the word because he (or she) can't be fired, can't have his/her compensation reduced, and there is no control over the work product.

And, even in the private sector, there are employees who have both the authority and the responsibility of doing things that might not seem to be in the employer's best interests. For example, almost every retailer has employees who serve in "customer relations" to deal with customer complaints. If Spidey's "logic" were correct, then there would never be any point in even talking to any of those people because they're not going to do anything that would cost the employer any money. And it's true that they're not going to give someone a check for $1 million just because they ask for it. But if a customer is unhappy with a purchase, a customer relations employee will accept the return and issue a refund, consistent with the return policies of the employer. Yes, that costs the employer money in the short term, but the employer wants customers to be happy because that's more profitable in the long term.

Change "retailer" to "government" and "policies" to "laws" and you can see that judges are the customer relations department of the government. Congress and the President want "justice" administered by impartial judges because that's going to produce happier voters in the long term even if it costs the government some money in the short term. Having an independent judiciary means that there is the risk that judges will rule against you, but that's better than having a system in which no one has any confidence.

Tax protesters think that judges might maintain an appearance of impartiality for 99% of the cases in which there are no big issues, but when the big ticket cases come up, such as whether the income tax is constitutional, the IRS (or someone else in the government) will step in pull the strings to make sure the "right" result comes down. But that's really more difficult than it might sound. Once you set up a system that stresses impartiality, then the judges are going to believe it as well as the voters, and any attempt by the government to influence all of the judges involved in a case (both the trial judge and the appellate judges) is going to set off some serious alarms.

[Red Cedar PM]

...
How can a judge be independent when the judge works for the opposing party?

Because it's his or her job.

Judges do not operate in a vacuum. Other than those who are elected, by and large they obtain their status via competence and performance. Granted, there will be bad apples but to imply that the entire judiciary system is unable to rule fairly as a result of them being 'employees' is absurd ab initio.

So you would be okay with Wal-Mart accusing you of stealing from them, setting up a Wal-Mart trial, and Wal-Mart appointing the judge? You would feel that is fair?

Federal judges rule against the Government all the time, especially on tax matters. However, they (along with any legal scholar with half a brain) have consistently held that the Federal Income Tax is legally and constitutionally valid. Just because the judges don't agree with moronic tax protestor theories doesn't mean that they have any real bias towards ruling in favor of the government. To insist otherwise is a delusional fantasy that you appear to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

[wserra]

Something weird is going on. I am actually the one who posted the response attributed to "Randall" above.

Not sure how that happened.

Randall's post is timed 12:15 PM. The log shows that you edited it at 12:21 PM.

Sure you didn't hit "Edit" instead of "Quote" or "Post Reply"?

[Spideynw]

And I can tell you, Spidey, that if federal judges were not federal employees and were not paid by the U.S. Treasury, they would rule exactly the way they do now.

So, your argument that federal judges are not "independent" is not valid.

I would love to see you be able to prove it.

[Gregg]

...
How can a judge be independent when the judge works for the opposing party?

Because it's his or her job.

Judges do not operate in a vacuum. Other than those who are elected, by and large they obtain their status via competence and performance. Granted, there will be bad apples but to imply that the entire judiciary system is unable to rule fairly as a result of them being 'employees' is absurd ab initio.

So you would be okay with Wal-Mart accusing you of stealing from them, setting up a Wal-Mart trial, and Wal-Mart appointing the judge? You would feel that is fair?

No, that's not fair and I wouldn't agree to it. It's also not the same. But under your construct, I'm kind of getting that it's okay to steal from Wal Mart, because in a criminal case the State of Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida would be charging me, (not Wal Mart) and the the Judge would be an employee of those states, so he's biased. I guess Wal Mart could sue me civilly for what I took, we can agree on that, can't we? That would be fair.
The "government" is a set of rules and the people who administer those rules that separate us from savages. We have all, directly or indirectly ceded over to it power over us in order to have civilization. This has evolved over thousands of years. One of the inherent things about that is that it has to make decisions, and for the important decisions we have courts and judges. (In the movie Mad Max, Beyond Thunder Dome, they had the wheel, which is pretty much what you're arguing in favor of here) But even then, in a criminal matter, the Judge does not decide if you are guilty or not, he merely presides and in doing that sometimes makes decisions on the rules we have collectively agreed to, if you're gonna go to jail you have a right for that decision to be made not by the Judge but by a group or people like you, a jury of your peers. (you may not actually get that, it's kind of a theory based on the "all men are created equal" thingy, for instance, in your own circumstance, it might be hard to find 12 people as stupid as you in one judicial district, but it's for the most part a workable system) And admit it or not, you have agreed to the aggregate of this structure to enjoy the many benefits of living in a society controlled by the rule of law. As I pointed out to you elsewhere, you are perfectly free to 'opt out" of this oppression and unfairness any time you choose and I believe I even offered to transport you to the edge of the United States if you want to do so. But I suspect you'll decline that route, whether I toss you in the trunk or not because the few places that meet this one big requirement you're trying to avoid (have to pay taxes) have a bigger downside. Sure, they have no income tax in North Korea, but before you whine about the historical oppression and bias of US Judges in favor of the Government, consider for just a minute how independent a Judge there is in a case brought challenging Kim Jung Il's right to starve the population? Another favorite of mine is Somalia, where the Judges (such as they are) are in fact completely independent of government, (such as it is) and in fact are not government employees at all. Of course, an appeal in Somalia I think consists of trying to get up and crawl away after they shoot you in the back of the head and you manage to not assume room temperature. (They also have no Bar Association in Somalia, so you can get good defense attorney's not beholden to the Queen)

There is no hidden secret that says you don't have to pay taxes, if you're making enough money, and can't find a rule that says it doesn't count, society is going to take a bit to build roads and aircraft carriers and study the sex habits of fruit flys. Some of what they spend it on is not stuff I agree with, but on the whole, I, and damn near everyone else excepting small group of complete idiots like you, thinks it's worthwhile. If you really don't agree, go free yourself and do send a postcard from Kandahar Provence when you get there. (well, find a US soldier to, I'm not sure the tax free, no oppressive government control parts of Kandahar has a postal service, or running water, or roads...take your own food cause I'm damn sure they don't have an FDA and water, cause I doubt the local supply is what you're used to, and...well, you should get my point)

[Famspear]

Something weird is going on. I am actually the one who posted the response attributed to "Randall" above.

Not sure how that happened.

Randall's post is timed 12:15 PM. The log shows that you edited it at 12:21 PM.

Sure you didn't hit "Edit" instead of "Quote" or "Post Reply"?

That's what I figure must have happened, except that I never even "saw" Randall's post.

I just didn't think senility would hit me this quickly.



Sorry about that, Randall.....

EDIT: What I can't figure out is why this is happening. This is the second time this has happened in the past few days. I've been posting in this forum for three and a half years, so I must be falling apart now.

Oh, well.

[Gregg]

And I can tell you, Spidey, that if federal judges were not federal employees and were not paid by the U.S. Treasury, they would rule exactly the way they do now.

So, your argument that federal judges are not "independent" is not valid.

I would love to see you be able to prove it.

In certain situations is possible that government bodies are subject to rulings by arbitrators who are not paid by the government but by a fee charged to both parties.
This is more often state and especially local governments, most of them involve labor agreements and the government still wins in them every day.

next

[Spideynw]

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.

What's wrong with it is that no one will serve as a judge for free.

I would love to see you prove it.

How about adopting a rule that says in a tax dispute, the taxpayer pays half of the judge's fee and the government pays the other half. In advance. Would that make you feel better?

So now the judge represents me and the opposing party?

[Imalawman]

And I can tell you, Spidey, that if federal judges were not federal employees and were not paid by the U.S. Treasury, they would rule exactly the way they do now.

So, your argument that federal judges are not "independent" is not valid.

I would love to see you be able to prove it.

Did you say in a previous thread that a federal judge ruled AGAINST the government on the health care bill? That's huge bill, the government clearly wanted the judge to uphold it, if anyone were to have received pressure to rule on anything it would have been a bill like that. Instead, as you pointed, the judge ruled from a position of legal indifference to the parties.

That's not to say that the ruling was correct (let's not go there right now) or it wasn't influenced by the judge's personal political persuasion, but the judge clearly slammed the US Gov't on a bill of critical importance. Judge's aren't perfect, they're flawed like you and me. But I've witnessed their impartiality on many, many cases. Then again, I've actually appeared in federal court against the gov't and won. Have you?

Last year, a judge ruled that an IRS wrongfully levied against my client and my client received a sizable judgment. I could also point out where I've lost, but I've never witnessed a federal judge taking the side of the Gov't for no rational reason. Hell, there have been times where I could hardly blame the judge for ruling against my client.

[Spideynw]

And I can tell you, Spidey, that if federal judges were not federal employees and were not paid by the U.S. Treasury, they would rule exactly the way they do now.

So, your argument that federal judges are not "independent" is not valid.

I would love to see you be able to prove it.

In certain situations is possible that government bodies are subject to rulings by arbitrators who are not paid by the government but by a fee charged to both parties.
This is more often state and especially local governments, most of them involve labor agreements and the government still wins in them every day.

next

Now smart guy, let's have someone judge my case that is not a federal employee and not paid by either party. How about Marc Stevens?

[Famspear]

So now the judge represents me and the opposing party?

Nope. As long as we're doing this hypothetical, we stipulate that the judge still represents no one. He gets half his pay from you, and half from your opponent. That's it. He still makes his ruling by applying the law to the facts presented in the case. The chips fall where they may.

[Famspear]

Now smart guy, let's have someone judge my case that is not a federal employee and not paid by either party. How about Marc Stevens?

Well, no. The judge has to have some clue about what the law is. Marc Stevens knows about as much about law as you do, sport.

[Red Cedar PM]

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.

What's wrong with it is that no one will serve as a judge for free.

I would love to see you prove it.

I have met several judges who are very nice, charitable people. However, I don't know any of them who would serve as a judge for free for any extended period of time. They invested a lot of time, effort, and money in their legal career. Why would they give away their expertise for free?

Also, I love how you make absurd claims (that all judges would serve for free) and then ask someone to prove otherwise. Noone needs to prove it, it's common sense.

[Gregg]

Cuba!

Cuba does not have income tax on most people (if your income is foreign sourced and paid in convertible pesos it does)

Of course, people are floating 90 miles on anything that will float to get OUR of there and INTO the US...

[The Operative]

In certain situations is possible that government bodies are subject to rulings by arbitrators who are not paid by the government but by a fee charged to both parties.
This is more often state and especially local governments, most of them involve labor agreements and the government still wins in them every day.

next

Now smart guy, let's have someone judge my case that is not a federal employee and not paid by either party. How about Marc Stevens?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? Instead of a Federal Judge who's job it is to be as impartial and to rule in accordance with the law, you want to replace him with someone who jumps to a conclusion first regardless of what the law says and just happens to have the same erroneous ideas as you.

[wserra]

I've witnessed the government taking the side of the Gov't for no rational reason.

Seems rational to me.

[Pottapaug1938]

Judges do not operate in a vacuum. Other than those who are elected, by and large they obtain their status via competence and performance. Granted, there will be bad apples but to imply that the entire judiciary system is unable to rule fairly as a result of them being 'employees' is absurd ab initio.

So you would be okay with Wal-Mart accusing you of stealing from them, setting up a Wal-Mart trial, and Wal-Mart appointing the judge? You would feel that is fair?

Spidey, you must be twins, because one of you couldn't be this stupid. You obviously haven't bothered to read -- or maybe you can't comprehend -- the posts above which have already answred your question already. Your Wal-Mart example was specifically addressed.

On top of that, your suggestion that unpaid judges would be better to have is mind-bogglingly stupid. We'd wind up with either the very rich, who can afford to serve as unpaid judges, or the mediocre and incompetent, who can't get anything better.

Let's cut to the chase, spidey. You passionately wish that a federal judge will issue an authoritative ruling saying that Americans don't ever have to pay income tax. You know that you will never happen, so like a mentally drowning man you clutch desperately at any straw which will explain why judges don't rule the way you want them to, and you ignore any facts that will rescue you from drowning, but prove politically unplesasant in the process.

Folks, I think that we have our first nominee for "2011 Quatloos Emperor of Frickintardistan".

[Cpt Banjo]

How about adopting a rule that says in a tax dispute, the taxpayer pays half of the judge's fee and the government pays the other half. In advance. Would that make you feel better?

So now the judge represents me and the opposing party?

The judge represents neither. The fact that his fee is paid by both sides doesn't mean he's representing anyone. His position in this situation is similar to that of a commercial arbitrator whose fee is paid by both sides.

[Spideynw]

And I can tell you, Spidey, that if federal judges were not federal employees and were not paid by the U.S. Treasury, they would rule exactly the way they do now.

So, your argument that federal judges are not "independent" is not valid.

I would love to see you be able to prove it.

Did you say in a previous thread that a federal judge ruled AGAINST the government on the health care bill? That's huge bill, the government clearly wanted the judge to uphold it, if anyone were to have received pressure to rule on anything it would have been a bill like that. Instead, as you pointed, the judge ruled from a position of legal indifference to the parties.

That's not to say that the ruling was correct (let's not go there right now) or it wasn't influenced by the judge's personal political persuasion, but the judge clearly slammed the US Gov't on a bill of critical importance. Judge's aren't perfect, they're flawed like you and me. But I've witnessed their impartiality on many, many cases. Then again, I've actually appeared in federal court against the gov't and won. Have you?

Last year, a judge ruled that an IRS wrongfully levied against my client and my client received a sizable judgment. I could also point out where I've lost, but I've witnessed the government taking the side of the Gov't for no rational reason. Hell, there have been times where I could hardly blame the judge for ruling against my client.

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.