6th Circuit rules on Conces

[Demosthenes]

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/6thcirconces.pdf

[Famspear]

Footnote 10 of the opinion contains the following statement by the court:

While Conces suggests that the various appellate court rulings rejecting his position are contrary to the relevant Supreme Court precedents, this panel nonetheless is bound to follow the prior published decisions of this court, without regard for whether they might be mistaken in their reading of the Supreme Court's decisions.

(bolding added).

[Famspear]

I'm going to put that down to inartful drafting.

[Quixote]

I assumed the court was saying that review of previously published opinions is done only by the full court, not by a 3 judge panel. If any 3 judge panel could reverse a decision of any other 3 judge panel, the law in the 6th Circuit could come to resemble a Wikipedia article.

[Dezcad]

My favorite parts of the ruling:

through semantic quibbles about the meaning of straightforward terms

That language I think could be in the opinion for Blowhard PH's appeal in the same court.


And

13Apart from the Lawmen website at issue in this case, we understand that other websites in the nether regions
of the Internet advocate this same tactic — i.e., demanding that federal judges establish their jurisdiction by producing
copies of various oaths — as well as more generally urging litigants, particularly in tax cases, to challenge the authority
of federal judges. We do not wish to dignify or draw undue attention to such websites by naming them here. We
hope, nonetheless, that our opinion in this case will help speed the demise of this particular “urban legend.”

[Dr. Caligari]

The one time I actually had the misfortune of litigating against a patriot-type loony, he filed some papers claiming that the judge was an "impostor" because he had no oath "on file." The judge said, "I took the oath in the ceremonial courtroom in this courthouse. Lots of people heard me take it. I take judicial notice of the fact that I am a judge. Denied."

[ASITStands]

Wonder if this signals an end to the "other" case in the 6th Circuit?

[Famspear]

Quixote wrote:

I assumed the court was saying that review of previously published opinions is done only by the full court, not by a 3 judge panel. If any 3 judge panel could reverse a decision of any other 3 judge panel, the law in the 6th Circuit could come to resemble a Wikipedia article.

Yes, and the court could have expressed itself more clearly by bluntly stating (1) that Conces is incorrect, (2) that the various appeals court decisions are not "mistaken" in their reading of the Supreme Court's decisions (apparently in connection with the frivolous argument that the Government lacks the authority to tax individual income), and (3) that no Federal court has ever held that the Government lacks the authority to tax individual income.