Tennessee supreme court’s internal tax system is premised on the idea of privilege, outlined in an 1870s case Phillips v. Lewis, that says a privilege is an activity subject to tax because it affects the public interest and is for private profit and gain. Lawyers exercise a privilege, just like people who cut hair or operate motor vehicles. Petitioners in a court case doing their own law work are not in court exercising a privilege, because they don’t earn their livings in the courtrooms. Hence the Tennessee supreme court is wrongly imposing the privilege concept on pro se litigants who are not exercising any for-profit activity in their petition, say, of a traffic conviction in a lower court. The petition in view must be filed with the TN supreme court, because the challenge is against its own rule establishing the internal privilege tax. This tax appears to be a racketeering influenced corrupt organization sort of strong-arm abuse against members of the innocent public in Tennessee. The tax is apart from their office, is an abuse of office, and is arguably done in their personal capacity. If the pro se petitioner denied any sort of hearing of this “rule” sues the judges alleging breach of their office, is he wise to sue in federal court under RICO, and to sue them in personal capacity, since they act outside their office?
The ‘system’ responds to the above proposition, as follows
ChatGPT says this: Challenging the internal tax system of the Tennessee Supreme Court, particularly on the grounds that it unfairly imposes a privilege concept on pro se litigants, could be a complex legal endeavor.
Regarding your suggestion of pursuing legal action against the judges personally under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in federal court, several considerations need to be addressed:
RICO Requirements: To bring a successful RICO claim, specific criteria must be met. RICO claims typically involve a pattern of racketeering activity, such as fraud, bribery, or extortion, conducted as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. It’s crucial to demonstrate that the judges’ actions meet the criteria for racketeering under RICO.
Official Immunity: Judges generally have judicial immunity for actions taken in their official capacity. This immunity protects judges from personal liability when performing judicial duties, even if their decisions are incorrect or controversial. However, this immunity might not cover actions that fall outside their judicial role or involve clear misconduct or corruption.
Standing and Jurisdiction: Proving standing and jurisdiction to sue judges in their personal capacity in federal court can be challenging. federal courts typically respect state court decisions and might hesitate to intervene in internal court matters unless there are clear federal constitutional issues.
Complexity and Legal Counsel: Suing judges personally under RICO is a serious legal action and would require extensive legal expertise and resources. It’s crucial to consult experienced attorneys specializing in constitutional law, civil rights, and RICO claims to assess the viability of such a lawsuit and understand the potential risks and challenges involved.
Alternate Legal Avenues: Exploring other legal avenues, such as challenging the internal tax system through constitutional arguments in state court or pursuing legislative or administrative remedies, might offer more practical solutions.
While the situation you describe raises concerns about potential unfairness in the imposition of taxes and privileges on pro se litigants, pursuing legal action against judges personally under RICO in federal court is a significant step that requires careful evaluation and consideration of all legal implications and potential consequences. Consulting with legal experts to explore all available options and strategies would be essential before taking such action.