Filed in federal court. USDNJ Civil lawsuit #09-3803, Vawter vs. Federal govt
Brief in Support of Motion and
Order to Increase Pay
Motion to Increase Pay - Order to Increase Pay - Brief to support Motion and Order
Received on Sept 25, 2009 William T. Walsh, ClerkUnited States District court
District of New JerseyAttorney(s) Tim Vawter, pro se, Office Tel# 732- 431-5024
Office address & Tel # 30 W. Main St., Suite 321, Freehold, NJ 07728Attorney(s) for Civil case #09-3803
Tim Vawter, pro se, and on behalf
of others who may be unaware of
the offenses or unable to sue
Plaintiff(s)
vs.Federal government
Defendant(s)
BriefBrief in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Increase Pay and Order to Increase Pay
Written by;
Tim Vawter, pro se Plaintiff
30 West Main St.
Freehold, NJ 07728
Office Tel # 732-431-5024
www.SafetyLawsuits.com
Table of Contents page
Table of Authorities...............................................................................2Preliminary Statement............................................................................2
Statement of Facts..................................................................................3
Summary of Argument...........................................................................4
Conclusion..............................................................................................9
Exhibits.................................................................................................10
Table of Authorities
page
Rules/CodesU.S. Constitution, Article III, Section I....................................3
Preliminary Statement
The plaintiff Tim Vawter shows the present pay rate for all federal court employees is unconstitutional and must be immediately raised by 93% to come in line with the constitution, and that this pay raise must be made retroactive for the past three months.Statement of Facts
The evidence is showing the pay for federal judges has decreased when compared with inflation, as the Inflation Chart in Exhibit B shows, which the Constitution forbids.Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution firmly states;Denying this 93% pay increase will result in, and has resulted in, citizens being denied their 5th amendment right to “due process”, further showing the present low pay rate of federal court employees is unconstitutional. Higher pay generally allows people to focus more of their time on their work, and less time worrying about household or other personal matters.“The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.“
Evidence that federal court employees are overworked and underpaid is shown in how, on 8/14/2009 the plaintiff Tim Vawter paid the $350 requisite filing fee to file this lawsuit #09-3803 (see Exhibit C), yet because of the present unconstitutionally low pay rate, this resulting in an Order being given by Judge Pisano on 9/3/2009 asking the plaintiff to pay the requisite filing fee. The plaintiff in fact paid that very filing fee two weeks earlier on 8/14/2009 as Exhibit C shows. Because of this, the plaintiff Tim Vawter was denied his constitutional right to “due process” for a period of two weeks.
Summary of Argument
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts strongly advised pay raises in his 2006 report (Exhibit B) and the plaintiff Tim Vawter is now seeing that this constitutional violation is corrected with the attached Order to Increase Pay. That Order deems the present pay for all federal judges and federal court employees unconstitutional, to be immediately increased by 93%, and that this increase shall be made retroactive for the past 3 months.By studying Chief Justice John Roberts’ Inflation Chart (Exhibit A), any reasonable person can see the current pay rate of federal judges has declined when compared to the inflation rate, and because Article III, Section I of the Constitution says the pay cannot decline, it must be increased by at least 43% increase to be adjusted for inflation, in order for salaries to come in line with the Constitution. An additional 50% increase is required for the “vital work” the federal court engages in, making the total required pay increase to be 93%.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reminded us in his 2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary;
“the issue has been ignored far too long and has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary..., I am talking about the failure to raise judicial pay. “It is clear that much higher judicial salaries are needed to attract more experienced employees, and for good employees to stay at these jobs instead of leaving for higher paying jobs. The 93% pay increase asked for by the plaintiff Tim Vawter for all federal court employees will allow employees to pay extra attention to doing their job well. Without the vitally needed support work engaged in by secretaries and other court employees, the federal judiciary could not function. This pay raise must be given to all federal judges, federal court secretaries, federal court security personnel and all other employees of the federal court system, including those who create and maintain the Internet sites for the federal court system like PACER.The United States federal court system was designed by the authors of our constitution to be the superfortress of protection for the United States constitution, upon which every law and statute in our the United States is based on, by which every policeman moves or refrains from moving, and under which every citizen receives unconditional protection regardless of race, religion, culture, age, or sex.
The federal court system rules on cases ranging from cases that stop or allow corporations to earn billions of dollars, to cases that correct foreign policy which affect millions of people in foreign countries, to cases where the constitutional rights of everyone are protected. The plaintiff Tim Vawter argues that to insure this noble, invaluable duty be properly conducted is for the salaries of all federal court employees must be immediately doubled as the attached Order demands, and, that this is what the authors of the United States constitution would want done.
In these post Cold War days America has emerged as the only superpower. It is a time when the world relies on America for guidance, strength and stability. Many federal rulings are emulated by other nations. Federal rulings may cause billions of dollars to change hands. The judges and employees of the federal court system are so vitally important for the proper protection of the constitution and of federal law, that they must be granted a salary commensurate with this important work, and that the Constitution requires this pay raise.
Federal judicial work is so vitally important to the operation and maintenance of our country, that our nation would not last more than a few days should the federal court system ever break down, become corrupted, or open itself up to coercion or external influence due to low pay.
Federal court rulings can cause entire industries to succeed or be shut down. Wars can be allowed or prevented. Thimerosal mercury can be ordered removed from nationwide flu vaccines. Forced flu vaccinations can be put stopped, and similar profound rulings that affect Americans can occur. Yet the pay rate for federal judges and court employees are far below those of corporate CEOs and their support staff? CEO pay can be exponentially higher than that of a federal judge, yet a federal judge is supposed to have more power than the CEO? Many of the bonuses given to CEOs of failed banks are exponentially higher than the yearly salary of a federal judge, not to mention federal court employees who are so vitally required for the proper functioning of the federal Judiciary. As such, pay raises for federal court employees is critically needed, with the current low pay being unconstitutional.
As pointed out in paragraph #9 of the Motion to Increase Pay, the hiring or employing of “term” secretaries or “term” help in any manner must be stopped, since this allows people to work who may not be fully devoted to the federal court system. Temporary help may not be impartial to cases, and might even be primed or prepped beforehand in an attempt to coerce or influence a far-reaching ruling down the road. The focus should not be on saving a few pennies which may result in exhausted, overworked employees who receive inadequate pay, thus becoming more prone to mistakes.
Where personal security is concerned, the present low pay can result in federal judges and federal court employees being less able to protect themselves when need be, being less able to purchase home security systems and other needed items, which can thus deny them their constitutional rights to remain safe in their homes.
Conclusion
In light of the facts presented in this Brief and Motion to Increase Pay now submitted by the plaintiff Tim Vawter, the 93% pay increase must be granted to not only federal judges, but to all federal court employees. To help correct for prior oversight in failing to increase this pay, the 93% pay increase must be made retroactive for the past three months for all federal court employees (with this retroactive payment being tax free).In these tough economic times, we must help guard against any federal judge or federal court employee ending up in a struggling financial situation that an extremely wealthy litigant could find out about, then try to exert economic influence on that court employee in some way or another, with the result unduly influencing the judgment of an important federal case. This is guarded against by insuring the proper pay that the plaintiff is seeking for all federal judges and federal court employees in the attached Order to Increase Pay.
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------
Tim Vawter, pro se plaintiff Date
Exhibits
Exhibit A; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ Inflation chart from his 2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.
Exhibit B; Page 1 of the 2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary written by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in 2006.
Exhibit C; PACER website showing $350 filing fee was paid on 8/14/2009.
You can help this lawsuit by donating. To help, please email Tim at safetylawsuits@verizon.net