RECEIVED SEP 25 2009 i WiLETRWTT WacsH Gnited States District Court DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Attorney(s): Tim Vawter, pro se, Office Tel# 732- 431-5024 SafetyLawsuits.com Office & Tel No: 30 W. Main St., Suite 321, Freehold, NJ 07728 Attorney(s) for Tim Vawter, pro se, and on behalf of others who are unaware of the offenses CIVIL ACTION # or may be unable to sue Plaintifis) Signe CEC ee Civil #09-3803 (JAP) Federal government Motion to Increase Pay Please Take Mlotice tnaon or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the plaintiff Tim Vawter shall make application to the United States District court for New Jersey, United States courthouse in Trenton, NJ, in accordance with F.R.C.P. Rule 7 (b) (1), for an Order to Increase Pay for all federal court employees, for the following reasons; Page 1 >#1. Present salaries decreased, which is unconstitutional The present salaries for federal court employees have declined by not keeping up with inflation, as the Jnflation chart in Exhibit A shows, and thus they violate Article HI, Section 1 of the Constitution which states; “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.“ #2, Chief Justice Roberts points this out ‘Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts strongly advised pay raises in his 2006 report (See 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, federal court secretaries and other federal court employees, including federal security personnel, to immediately have their salaries increased by 93%, and this increase shall be made retroactive for the past 3 months. Page 2#3. Pay raise for all federal court employees All other federal court employees must also receive this 93% pay raise because these employees are all integrally related to the work of the federal judges. 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. #4, The Plaintiff was denied “due process” The plaintiff Tim Vawter was denied “due process” under the $* amendment for a period of two weeks because federal court employees and judges are overworked and underpaid. This denial of his constitutional rights occurred when Judge Pisano ordered on 9/3/2009 that the plaintiff Tim Vawter either submit an updated low income application, or the requisite filing fee. The plaintiff did in fact pay the requisite filing fee 2 weeks earlier on 8/14/2009, and thus he was denied his constitutional right to “due process” for two full weeks. Exhibit C is the federal court website PACER showing the plaintiff Tim Vawter paid the $350 filing fee on 8/14/2009. For two full weeks he was denied his constitutional right to “due Page 3process” because of the unconstitutionally low pay rate presently given to federal court employees. #5. Low pay can deny any litigant “due process” ‘The plaintiff Tim Vawter and other citizens will be denied their “due process” constitutional rights under the 5" amendment if the attached Order to Increase Pay is not signed. #6. Report by Chief Justice Roberts Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reminded us again in his 2008 Year- End Report on the Federal Judiciary that higher judicial salaries are needed to attract more experienced employees. Additionally, good employees will stay at these jobs instead of leaving for higher paying jobs. The 93% pay increase sought by the plaintiff Tim Vawter for all federal court employees will allow these employees to give extra attention to doing their job well. Denying this pay increase will result, and has resulted, in denying citizens their 5" amendment right to “due process”, Page 4#7. Guarding against undue coercion In these tough economic times, we must help guard against any federal judge or federal court employee ending up in a struggling financial situation which an extremely wealthy litigant could find out about, and then try to exert economic influence on that individual in some way or another, with the result being that the judgment of a federal case is somehow unduly influenced. This is guarded against by insuring the proper pay that the plaintiff Tim Vawter is seeking for all federal judges and federal court employees in the attached Order fo Increase Pay. #8. Calculating the pay rate The plaintiff Tim Vawter is seeking all federal court employees’ pay to be raised by 93%, being computed as follows; A 43% increase to catch up with inflation as shown in Exhibit A which is the Inflation Chart from Chief Justice Roberts 2006 report, showing a 43% decline in pay for federal judges. Because other federal court employees are vitally required for the proper work of the federal judges to occur, they too must be included in this salary increase. Added to this 43% required increase is a 50% increase to acknowledge the enormously important Page 5work being conducted within the federal court system, which has thus far been overlooked with regards to the pay rate. 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. Federal court rulings are so important; they can cause entire industries to succeed or be shut down, wars can be allowed or prevented, nationwide flu vaccinations can be put on hold until mercury is removed, and similar. Federal rulings can enable or prevent vast amounts of money to be transacted. To not include this increase is to fail to acknowledge the vitally important role the federal court system is required to constantly fulfill and maintain. Although federal court employees are chosen from among people of the highest morals, this higher pay will make federal court employees even less likely to ever be prone to outside coercion or external financial pressure. If a corporation of questionable morals could, how much money would it spend try to coerce or sway a federal court employee with regards to a federal lawsuit which affects that corporation? The immediate 93% pay increase for all federal court employees should make the possibilities of such coercion to be zero, certainly much less than it is today with the presently unconstitutional salaries. All federal court employees must receive this same pay raise, from secretaries to security personnel, because these Page 6employees are all integrally related to the work of the federal judiciary. #9, Barring “term” secretaries and any “term” help ‘The hiring and use of “term” secretaries or “term” help in any way must be stopped, since this allows people to work who may not be fully devoted to the federal court system, may not be impartial when cases are managed, and might even be primed or prepped beforehand to attempt to coerce or influence a very large lawsuit down the road. Within 60 days of the signing of the attached Order to Increase Pay, no “term” secretaries or “term” employees of any kind can be used by the federal judiciary or within the federal court system. For especially hard or complex cases, additional court employees should be hired, and with this pay increase we will attract more studious, trustworthy, and devoted employees. Anyone presently employed as “term” help whose work is needed for the operation of the federal court should be either let go, or be given a regular job as a federal court employee and receive this pay raise as well. apr ale) Tz Tim Vawter, pro se plaintiff Date Page 7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; Printout of the federal court PACER website showing the plaintiff Tim Vawter paid the $350 filing fee on 8/14/2009. Page 8