After Action Review: Russell v. IRS

[Russell Kanning]

I would recommend reading a wonderful book about CD by Howard Zinn. He covered many of these issues.

You guys have come up with many much better CD ideas than I did. I think you should do them.

KB .... you do not even have to do CD to turn from your current lifestyle that lives off of stolen money and directly helps the evil government. You can quit your job and stop paying taxes. See .... no destruction of property.

I can hardly wait until I do something else. I am sure that action will be riddled with mistakes that you guys can pick apart. Lucky I don't wait for your approval in order to take on organized crime.

[Christopher King]

Merits of the case aside -- well sort of -- I will offer the observation that primarily what set you apart from the Jerry Doyle case I referenced earlier was that you were in a discretionary area, even if anybody else could have walked up those stairs without incident.

This then begs the question of whether or not you were singled out because of viewpoint-based speech.

Hint: You were.

But again, because that speech (or proposed speech) was conducted (by flier and would have been conducted vocally as well) in the discretionary zone, they popped you.

Jerry was in the stairwell, an area I proved through testimony to be consonant with the exercise of First Amendment Rights.

==========

So then, what I was really going to say is welcome back, and enjoy some yoga to get the head right.

Peace.

[FrankChodorov]

that speech (or proposed speech) was conducted (by flier and would have been conducted vocally as well) in the discretionary zone

you have no free speech rights in the collectively owned IRS building whether in the general (lobby, halls, stairs, etc) or specific purpose areas (offices).

you do have a freedom of speech right on the sidewalk which contains a common right of way even though the  sidewalks are collectively owned and in a public forum (within a collectively owned building) with the expressed purpose of sharing ideas which may include questions from the audience

[Christopher King]

Gotcha'. The downstairs zone in the Doyle case becomes the sidewalk at the IRS building.

But on the viewpoint-based tip, it sure would be a novel experiment to have the boy and girl scouts bake some cookies and take a field trip up there, walk in and present said cookies to the IRS employees and say "thanks for doing a great job," then watch for paddy wagons that will never come =^.)

-c

[FrankChodorov]

Gotcha'. The downstairs zone in the Doyle case becomes the sidewalk at the IRS building.

But on the viewpoint-based tip, it sure would be a novel experiment to have the boy and girl scouts bake some cookies and take a field trip up there, walk in and present said cookies to the IRS employees and say "thanks for doing a great job," then watch for paddy wagons that will never come =^.)

-c

if they announced prior that they were going to do this and they were asked not to - do you think they would engage in an act of CD to deliver the cookies?

the arbitrary question then becomes exactly how disruptive would this be to official business being transacted at the IRS?

I have no idea what a "downstairs zone" means except to say you have no individual freedom of speech right in any collectively owned building unless it explicitly states that there is a public forum being conducted inwhich questions from the audience is being solicited but even then questioners will not be allowed to make outright protest statements...

[Michael Fisher]

if they announced prior that they were going to do this and they were asked not to - do you think they would engage in an act of CD to deliver the cookies?

the arbitrary question then becomes exactly how disruptive would this be to official business being transacted at the IRS?

I have no idea what a "downstairs zone" means except to say you have no individual freedom of speech right in any collectively owned building unless it explicitly states that there is a public forum being conducted inwhich questions from the audience is being solicited but even then questioners will not be allowed to make outright protest statements...

You want to play this game endlessly? Fine!

Russell has an inalienable, God-given right to freedom of speech on any property in any place that is not marked with a "No Trespassing" sign. Russell is likely to respect privately-owned property, but there is no respect to be had for stolen property, such as that owned by the Illegitimate Robbery Squad.

IRS property is not "collectively" owned -- it is stolen from the people and put in the hands of the local, regional, or national monopoly of force otherwise known as the "government." Contrary to popular belief, we do not "own" any portion of the IRS. If we did, we could choose not to buy a portion of it, or we could sell our equity in it. That is the definition of property by any reasonable, pro-liberty academic.

The IRS has as much right to its land and buildings as a robber has to his loot -- no right at all. The IRS has initiated force against thousands of Americans and threatened to initiate force against every single American since its inception in order to afford its property. If people signed onto an agreement in a privately-incorporated town to create a local mini-IRS, fund it entirely voluntarily, and give it some land to operate on, that would be the only known example of a collectively-owned community revenue service building, but it would not be a tax-based revenue service as all funds would be voluntary. Therefore, the tax-based IRS has never and will never be entitled to ownership of one square inch of land, nor will its land ever be "collectively owned."

Objectively speaking, you're worldview is distorted beyond any hope of repair.

[dirk]

Objectively speaking, you're worldview is distorted beyond any hope of repair.

you have no free speech rights in the collectively owned IRS building whether in the general (lobby, halls, stairs, etc) or specific purpose areas (offices).

He (Frank C.) also supports "free speech zones". Sound familiar?

Why don't you guys just ignore this character?

[FrankChodorov]

Russell has an inalienable, God-given right to freedom of speech on any property in any place that is not marked with a "No Trespassing" sign.

and if all land is privately owned then he has no individual "right" at all to freedom of speech except what he can purchase or be gifted...

my understanding of a "God-given" right is that we are born with it and thus doesn't have to be purchased or be gifted - isn't that your understanding?

IRS property is not "collectively" owned -- it is stolen from the people

you mean kinda how the lands of the indigenious people here were stolen?

put in the hands of the local, regional, or national monopoly of force otherwise known as the "government."

do you not recognize the difference as the great libertarian Albert J. Nock did between the "state" which is used by class interests via it's privilege granting abilities to prey on the labor of those they exclude versus the "local government" which is constitutued and operated via face-to-face, human scale, deliberative democracy (legitimate authority) to uphold the inalienable, individual equal access opportunity rights to the natural (which was given to all of mankind to be used by the creator) and social commons?

Contrary to popular belief, we do not "own" any portion of the IRS. If we did, we could choose not to buy a portion of it, or we could sell our equity in it. That is the definition of property by any reasonable, pro-liberty academic.

are you not free to join or leave any society that you want and thus agree to the legitimate authority in place or are you making the similiar argument that I do that if all lands are legally occupied (in your case by the government) where am I to go to excercise my right of self-ownership?

The IRS has as much right to its land and buildings as a robber has to his loot -- no right at all

you mean kinda how the lands of the indigenious people here were stolen?

The IRS has initiated force against thousands of Americans and threatened to initiate force against every single American since its inception in order to afford its property. If people signed onto an agreement in a privately-incorporated town to create a local mini-IRS, fund it entirely voluntarily, and give it some land to operate on, that would be the only known example of a collectively-owned community revenue service building, but it would not be a tax-based revenue service as all funds would be voluntary. Therefore, the tax-based IRS has never and will never be entitled to ownership of one square inch of land, nor will its land ever be "collectively owned."

look...I have said many. many times on this board as well as others that taxation of labor and capital is theft.

but at the same time I believe that force is always used in establishing dominion over a territory or eventually to maintain that dominion EVEN IN AN ANARCHY as I have pointed out with the native american peoples.

so I believe that:

1. there is such a thing as legitimate authority over a territory (a local government) and their use of force to protect the rights of individuals by sharing economic rent is just.
2. that the best we can do is face-to-face, human scale, deliberative democracy that is confederated with constitutional protections of rights but it can not be run by consensus or we will have the tyrrany of the minority.
3. people have a right to migrate to an area of their choice and to participate in the deliberative democracy and they may even be lucky enough to homestead without any economic rent attached

[FrankChodorov]

He (Frank C.) also supports "free speech zones". Sound familiar?

could you please cite exactly where I advocated this otherwise retract it?

[Christopher King]

Wow, lots of activity on this overnight.

What I was referring to in the "downstairs area" in the Doyle case is that the downstairs area, by established testimony (that I still have on tape, actually) establised that the area was consistently used for Free Speech purposes -- and as such, it doesn't matter one hoot what the posted RULES say.

And yes, I am a First Amendment scholar.

As for my cookie analogy, no I still don't think they would have arrested the boy and girl scouts regardless -- which goes back to my viewpoint-based & prior restraint arguments that favor Russell.

-c

[FrankChodorov]

the area was consistently used for Free Speech purposes -- and as such, it doesn't matter one hoot what the posted RULES say.

yes, arbitrary enforcement of the law is a big problem...that is the essence of privilege - privilege are:

private - privi
law - lege

yes, I am a First Amendment scholar.

then you understand that freedom of speech, assembly, etc. are at it's core based on individual rights held in common and in some way have to do with "right of ways" as the place to excercise them...

[firsty]

Michael: "Jesus overturned tables in his own house. He did not set an example that it's okay to go into churches and overturn tables. Besides, He was the Lord and He told us to leave vengeance up to Him, and not to take such a thing into our own hands. Vengeance is His, not ours."

well, the IRS is our house, not the government's house, not the IRS employees house. it's our house. it's russell's house. the leaders in the temple, in addition to the merchants, didnt see the temple as Christ's house, either.

Michael: "Russell's words are not acceptable, not even in jest."

people should be arrested for crimes, not speculation about crimes. i agree with your original post, this as a debriefing, which should encourage people to look at different ways of handling future events. but i disagree in principle with your general notion that what russell did prior to the event was inherently wrong or immoral.

Michael: "Besides, liberty is about more than winning against statism, it's primarily about creating a personally-responsible, respectful society. That should be our first goal."

agreed. however, it takes varying degrees of disruptive acts to get us to that place. it is sometimes necessary to break the law in order to change the law. are we questioning russell's overall intent or simply his methods or (what seems to be the case) his thought process, words prior to the event. to me, this seems nitpicking. overall, russell seemed wholly prepared for the resulting behavior of law enforcement, which was entirely appropriate on his part. i dont see how what you're doing, subsequent to pointint out different and potentially more positive methods of communicating "intent," is doing anything but nitpicking.

we should also keep in mind the ideas of the founding fathers, who explicitly opposed OVERT action, meaning, in this case, overt violent action (as you accuse). what russell did was not overt violent action.

(please forgive me if i'm misunderstanding things - i'm more on the side of strict constitutional interpretation rather than an idealogical re-invention of america.)

we need to accept that some of the things *necessary* to achieve real, progressive and productive change, will be considered illegal, will actually BE illegal. if we are to expect ourselves and other protesters and activists to stick within the letter of the law, we WILL NEVER AFFECT CHANGE. precisely because the laws prevent change from happening - ie, putting protestors in a roped-off area, hidden from view, and any laws not currently able to prevent all protests will evolve into laws that do, based on whatever sneaky loophole protests someone might be able to come up with. the laws are created by the groups we already oppose and who recognize our opposition.

we can discuss the "ideal" acts of civil disobedience (quoted from dadaorwell), but only in the hypothetical. are we attempting to judge all protest events against the ideal? is that even possible? is it fair? it has use - and the beginning of this thread seemed to point to its usefulness - as a debriefing, as a set of guidelines to aim for. but we rarely hit the exact target - all protesters are, obviously, human. we can criticize real acts in the hypothetical world but we cant necessarily apply hypothetical ideals to ALL real-world situations.

it seems to me (untrained, new, etc) that russell had an idea, gave some degree of notice (perhaps too closely linked with rhetoric such as "turning over tables" for some), cooperated with law enforcement to the best of his ability, and then accepted the results of his actions in a manner appropriate to his intent - by fasting, etc. i dont see the problem with any of that.

[FrankChodorov]

people should be arrested for crimes, not speculation about crimes.

he was asked specifically what his intent was in entering the IRS office and he admitted it was to ask the employees to quit which would disrupt the official business of the office.

it takes varying degrees of disruptive acts to get us to that place (creating a personally-responsible, respectful society) it is sometimes necessary to break the law in order to change the law.

it is not necessary at this stage of building a new society within the shell of the old (essentially rendering the state as irrelevant) to purposely provoke the state - that should only come at the end where there is no other reasonable choice and the vast majority of the citizenry who are already participating in the new society within the shell of the old (dual power) understand rationally that there is no other choice and the can see the tangible benefits of the action.

[firsty]

he was asked specifically what his intent was in entering the IRS office and he admitted it was to ask the employees to quit which would disrupt the official business of the office.

yeah, i get that. i think the benefit of saying that to the police is so that they dont think you're trying to go in and firebomb the place (as law enforcement often treats what they see as "potential threats" as a target for extreme force unless otherwise instructed). so, do we either let them know what we intend to do, making it clear we're nonviolent, or do we just take our chances and hope they dont taser us or worse? i simply dont see your point. as the "threat" russell communicated to police was not an threat of overt violence, i still dont see the reason for arrest based on that "threat."

your other point is debatable but, still hypothetical. it's nitpicking, IMO. are you using it simply as hypothetical or are you using it to criticize the actual event? we can never be as perfect in action as we can be in words.

[Christopher King]

Okay.

The point that the IRS office is OUR office is a great one, however the law doesn't see it that way, which is why -- as we live under their system of laws (BTW read Kafka, "The Problem With Our Laws") we have to go to the default category to see if the area has been consistently used for Free Speech purposes.

Let's even go to another hypothetical:

Mr. or Ms. Businessperson walks into the IRS building and knows someone there to whom they are bringing a letter.  Let's say it's closing documents for a refinance (I say this because it very much fits something that I personally did once).

So while Mr. or Ms. Businessperson is allowed to deliver the package, he walks by on the way out and says "You guys should all quit your jobs."

Where's the paddywagon?

Again, there ain't none.

The point is that the law has been applied in discriminatory fashion.