Dada in Federal Court 7/17 .... leads to 4 days in jail

[Caleb]

Bill ... I'm trying to understand where you are coming from here.

As a Georgist, there can be no greater affront to liberty than a tax on a person's wage (income tax).  The IRS must be one of your personal sticking points.  And yet you defend it?

In the past, you have said (on another forum) that it is morally acceptable to destroy corporate property (though not harm individuals).  Yet, you do not feel that it is acceptable for a citizen to confront a great moral evil peacefully, by distributing a flyer. In this case, does not the moral outrage of the IRS existance in the first place trump any "law" that can be connived?

[error]

I finally got around to posting my pictures and a few notes from Monday's festivities.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/11/16/who-knew-protesting-could-be-so-fun/

[Tom Sawyer]

 

[FrankChodorov]

As a Georgist, there can be no greater affront to liberty than a tax on a person's wage (income tax).  The IRS must be one of your personal sticking points.  And yet you defend it?

I am not defending it...although interestingly a Georgist, Congressman Warren Worth Bailey of Pennsylvania, drafted the first Federal personal income tax law with the help of Congressman Henry George Jr. based on
Georgist lines: falling mainly on very high incomes from property in land.

In the past, you have said (on another forum) that it is morally acceptable to destroy corporate property (though not harm individuals).

I have never said that nor do I believe it...you must be confusing me with the anarcho-communist/syndicalist named "green" who use to post on the FSP forum.

you do not feel that it is acceptable for a citizen to confront a great moral evil peacefully, by distributing a flyer.

since we are a system of laws and not people I don't think there is a constitutional right to a redress of greivances or freedom of speech in a collectively owned building not specifically designated for that purpose because those are common rights.

people can confront whatever they think is evil in anyway they want and suffer the consequences of their action...isn't that the point of non-violent, civil disobedience - to make those who enforce the laws to realize the inhumanity of what they are doing?

or they can try and change the laws...

does not the moral outrage of the IRS existance in the first place trump any "law" that can be connived?

I don't believe the first amendment to the US constitution is "connived"?

having said that...yes, I would prefer to be living under the original articles of confederation
which includes their system of taxation (LVT).

[Spencer]

Which CFR was Dada cited under?

Frank and I are posting at cross-purposes.  He is referring to one CFR section that says almost what the section that I am referring to; except that mine contains a reference to a non-existent "subpart D" that instructs a person in how to apply for a permit.

If Dada was cited under Frank's CFR section, then he's likely SOL; if he was cited and prosecuted under the section that I refer to, then, depending on how the word "lobby" is defined (does it include all lobbies within a public building, including those of the various offices, i.e., the IRS?), Dada could have something to hang his hat on.

How insane is it that the feds are prosecuting people (Dada, Russell, etc.) for violating federal regulations (where does the authority for federal regulations appear in the Constitution?*  if such authority exists, then where does the Constitution say that federal regulations can be used as the basis for criminal liability?**) that are so convoluted that Frank and I can find two different sections in the same title (41) of regs that say almost the same thing?

Are we having fun yet?

------------------------

* "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."  U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 1.  Federal regulations look a lot more like legislation (esp. when given the force of criminal laws) than anything else, yet they are drafted and enacted by members of the executive branch of government.

** "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States . . . [and] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."  U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8.  "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."  U.S.Constitution, Article III, section 3.  These are the crimes over which the federal government has any constitutionally-delegated powers.

[Michael Fisher]

I finally got around to posting my pictures and a few notes from Monday's festivities.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/11/16/who-knew-protesting-could-be-so-fun/

Hehehe

I like the plate pictures.  That should offend someone. 

[FrankChodorov]

Frank and I are posting at cross-purposes.  He is referring to one CFR section that says almost what the section that I am referring to; except that mine contains a reference to a non-existent "subpart D" that instructs a person in how to apply for a permit.

and mine references the exact procedure to apply for the permit...

If Dada was cited under Frank's CFR section, then he's likely SOL; if he was cited and prosecuted under the section that I refer to, then, depending on how the word "lobby" is defined (does it include all lobbies within a public building, including those of the various offices, i.e., the IRS?), Dada could have something to hang his hat on.

remember in Russell's case, the second time he attempted to enter the building without any handbills he was allowed to proceed through the lobby all the way up to the entrance of the office and it was at this point the police drew an imaginary line between the general purpose lobby and the actual office and told him he could not go passed it.

he told the officers that he was going to ask the employees to quit disrupting their intended purpose and when he crossed the line he was arrested.

so Dada has no common right of freedom of speech or redress of greivances AT ALL WITHIN the office by carrying a sign or passing out handbills because it would disrupt the intended business of the collectively owned building and he has no right to engage in those activities in the lobby without first receiving a permit.

where does the authority for federal regulations appear in the Constitution?*  if such authority exists, then where does the Constitution say that federal regulations can be used as the basis for criminal liability?**

I have been trying to explain to people the difference between common rights and property and collective rights and property to no avail...

common rights are natural rights each of us hold equally as individuals and don't require any prior approval so long as the excercise of these rights does not infringe on the equal rights of any other individual.

governments are constituted to uphold these individual equal common rights in a very narrow way...

that is why they are available to individual persons within common right of ways (sidewalks & roads) and within public buildings where designated as such because a public building is collective property that we have delegated the authority to our elected representatives to set the rules over their use.

[Spencer]

where does the authority for federal regulations appear in the Constitution?*  if such authority exists, then where does the Constitution say that federal regulations can be used as the basis for criminal liability?**

I have been trying to explain to people the difference between common rights and property and collective rights and property to no avail...

common rights are natural rights each of us hold equally as individuals and don't require any prior approval so long as the excercise of these rights does not infringe on the equal rights of any other individual.

governments are constituted to uphold these individual equal common rights in a very narrow way...

that is why they are available to individual persons within common right of ways (sidewalks & roads) and within public buildings where designated as such because a public building is collective property that we have delegated the authority to our elected representatives to set the rules over their use.

What does that have to do with the authority (or lack thereof) of the federal government to prosecute people criminally for crimes that are not enumerated within the Constitution?  I can understand a state law prosecution for trespassing, but not these federal regulations that create non-enumerated crimes.

[Michael Fisher]

Do not feed the trolls.

[Quantrill]

I finally got around to posting my pictures and a few notes from Monday's festivities.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/11/16/who-knew-protesting-could-be-so-fun/

Cool!  But I noticed that you couldn't see the license plate of every cop car there.  Time for a cop-watch database, perhaps? 


Also: 

I snapped a picture of the restaurant across the street where many of the bureaucrats eat lunch, then we all went elsewhere?

Damn.  You could've ate with the bureaucrats and handed them copies of the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights.  I don't think many of them have read that lately...

[error]

I'd much rather eat lunch with liberty lovers than bureaucrats!

[Russell Kanning]

I see john goes for 2 flags now.

[Dave Ridley]

OK i have now called the Defender's office; they gave me the number of the appeals court in boston; the lady there who answered appeared to know her stuff...she informed me that there's a 30 day window to file an appeal in such a case as this and filing itself does not appear complicated; I would basically just send a note to the clerk at District Court there in Concord.

The problem however is that, according to her at least, there is a $450 fee just to file.  Now I don't know about you but I can think of about twenty different ways to spend such money that would be more helpful to our cause than expending it on their system.   I'm always griping about how michael badnarik wasted 400 grand on his congressional LP when it was obvious the money could have been spent more effectively. If he'd donated it to the FSP, the NHLA or FTL or what not...it would be guaranteed to have a huge effect.   We could fund twelve liberty forums, flood the state with ads or win fifty state rep races with an amount like that!

I'm wondering if dumping money on the courts, which are designed to absorb and dissipate our efforts,  would be a wise use of it. 

..say on the NHLA or

for virtually no


a losing third party run, when that amount would almost be guaranteed
ave almost been guaranteed to elect dozens



is guaranteed to

have easily turned the FSP into

been in a system that

hopeless LP congressional race

[Revmar]

The problem however is that, according to her at least, there is a $450 fee just to file. 

Boy THEY really do not want people to appeal!  So, to fight an unjust, in my mind unconstitutional judgment against you you have to spend three times as much as the fine!  Yeah, I'd say the system is rigged to keep people from demanding the rights we are supposed to have by default.  Every day I learn new things that remind me just how broken our government is.

[FrankChodorov]

they gave me the number of the appeals court in boston; the lady there who answered appeared to know her stuff...

did she tell you that you have to have a basis for appealing and when you told her what your basis for appealing was (per Spencer) that there was no way to apply for a permit to distribute handbills upholding your right to redress of greivances in the general purpose area of the lobby...did she then ask you if Spencer go the correct rule #s or not and if you believe Spencer gave you the correct rule #s did you tell her that you actually weren't only handing out handbills in the lobby but in the actual offices of the IRS - beyond the same point that Russell was arrested for crossing?

did she also tell you that if you had applied for a permit for redress of greivances to hand out handbills in the lobby they would have denied it because the intended purposes of the collectively owned building known as the IRS office is not a place for a redress of greivances because there are no policymakers (elected representatives) there?

that the place for redress of greivances is on the collectively owned sidewalks which contain a common right of way or within collectively owned buildings specifically designated to receive your redress of greivances because it houses your delegated authority (elected representatives)?

I am assuming because I wasn't at your court hearings that this is essentially what the judge told you as to what your rights are as it relates to the common right of redress of greivances as he handed down his verdict...