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

[EthanAllen]

I am asking whether you think he acted morally?

He will act morally if and when he willingly accepts the punishment for the law that he broke in order to bring the conscience of the citizenry upon the immorality of the income tax. That is the purpose of non-violent, civil disobedience. The protesters occupying Senator Sununu's office know exactly what law they are breaking before they enter the office. They purposely stayed in his office after hours to be arrested after petitioning for their redress of grievances which they freely did. They are not claiming that they were just exercising their constitutional guaranteed rights of petitioning for redress of grievances and they just inadvertently stayed after hours by mistake. It was a very purposeful act.

Dada's claim is that he has a constitutionally guaranteed right of redress of grievances to petition the "officers" of the federal government within the offices of the IRS. I am sorry. He doesn't.

And if he and other so-called "non-violent, civil disobedience" activists don't understand what laws they are breaking and for what purpose, then maybe they should re-think their NVCD strategy. I'd be happy to advise anyone on a pro bono basis.

[error]

Maybe not. But Dada is still willing to go to jail to show these thugs for what they are.

[d_goddard]

Is disrupting the duties of an agency immoral when, by your own admission, the duties of the said agency are to enslave us?

Not that I was specifically asked, but Caleb you're asking some damn good questions and I can't resist chiming in 

The degree of disruption matters, and matters in proportion to the time-sensitivity of the job.

Let's start with the extreme. Paramedics take public money, but to hand them a piece of paper of any kind while they are saving a life, it damn well better be directly related to the life they're trying to save.

Now let's take a far more common scenario. If the person was in the middle of a meeting with someone else, or was in training, or for that matter was just busy with some absorbing computer task, bothering them would simply be rude. I truly do believe there is no reason for someone to be intentionally rude to another person. One can argue where the lines fall, but it's quite clear when that person is not being directly (much less intentionally) rude to you, it's hard to justify why your complaint of many moons must be heard right now.

Now, let's the other extreme. If the person were basically idle -- say,  between customers and taking a breather for a minute, then surely their time at that point is properly directed to members of the general public who have any information or opinion about the general nature of the service ostensibly being provided.

And that last situation is precisely the scenario for which Dave is being persecuted.

[EthanAllen]

The degree of disruption matters, and matters in proportion to the time-sensitivity of the job.

The law doesn't say you can disrupt the IRS business office with petitions for redress of grievances while employees are idle because that calls for subjective interpretation of what the meaning of the term "idle" is. The law says you can't conduct any actions within the confines of the office that is not within the intended normal business purpose of the office (paraphrasing from memory). That is why Russell was arrested outside the office (2nd time) when he stated publicly that he was going to ask (not hand them anything) the employees to quit. Had he gone into the office and then casually gone around to idle employees and asked them to quit he might of been asked to leave like Dave and that would have been it. If he made a habit of doing it repeatedly and deliberately, I believe he would have received the same summons that Dave did. If he had not willingly left the office when asked to, I believe he would have been subject to immediate arrest like he was outside the office when the told him he could not go in to ask people to leave. Whether those employees were idle or not.

[d_goddard]

The degree of disruption matters, and matters in proportion to the time-sensitivity of the job.

The law doesn't say you can disrupt the IRS business office with petitions for redress of grievances while employees are idle because that calls for subjective interpretation of what the meaning of the term "idle" is.

How about: "sitting behind a counter, waiting to service the next member of the public" ?

[Kat Kanning]

So you guys missed Bill Grennon so much you're willing to spend time arguing with him as soon as he gets back?   

[Dave Ridley]

welcome back bill....  always amusing how no one can stay away from us when they leave. 

So bill....if Washington's prosecution is constitutional, why have washington's ministers declined four times to answer my question?  I've asked that they show me something in the constitution that at least vaguely authorizes them to levy the fine.   They answer with regulations and talk about congress but won't touch the Constitution.

[Dan]

Maybe they need a chart?
Print page 8 of this smallish pdf:
   http://fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06mda.pdf

Remind them that your argument is regarding the top of the tree labeled "The Constitution".

BTW: this is a good site ... it's the US Governments financial sheets, like you learned in Accounting.

[Caleb]

Is disrupting the duties of an agency immoral when, by your own admission, the duties of the said agency are to enslave us?

Not that I was specifically asked, but Caleb you're asking some damn good questions and I can't resist chiming in 

The degree of disruption matters, and matters in proportion to the time-sensitivity of the job.

With all due respect, Denis, I fail to see how the "time-sensitivity" of an inherently immoral job matters much. By this logic, it *would* be immoral to hand a piece of paper to the guy trying to enforce the fugitive slave act IF the slave was about to get away, and therefore the man's job was very time-sensitive.

Let's start with the extreme. Paramedics take public money, but to hand them a piece of paper of any kind while they are saving a life, it damn well better be directly related to the life they're trying to save.

A paramedic job is not *inherently* evil. In fact, it is a noble job. There is obviously some immorality connected to the whole system in terms of how the invididual is often paid, but the paramedics job is, in and of itself, a noble profession. The life he is trying to save is far more important than the general injustice of the system.

Now let's take a far more common scenario. If the person was in the middle of a meeting with someone else, or was in training, or for that matter was just busy with some absorbing computer task, bothering them would simply be rude. I truly do believe there is no reason for someone to be intentionally rude to another person. One can argue where the lines fall, but it's quite clear when that person is not being directly (much less intentionally) rude to you, it's hard to justify why your complaint of many moons must be heard right now.

So ... if the guy enforcing the fugitive slave act is occupied by trying to hunt down a slave, you should wait until he is idle to try to interfere?

[EthanAllen]

I've asked that they show me something in the constitution that at least vaguely authorizes them to levy the fine.   They answer with regulations and talk about congress but won't touch the Constitution.

There were no federal IRS buildings in 1787 when the constitution was written either.

[Dave Ridley]

<<There were no federal IRS buildings in 1787 when the constitution was written either.>>

there ya go...!

[Russell Kanning]

I find dada's logic more compelling.

[EthanAllen]

<<There were no federal IRS buildings in 1787 when the constitution was written either.>>

there ya go...!

They certainly had sidewalks and roads.

[error]

Private roads, too!

[Bald Eagle]

Good grief, the roads, THE ROADS!
http://nogov4me.net/archive/roads1.htm