I'm happy to look at this specific case if you send it.  I'm sure that you're
right that a citizen somewhere questioned the law giving the IRS enforcement 
authority, and found himself talking to an agent with no clue how to answer that.
I also readily believe that, at some later time, this same citizen had tax judgements 
against him vacated in court, perhaps as you said, "by a jury of his peers".    
But by themselves, these putative facts are just correlation, and we need to look 
deeper to find likely causation and to determine the full meaning.

What proportion of the following reasons (or other reasons you might cite) 
contributed to this citizen being victorious in court?  

    A) There is no law requiring persons with income in the United States
    to file federal income tax returns and pay federal income taxes.
    (A dubious legal proposition, see below).

    B) Jury nullification prevailed (which is awesome, but does not settle a
    general legal issue outside of the case where it takes place).  If so, I
    would want to look more at these circumstances, and consider what factors
    were in play, and how those factors might be marshalled in other cases.
    If we were to see a lot of jury nullification happening, that would be
    a real political force to contend with.

    C) Agent was incompetent and violated various rules and laws, or other key
    circumstances were relevant to the case.

These potential reasons for the court outcome have very different legal implications.

If A), then what is your support for that position, in light of
Title 26 of the U.S. Code, Section A.1.A.I.1 (hosted at Cornell Law School)
... which is discussed with related matters at a popular level here:
J.R. Siegel of George Wash. U.: "Just No Law"

If your answer goes back to illegitimacy of the 16th amendment, then my response politely goes back to:
Wikipedia: Tax Protester 16th Amendment Arguments.

Are the principal concerns raised here, or are there other ones?
I realize that the tone of this Wikipedia 16th Amemendment article is more pro-authority than it should be. But that can be fixed!
Where do y'all think it is specifically out of bounds?

Now for my wordy noodling on the context of this issue:

I think it's a decent philosophical argument to say that there is really no law except what the people accept, just like the real money is ultimately what the people accept and use. Jury nullification is an important right, and I believe in the importance of that ongoing fight. However, it is also important for a human society to have a foundation of settled and reliable law, given two important constraints:

1. The size and complexity of the law should be kept as small as possible, in particular at the level of the U.S. Federal Govt., or any supra-national entitly like North American Union, United Nations, etc.
2. The people have the right to publicly and vociferously challenge the laws, without fear of reprisal from the government.

The U.S. Constitution attempts to set up a framework where these priniciples are recognized, and it is the supreme law of the United States. But historically, many additional codes and laws have been deemed necessary (or at least, acceptable), and in conformance with the Constitution to an extent that the people have accepted so far. There is no doubt that the meaning of the U.S. Consitutional framework is a matter of ongoing discussion and debate, and I think recent attention to these ideas is a good sign for our society.

Back to our main topic: It is at the juncture of the acceptability of money and law (and of course the cops and army who come with that combination) that the question of personal sovereignty vs. citizenship in a nation finally becomes concrete, on the street, with the pounding of the feet. It is often courageous and always glamorous to be a rebel, but those who favor personal sovereignty in general must realize that those who favor (perceived, debatable) stability and safety (especially, of course, for the kiddos and other vulnerables) also have legitimacy, and should be engaged forthrightly as each generation revises the social contract that we live under together. If we can't do that, then rebellion leads to conflict, which is usually (but not always) counterproductive.

Serious, disciplined rebels (like Glenzilla) make the best leaders, and I believe we should encourage and celebrate rebellious, pioneering, unconstrained thought and personhood. Yes, freedom, as much as we can get! But there are some practical constraints, and I think perhaps the highest levels of freedom within society must in fact be earned by contribution to it, on its own terms. Leading society to revise those terms for itself in a healthy direction is a high leverage contribution we can make to health of society. Taking a serious position in regard to that healthy revision is itself a liberating act. So, paradoxically, we might say, in a bit of hyperbole:

There is no real freedom without real leadership!

This page last updated 2011-03-19.
All materials Copyright 2011 by Indigulous.com, unless otherwise explicitly noted.
Please notify us if you believe this website violates any U.S. copyright law, or that our copyrights are being violated by others.