Feds Raid Home of Heroic Free Stater

Steve,

you dont get it. It ***WAY MORE*** heroic, dude!!11

I would say that not bowing down to the state is heroic. Nice to know our money is being spent on breaking in peoples doors that did not commit a crime against another person. Go feds arrest a person that was trying to exercise the freedom of speech.

“… that was trying to exercise the freedom of speech.”

Not just the freedom of speech, but the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ian B — you’re absolutely right.

Just one problem: The IRS is a privately incorporated institution. That makes any IRS building private property.

As I see it, our ‘hero’ is guilty of tresspassing (the stairs count as part of the property), attempted vandalization, attempted destruction of property, and *possibly* attempted incitation to commit all three of the above. One could also see incitation to commit violence as well, but that isn’t a charge *I* would lay at his feet. Feds might, though.

Being as nothing was done to him until he was in the process of executing these crimes, from a legalistic standpoint there’s nothing wrong with what the Feds have done, right up until the point where they decided to lay the beat-down on him.

Quite frankly, while the cause is just, I would be able to take all this far more seriously if he were willing to recognize the “victimed” crimes that a property-rights recognizing libertarian society does, that he is/was committing.

If he was so right in what he was doing then why didnt he show up to court? Does he not also have the right to a fair trial? People are charged with things they didnt do every single day in this country. He was charged with something, no matter how wrong you all think it is that doesnt give him the right to skip his court hearing. However if you dont show for a court hearing that does give them the right to issue a warrant and go looking for you. I dont agree with the initial arrest but i dont think they did anything wrong here. If he really felt innocent he should have shown up to court and proved it, simple as that.

I wonder what would have happened if Russell had been doing an open carry the first time he went in to the building? How would the filth react if Russell and Kat had been doing open carry in their house? What if I answer my door with my M4 rife? Not pointing it anywhere just carrying via my harness. I don’t think the filth would be as thuggish as they are if everyone open carried. What a bunch of fucking scum bags.

I hardly believe government is legitimate, thanks for the laugh. But if you get yourself a good lawyer and you really did nothing wrong then you will get off. I have been charged for things i didnt do in the past. I got myself a lawyer, went to court and we fought the charges and i got off. Whether my lawyer paid him behind the scenes or not i dont know, all i know is i got off because i went to court and fought it. I didnt stay at home and not show up then wonder why a warrant was issued and then wonder why they came looking for me. I guess you feel if the person doesnt feel the charge is right against them they dont have to show up for court? Thats a good theory, im sure we would have murderers and child molestors walking around everywhere because im sure they didnt do anything wrong either.

“But if you get yourself a good lawyer and you really did nothing wrong then you will get off.”

Surely, you are kidding right? Or smoking crack. That vast majority of Federal defendants plead out, whether they are guilty or not. Why? Because the deck is stacked heavily against them and the penalties more severe. You are truly gullible if you beleive that the criminal justice system, especially at the federal level, is predisposed to find in your best interest. A fair trial is the exception rather than the rule. You have no concept of the realities whatever.

As for the IRS being a private institution, I doubt that. It’s not a generally accepted or even ADMITTED to idea by either the government or the IRS. They can’t/won’t even point to the law that requires us to pay income tax or make a clear statement to the effect when cornered! For these reasons, the IRS is to be considered a government agency whether it is or not. And it is.

I also have trouble understanding how any trespassing took place. If those IRS offices are anything like the one here, then there is a lobby and a locked door. Walking into that publicly accessible and paid for lobby and talking to someone behind that glass, trying to get them to take a flyer or buy girl scout cookies is hardly trespassing and if by some tenuous logic it is, we all know that initiating force upon someone for such a thing is represhensible and unneccessary.

Even if you beleive for some reason it is trespassing, they could have at least waited for him to enter the property. They were there is force and could have easily neutralized and threat he offered instantly on the spot, had he done so. Indisputably, no matter how statist some of you are, the force applied was far out of the range of acceptable or necessarily applicable to the situation.

Exactly Ian, they didn’t even wait for an offense to be committed. They could have easily escorted him into the office and waited for him to push the leaflet through the glass window and then beat his brains out of his head. This is total nonsense. Did they even look at the leaflet? What if he was going to file his taxes or something? Obviously, his stated intent was different, but it seems he was stopped before any perceived offense took place.

I guess next we’ll have to go and arrest Jehovah’s Witnesses for knocking on people’s doors because they might proselytise. Or more appropriately, arrest them as they approach the front door before they get a chance to knock.

The IRS is indeed a corporation unto itself (Part of the reorganization act of 1988/1998 — can’t remember which). Anyone remember Mussellini’s definition of Fascism? Anyone who enters the offices for a purpose other than ‘legitimate business’ as determined by the owner of the property can be tried for trespassing. Russell’s stated purpose was not legitimate business.

The trespassing charge is, indeed, legitimate even in a libertarian sense. And, as he was only detained once in the process of executing the crimes he had declared the intent for, he should face up to them.

But again, this is a point of self-responsibility I doubt the ‘zero-government’ crowd here will appreciate.

DD — Would you, having known what the plane hijackers of 9/11 were going to do, wait until the crashed the planes into the building to consider them as having committed the offences of *trying* to do so?

… why am I bothering? Have fun, y’all.

The vast majority of citizens wouldn’t know that the IRS building is private property. So, at the very least, the
private owner needs to put up a prominent sign describing the property status and the kinds of activities that one entering is permitted to do. And just because something is public property, doesn’t mean the feds won’t limit your 1st amendment activities. I once got stopped at the Liberty Bell building (outside) and told I’d be arrested if I continued to hand out political literature.

“Actually, in that scenario law enforcment officers would likely give you a double-tap to center mass, have it ruled a clean shooting, and be back out on duty within 24 hours. However, based on the over-the-top seething bile you’ve spewed in this thread and the previous one, JodyW, I somehow doubt you would back up your rhetoric in real life and find yourself in that situation to begin with.”

I am an FSP member and have signed the first 1000 pledge, how about you?

Yeah, if the IRS is a private corporation, then how could we be under legal obligation to send them money? And how could they criminally prosecute us?

Oh and JodyW, awesome comeback!

IanB — your argument about responsibility will hold weight when and if you recognize that while certain criminal acts are in fact necessary, that you must also face the respective punishments for said necessary acts.

As it stands, you want your cake and to eat it too.

You can’t have both.

congress created the ‘office of the commissioner of internal revenue’ on 1 jul 1862 on the recommendation of then president a.lincoln [to help pay for his unjust war.]
it was created to prosecute the manufacturers of alcohol, tobacco and firearm products who had not purchased the tax stamps for paying the excise tax [per art.1, sec.8, cl.1] on the privilege of manufacturing, producing a/o the distilling of those products
john baptist kotmair, jr., ["do courts have law making powers?"] says that this was the 2nd criminal law enforcement agency created by congress. [does this make it a private corporation..? i vote that it doesn't.]

please, stay out of the FSP

Oh, have no fear there… I would join the Church of Scientology before I would the Free State Project. How batshit-crazy do you have to be for large numbers of libertarian blog commenters to turn on you and think of you as a loony cult?

I must open carry and people must see me do it, the government must see me do it.

This goes back to my early remark about your rhetoric vs. your actions. If you really feel this way, then I’ll be looking forward to Ian Bernard any day now posting a video clip of you proudly walking around the DMV or Post Office with your M4 Carbine harnessed to your shoulder. THAT would make for a much more interesting post than Farmer Bob with his pitchfork and flyers!

It’s clear that JodyW is not an effective ambassador for your cause, Ian. I’ve even seen you have to bring her back in check a time or two here. Right or wrong, our name is usually only as good as our associations.

I only become forceful if force is initiated upon my person but I do have the right to open carry. Why are you so against open carry? Why do you get all worked up when I simply say that I would open carry? Do you assume that because someone is carrying a gun that they are violent and will use it? I love Russells non-confrontational attitude. Millions put Gahndi down but by sitting on his ass in protest he changed an entire country. I have the right to carry whatever the fuck I want to on my person, I don’t have the right to use whatever I carry to harm others unless they have harmed me first, at which point I will most likely be dead. Why do you hate me wanting to open carry? What are you afraid of? Again, why does talking about open carry upset you so much? I did not say to walk into the post office and start killing people. I said walk into a post office open carrying a firearm, so, so what, what is the big deal? Are you some kind of federal agent?

In addition to your earlier comment Steve about cops shooting someone who legally open carries, it is at that point when you say something like that which proves beyond a doubt that police need to lose their jobs and our freedoms have been flushed. I don’t want to own guns, I think they are a waste of money, but if I do not own guns then eventually the only people with them will be the government. Freedom is scary but the responsibility of maintaining that freedom is even scarier.

(…cont)

Still waiting on that committment from you to film a video or still photos of you wondering around your Post Office with an M4 Carbine. Since it’s what you do rountinely as a matter of principle and all…

This is why we ‘need’ law enforcement, etc..
Us humans can’t talk with each other without fighting and holding pissing contests…
self-government requires restraint and um.. empathy? a willingness to admit that someone else may be right, or may have larger genitals…

I’m not pointing @ anyone in paticular.. but i mean, .. read down and see how the conversation sort of twirled on down the gutter, about 1/2 way thru..

get a grip man!

this is bat country!

–I’m a serious 2nd Amendment proponent who has put forth the effort to educate myself and get private training, both in marksmanship and home defense. I’m active at my local gun range, attend gun shows statewide, am a longtime NRA member, and engage in political activism on the issues when necessary.– Quote from Steve Perkins

You’ve repeatedly bashed my friend, Russell Kanning, who has the courage to go up against armed thugs with nothing but flyers. Gun-cleaners like you will only have courage in a “fair fight”. For all your talk of “guns”, I don’t see you starting any sort of revolution. You’ll clean your guns until they come to take them away, at which point you’ll just hand them over. Thank a man like Russell Kanning for having the courage to stand up for your freedom. God knows you don’t.

I agree Steve, I hope that no one thinks we are together too.

You’re a Quaker, Steve? What sort of piss poor Quaker are you? I thought Quakers were pacifists?

Yes, Quakers historically oppose all forms of violence. There are strong parallels between the Quaker Peace Testimony and the Libertarian Party’s membership pledge. Ayn Rand’s essay “The Roots of War” (from “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”) is one of the most succinct statements tying libertarian philosophy to Quaker morality (well you know, apart from Rand’s militant atheism and all!).

What part of this makes me a “poor Quaker”? A moment ago you were calling me a hypocrite because I SHOULD support the rhetoric of violent revolution. Now I’m a hypocrite because I SHOULDN’T. Are you reading my comments, or attacking a strawman of your own creation?

Well, Steve, let me state first off that, in the interests of full disclosure, though I’m not a Quaker, I am a conservative Christian pacifist. That is to say I oppose ALL force EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE.

You are advocating, (at least, it seems to me) a more Libertarian “non-aggression” principle.

That may make you a fine Libertarian. But it makes you a piss poor pacifist.

–I know that HoT is not necessarily a wing of the Libertarian Party, or some sort of LP mouthpiece. However, I hope that it does come closer to this description than to being a mouthpiece for milita nuts who openly advocate armed revolution and murder of law enforcement officers. No matter how hard you guys try to “shame” rank-and-file Libertarians, the only shame I feel is that some might associate me with you.–

I am not now, and never have been, a Libertarian. I have affiliated myself with the Democrat Party, and have recently left the Democrat Party to form the NH Independence Party.

There seems to be some confusion here. Defensive violence against the state is never an initiation of force.

Yes, there does seem to be some confusion here. Defensive force against the state may be called for when you or your family is coming under mortal danger. However, since most zero-government types tend to define the existence of government in the first place as an initiation of force, this creates an unacceptable “carte blanc” loophole. I acknowledge no principle by which you could “go out in a Rambo-esque blaze of glory”, or even start a “minimally violent revolution”, on account of a tax bill you got in the mail. Not even in theory.

Heh, that’s some pretty interesting verbal gymnastics. A pretty clear example of “obfuscation” would be taking a pledge to oppose the initation of force, and twisting it to proclaim the exact opposite of its text. If government, by definition, is an initiation of force… then obviously violent action is advocated for political goals.

This is hardly what David Nolan put to paper in the early 70′s, and would no doubt be taken as a bait-and-switch by the hundreds of thousands of Libertarians who signed that pledge under a more conventional interpretation.

Of course, I can’t track which of you loonies are or are not associated with the LP. If your “Non-Aggression Principle” is some FSP or militant anarchist thing, then viva la revolución, Che. If you’re talking about the LP membership pledge, however, then you’re just dead wrong (or else I need to send a donation check the size of three house payments to the LRC!).

There’s nothing “nutty” about refusing to participate with violent thugs.

Common ground at last.

Why would anyone think that the IRS is a corporation, when their site (in the .gov domain) plainly states that they are a bureau of the Department of the Treasury?
http://www.ustreas.gov/bureaus/

I have no quarrel with the FSP community as a whole, or even with most of its supporters participating in this thread.

However, if the group “leans right”, it does NOT match me (fellow Reason subscriber and LP member in good standing). In reference to “strawmen”… self-identifying as Christian does not automatically make someone “right-wing”.

Steve — it’s one of those tiny tricks like the Fed being a private institution as well…

The IRS was ‘reorganized’ as a corporation. So while its function and purpose is entirely public… draw the lines between the dots. A private corporation, commissioned to carry out a public function, can be a government bureau and a private company all at once.

Not going to go much further on that one.

Leo Tolstoy aka Frank Chodorov aka Mao Tse Tung,

How dare you use ivory-tower political philosophy to justify the power that flows from the barrel of a gun?

so the debate then is not about whether Bush is a fascist, or has committed war crimes among various other heinious charges but whether or not collective property is legitimate and whether or not common property rights are individual or not.

freedom of speech, assembly, thought and right of ways are individual equal rights held in common.

collective property is a group right delegated to an authority (state) who can dictate terms of use prior to use.

the sidewalk is collective property with the common individual right of way that supercedes it’s use…

you a free to use without permission as long as you do not infringe on the equal rights of any other individual.

you are even free to use the general purpose areas (lobbies, auditorium, etc) to get to the specific area

the same can’t be said for the collective property for a specific purpose of the IRS offices

I didn’t delegate it. Neither did Russell.

The IRS is owned, operated and paid for by the federal government. That in and of itself makes it subject to the restrictions placed on all government entities by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The IRS and it’s agents regularly and summarily disregard the existence of those documents.

Russel’s arrest for the attempted distribution of this flyer violates the First Ammendment in at least two ways — freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

[i]An example; facing the court date without need to be dragged present. This would have presented a possibility to address the press from a position of righteousness. As it stands; to the common eye you\u2019re just another \u201cnut.\u201d[/i]

It is not “nutty” to assert that the court has no right to try him for doing something that’s not really a crime to begin with.

Position of Righteousness? Who’s righteousness? From who’s perspective? How is it righteous to “play by the rules” of an entity that changes it’s rules at will and “enforces” them arbitrarily and selectively on a whim?

As Wes P pointed out, that court does not represent *me*, nor does “the press”. Their tactic is to make so many things “illegal” that people can’t help but violate the law. That’s how they cash in on making people *feel* guilty, whether they’ve actually done anything wrong or not.

Thoreau and Rand got it right: Bad laws *should* be disobeyed.

“Loony cult? It’s clear you don’t know very many FSPers.”-Ian Bernard

That is what most people in NH think of the FSP.
Well, those not in the cult ;)

RichD; maybe, just maybe, you might want to go back and re-read what I posted a priori.

If we are to be heard by the public, our message must be clear: libertarianism means being free to do what you want — and paying the consequenses for said actions.

By attempting to evade the court-date, he tacitly and explicitly acknowledged the wrongful nature of what he did.

If he had shown to court, and simply stated, “I did what had to be done” then it would have worked *FAR* better on that plateau.

And honestly, defending his public perception as ‘just another “nut” ‘ to me… is just plain silly.

I didn’t say *I* saw him as one. I said his actions make him appear one to the common eye.

And if a publicity stunt like this is to be effective (which in the end is what civil disobedience amounts to) THEN IT MUST REACH THE COMMON PERSON.

This isn’t.

From Mike R’s link to Ernest Hancock’s article: “This [social contract] is a contract I never signed, that I’ve never seen, that has no terms, that is binding upon me but not upon the other party [...]”

And there — way in the beginning of his argument — the whole thing falls apart.

I’ll wax John Lock-ish here. (Not that I agree with everything he wrote: I don’t.)

The ‘social contract’ is no more an actual contract than I am the Intergalactic Lord Xenu. *EVERYONE* who ever refutes it — in libertarian circles — always makes the same complaint: “I never signed it, so why does it bind me?”

The answer is simple; because ‘it’ doesn’t *exist* in the way you are refuting it. It is a model for society; that attempts to describe and provide a rationale for limiting the authority structures that develop *WITH* society.

Mr. Hancock’s thinking only works in non-societies. He freely admits this (paraphrasing): “It is no surprise that the streets of all ‘civilizations’ run red.”

Ernest makes the argument that a social contract is only one way. That is his first, greatest error. By definition it goes both.

But, this being said; to all who think anarchy is the state of greatest freedom…

I ask you; what would these people say about that statement, given how ‘traditionally moral’ Arizona in particular is? (Note: I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THIS GROUP)

http://www.arizonapowerexchange.org

I use this example because it all boils down to this; in a “NIFP” anarchy, these people would be lynched by any mainstream culture.

Rebuttal to Ian’s spin making Russell into a hero….

http://www.conmon.com/drupal/blog_entry/seth_cohn/perhaps_it_is_a_vice

IanC, how is it possible for a citizen to trespass on public property?

I think the action having the greatest impact on the statists (and therefore the most effective for the cause)isn’t the distribution of flyers but in fact the failure to appear. Follow this. Time is the basis of everything. Without time nothing exists and when your time is up your life is over. A person is defined by their actions (or inaction) i.e. how did they spend the time alloted to them. If imprisoned or enslaved, someone else is mandating how you spend your time. Property represents the amount of your time you spent to aquire it or to aquire the money to purchase it. So life, liberty and property = time. If I show up in court then I agree that, against my will, the state has the right to take the following portions of my life: hrs round trip 2 court, hrs to pay 4 fuel to get there, hours for the hearing/trial, hrs of community service, hrs 2 pay the fines, many hrs 2 pay 4 my attorney etc. If true, then I am already a slave so why not just pay the IRS their blood $$ up front?