We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The State moves to crush tax dissent

While opinions may vary on the correctness of the opinions of people who believe the income tax was illegally instituted – and there is some historical evidence that on the issue of employer withholding they are correct – few libertarians would disagree they have a right to say it.

That right is exactly what is being abridged:

“On Monday, June 16, Federal District Court Judge Lloyd D. George issued a preliminary injunction banning the sale and distribution of Irwin Schiff’s book about the income tax titled, “The Federal Mafia: How The Government Illegally Imposes And Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes And How Americans Can Fight Back.”

Say what you will, this is a rather vile and blatant breach of the First Amendment. Judge George should be severely reprimanded.

If you are interested in very large court documents, I’ve made the Court Order available for reading.

And speaking of Judges who should be reprimanded… A Texas judge who was in trouble once before has reverted to his previous bad behavior and placed a tax withholding protestor in jail without bond and after improper procedures.

This was after a previous hearing in which the judge nearly laughed the State out of court over their claim the dissenting corporate CEO was a flight risk. While their victim is in jail, the IRS is spreading rumours the company has been dissolved. Creditors are calling the victimized company demanding cash payments.

Just one more example of “Your Government Servicing You”… like a bull with a cow…

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

8 comments to The State moves to crush tax dissent

  • Della

    Well, I suppose it could be worse, in Russia recently they got rid of the last independent TV channel, and there’s are not many independent newspapers. Members of their parliament have called freedom of speech, the freedom to lie.

    In other anti-libertarian news congressmen are pushing for amendments to ban flag burning again, and also a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Of course Americans seem to believe that as long as they have their guns they will be free of government tyranny, but life doesn’t work like that, the Iraqis had plenty of guns, but that didn’t keep them free.

    All the “land of the free” rhetoric is bullshit.

  • Della

    Here’s the link to the anti-gay marriage article, I messed up the link.

  • I may be wrong, but my first instinct is that this is the revolution, right here. Are the websites being shut down too?

    It being a profitable earner for Schiff rather weakens his moral case, but it does sound like a legitimate document that doesn’t libel anyone or incite violence.

  • Isn’t the US tax office’s case that Schiff is deceiving purchasers of his book one for purchasers of his book alone to pursue?

  • My own personal views as to the legitimacy of Mr. Schiff’s views nothwithstanding, the IRS case against him was decided on the grounds that he was knowingly encouraging illegal behavior through the dissemination of fraudulent materials — i.e. he was claiming that paying taxes is voluntary and that the vast body of income tax laws are in violation of the Constitution, etc. Whether or not one agrees with him on those issues, it is clear that paying taxes is not a voluntary activity and that the Supreme Court has (unfortunately) consistently ruled that the tax laws are indeed constitutional. Since, according to Chief Justice John Marshall “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial branch to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison and not the province of Mr. Schiff, it would stand to reason that he would lose this fight.

    If instead he had claimed in his book that, although legally enforceable, the laws establishing income tax withholding, etc. are palpably incongruous with the manifest intent of the Constitution and the original framers, he would be in the clear. By trying to dupe people into unwittingly starting a tax revolt, Mr. Schiff lost the opportunity to convince others of the validity of his position. It’s a shame, because there are probably defensible kernels of truth in his otherwise fraudulent tome.

  • Scott Cattanach

    PR Campaigns Lose Speech Protection
    In 4-3 vote, state Supreme Court says Nike can be sued over its corporate policy statements
    By Mike McKee

    In a ruling that’s sure to send a chill wind down Madison Avenue, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that companies can be sued for false advertising over policy statements made in public relations campaigns. …

    Justices Ming Chin, Marvin Baxter and Janice Rogers Brown sharply dissented, accusing the majority of trammeling on constitutional freedoms by effectively silencing one party to the debate.

    “Handicapping one side in this important worldwide debate is both ill considered and unconstitutional,” Chin wrote. “Full free speech protection for one side and strict liability for the other will hardly promote vigorous and meaningful debate.”

    Ann Brick of the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in the case on Nike’s behalf, said the majority’s analysis was “very disappointing.”

    “It essentially shuts business speakers out of the public debate on any issue that directly affects them. That kind of analysis is absolutely antithetical to the basic First Amendment principle that we let the people, not the government, decide who’s right and who’s wrong on an issue of public dispute.” …

  • Kevin L. Connors

    Does this mean we can sue the government for their fraudulent Anti-Drug and Anti-Tobacco ad campaigns?

  • I don’t think the case you link is exactly about “crushing dissent.”

    Whether or not the income tax is a good idea, to say it isn’t the law in the United States is delusional. This guy is accused of failing to withhold income or employment taxes from his employees – getting them in trouble, as well as himself. Simkanin has every right to object to the tax system, but he has no right to get his employees into trouble by playing out his delusions about the current state of the tax law.