Denying the legitimacy of the government

[LPC]

I ran across an opinion recently that states very concisely some of the things often discussed in this forum. After granting the government's motion for summary judgment in an action to reduce tax liabilities to judgment, the District Court made the following observations:

Finally, the court notes that defendant's other assertions and arguments in his affidavit in support of his motion to deny summary judgment do not bear on the issue of his tax obligations to the IRS. Such arguments are unsupported by fact, law, logic or common sense. Rather than responding directly to the claims of plaintiff, defendant has chosen to persist in his apparent belief that plaintiff lacks the authority to seek to enforce its tax laws, that this court lacks jurisdiction over defendant, that certain relevant provisions of the tax code are unenforceable because they are not acts of Congress and that the various government attorneys in this case, as well as this court itself, lack authority to act because their respective oaths of office are defective. These beliefs, rather than mitigating defendant's tax obligation, lend further support to plaintiff's case. They reflect an individual who would rather thumb his nose at the government than constructively work within its bounds. The benefits of government reaped by defendant, as by most citizens, are too immeasurable to be readily ascertained. Yet, when it comes to contributing his arguable fair share, defendant lashes out at the very government upon which he relies for transportation, clean water and air, fire and police protection, defense, criminal and civil justice and innumerable other necessities of modern life. These services and accommodations do not come without a price. See Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 215 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Justice Holmes's observation that "[t]axes are what we pay for civilized society"). There are constructive methods for seeking to challenge one's tax obligations, denying the legitimacy of the government is not one of them.

United States v. James C. Dunkel, 78 AFTR2d Par. 96-5398, 96 TNT 190-14, No. 95 C 50296 (U.S.D.C. 8/30/1996) (memorandum opinion of Judge Philip G. Reinhard), rev'd and remanded, No. 96-3478 (7th Cir. 7/1/1997). (On remand, summary judgment was again entered for the U.S., and later affirmed on a second appeal.)

[Imalawman]

I've read that opinion, its a good one. I think I've even borrowed some language from it in one or two of my TP cases.