A Texas Sovrun in Dr. King's Court

[wserra]

United States v. Roger K. Pool (12-cv-1166, TXWD) is a run-of-the-mill proceeding to enforce an IRS summons. It seems that the IRS issued Pool a summons for certain records. It also invited him to discuss the issue with them on a day later this month. He ignored them. The govt then brought the proceeding to enforce. It was assigned to Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, who ordered that Pool appear on February 15, 2013, for a hearing.

A couple of days ago, Pool sent a letter to Judge Sparks. He writes that the reason he has not complied is that "I refuse to cooperate with criminals". He has concluded - for himself, of course, since it's not the law - that complying would "incriminate myself" and that he would "be forced to relinquish ... my rights". He concludes that "If the agents choose to return remedy and recourse and due process of law to this so-called 'civilized system of law', such that it meets with my reasonable approval, then I may be willing to acquiesce and consent to such a system at a later time". Emphasis supplied.

Well, isn't that nice of him.

On this MLK, Jr., Day of 2013, let's compare the words Pool wrote from his living room with the words Dr. King wrote from a Birmingham jail.

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Ignorant, ad hoc expedience vs. principle. The distinction is not hard to see.

[searcher]

wserra,et.al.,
Re:"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law...."

This statement appears to be a contradiction. Saying "HOW" to break the law by saying it is unjust, is still breaking the law & in no sense advocates evading or defying the law?? Huh??

[The Observer]

This statement appears to be a contradiction. Saying "HOW" to break the law by saying it is unjust, is still breaking the law & in no sense advocates evading or defying the law?? Huh??

You are missing the point that while both men (King and the Texan Sovrun) were breaking the law, King acknowledged he was breaking the law and was accepting the consequences of breaking the law, even as he confronted the injustice of the law. Mr. Sovrun, however, believes that he is above the law, thus he can break it with impunity and should not suffer any consequences or penalties. It's called lack of intellectual honesty.

[Burnaby49]

There's also the point that King was willing to accept the consequences for breaking laws although he received no direct benefit by by doing so. He was trying to correct a general wrong rather than a specific wrong to himself. This donkey is just trying to avoid paying his taxes. There is nothing here to demonstrate he is fighting for a general principle for the benefit of others.

[JamesVincent]

What Observer and Burnaby said. King was very well known and made no pretensions to NOT being a passive demonstrator against civil rights laws. He advocated the same passive stance to his followers. And when the man came down on him he accepted the consequences calmly and did not fight against it. He was striving for the better good for his people, a tax protestor just does not want to pay his due taxes.

[webhick]

TPs tend to claim that they're doing it for the benefit for everyone - even those who laugh at them. I've always had a problem with that line of thinking. First of all, you can't help those who do not want to help themselves. And if the argument didn't fall flat there, it's just this side of delusional to believe that blowing taxpayer money on "not guilty" pleas, court cases, frivolous filings, and eventual incarceration is "helping" the very people who eventually foot the bill for it

[searcher]

To: The Observer,et.al.,I thank all of you for your comments.

Re: "... even as he confronted the injustice of the law. "
The so called sovruns,& sovrunts apparently think that some of the "laws" they are subjected to are also "unjust." Still, I shake my head repeatedly in disbelief at most of the "tactics" they use to get a point across, e.g."No, I do not have a driver license but my person does." I am trying hard to understand what they are trying to get across but confusion only begets more confusion. Here is my question. Do any quatloos members think there are any laws that they(quatloos members) are subjected to, that are unjust?

[LaVidaRoja]

Searcher - You need to clearly define what you are asking. Is a law "just"? Define what YOU mean by "Just" As more than one IRS examiner has explained to a civilian -- "It's not called the Internal Fairness Code" We generally agree to obey the laws whether or not we feel that their application is "fair" or "just" in our particular situation because we recognize that by so doing, society as a whole benefits in a proportion greater than the discomfort we experience.
Dr. King deliberately and openly violated laws that he (and many others) believed did NOT benefit society as a whole.

[Burnaby49]

Searcher is giving Pool too much credit by making allowances for his refusal to pay tax because he considers it unjust. There is no injustice or morality in a government imposing tax, it is just financing. If the sovereigns, by some unimagined chain of events, acquired power they would tax the populace the same as all of their predecessors.

Generally a refusal to pay tax is not a moral position, it is a personal financial decision. It can be based indirectly on morality in situations where some belief systems (Quakers come to mind) oppose the manner in which some government money is spent. Quakers are pacifists and, to protest the indirect use of their money for military purposes, some of them have tried to withhold a percentage of taxes owing that they feel relates to military spending. However they have not kept the portion withheld but instead put it into trust for charitable purposes. Logically stupid since the taxes they do pay still get used for military purposes however you can see their point and they aren't avoiding tax for personal benefit.

Pool's letter however is not laying out some moral basis explaining why he will not co-operate. It is gibberish about his right to not participate in the process of collecting tax off him, essentially just a stalling action in hopes the problem will go away. However it does fit into the sovereign world-view (I refuse to call it a belief) that they can ignore any laws that personally inconvenience them.

[Famspear]

To: The Observer,et.al.,I thank all of you for your comments.

Re: "... even as he confronted the injustice of the law. "
The so called sovruns,& sovrunts apparently think that some of the "laws" they are subjected to are also "unjust." Still, I shake my head repeatedly in disbelief at most of the "tactics" they use to get a point across, e.g."No, I do not have a driver license but my person does." I am trying hard to understand what they are trying to get across but confusion only begets more confusion. Here is my question. Do any quatloos members think there are any laws that they(quatloos members) are subjected to, that are unjust?

Just about every person can think of one law or another that he or she feels is unjust. So what?

Whether a given law is unjust is not an important question.

One of the important questions about so-called "sovereigns' is: "Can a sovereign, by revoking his or her 'agreement' to comply with a law, thereby legally remove himself or herself from the 'jurisdiction' of the legal system?

The answer is no. With a few exceptions (such as in the case of persons with diplomatic immunity), you are subject to the laws of the place where you are located, regardless of whether you "agree" to be subject to those laws or not, and regardless of whether you believe you are subject to those laws or not.

In one sense in which the sovereign wackadoosters use the term "sovereign," there is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen." That is: The concept that a person who was born in or resides in the geographical area of the United States of America (and yes, that means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, etc.) can somehow not be subject to federal, state or local laws is nonsensical.

The term "sovereign citizen" is indeed a term that these wackos use to describe themselves, and it's a term that normal people use to describe them as well. It's just that these people do not have the legal status that they claim to have.

Sovereignty means, fundamentally, political independence. Sovereignty means that foreign governments will recognize you and treat you as politically independent. This means that the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will treat the United States of America as a sovereign nation. For example, the government of the United Kingdom will enter into treaties with the United States.

The government of the United Kingdom will not enter a treaty with James Timothy Turner, or Francis August Schaeffer Cox, David Myrland, Edward Lewis Brown, Monty Ervin, Anson Chi, Samuel Lynn Davis, Shawn Rice, or other such individuals who may claim to be "sovereign citizens," and the government of the United Kingdom will not recognize such individuals as having any authority to deal with any sovereign entity. James Timothy Turner, for example, has claimed that his is "president" of the "Republic for the united States of America," or whatever he calls it. The government of the United Kingdom will not recognize any such claim by Turner.

Sovereignty -- in the real political and legal sense -- is not based merely on how you view yourself. You can't make yourself sovereign (in the real political and legal sense) merely by declaring yourself to be so. Sovereignty is based in large part on how others view you, and how others treat you.

[Pottapaug1938]

If I recall correctly, sovruns base many of their claims on certain phrases in certain writings of the Founding Fathers -- phrases like "in the United States, the people are sovereign", or something similar, without inquiring further to see what was meant by the writer.

[wserra]

If anyone actually wishes to continue posting on that burning issue, "Is 'searcher' a 'Subject'?", it now has its very own thread.

[Gregg]

To: The Observer,et.al.,I thank all of you for your comments.

Re: "... even as he confronted the injustice of the law. "
The so called sovruns,& sovrunts apparently think that some of the "laws" they are subjected to are also "unjust." Still, I shake my head repeatedly in disbelief at most of the "tactics" they use to get a point across, e.g."No, I do not have a driver license but my person does." I am trying hard to understand what they are trying to get across but confusion only begets more confusion. Here is my question. Do any quatloos members think there are any laws that they(quatloos members) are subjected to, that are unjust?

Campaign Contribution Reform Act. Just on a matter of principle I think the 1st Amendment provides me freedom of expression, and not freedom of expression up to a certain dollar amount per candidate/election cycle. I also feel that Corporations, and unnatural persons/entities DO NOT have these rights in respect to political contributions. Shareholders have the rights, not the company they own. Just my pet peeve.

And while we're on it, I'm not real fond of the 17th Amendment, either. I honestly believe that the federal government is a creation of the states, and within that government the states were represented by the Senate, and the people by, and only by, the House of Representatives.
It's a structural difference and if I had all day I'd expound on that. As it is, I just hide out in my Well Armed Bunker Complex and brood about it, while training the crack regiment of attack dachshunds who keep order around here.

[Pottapaug1938]

And while we're on it, I'm not real fond of the 17th Amendment, either. I honestly believe that the federal government is a creation of the states, and within that government the states were represented by the Senate, and the people by, and only by, the House of Representatives.
It's a structural difference and if I had all day I'd expound on that. As it is, I just hide out in my Well Armed Bunker Complex and brood about it, while training the crack regiment of attack dachshunds who keep order around here.

Well, I can look around Massachusetts (to name but one state) and see several politicians of indifferent ethical standards who might well be sitting in the United States Senate, today, had the 17th Amendment not passed. No doubt, I could probably say the same about many, if not most, of the other states.

[Arthur Rubin]

Well, I can look around Massachusetts (to name but one state) and see several politicians of indifferent ethical standards who might well be sitting in the United States Senate, today, had the 17th Amendment not passed. No doubt, I could probably say the same about many, if not most, of the other states.

One might say the same thing about the present Senate.

[searcher]

Gregg, your post of: Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:53 pm
My feelings & understanding exactly.Chief Justice Rehnquist did not like the 17th Amendment either. I guess you already knew that,however.

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, I can look around Massachusetts (to name but one state) and see several politicians of indifferent ethical standards who might well be sitting in the United States Senate, today, had the 17th Amendment not passed. No doubt, I could probably say the same about many, if not most, of the other states.

One might say the same thing about the present Senate.

I would still rather take my chances with a popular vote election than with the Massachusetts General Court.

[wserra]

A couple of days ago, Pool sent a letter to Judge Sparks. He writes that the reason he has not complied is that "I refuse to cooperate with criminals". He has concluded - for himself, of course, since it's not the law - that complying would "incriminate myself" and that he would "be forced to relinquish ... my rights". He concludes that "If the agents choose to return remedy and recourse and due process of law to this so-called 'civilized system of law', such that it meets with my reasonable approval, then I may be willing to acquiesce and consent to such a system at a later time". Emphasis supplied.

Judge Sparks has replied to Pool in a minute order (an order that's entered in the docket but not formalized as a separate written document):

ORDER WARNING Roger K. Pool as follows: if Pool fails to comply with the Court's prior Order by failing to comply with the IRS summonses, the likely result will be Pool will be held in contempt of court, and fined or incarcerated, or both. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court further WARNS Pool that if he fails to comply with the summonses, and does not appear before this Court on February 15, 2013, the definite result will be his arrest and incarceration for being in contempt of court.

Somehow I think that Sparks' prior order will "meet with [Pool's] reasonable approval" after all.

[Pottapaug1938]

A couple of days ago, Pool sent a letter to Judge Sparks. He writes that the reason he has not complied is that "I refuse to cooperate with criminals". He has concluded - for himself, of course, since it's not the law - that complying would "incriminate myself" and that he would "be forced to relinquish ... my rights". He concludes that "If the agents choose to return remedy and recourse and due process of law to this so-called 'civilized system of law', such that it meets with my reasonable approval, then I may be willing to acquiesce and consent to such a system at a later time". Emphasis supplied.

Judge Sparks has replied to Pool in a minute order (an order that's entered in the docket but not formalized as a separate written document):

ORDER WARNING Roger K. Pool as follows: if Pool fails to comply with the Court's prior Order by failing to comply with the IRS summonses, the likely result will be Pool will be held in contempt of court, and fined or incarcerated, or both. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court further WARNS Pool that if he fails to comply with the summonses, and does not appear before this Court on February 15, 2013, the definite result will be his arrest and incarceration for being in contempt of court.

Somehow I think that Sparks' prior order will "meet with [Pool's] reasonable approval" after all.

Either that, or he will "double down on stupid", and proclaim that he does not consent to the Court's order and will not abide by it.

[notorial dissent]

My question is, has he shown any semblance of smarts to date, and appearances would seem to say NO, which begs the question of whether or not he likely to suddenly acquire some in the near term?