This guy is a clown. Apart from being a bizarre legalese defence that would be relatively easy to dismiss, the very act of making a legal claim against taxation will always fail. Petitioning the state, which rests its entire legitimacy on its ability to enforce a legal framework through which it can raise taxes, via its own legal system which is paid for through those taxes, to accept that the legal basis of taxation is itself illegitimate is laughably naive.

Even as a publicity stunt it won’t garner much support as very few of the brainwashed masses think taxation is fundamentally wrong, and it makes those of us who do think that way look like clowns by association. This is, of course, precisely what the state wants and simply increases their incentive to treat such cases as frivolous. They absolutely cannot countenance this kind of challenge.

There were a few highlights though which serve to illustrate the point:

magistrate Michael King found Polglaise guilty of all six charges.
King said paying tax did not contravene human rights

Yes, we know that you think property rights and consent don’t matter to you.

nor fall within the definition of servitude

Well that’s convenient. I would say that having around half of my production taken without my consent is exactly what it falls under the definition of. A form of penal servitude for the ‘crime’ of existing and trying to remain that way.

He said taxes were common to every country, and each citizen was obliged to contribute to the well being of their community.

Oh, the old “well every other coercive extortive monopoly on violence is doing it so it must be OK” argument. Non-sequitur, sorry. And citizens are only “obliged” insofar as they find themselves at the business end of the gun barrel of the state. Again, a clear failure of any kind of rational argument, let alone a cogent one.

King also considered there to be no basis to an argument that individuals had a choice as to what laws applied to them…”That would make a mockery of the law,” he said.

I can just imagine him spluttering with indignation “but … but you can’t simply just not do what we say”.

As sovereign individuals there is no ethical requirement for ‘citizens’ to obey any laws imposed by the state. Consent to impose laws is, according to the state, neither necessary nor sought. Consequently, no agreement to obey exists.

Here we see the state begin to growl, while not quite yet baring its teeth, as a warning to others who might think about going off plantation. The state rebuttals are completely without merit and are self-referential: “you will obey the laws that we make because the laws that we make require you to do so.”

And always with the not-so-hidden threat of “Or suffer the consequences”.