“In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law ... That would lead to anarchy. An individual who breaks a law that his 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.”

Bravo! I would only argue as to what the definition of "law" is; whether it is rules, guidelines, principles, things as they really are, or just what people say they are. Any man who will defy secular (man-made) law, in order to "arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice", is truly showing respect for natural law (the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God).

John Locke and many of the U.S. founders stated the same principle in different ways. I like Rev. King's version.

Easier said then done--if we all had such true moral conviction we would not pay our income tax that supports this insufferable adminsitration's war.

If we all had such true moral conviction we wouldn't ever pay an income tax, since the tax itself is immoral in that it is not applied to everyone equally. As for the war, EGL, do you find the war insufferable or is it just the administration?

Ken-BOTH!

The name Nelson Mandela comes to mind, who spent over 25 years in prison for defying South Africa's unjust apartheid laws with no guarsntee of ocerturning them, or ever getting out of prison at all.

It is the responsibility of the individual to resist bad laws -- and the responsibility of his peers (i.e. the jury) to find him innocent.

Breaking laws does NOT show respect for law, but it WILL lead to anarchy.

The road from the 'Rule of Law' to the 'Rule of JUST Law' is paved with broken bad law.

Go to the site NWTRCC.org to learn practical means of non-cooperation with war tax paying.

breaking the law will never show your respect for your country

angelica, Jury Nullification does show your respect for your country. Look it up.

We have the right and responsibility to revolt against unjust law. People are more willing to suffer the oppressive nature of unjust laws than to right themselves. That is as long as they have food and housing. An old trap used by my Grandfather to catch wild pigs. Some of our elders have seen it coming for a long time. Fear keeps many from speaking out. FDR threw their families in jail in 1937 for speaking out against the unjust law.

Joe, WHAT ? ? ? With the different adaptations of anarchy floating around (anarcho-capitalism for one in a myriad of other possible examples) what is your focus of poison ? The "law" you reference is not within the understanding of the de jure States united "law of nature and of nature's God" jurisprudence. Are you suggesting that if the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's canons and otherwise rules of tyranny were removed that anarchy is the only possible result ? hmmm, dunno, would that be worse ?

Forsake the city and return to the land where they found us to begin with. O that's right we don't own it any more, just rent.
I personally see the laziness it produces in people when taking the handouts given by the fed. What a big trap, they live in fear of what to declare and what not. Intruding into their lives on every side. Turns them into liars and thieves. O what must I do, they say. They lost their faith in themselves and the God of nature. They do moc the hand that now feeds them.
Give me liberty or give me death !
You've got to love Patrick Henry. The War Inevitable.

Mr. Norwalk, would it not be better to distribute Affidavits of Revocation and Rescission to all free sovereign individual citizens to educate them about who they are and what has been taken away in a voluntary compliance.

watchman 13, I don't know. Maybe? This morning, I had a couple hour long discussion with a federal government attorney about natural law. AND ! He could NOT grasp any part of the concept that man is not god with ability to create law. He knew history, along with Greek philosophy very well and, didn't agree with any of the principles or understandings of law as was the foundation of the de jure U.S.A. He agreed that what was called a government of law in 1776 differs dramatically from that which is now defined and practiced. Defying or breaking the 1776 law, the law of nature or nature's God or law of the land was different than doing so now. As according to Acts 5:29, I'm with Peter (Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.) I will live the eternal law, recognized clear back in 1776. I practice (to my knowledge and ability) the law of the land.

Sure