Opinion ID: 420937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Right to Petition for the Redress of Grievances

Text: 15 In the Government's final point of error, the Government contends that the district court erred by concluding that Hylton's filing of the nonfraudulent complaints was constitutionally protected. We disagree. 16 As the United States Supreme Court has held, the right to petition for redress of grievances is among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the bill of rights. See United Mineworkers of America, District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 88 S.Ct. 353, 356, 19 L.Ed.2d 426 (1967). Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched in the first amendment, the right to petition for redress of grievances occupies a preferred place in our system of representative government, and enjoys a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct. 315, 322, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945). Indeed, [i]t was not by accident or coincidence that that rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. Id. at 323. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held expressly that the first amendment right to petition protects the individuals right to file an action with a reasonable basis in a state tribunal. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 2161, 2169, 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983). 6 Thus, we are presented with the issue of whether Hylton may be convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7212(a) for filing a factually accurate, nonfraudulent criminal complaint against federal agents with the appropriate local law enforcement officials. 17 Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the district court's holding, we have concluded that Hylton's actions represent a legitimate and protected exercise of her right to petition for the redress of grievances. The record clearly reveals that Hylton placed a high value upon her right to personal privacy and genuinely attempted to protect her rights through the orderly pursuit of justice--the filing of citizen complaints with a reasonable basis. 7 Although we do not condone the Hyltons' continued opposition to this Nation's tax laws, we likewise cannot condone the imposition of criminal sanction for Hylton's exercise of her constitutional right. 18 We emphasize that we do not find the provisions of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7212(a) to be in violation of the first amendment in all cases. Certainly, the Government may seek criminal sanction against those who illegally impede the due administration of this Nation's tax laws. Moreover, were it demonstrated that Hylton's complaints were frivolous and based upon contrived allegations, a totally different result might follow. However, in the context of this case, we simply cannot disagree with the district court's conclusion that Hylton's activities were constitutionally protected. 19 Finally, in response to the Government's contention that Hylton's activities were not constitutionally protected since her nonfraudulent complaints were motivated by a desire to impede the IRS agents' investigation, we simply quote from the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Stern v. United States Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1343 (7th Cir.1977). 20 Likewise, we consider it irrelevant to the applicability of the right to petition that its exercise might have the effect of causing professional injury to the official about whom complaints are made, or even that the complainer may be aware of or pleased by the prospect of such injury. Whenever substantial charges of any credibility are made, a shadow of doubt, at least, may fall upon their object. This effect follows too naturally from its cause for its presence to vitiate the propriety of the use of First Amendment rights, if those rights are to retain meaning. The possibility that a citizen who feels himself to have been abused by a particular federal official may take satisfaction when the official gets his perceived due is too human for First Amendment protection to depend on its absence. 21 Accord Bill Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2169.