Simkanin guilty of 29 counts of tax violations

Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | 1/8/2004 | Max Baker

[sinkspur]

FORT WORTH - After deliberating for more than 13 hours over two days, a federal jury Wednesday convicted Bedford businessman and tax protester Richard Simkanin on 29 counts of violating U.S. income tax laws.

The jury of six men and six women delivered its verdict shortly after 8 p.m. They remained deadlocked on two counts within the indictment, leading U.S. District Judge John McBryde to declare a mistrial on those charges.

Simkanin stood silently with his hands behind his back, showing no emotion, as a court clerk read the 29 guilty verdicts. Some supporters in the courtroom dabbed their eyes; others glared at the judge.

Simkanin, 59, is scheduled to be sentenced April 30, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jarvis said. He can get up to five years on each of the 25 felony counts and up to a year on each of the four misdemeanor charges.

"Justice was served, and we're pleased that the jury understood that no one is above the law," Jarvis said.

Arch McColl, the Dallas lawyer representing Simkanin, said his client was denied a fair trial because McBryde did not allow him to present key evidence on whether Social Security, Medicare and income taxes are voluntary.

McColl said he expects to win on appeal, but he added that it is time for Americans to pay attention to what happened in court.

"I'm terribly disappointed," McColl said. "It was not a fair trial in accordance with the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution that includes the fundamental right to present evidence on your own behalf."

Robert Schulz, founder of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a group that questions the validity of the nation's tax laws, told Simkanin's supporters that the defendant was prepared for the worst.

"His spirits are fine. His faith is strong," Schulz said.

This is the second time Simkanin has gone on trial. In November, McBryde declared a mistrial when jurors who deliberated for eight hours said that they were deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Simkanin is almost considered to be a political prisoner by groups that question the validity of the nation's tax laws. They contend that most Americans are not required to pay income taxes.

They are particularly hostile toward the Internal Revenue Service, an agency that, they say, is not an official government entity.

Simkanin's supporters came from around the country. They held a vigil at the courthouse, at one time praying in the hallway. They often gave him a thumbs-up gesture as he entered the courtroom. Once, Simkanin got a standing ovation.

During the trial, Simkanin testified that he didn't withhold employees' taxes for Medicare and Social Security benefits because his research did not produce a law showing that participation in the programs was mandatory.

But Simkanin backed away from some of his anti-government comments, saying they were a mistake. He once wrote to the U.S. Treasury secretary saying that he had repatriated himself from the United States to the "Republic of Texas."

When McColl tried to query witnesses on legal definitions of "employee" and "wages," McBryde cut him off. The judge told jurors they could not question the constitutionality of the tax code.

Prosecutors put 11 witnesses on the stand to show that Simkanin knew what he was doing when he stopped withholding and paying taxes. Under federal tax laws, ignorance of tax codes can be used as a legal defense.

Jurors sent out seven notes during their 11 hours of deliberations Wednesday.

They asked for legal definitions and whether they had to review evidence on who does have to pay taxes.

McColl said his client's company, Arrow Custom Plastics, is in deep financial trouble because of his fights with the government. Simkanin has been in jail since June.

Simkanin was convicted on 10 felony counts of failing to withhold about $139,000 in taxes from employees' wages and 15 felony counts of filing false tax refund claims for about $235,000.

He also was found guilty of four misdemeanor counts of not filing individual income tax returns from 1998 to 2001. Simkanin had an estimated gross income of about $410,000 during those years, according to the indictment.

Dottie Harrison, a Simkanin supporter from Houston, said his allies will continue to fight.

"I'm in shock, but the determined energy everyone feels to overturn this injustice will be a catalyst that will expose the entire IRS fraud," she said.

[sinkspur]

Another one bites the dust.

[Support Free Republic]

Be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Make a donation!

[spacewarp]

Sorry Sink. Usually, we have a level of agreement on some issues. This is not "Another one bites the dust." This is one in which the American people, and in particular, Simkanin got more rights taken away. This is an utter outrage that the defense of a man is that the laws that he's being charged with are a violation of the Constitution, and the judge prohibits and even instructs the jurors that the "constutionality" of the laws in question is not even a valid question. If the Appeals court can prove that it's not just a rubber stamp of the IRS and that the courts can't just make up laws as they go, this will be thrown out at first glance. It's an abomination of the justice system.

If the IRS wants to prove their case that there is a Constitutional grounds for their confiscatory tax practices, fine. Let them do it. The utter arrogance of the IRS is appalling. And you and every other American should be disgusted. "We make the laws, and we tell you how to respond to them and if you don't like it, we'll take your house and your business and throw you in jail. And we're above you, so we don't have to answer any of your questions." The first trial, the IRS agents were asked to provide anywhere in the code that he was required to pay the taxes. They refuesd to do so. They all flatly refused to testify. This time, they found a judge that was on their side, and they were able to shaft someone. If they have a case, then let them stand up in open court and defend it. If they can't, then they should be prosecuted for making these backroom deals to rip off people's rights.

They accuse Rush of "doctor shopping". Well, that's a minor problem (major problem for their prosecution, because they're also accusing him of illegally obtaining them from a pusher, so, why would he have any need to "doctor shop"). In this country, the major offense should not be "doctor shopping" but "JUDGE shopping." And those prosecutors that have so little faith in their cases that they would risk trying an innocent man by shopping for a friendly judge that will take away all of a man's defense by acting like a three year old sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "I can't hear you", the prosecutors should be tried and convicted.

As I'm sure you can imagine, I'm a LITTLE miffed about this one. It's clearly a violation of his constitutional rights. If he broke the law, prove it. Don't prevent him from making a defense and then say "See, he didn't say anything we could hear, so we proved it." It's sick. And all of you who love freedom should be sick and should also be afraid.

Remember, keep your guns clean, because when they come for all of us who love liberty, it's going to be our only defense against tyrrany. And this, Sink, is nothing but tyrrnany.

[The Old Hoosier]

It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway.

[Henrietta]

"The first trial, the IRS agents were asked to provide anywhere in the code that he was required to pay the taxes. They refuesd to do so. "

I so agree with your post. Kinda makes you wonder what the IRs is trying to hide, doesn't it? I mean, if it's so darned obvious, why aren't they producing the evidence and explaining it to all of us? No citizen defending himself would be able to do what the IRS does, and say, "This is the law, I say so, and I don't have to prove it. Just take my word for it."

[sopwith]

01-06-04
Federal Tyranny, Texas Style

Justice Held in Contempt
Simkanin Takes The Stand

(Updated Tuesday, 1 PM Central)

(Above Judge McBryde's head near the USDC courtroom ceiling):

REASON IS THE LIFE OF THE LAW
NAY THE COMMON LAW ITSELF IS NOTHING BUT REASON

Fort Worth -- Federal prosecutors and USDC Judge John McBryde continued in earnest yesterday afternoon to deny all reason and justice in their quest to control the trial and ensure the conviction of non-withholding employer Dick Simkanin.

Fortunately, Simkanin's attorney, Arch McColl, despite a clearly biased and hostile courtroom environment, made a noteworthy stand against the tyrannical acts of the judge and Assistant US Attorney. According to observers in the fully packed courtroom, the thinly veiled attempts by the government to deny justice to Simkanin were not lost on members of the jury. They were certainly not lost on the courtroom observers.

As one example of Judge McBryde's vision of due process, McColl (yesterday) filed five separate Motions to Dismiss, including one challenging the legal sufficiency of the charging indictment. As WTP has noted in pervious updates, Simkanin's indictment does not cite ANY specific US statute Simkanin is alleged to have violated, but merely specifies the general, "multi-purpose" Title 26 "penalty" statutes that are imposed IF one that is required to file (or withhold), fails to do so. At the bench, Judge McBryde openly admitted he had not read any of the Defense motions, but regardless, summarily dismissed all of them within seconds.

As to the government's case (which wrapped up Tuesday morning), Assistant US Attorney Jarvis, opened his prosecutorial drama by bringing in a number of Simkanin's former employees and accountants. These first witnesses were able to repeatedly reiterate their personal tales of how they "knew" (and warned) Simkanin that he was "breaking the law" by not withholding.

They further went into explaining why they severed their relationships with Simkanin rather then face legal troubles by questioning the law or the IRS. Although it was clear this initial barrage of government witnesses was intended to construct for the jury the illusory "fact" that Simkanin "broke the law," they, conveniently of course, could not be directly questioned about their actual knowledge of the law that they were speculating about because they were not legal experts.

Following these preliminary government witnesses, the DOJ brought out several of their IRS agents and tax experts. These witnesses, although personally and officially responsible for enforcing US tax law, uttered precious few words concerning the actual content of the law, and were again, conveniently protected by Judge McBryde from any substantive cross examination that might entail any detailed discussion of Simkanin's true legal obligations under the law.

Below are notes that were transcribed directly during the testimony of the IRS witness Joe Cooper. It is Cooper who, on behalf of the IRS, formally denied Simkanin's claims for tax refunds, thereby establishing the legal basis for twelve of the 35 tax crimes Simkanin is charged with. (Note: Cooper was the IRS witness in the first trial that recanted his testimony, changing his assertion as to which specific legal definition of the term "employee" applied to Simkanin's alleged crimes) Notice the unwarranted behavior of Judge McBryde as Arch McColl attempts to solicit from the witness his factual and legal basis for denying Simkanin's refunds on cross-examination:

(Note: McColl questions in green, IRS's Cooper testimony in yellow)

Testimony of Joe Cooper:

He conducts examinations and claims for refund - (Government exhibit 91 entered, claim for refund that Simkanin submitted.) He admits reviewing the claims and what he put in the denial letter. He reached the (legal) conclusion that the refund had no merit and the claim would be denied. He informed Simkanin of such on the phone. He also told Simkanin the courts had consistently denied arguments with his position. He looked at counts 1 through 12 showing the total wages indicated and found them to be correct from his calculations.

McColl's cross-examination of Cooper:

If Arrow Custom Plastics corporate income was .McColl is cut off before he can ask the question - Judge denies him to ask the question before he can ask it. Defense asks judge: can he even ask the question and judge says no. When you made your evaluation did you base it on title 26? Did you make it according to the letter he provided? Judge stops him and calls them up to the bench for a scolding.

Did you have any supreme court cases you could have used.Judge states it is beyond the scope and tells him to move to something else. Presuming that Simkanin is correct, is it true.Judge stops him and states it is beyond the scope. Do you remember what year your conversation occurred in? - (answers 2002). In order to reject this claim did you have to do a calculation of the gross income that was involved in the income, such as excludable income? Judge stops him and tells him to get onto something relevant to the subject.

Is it true that there are certain items within the class of income that is within the scope? Judge stops him again and states that the subject is wages withheld and not gross income. Did you have any conversation with Simkanin about him not filing any returns? (answer) Yes - and he said he didn't believe he had to withhold from employees. Further question from defense about employees not being subject to withholding Judge stops him and states it is beyond the scope. Do you know what courts have continuously rejected.Judge stops him and states it is beyond the scope. Within the scope of your expertise do you deal with medicare or .Judge states it is beyond the scope. Did you say that you had researched the law? Yes, What law did you research - I don't recall.

Did you say that you researched court cases? Judge stops him again. Did you look at any regulations, Yes - 3401. Did you explain that to Simkanin? Are their guidelines that you act under? Yes, Do the guidelines call for you to give direct answers to people making claims? Yes, Judge concludes his questioning if he dares to ask any other questions that are beyond the scope. Did you think some thought had gone into Sim. letter sighting 20 regulations and numorous court cases? Yes, Can you see how a person might view.Judge stops him stating it is argumentative. Did you tell him he could appeal? Yes.What is the normal process he would have.Judge stops him.


The balance of the afternoon followed similarly to the testimony cited above, with the government attempting to paint Simkanin as a criminal because he cashed checks in excess of $10,000 (while running a $5,000,000 a year business), because he changed the corporate signature card at his bank, and because he wrote his Congressman to urge passage of proposed legislation by Rep. Ron Paul (TX) that would have eliminated the withholding "requirement" (implying that this letter established Simkanin knew what the current law requires with respect to withholding).

As further evidence of the bias against Simkanin, courtroom observers noted several instances where Judge McBryde sustained objections, even BEFORE they were made by the US Attorney. Testimony lasted until after 6 PM Monday evening when the court was recessed.

On Tuesday morning, Jarvis recalled two of Simkanin's former associates to reiterate portions of their testimony.

In a rare moment of acknowledging the rights of the defendant, McBryde quickly admonished the AUSA for his additional grilling of these witnesses as Javis pushed for further condemnations and opinions regarding Simkanin and his decisions to stop withholding and filing. Shortly thereafter, the defense rested.

Before 10 AM, Simkanin had taken the stand as the first defense witness and was being questioned by his attorney Arch McColl. An initial report from a courtroom observer indicated that Judge McBryde was continuing his role as "executive producer" of the trial by aggressively limiting Simkanin's testimony to simple "yes or no" responses to his own lawyer's questions.

A number of other defense witnesses were preparing to testify later today. It is unknown if the Judge will allow any witnesses aside from Simkanin. More news as it is available..


Other Trial Tidbits:

Until McColl strenuously objected yesterday just before the start of the trial, Dick Simkanin, (who has never been convicted of any crime) was still bound in prison leg restraints as he sat at the Defendant's table.

A number of courtroom observers reported being somewhat disturbed that the US Marshals routinely physically lock and "dead-bolt" the single, main entrance into the courtroom while the court is in session. Several noted the obvious violations of fire regulations and the clear risks should an emergency occur. The Marshals apparently do this on at the direction of Judge McBryde who abhors the public entering or leaving the public courtroom while court is in session.

Numerous observers noted that Juror #4 (female, apparently in her early twenties) spent much of yesterday virtually asleep with her head slumped back. Apparently, neither the judge nor DOJ were concerned.

Additional details regarding the blocking of parked cars directly across from the federal courthouse that took effect mid-morning yesterday have been determined. The parking ban was carried out by local Fort Worth police. The local federal "Homeland Security" officer stationed outside the courthouse told WTP sidewalk protesters that the parking ban was, in fact, instigated specifically as result of the recent increase to the "orange" terrorist threat level set by the Office of Homeland Security. The officer could not explain why the parking ban was not instituted until yesterday morning (Monday, January 5th) considering the terrorist level was officially raised to "orange" the weekend prior to Christmas.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram published another lead story on Tuesday covering the Simkanin trial. Even the reporter noted the apparent bias against Simkanin as McColl attempted to discuss the legal definitions of the key statutory terms "income" and "employee". The reporter noted that when McColl attempted to ask the IRS legal expert if Social Security taxes (that Simkanin is charged with) were mandatory under the law or not, Judge McByde stopped McColl and sternly warned, "We're not going to play this game."

Bob Schulz was the live guest on the leading 50,000 watt KLIF/AM 570 Dallas talk radio show during the peak "drive time" this morning. One caller to the show following Schulz's interview admitted to not filing federal tax returns since 1976.

[31R1O]

Couldn't people file a class action lawsuit against the IRS.

[sinkspur]

If the IRS wants to prove their case that there is a Constitutional grounds for their confiscatory tax practices, fine. Let them do it.

They've done it. Over and over and over and the Supreme Court has agreed that witholding, and the income tax, is constitutional.

That's all the tax protesters have, is to go into court, kick up dust about the "constitutionality of the tax code" (when it is a settled issue). Once that's off the table, jurors realize that these "protesters" are scammers, leeches on society, and are basically screwin' you and me by not paying the same taxes that you and I owe AND PAY!

If Schulz and Simkanin (once he gets out of prison) want to change the tax laws, I'll join them and you. National Retail Sales Tax is THE way to go.

But you'll get no sympathy from me when one of these snakes (who, BTW, exposed his own employees to legal liability) tries to hide behind the Constitution.

He's spitting in your face, and you don't even realize it.

[Henrietta]

"It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway."

It is emphatically the place of the jury both to judge the law and the facts. The Supreme Court itself has said so.

"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." Mr. Justice Holmes, for the majority in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).

And you're quite wrong on the Constitutional point as well. The Constitution does not restrict citizens, it restricts government. And it says that people have a right to trial by jury, which implicates a right for the jury to decide facts and law. You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that if the Constitution does not allow it, it is prohibited. This has never been an accepted construction of our constitution.

[verity]

Another one fool bites the dust.

[Gunslingr3]

It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway.

The jury system is intended as a brake upon the excesses of government. It is a part of keeping 'we the people' the fourth branch of government.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." --Thomas Jefferson

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." --Chief Justice John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, US supreme Court (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4)

"It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge's view of the law, against their own opinion, judgement, and conscience." --John Adams

"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." --John Adams

Why do you think they want us to forget this...

[sinkspur]

And it says that people have a right to trial by jury, which implicates a right for the jury to decide facts and law.

So, in each and every trial, each and every jury has the right to decide the "constitutionality" of every law used to indict the accused?

LOL!!!!

[Dead Corpse]

LOL!!!!

Keep laughing. In fact, it could be said that our legal system is in such a mess because jurors have been mislead as to their power to judge the law BY the judiciary.

Read some Spooner. You just may learn something...

[sinkspur]

Why do you think they want us to forget this...

You better check Marbury vs. Madison.

The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.

Juries don't get to decide the constitutionality of laws.

[bvw]

And therefore William Penn is still locked away in the Tower of London, and Pennsylvania is not, Philadelphia is not, the Liberty Bell is still brass cannons, there is not Carpenter's Hall, there is no Declaration of Independence, there is no Constitution.

What then are you talking about?

For William Penn is convicted of inciting riot, and that, sir, is the LAW!

[sinkspur]

Read some Spooner. You just may learn something...

Read Marbury vs. Madison.

YOU might learn something....

[Gunslingr3]

Juries don't get to decide the constitutionality of laws.

By all means, explain the contradiction between that analysis of Marbury v Madison and John Jay's statement.

[Dead Corpse]

Juries don't get to decide the constitutionality of laws.

Your qoute says nothing about juries. Get a grip. Just because the USSC is the "final" arbiter when working a suit through the court system in no way prohibits a jury from deciding the fate of a law as well.

[sinkspur]

By all means, explain the contradiction between that analysis of Marbury v Madison and John Jay's statement.

Marbury vs. Madison prevails over a private opinion.

[bvw]

It is illogical to supposes that sinkspur is capable of dioing that. A old garbage hauling freight train does not do cloverleaves on the interstate. It can only go where the rails led it. Most illogical, your presumption about this sinkspur.

[spacewarp]

Sink, I don't care one bit about his guilt or innocence. If he's guilty of a crime, throw his butt in jail. What I do care about, and the spitting in your face and mine, is not from Simkanin, but from the IRS, is that they have the attitude of "We say so, and now you must bow down and do as we say." This is not an Imperial government. It's a Republic. And that means that we have representation and rights. And however this judge and the IRS and DOJ want to paint it, they didn't prove a DARN thing. They showed how to abuse a citizen. Period.

They DIDN'T prove their case. They refused again, as they have done repeatedly, to actually give the basis in fact that they have the right to do what they are doing. And no, the Supremes have NOT agreed that the income tax is constitutional. They've repeatedly refused to hear case after case because to look at them on their face, the government hasn't proved its case once. And the whole house of cards would come tumbling down if they actually had to testify in front of a judge that there was in fact, no basis in law for their abuse of the American people.

We have a gargantuan system in place and we have Americans spending nearly $500 BILLION a year in tax preparation and several TRILLION in taxation. The average burden per person is $36,000 per year. That's insane. The average tax burden is higher than the average income.

If he broke the law, testify, and prove the case. Don't have the judge hide the fact that you're not doing something you're allowed to do. Period. If you've got a strong enough case to prove, then do it. But, don't use legal trickery and in some cases, I believe, bribes and coersion, to make your case. It's a criminal outfit. If I tried in court to testify the way they do, I'd be in jail for contempt for years. The IRS and the DOJ and the judge are the ones spitting in your face, not Simkanin. He's at least got the courage to try to make them prove the case. They still haven't done it. And I believe they won't. Ever. As long as they can get away with it. There is only one other group of people who have behaved in a similar manner for any length of time as the IRS. And most of them are now behind bars. It's called the Mafia. Yes, I'm comparing the IRS to the Mafia. They use intimidation and threats of force to strip your money out of your pockets. And if you don't like the Mafia doing it, you get a bullet in the back of your head. If you don't like the IRS doing it, you end up doing 25-50 in solitary so you don't spread your disease that the IRS is a house of cards based on intimidation and not law.

Sink, you need to wake up. Our country is on the road to tyrrany and the Dems are dragging us as fast as they can, the Republicans are dragging, just at a slightly slower pace. Our country is in jeopardy. And there is no amount of covering for them by claiming that the Supremes have ruled on something that will change that fact.

[sinkspur]

Just because the USSC is the "final" arbiter when working a suit through the court system in no way prohibits a jury from deciding the fate of a law as well.

Jury nullification is always an option, if they so choose. But a judge is well within the law to prevent defense counsel from arguing the constitutionality of settled law. McBryde will not be overturned on that point.

[sinkspur]

Ping me if you mention me. You've been around here long enough to know that.

[bvw]

Every negro agrees. Dredd Scott is settled law.

[bvw]

Go fly a kite.

[Gunslingr3]

John Jay's statement was made in a Supreme Court decision, he was the Cheif Justice of same. Between the branches of government Marbury v. Madison affords the Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of laws, but the jury system is intended to provide the citizens final say in the application of those laws. Marbury v. Madison isn't about the jury system, and further, Congress itself is afforded final say over the powers of the Supreme Court in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Ignorance is a curable condition for the so inclined.

[sinkspur]

And no, the Supremes have NOT agreed that the income tax is constitutional.

For crying out loud! If you believe this, then you're off in fantasy land.

But, you do seem to have the Tax Protester line down pat. You been reading "We the People"?

[freedomcrusader]

Jury nullification is always an option, if they so choose. But a judge is well within the law to prevent defense counsel from arguing the constitutionality of settled law. McBryde will not be overturned on that point

Well said. Juries do have the power to refuse to convict if they disagree with a law, but rarely do so out of ignorance. However, judges who find out about it tend to throw out verdicts and hold new trials (if they find out after the fact), or dismiss jurors who hold such beliefs (if they find out in time).

If you want to get out of jury duty, just casually mention the phrase "jury nullification". You'll be out of there in no time.

If you wind up on a jury and refuse to convict because you disagree with the law, hold hard and fast to your right to refuse to say a word about why you refused, or stick to the story about reasonable doubt until the day you die (and preferably longer).

[sinkspur]

We have a gargantuan system in place and we have Americans spending nearly $500 BILLION a year in tax preparation and several TRILLION in taxation. The average burden per person is $36,000 per year. That's insane. The average tax burden is higher than the average income.

Who passes the tax laws in this country and in this state?

You'd best direct your ire at your Congressman and State Rep.

You seem to want to allow individual tax cheats to change the law.

[Dead Corpse]

Settled? If you think tax law is settled in anyones mind, other than the IRS of course, you are sadly mistaken.

I suppose in your mind, the cases surrounding the Second Amendment are settled as well? How about that CFR abortion that the USSC handed down? Is that settled as well?

Sorry, but as long as a LAW remains in direct contravention to the Constitution it cannot be said to be Constitutional. No matter how many times the USSC says it IS. While the 14th Amend. allows for taxation on income, something the Founders didn't want and saw as evil, it does not allow for withholding. Nor does it allow for arbitrary laws and court proceedings fostered by the IRS.

Since when is mentioning IRS proceedure on a point of clarification something a judge must have striken?

Constitutional issues aside, this case was an abortion of justice if nothing else.

[Protagoras]

He might have been a nut and he might have been guilty of breaking laws, but at least he is on the right side of the issue. The tax system sucks.

[Dead Corpse]

HR25 has been in the House Ways and Means committee for about a year now. Too bad Bush couldn't have pushed that instead of this friggin' amnesty.

[sinkspur]

If you wind up on a jury and refuse to convict because you disagree with the law, hold hard and fast to your right to refuse to say a word about why you refused, or stick to the story about reasonable doubt until the day you die (and preferably longer).

Exactly. If YOU don't think a law is constitutional, just refuse to convict.

But the idea that a judge has to allow a defense counsel to argue the constitutionality of a law, in each and every case, is simply ludicrous. That's begging for anarchy in the judicial system.

[bvw]

McBryde will not be overturned on that point

Aside from the grammar -- which falsely implies it is McBryde's call -- does you agree that the decision will not be overruled due to the judge not allowing the defense it's own arguments.

[cynicom]

"Sink, you need to wake up"

Amen brother.

[sinkspur]

Sorry, but as long as a LAW remains in direct contravention to the Constitution it cannot be said to be Constitutional. No matter how many times the USSC says it IS.

Fine. You don't accept Marbury vs. Madison. You think each and every individual jury gets to decide the constitutionality of every single law underlying each and every case.

You won't serve on many juries.

[Gunslingr3]

But the idea that a judge has to allow a defense counsel to argue the constitutionality of a law, in each and every case, is simply ludicrous. That's begging for anarchy in the judicial system.

Sounds like you have no faith in the jury system, so why even have it? Why not just let the judges decide, they know best, right?

[sinkspur]

Aside from the grammar -- which falsely implies it is McBryde's call -- does you agree that the decision will not be overruled due to the judge not allowing the defense it's own arguments.

Speaking of grammar, what is this...Ebonics 101?

[Dead Corpse]

You won't serve on many juries.

Unfortunately, you are right. The system will always work to protect itself. Even if it is completely off course and malignantly parasitic at this point.

I can hardly credit that someone with as long a posting history here at FR as you would think this is a GOOD thing.

[sinkspur]

Sounds like you have no faith in the jury system, so why even have it? Why not just let the judges decide, they know best, right?

Because every citizen, according to the Constitution, has a right to a trial by jury.

He does NOT have the right to a hearing on the constitutionality of the law used to indict him by that same jury.

[Protagoras]

Too bad Bush couldn't have pushed that instead of this friggin' amnesty.

Why would someone who is hell bent on increasing government power and size ever look to push laws that don't work toward that end?

[sinkspur]

I can hardly credit that someone with as long a posting history here at FR as you would think this is a GOOD thing.

Did I say it was good?

I don't like scamming tax cheats, people who will expose their own employees to legal liability to protect their own sorry asses.

I can't believe you would think THAT'S a good thing.

[freedomcrusader]

...does you agree that the decision will not be overruled due to the judge not allowing the defense it's own arguments.

Arguing constitutionality and presenting one's own arguments do not entirely overlap.

If it is true that ...McBryde did not allow him to present key evidence on whether Social Security, Medicare and income taxes are voluntary... then I think the defense in this case was inappropriately denied the opportunity to present evidence, but not inappropriately denied the opportunity to question the Constitutionality of the law itself.

[Dead Corpse]

Because he said he would. Every "bigger government" policy he had in his campaign speeches, things we were assured he was only saying to get elected, he has gotten passed. Getting a NRST or a Flat tax implemented was also one of those thing he promised. Since he has been such a man of his word, even if that word is detrimental to freedom, I would have expected him to push this.

[Dead Corpse]

You are hopeless...

For everyone else edification, here is some Spooner:
It is said that it would be absurd that twelve ignorant men should have power to judge of the law, while justices learned in the law should be compelled to sit by and see the law decided erroneously.

One answer to this objection is, that the powers of juries [*124] are not granted to them on the supposition that they know the law better than the justices; but on the ground that the justices are untrustworthy, that they are exposed to bribes, are themselves fond of power and authority, and are also the dependent and subservient creatures of the legislature; and that to allow them to dictate the law, would not only expose the rights of parties to be sold for money, but would be equivalent to surrendering all the property, liberty, and rights of the people, unreseruedly into the hands of arbitrary power, (the legislature,) to be disposed of at its pleasure. The powers of juries, therefore, not only place a curb upon the powers of legislators and judges, but imply also an imputation upon their integrity and trustworthiness; and these are the reasons why legislators and judges have formerly entertained the intensest hatred of juries, and, so fast as they could do it without alarming the people for their liberties, have, by indirection, denied, undermined, and practically destroyed their power. And it is only since all the real power of juries has been destroyed, and they have become mere tools in the hands of legislators and judges, that they have become favorites with them.

Legislators and judges are necessarily exposed to all the temptations of money, fame, and power, to induce them to disregard justice between parties, and sell the rights, and violate the liberties of the people. Jurors, on the other hand, are exposed to none of these temptations. They are not liable to bribery, for they are unknown to the parties until they come into the jury-box. They can rarely gain either fame, power, or money, by giving erroneous decisions. Their offices are temporary, and they know that when they shall have executed them, they must return to the people, to hold all their own rights in life subject to the liability of such judgments, by their successors, as they themselves have given an example for. The laws of human nature do not permit the supposition that twelve men, taken by lot from the mass of the people, and acting under such circumstances, will all prove dishonest. It is a supposable case that they may not be sufficiently enlightened to know and do their whole duty, in all cases whatsoever; but that they should all prove dishonest, is not within [*125] the range of probability. A jury, therefore, insures to us ?? what no other court does --- that first and indispensable requisite in a judicial tribunal, integrity.

[Gunslingr3]

He does NOT have the right to a hearing on the constitutionality of the law used to indict him by that same jury.

Your statement is not only in contradiction to statements made by the Founders and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in a USSC decision, it is not supported by Marbury v. Madison. Where'd you get this idea?

[spacewarp]

Actually, I've read their stuff. I've also read the Constitution. And I've read a lot of other material. Obviously, you read about one court opinion and ground yourself in that the only way for things to go were that one way. There is another way, but you're so steadfastly against it that you're blind to things. Sink, as far as I know, he may be truly guilty. But, the absolute arrogance of our government employees (and yes, I said OUR, because, despite what they seem to think, they work for US!!!!!!!!) is unthinkable. They just say "We don't have to defend our actions. We ARE the IRS and you will bow down and do what we tell you." It's attitudes like theirs that lead to civil war. Our party is working to get people elected that will eliminate those kinds of stumbling blocks so our country doesn't sink to tyrrany.

[ASA.Ranger]

You are 100% correct sinkspur.

...and most having an interest in Federal taxes (payers/non.payers/protesters) fail to realize that it is ultimately the CONGRESS THEY keep voting into power that creates and sustains tax related problems. The IRS is merely an administrative agency attempting to carry out the edicts of Congress. Congress plays the IRS against the public so that it comes out looking like the 'good guy.' In reality Congress is the lying, cheating, low life scumbag. Anyway, it is currently moot. The IRS is a broken, inefficient, and demoralized entity. Most of the National Office with the exception of NUGS (new guys) are worn out and counting days till retirement. Many have never had field experience. Surveys are created to get the desired result. Field Revenue Officers and Agents are unable to enforce against the employers who steal trust funds from employees. The IRS is so restricted at the moment that they are conducting internal audits --- not because of any huge recognized internal problem, but because employees are easy targets. The IRS has been reduced (by Congress) to pursuing soft, easy targets. The compliance rate in 1988 was 92%. It is now approximately 73%. This current IRS is not Elliot Ness' IRS!

If the complainers and protesters don’t want help pay for a civilized society there are alternatives. They know not what they bray about. Their facts are not true facts (more like lies) and they display extreme ignorance by citing urban legends relating to the constitutionality of taxes. I suggest that they adequately inform themselves and then intelligently lobby elected officials.

[Protagoras]

Because he said he would.

I think it is naive to think politicians will keep their word on most things, certainly when they promise things at cross purposes.