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.

[Poohbah]

The word "includes" is a term of expansion, not restriction.

[sinkspur]

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

And who decides which laws are repugnant? You? Juries?

No. The United States Supreme Court.

You're free to practice jury nullification if you wish, paine. In fact, I encourage you to do it if you believe that a law is unjust.

But the jury you're on won't be deciding the constitutionality of any law, as a body.

[american spirit]

The PP site looks pretty good...I like the emphasis on addressing illegal immigration and after the travesty of justice we see with Simkanin's trial I'd suggest adding legal/judicial reform to the high-priority list.

[sopwith]

I have done it, but you will have to do it for yourself.

[Gargantua]

"Call the US Attorney in Fort Worth. He'll know."

Questions as to the existence of this alleged "law," and testimony about this mythical "law" were neither allowed by the Court nor responded to by the IRS.

Why?

What "law"? If it does exist, why can nobody mention it... even in the trial of a man who is accused of having "broken" this "law"?

What are you afraid of, Sinky? Is there no such law? I state that no such law exists in our Federal Tax Code, and it is now yours to either disprove that statement, or admit that you cannot.

Further evasion and fast-stepping by the Corrupt Puppet Court is to be expected, but Freepers deserve better from you, Sinky.

You mouth off like someone who "knows" about such things. Fine.

Either put up, or show that you have no knowledge to offer this discussion, just your grossly uninformed opinion.

;-/

[sopwith]

"Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist?"
Okay, you say (pretend to know...?) that it does exist. Chapter and verse of the Code, please.

Also, if this law actually does exist, why does the IRS refuse to cite it in open court?

What law? What Code? What chapter? What verse? I mean, since you claim to know..."

I can't add anything better to that.

[tpaine]

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
J Marshall

And who decides which laws are repugnant? You? Juries? No. The United States Supreme Court.

Nope, it's not the court, -- not at a fair trial.
It's a fully informed jury of my peers..
That's the law, sinky, learn to live with it.

You're free to practice jury nullification if you wish, paine. In fact, I encourage you to do it if you believe that a law is unjust.

You're in denial sink.. The defendant here was NOT free to inform the jury in the case at issue.

But the jury you're on won't be deciding the constitutionality of any law, as a body.

Exactly. No one said they should. A juries decision only affects the case at hand..

You really need to learn to apply a bit of common sense to your arguments sinky..

[sinkspur]

Go HERE to read the press release from the Justice Department.

[citizenx7]

"Yes. That was done through a constitutional amendment, not through juries deciding that people could have stills in their back yards."

You seem to have little respect for citizens, why is that?
The point I was making is that juries had to throw cases, BASED ON THE LAW, during the 1920's because it was wrong. This is jury nullification. Without it, the government probably wouldn't have 'changed their minds'. It was very profitable for certain classes of people (Including Joe Kennedy incidentally).

One of the important functions of a jury is to corral in government people who are running astray. Its a very important function. It comes down to this: The Constitution was created by the people, the people are therefore soverign, unless they want to play games with government agencies that say THEY are sovereign. You have to decide, is the IRS, which is acting under color of law right, or is there something terribly wrong, that the people must fix?

I agree there are good ways, and bad ways to make the change. We might honestly disagree on the best tactic, but there are a number of ways to skin a cat.

What I don't understand about you, is that if you think it is a 'settled' matter, that it is thereafter 'hands off'! Why is that? Is the government you perceive, always right, and the people always wrong? Are they smarter and better than the people? Nothing is settled, until it is settled...and I can tell you that this matter is NOT settled! Only those who live in a fantasy world think so. Now I don't mean to imply this isn't going to be a hard problem to solve, but all people of conscience will have to see that tyranny is the only alternative. And, we are beginning to see a lot of that now.

Wake up.

[spacewarp]

Actually, Sink, if he had been found innocent and the prosecutor, judge and IRS agents had performed this abuse, I'd still be calling for their heads. I'm not a tax protest lemming. Let me get it clear to you. I'm for a less abusive government. One in which ordinary citizens can have hope that they can perform their jobs, live their lives and while not harming anyone can continue to live life to it's fullest. Instead, you seem to be willing to put up wit government corruption, abuse and incompentence. And when someone calls you on it, you just call them a tax protester. If you would go back and read some of the prior comments, you'd understand that it's not the issue I'm angry about, but the treatment. Get over yourself. Sheesh. If you can't answer the question, just admit that you don't know what cases it was that "decided" this issue. I can understand "I don't know". But dodging is just plain cowardly.

[sinkspur]

Wake up.

YET ANOTHER tax protester code word for: "Gosh, you're a dumb SOB! Why can't you be as smart as me? Why can't you see that you're in chains!!!!"

I don't know how I got to the age of 52 without the assistance of "We the People" and all of Schulz's books, and cassettes and other stuff he sells.

[sinkspur]

One in which ordinary citizens can have hope that they can perform their jobs, live their lives and while not harming anyone can continue to live life to it's fullest.

Is exposing your employees to legal liability "not harming anyone"?

Instead, you seem to be willing to put up wit government corruption, abuse and incompentence. And when someone calls you on it, you just call them a tax protester.

Because all the people "calling me on it" on this thread ARE tax protesters.

Well, they're not actually tax protesters themselves, as they all probably pay their taxes and file returns. But, like the cowardly Bob Schulz, they cheer OTHER people when they take the advice of some derelict like Irwin Schiff and end up in federal prison for ten years.

You're angry about "the treatment"? Why should an outright scoundrel who, once again, exposed his very own employees to legal liability get special treatment?

If I were one of this guy's workers, he'd be lucky not to have both legs broken by now.

[tpaine]

One of the important functions of a jury is to corral in government people who are running astray. Its a very important function.
citizenx7

---

Another subtle point that the sinkys of this world seem unable to face is that:

'One of the important functions of a jury is to corral in 'moral majorities' who are running astray, -- as in the case of CA's assault weapons prohibition.
There is no RKBA's enumerated in the CA constiitution, no hope of passing an amendment, and apparently no hope of getting the USSC to strike down the infringment..

Our only recourse is jury nullification..
-- And surprise! -- The selfsame people at FR who argue for prohibitions, argue against nullification.

Yet they call thenselves conservatives. Go figure.

[Hon]

Well, let me ask, what if Simkanin was right?

Then we can all become citizens of the Republic of Texas and not have to pay any US taxes.

Then we can all start putting in refund claims for a quarter million dollars when we didn't pay ANY taxes! I think I'll go for a million kajillion $$$ refund!

Pssst--Simkanin is a tax evader and a thief.

[Hon]

You don't seem to get it, that in our Republic, the people are the final arbiters.

Yes, but Simkanin claimed to be a citizen of the Republic of Texas not of the US. LOL

[dljordan]

Yes, resistance to tyranny is always foolish. After a run in with the IRS myself I've learned that boot polish can be quite tasty.

[citizenx7]

Well, you paid a great deal for your government education, I am only telling you, that you haven't learned the horrible lesson of history. Power leads to corruption, and the best we can do is be on guard, and call them on it, every time we can.

Open your mind to the possibility that the government line is not correct. I think that many of us are confused by the word twisting rhetoric of lawyers paid to do so. The 'codes' are not the law, they are the interpretation of the law. The law itself is (hopefully) a expression of the Constitution. But you have a mind, if government is not proceeding in accordance with the Constitution, then work to stop them!

This is the essence of a Free Republic.

[tpaine]

sinkspur wrote:

--- all the people "calling me on it" on this thread ARE tax protesters.

---

Please: NO profanity,

~NO personal attacks~,

NO racism or violence in posts

[tpaine]

Psst, -- See #133 on just who here are thieves of liberty.

[Hon]

"The question at hand is not the Jury's right or lack thereof to adjudicate on the constitutionality of a given law, rather it is whether such a law (a law stating that withholding is mandatory) even exists."

I'm with you on this. The next time I have to go into court over a speeding ticket I'm going to make the court prove that there are laws against speeding, that they are Constitutional, that they are posted, that the cop caught me, that the cop exists, that cars exist, that I exist.

I can't see this having a deleterious effect on the court systems, can you? I believe every day we should re-invent the legal wheel. What a great make-work program for judges, what a full employment guarantee for lawyers. You're a genius!

In case I'm being too subtle here, the tax laws, especially those concerning income tax, are almost certainly the most adjudicated laws in the land. Their existance and Constitutionality have been upheld hundreds if not thousands of times. Just because you are uninformed it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

A simple Google search or a visit to any of a number of sites, such as this one, would educate you on the matter:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

But you would probably rather curse the darkness than light a candle.