Simkanin guilty of 29 counts of tax violations

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

[Hon]

"And isn't it interesting that the Government Accounting Office - GAO recently told a congressman that "there is no statute authority for the IRS to demand that employers withhold anything from their employees paychecks"?"

Clearly you haven't bothered to read the thread. I quoted the statute from the US Code in toto.

[Lurking Libertarian]

And isn't it interesting that the Government Accounting Office - GAO recently told a congressman that "there is no statute authority for the IRS to demand that employers withhold anything from their employees paychecks"?

That's just not true. You have a citaion for that urban legend?

[Hon]

US Code

TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > Sec. 3402. Prev | Next

Sec. 3402. - Income tax collected at source

(a) Requirement of withholding

(1) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall -

(A)

apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and

(B)

be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such periods.

(2) Amount of wages

For purposes of applying tables or procedures prescribed under paragraph (1), the term ''the amount of wages'' means the amount by which the wages exceed the number of withholding exemptions claimed multiplied by the amount of one such exemption. The amount of each withholding exemption shall be equal to the amount of one personal exemption provided in section 151(b), prorated to the payroll period. The maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted shall be calculated in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this section, taking into account any reduction in withholding to which an employee is entitled under this section.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/3404.html

[Paul C. Jesup]

Those in government have choosen a form of selective interpretation of the law and that in the end will part of what destroys them.

[Hon]

Give us your interpretation of the US Code statute I have just cited above. I could use a good laugh.

[bvw]

Where is your annotation for Dredd Scott? (I will ask that one, and not others. Those I reserve.)

[Hon]

Elsewhere you argue that the judge did not allow Simkanin a fair trial. Would you care to elaborate on that here, or are you only comfortable making such claims on a site owned by a notorious tax evader?

[spacewarp]

When the judge repeatedly refused to allow the defense to make any form of a case. Let's see, sustaining objections before the prosecution had the chance to issue them. Declaring that he had not even read motions from the defense before rejecting them. What else do you want? That's clearly not an impartial judge. He was celarly preprejudiced.

[bvw]

Notorious, you mean like that evil John Hancock? The cheating vile drunl who signed a rebelious Declaration? Is that your game?

[bvw]

Drunl means "DRUNK"!

[Hon]

"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."

LOL! Income taxes are not voluntary. Withholding by an employer is not voluntary. There is no evidence that McColl could have presented that would have proved this fantasy. So the judge was correct to prevent the wasting of the court's time with frivolous arguments.

[bvw]

Here is what I argue. That a JURY is no trifle. That is the whole of it.

Judges and judicial process today hobble the Jury, they trifle with it, they restrain it, they turn it into a kindergarten. That -- that is the rebellion. A judicial rebellion against the Duty and Power of citizens empaneled to a Jury.

[Hon]

No, I mean a man who has served two stretches in a federal pen for not paying his income taxes. I mean a man whose own son had done time for not paying taxes on his million dollar federal contracts.

[bvw]

And what do you say of the heads of Freddie Mae and Mac? Or of Citi? Or of Merrill? Or of any of the mighty titans of American Finance who keep books and nooks aplenty in the Caymans and other seceret booty destinations?

They have very premium web sites. And they speak every word by shaving a few hundred thousand coins of the public.

Who is the real thief? Can a Judge decide? Or would a Jury better?

Honesty says one thing, it is unfortunate that you seem to say another.

[Hon]

I have no idea what you are babbling about. I am for going after all of the kooks, big and small.

You just finished comparing a man who is a twice convicted felon and the father of another to John Hancock.

[tpaine]

tpaine:
Many, if not most responsible people admit that the income tax 'codes' are insane.

______________________________________

As a matter of personal opinion, yes.

As a matter of law, they exist, they are within the authority of Congress to enact, and they have been repeatedly upheld and found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. From the first statute regarding income taxes the Courts have made it clear what must be done to remove these "insane" statutes.
I suggest you start putting your efforts into changing the law instead of railing against it to no end
-geezer-

---

I suggest you start putting your efforts into changing the law instead of posting agit-prop supporting it, geezer.

The facts of the political situation are clear.. Neither our 'representitives', nor our courts, -- will address the issue of constitutional violations.

Aa I remarked at #133:

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, hons, & geezers 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 & insane tax codes , argue against nullification.

Yet they call thenselves conservatives. Go figure.

[Hon]

"The facts of the political situation are clear.. Neither our 'representitives', nor our courts, -- will address the issue of constitutional violations."

Since there are no Constitutional violations, that is understandable.

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

Who says? You? LOL

Yeah, the OJ jury really struck a blow for the rule of law and representative government.

You sound like a fool.

[sinkspur]

The selfsame people at FR who argue for prohibitions & insane tax codes , argue against nullification.

You obviously haven't read the entire thread, paine. I encouraged at least two posters to use it, if they saw fit. No one can take away anyone's right to declare a defendant not guilty if they don't like the law.

But, your fellow jurors may not agree with you, and an appellate court may also disagree with you.

I have a feeling you don't get picked for many juries anyway, paine.

[tpaine]

The IRS presented all of this to the judge. The defense wanted to raise these issues in front of the jury, which is not the way it's done.
183 -LL-

---

Why are you against having a fully informed, impartial jury, as per the 6/7th amendments?

[Poohbah]

Why are you against having a fully informed, impartial jury, as per the 6/7th amendments?

Please explain where the "fully informed" part is found in the 6th or 7th Amendments.