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.

[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.