Simkanin guilty of 29 counts of tax violations

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

[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.