Posted on 01/08/2004 5:56:20 AM PST by 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.
The law is settled, until it is overturned. And it is not the function of a jury to overturn a settled law.
BTW, tpaine, my side has won this argument, in case you haven't noticed.
All you're doing now is banging the table.
Hon posted the text of the federal withholding statute to you way back in post #152. Have you forgotten already? Or are you just lying?
You are hereby discredited... again.
Yes, you certainly are.
The question remains if anywhere in the USC exists a law which makes it mandatory for employers to withhold Federal taxes.
"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."
This was a person who simply was not into paying taxes nor collect witholding as his fiduciary responsibility to his employees period.
I still have seen no such Federal Law (USC) presented here.
This was clearly answered in reply #203 by Hon
To reiterate since you missed it the first time, yes there several places in the federal statutes are applicable, that makes it mandatory for employers to withold Federal Income taxes.
26 USC Section 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. *** (d) Tax paid by recipient If the employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax against which such tax may be credited is paid, the tax so required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected from the employer; but this subsection shall in no case relieve the employer from liability for any penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect of such failure to deduct and withhold.Title 26 Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.Title 26 Section 7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax
Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Such a judge is violating our BOR's. We have rights to an informed, impartial jury. See the 6/7th.
The law is settled, until it is overturned. And it is not the function of a jury to overturn a settled law.
Weird idea.
Juries must deliberate on how both the facts & the law apply to a specific case in order to arrive at a just verdict.
BTW, tpaine, my side has won this argument, in case you haven't noticed. All you're doing now is banging the table.
How droll. Dementedly claiming you've "won" is the sure sign of a lo0ser, sinky. You need rest.
Ah, yes - the ol' combination revenue enhancement & political "felony". The Founders would be dumbfounded at the statutes on the books of the swollen Federal money machine:
The Over-Criminalization of Social and Economic Conduct
======================
Look, a-g, I understand that the flat-taxers think they need to promote the unbearable tension of the "insoluble tax law problem" on FR in order to further movement of their cause. The reason that you endlessly post chapter & verse of these laws is to torture other anti-tax posters who may not jump to agree with you. Frankly, you would have been posting your legalistic screeds to the Founding Fathers, too, taunting them with the certain knowledge that they would never be able to do a thing about the Crown's tax policies, unless they adopted your positions.
Well, the flat taxers have have a few years to secure movement on their positions, and I still don't see anything happening.
The Founders objected to taxation without representation, not to taxation per se. Indeed, their chief reason for abandoning the Articles of Confederation was the lack of any federal taxing power. And you should read some time President Washington's statements about the people who protested his tax on whisky-- he wanted them hanged for treason. (He even got one conviction, but President Adams commuted the death sentence.)
Such a judge is violating our BOR's. We have rights to an informed, impartial jury. See the 6/7th. See the 6/7th.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I see nothing in regards informing a jury to consider nullifying laws. Only see a requirement for an "impartial jury"
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Again, nothing in regards informing a jury to consider nullifying laws, especially considering the issue is not a suit at common law rather a criminal action under statutory law.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction, is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people.
The 7th simply does not apply to enactments of Public Law, and the criminal actions brought under them.
Well, the flat taxers have have a few years to secure movement on their positions
Since I do not support the Flat Tax, it is another version of the income tax, you are way off point. LOL.
I seek to end the income and payroll taxes period. Seems you are arguing to keep those taxes inplace.
Frankly, you would have been posting your legalistic screeds to the Founding Fathers, too, taunting them with the certain knowledge that they would never be able to do a thing about the Crown's tax policies, unless they adopted your positions.
LOL, the agreed with my postitions on tax law, specifically they favored consumption taxes, which I support, over property and income taxes.
So what's your problem?
As far as what I am stating regarding the current law, it is Constitutional get over it. The only way to change the law within the constraints of the Constitution is legislatively by repealing the statute in Congress, or amend of the Constitution under Article V.
Anything else leaves one open to the enforcement provisions of the nations laws and of the Constitution itself.
Rail against it all you wish, but the fact remains the route used by tax protesters just mean grief with no change in sight leaving the government with the Constitutional high ground.
We do have "taxation without representation", and it's been that way since early in the last century.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. P> I see nothing in regards informing a jury to consider nullifying laws. Only see a requirement for an "impartial jury"
The defendant, thus the jury, is to be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."
The 7th simply does not apply to enactments of Public Law, and the criminal actions brought under them
Why do you post these BS opinions ? You don't agree that we have a right to a jury trial & against double jeaprody? Bizarre reasoning.
What a federal tax on carriages has to do with the massive withholding scheme implemented because of the Second World War only you can explain, I would guess:
...During World War II, for example, the income tax, which previously had applied only to high-income people, was imposed even on low-income people. The federal government also introduced withholding to make it easier to collect tax money. After the war, income taxes remained a "normal" part of everyone's life, as did income-tax withholding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.