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.

[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.