The entire lot of them should be burned at the stake for treason. Give me a match and I'll be the first to light the son of a bitch !!
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.
Absurd reasoning, geezer..
so is:
Our right to jury nullification is written into many state constitutions, -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th.
By the same token nullification is not written into the federal Constitution,
For another the equal protection provision of the 14th is enforcible only on the state government not federal judiciary.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What is your view on CA's theory that it can write gun prohibitions, -- because there is no RKBA's enumerated in CA's constitution?
A red herring and irrelavent to the issues under discussion.
Actually CA Constitution gives authority to that state to set some aspects of gun law not present in other state constitutions. Even Colorado's constitution limits the right where concealed carry is concerned and gives authority to the legislature as regards concealment of weapons.
Do you agree, geeezer? The federal courts so hold..
and other federal courts hold a different opinion. None of which can speak authoritatively for the US Supreme Court.
I find the 2nd amendment to be explicit in that matter in anycase, with the Federal Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land, RKBA does not suffer from the lack documentation in the federal Constitution that a defacto capacity of jury nullification does.
That however does not bear on the authority of federal courts, nor on any requirement of a federal judge to order or instruct a jury about jury nullification.
What may exist within a state Constitution or is allowed by a state within its own borders has no authority over the federal courts or citizens of other states.
Actually CA Constitution gives authority to that state to set some aspects of gun law not present in other state constitutions.
You agree that CA's constitution allows "some" infringments on our RKBA's.. Interesting. - What are these 'aspects' and how can they trump our "supreme Law of the Land"?
Even Colorado's constitution limits the right where concealed carry is concerned and gives authority to the legislature as regards concealment of weapons.
I consider carry laws infringments of the 2nds "right to bear", not the 'reasonable regulations' gun grabbers claim them to be.
----------------------------------
Do you agree, geeezer? [on gun prohibitions] --- The federal courts so hold..
and other federal courts hold a different opinion. None of which can speak authoritatively for the US Supreme Court.
Not an answer. You waffle.. -- Why?
I find the 2nd amendment to be explicit in that matter in anycase, with the Federal Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land, RKBA does not suffer from the lack documentation in the federal Constitution that a defacto capacity of jury nullification does.
More dodging of the issue. I can only surmise you support CA's prohibition of assault weapons.
That however does not bear on the authority of federal courts, nor on any requirement of a federal judge to order or instruct a jury about jury nullification.
Jury nullification is a basic unenumerated right. No court has the authority to instruct juries that it is prohibited.
What may exist within a state Constitution or is allowed by a state within its own borders has no authority over the federal courts or citizens of other states.
Nonsense.. Neither state, federal, or local governments have the authority to violate our US Constitution, in any way.
I don't hear a lot of people saying that there really is no law against drugs, or that drug prohibition is "voluntary," or that drug laws only apply in the District of Columbia. (Actually, there are good arguments that some of our drug laws are unconstitutional; there are no valid Constitutional arguments against the tax laws.)
But the point is well-taken: those who disagree with our drug laws (as I do), and those who find our current tax system unfair (as I do) should be making our arguments to our elected representatives, and not trying to persuade people that those laws don't exist.
So by your "logic" the judge in Simkanin's case should have taken the time to inform the jurors that the Constitutionality of the income tax has been upheld dozens of times.
Thats fine with me, as long as the defense has equal time to present their view..
Or should he have lied to them?
Daft.. The facts of a matter should be presented to the jury.
You argue against that principle. Why?
I realize you won't make a cogent response to this question. You are just here to gainsay. It doesn't seem to faze you that you have no facts and can't marshal a rational argument.
Every time you post such preposterous bull about my replies, you look like a bigger fool. - Keep up the good work.
Jury nullification is a basic unenumerated right.
In about the same sense as one has the capacity/right to run over a lil ole lady with his car. Once done it can never be undone or taken away by man or government. The ultimate capacity to destroy law.
No court has the authority to instruct juries that it is prohibited.
Then why do you call for the court to instruct the jury in its defacto capacity to destroy the efficacy of law?
You agree that CA's constitution allows "some" infringments on our RKBA's..
Not on mine certainly, I'm not a citizen of California. The Constitution is Supreme, and I do not subscribe to your quaint theory that the 14th amendment somehow imposes what is written into CA's constitution on me. That's your theory not mine.
Interesting. - What are these 'aspects' and how can they trump our "supreme Law of the Land"?
In reality they don't, however you have told us above that they must:
tpaine: "Our right to jury nullification is written into many state constitutions, -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th."
that being the case, according to your assessment, RKBA is controlled by the content of the Constitution of California.
I merely note that the 14th does not address federal statutory law nor federal courts,
and that the US Supreme Court has not ruled on RKBA as regards CA,
nor has the US Supreme Court has ruled on on the issue of the right to keep arms other than such arms as are within the framework of RKBA should be of military utility.
I can only surmise you support CA's prohibition of assault weapons.
You are wrong here as well.
What I do or do not support personally has nothing to do with an objective analysis of what the Constitution does or does not say as regards any particular issue.
The issue here being the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes:
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Which makes your call to jury nullification to overturn national tax law is Constitutionally unjustifiable.
There is no right to not be taxed by the national government.
Where the national government acts within the authorities granted through the US Constitution you have no basis on which to ignore or violate federal statute.
PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433
- "Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
What may exist within a state Constitution or is allowed by a state within its own borders has no authority over the federal courts or citizens of other states.
Nonsense.. Neither state, federal, or local governments have the authority to violate our US Constitution, in any way.
But you just told us that a state with a particular provision in its Constitution must be followed by all other states and the federal government as well, by operation of the 14th amendment which you indicate trumps the supremacy clause.
tpaine: "Our right to jury nullification is written into many state constitutions, -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th."
And apparently, according to you, it is all right to ignore the provisions of the Constitution giving express power to Congress to lay and collect taxes, as juror in a courtroom.
The entire lot of them should be burned at the stake for treason. Give me a match and I'll be the first to light the son of a bitch !!
The IRS has the attitude that they can create laws out of thin air and enforce those laws at gunpoint
Hmmmm, what law is the"IRS" creating, last I looked everything they are using came out of Congress.
Seems to me our quarrel is more with Congress critters that keep the circus going more than their hired guns and mere minions.
In about the same sense as one has the capacity/right to run over a lil ole lady with his car. Once done it can never be undone or taken away by man or government. The ultimate capacity to destroy law.
So what? Are you a bleeding heart or do you want justice in our courts?
No court has the authority to instruct juries that nullification is prohibited.
Then why do you call for the court to instruct the jury in its defacto capacity to destroy the efficacy of law?
I don't. You're imagining that I am.
___________________________________
You agree that CA's constitution allows "some" infringments on our RKBA's..
Not on mine certainly, I'm not a citizen of California. The Constitution is Supreme, and I do not subscribe to your quaint theory that the 14th amendment somehow imposes what is written into CA's constitution on me. That's your theory not mine.
You don't care that our constitution is bring violated because you're "not a citizen of California." -- Telling..
Interesting. - What are these 'aspects' and how can they trump our "supreme Law of the Land"?
In reality they don't, however you have told us above that they must: tpaine: "Our right to jury nullification is written into many state constitutions, -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th." The 14th amendment came after the provisions of the base constituton and the BOR.
More BS bafflegab, instead of an answer.
You say the 14th is imposed on federal law as purviewed through the contents of state constitutions, According to your sights the 14th must override the content of the BOR & the Supremacy Clause as well as no conflict can be allowed within the Constitution. that being the case, according to your assessment, RKBA is controlled by the content of the Constitution of California. I merely note that the 14th does not address federal statutory law nor federal courts, and that the US Supreme Court has not ruled on RKBA as regards CA, nor has the US Supreme Court has ruled on on the issue of the right to keep arms other than such arms as are within the framework of RKBA should be of military utility.
Is that rant supposed to make sense?
I can only surmise from it you support CA's prohibition of assault weapons.
You are wrong here as well. What I do or do not support personally has nothing to do with an objective analysis of what the Constitution does or does not say as regards any particular issue.
Good lord geezer, you disavow any personal agreement with our constituton? How weird.
The issue here being the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes: Constitution for the United States of America: Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; " Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Which makes your call to jury nullification to overturn national tax law is Constitutionally unjustifiable. There is no right to not be taxed by the national government. Where the national government acts within the authorities granted through the US Constitution you have no basis on which to ignore or violate federal statute. PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433 "Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government." MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904) "'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments." "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
You do babble on. Why?
What may exist within a state Constitution or is allowed by a state within its own borders has no authority over the federal courts or citizens of other states.
Nonsense.. Neither state, federal, or local governments have the authority to violate our US Constitution, in any way.
But you just told us that a state with a particular provision in its Constitution must be followed by all other states and the federal government as well, by operation of the 14th amendment which you indicate trumps the supremacy clause. tpaine: "Our right to jury nullification is written into many state constitutions, -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th."
Basic rights, even though unenumerated, are not subject to violation by any level of goverment. See the 9th.
And apparently, according to you, it is all right to ignore the provisions of the Constitution giving express power to Congress to to lay and collect taxes, as juror in a courtroom.
Congress has no power to ~violate~ the power to lay and collect taxes, as the defendant wanted to make clear in the courtroom.
He was denied this justice.
Actually CA Constitution gives authority to that state to set some aspects of gun law not present in other state constitutions.
You agree that CA's constitution allows "some" infringments on our RKBA's.. Interesting. - What are these 'aspects' and how can they trump our "supreme Law of the Land"?
At #311 you wrote in reply:
-- the US Supreme Court has not ruled on RKBA as regards CA, nor has the US Supreme Court has ruled on on the issue of the right to keep arms other than such arms as are within the framework of RKBA should be of military utility.
I see.. It appears you DO believe that CA can prohibit arms on the basis of "military utility".
Are semi-auto weapons somehow evil in your mind, geezer?
BTW, some great discussion on this guy and various and other sundry scam artists (Kotmair, Rose, Kenline, Chapman) over on www.quatloos.com. If these guys spent 5% of their time concentrating on their legit businesses rather than how to scam their way out of taxes, they would be sucessful.
It appears you DO believe that CA can prohibit arms on the basis of "military utility".
If Californians wish to cede their rights to their state government through amending the constitution. That's what the 10th amendment is all about.
Are semi-auto weapons somehow evil in your mind, geezer?
Actually they're great fer keep'n Californians in California and those who would like to equally protect me through their misreading of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.
tpaine: " -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th."
Basic rights, even though unenumerated, are not subject to violation by any level of goverment. See the 9th.
LOL, 14th comes after the 9th and according to you:
tpaine: " -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th."
to be equally protected from each other.
Congress has no power to ~violate~ the power to lay and collect taxes, as the defendant wanted to make clear in the courtroom.
Hmmm, Congress lays an collects a tax in accord with the US Constitution.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
James Madison, Federalist #39:
James Madison, Federalist #45:
Too which even the opponents to the Constitution agreed:
"There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. "
defendant was charge with not paying said Constitutional tax.
He was denied this justice.
No he wasn't,
"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. "
He got his justice and apparently is going to get some more to come.
End of story.
If Californians wish to cede their rights to their state government through amending the constitution. That's what the 10th amendment is all about.
Good grief geezer. You support a 'moral' majority in ruling a state, one that denies our RKBA's? What if ALL states could gather such majorities? Would you just hand in your guns?
Are semi-auto weapons somehow evil in your mind, geezer?
Actually they're great fer keep'n Californians in California and those who would like to equally protect me through their misreading of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. tpaine: " -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th."
Another bizarro non-answer.
Basic rights, even though unenumerated, are not subject to violation by any level of goverment. See the 9th.
LOL, 14th comes after the 9th and according to you: tpaine: " -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th." to be equally protected from each other.
Are you drunk?
Congress has no power to ~violate~ the power to lay and collect taxes, as the defendant wanted to make clear in the courtroom.
Hmmm, Congress lays an collects a tax in accord with the US Constitution. Constitution for the United States of America: Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; " Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." James Madison, Federalist #39: "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;" James Madison, Federalist #45: "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; Too which even the opponents to the Constitution agreed: The AntiFederalist Papers #3: "There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. " defendant was charge with not paying said Constitutional tax. He was denied this justice. No he wasn't, "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. " He got his justice and apparently is going to get some more to come. End of story.
Nope.. End of another senseless rant by a spaced out geezer..
Good grief geezer. You support a 'moral' majority in ruling a state,
If you can support jury nullification where the law is clearly constitutional and facts support conviction, I can support 'moral' majority in ruling a state and agree with your assesment that the right of jury nullification is moral and right too.
After all that's how the states did it before the Constitution. So why not do it that way again?
States can't do anything anyway, soverign citizens can just nullify the things they don't like in the jury box so no probs.
Don't need to even to bother about lil things like facts, evidence, law or nothing. If it looks like a tax protester convict em. If it looks like govm'nt is regulat'n anything at all that might get in the way of my fun and games, hey let the bugger go.
Simple, Just roll up law, evidence and arguments like this:
It appears you DO believe that CA can prohibit arms on the basis of "military utility". If Californians wish to cede their rights to their state government through amending the constitution. That's what the 10th amendment is all about. Good grief geezer. You support a 'moral' majority in ruling a state, one that denies our RKBA's? What if ALL states could gather such majorities? Would you just hand in your guns? Are semi-auto weapons somehow evil in your mind, geezer? Actually they're great fer keep'n Californians in California and those who would like to equally protect me through their misreading of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. tpaine: " -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th." Another bizarro non-answer. Basic rights, even though unenumerated, are not subject to violation by any level of goverment. See the 9th. LOL, 14th comes after the 9th and according to you: tpaine: " -- thereby proving that it is a constitutional right of all, under the equal protection provisions of the 14th." to be equally protected from each other. Are you drunk? Congress has no power to ~violate~ the power to lay and collect taxes, as the defendant wanted to make clear in the courtroom. Hmmm, Congress lays an collects a tax in accord with the US Constitution. Constitution for the United States of America: Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; " Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." James Madison, Federalist #39: "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;" James Madison, Federalist #45: "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; Too which even the opponents to the Constitution agreed: The AntiFederalist Papers #3: "There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. " defendant was charge with not paying said Constitutional tax. He was denied this justice. No he wasn't, "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. " He got his justice and apparently is going to get some more to come. End of story. Nope.. End of another senseless rant by a spaced out geezer..
Dump it into the bit bucket.
Then vote however it strikes your fancy, It's your right.
Smile you to may end up in the docket knowing there is at least one jury nullification vote out there to vote guilty as charged and at minimum ensure a hung jury and another trial to go through and pay attorneys for:o)
Hey that's better than finding em guilty the first time around or going along with all them saps that want to let him go.
You convinced me. Jury Nullification is the way to go to address society's headaches. Don't need to worry about law, vote'n for Congress Critters or nutt'n.
Iffn you don't like their looks or a law doesn't strike your fancy, just nullify.
Sure looks good to me.
Rule of law, what do we need that for? Pure democracy in the courtroom.
Don't like a law or don't like the looks of a defendant, or u'r buddy needs abit of help, lie your way into a jury and slam dunk it in the courts.
It's my right after all to vote in the jury strickly in accord with how I feel about either. Right tpaine?
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.