Simkanin guilty of 29 counts of tax violations

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

[sinkspur]

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?

Because every citizen, according to the Constitution, has a right to a trial by jury.

He does NOT have the right to a hearing on the constitutionality of the law used to indict him by that same jury.

[Protagoras]

Too bad Bush couldn't have pushed that instead of this friggin' amnesty.

Why would someone who is hell bent on increasing government power and size ever look to push laws that don't work toward that end?

[sinkspur]

I can hardly credit that someone with as long a posting history here at FR as you would think this is a GOOD thing.

Did I say it was good?

I don't like scamming tax cheats, people who will expose their own employees to legal liability to protect their own sorry asses.

I can't believe you would think THAT'S a good thing.

[freedomcrusader]

...does you agree that the decision will not be overruled due to the judge not allowing the defense it's own arguments.

Arguing constitutionality and presenting one's own arguments do not entirely overlap.

If it is true that ...McBryde did not allow him to present key evidence on whether Social Security, Medicare and income taxes are voluntary... then I think the defense in this case was inappropriately denied the opportunity to present evidence, but not inappropriately denied the opportunity to question the Constitutionality of the law itself.

[Dead Corpse]

Because he said he would. Every "bigger government" policy he had in his campaign speeches, things we were assured he was only saying to get elected, he has gotten passed. Getting a NRST or a Flat tax implemented was also one of those thing he promised. Since he has been such a man of his word, even if that word is detrimental to freedom, I would have expected him to push this.

[Dead Corpse]

You are hopeless...

For everyone else edification, here is some Spooner:
It is said that it would be absurd that twelve ignorant men should have power to judge of the law, while justices learned in the law should be compelled to sit by and see the law decided erroneously.

One answer to this objection is, that the powers of juries [*124] are not granted to them on the supposition that they know the law better than the justices; but on the ground that the justices are untrustworthy, that they are exposed to bribes, are themselves fond of power and authority, and are also the dependent and subservient creatures of the legislature; and that to allow them to dictate the law, would not only expose the rights of parties to be sold for money, but would be equivalent to surrendering all the property, liberty, and rights of the people, unreseruedly into the hands of arbitrary power, (the legislature,) to be disposed of at its pleasure. The powers of juries, therefore, not only place a curb upon the powers of legislators and judges, but imply also an imputation upon their integrity and trustworthiness; and these are the reasons why legislators and judges have formerly entertained the intensest hatred of juries, and, so fast as they could do it without alarming the people for their liberties, have, by indirection, denied, undermined, and practically destroyed their power. And it is only since all the real power of juries has been destroyed, and they have become mere tools in the hands of legislators and judges, that they have become favorites with them.

Legislators and judges are necessarily exposed to all the temptations of money, fame, and power, to induce them to disregard justice between parties, and sell the rights, and violate the liberties of the people. Jurors, on the other hand, are exposed to none of these temptations. They are not liable to bribery, for they are unknown to the parties until they come into the jury-box. They can rarely gain either fame, power, or money, by giving erroneous decisions. Their offices are temporary, and they know that when they shall have executed them, they must return to the people, to hold all their own rights in life subject to the liability of such judgments, by their successors, as they themselves have given an example for. The laws of human nature do not permit the supposition that twelve men, taken by lot from the mass of the people, and acting under such circumstances, will all prove dishonest. It is a supposable case that they may not be sufficiently enlightened to know and do their whole duty, in all cases whatsoever; but that they should all prove dishonest, is not within [*125] the range of probability. A jury, therefore, insures to us ?? what no other court does --- that first and indispensable requisite in a judicial tribunal, integrity.

[Gunslingr3]

He does NOT have the right to a hearing on the constitutionality of the law used to indict him by that same jury.

Your statement is not only in contradiction to statements made by the Founders and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in a USSC decision, it is not supported by Marbury v. Madison. Where'd you get this idea?

[spacewarp]

Actually, I've read their stuff. I've also read the Constitution. And I've read a lot of other material. Obviously, you read about one court opinion and ground yourself in that the only way for things to go were that one way. There is another way, but you're so steadfastly against it that you're blind to things. Sink, as far as I know, he may be truly guilty. But, the absolute arrogance of our government employees (and yes, I said OUR, because, despite what they seem to think, they work for US!!!!!!!!) is unthinkable. They just say "We don't have to defend our actions. We ARE the IRS and you will bow down and do what we tell you." It's attitudes like theirs that lead to civil war. Our party is working to get people elected that will eliminate those kinds of stumbling blocks so our country doesn't sink to tyrrany.

[ASA.Ranger]

You are 100% correct sinkspur.

...and most having an interest in Federal taxes (payers/non.payers/protesters) fail to realize that it is ultimately the CONGRESS THEY keep voting into power that creates and sustains tax related problems. The IRS is merely an administrative agency attempting to carry out the edicts of Congress. Congress plays the IRS against the public so that it comes out looking like the 'good guy.' In reality Congress is the lying, cheating, low life scumbag. Anyway, it is currently moot. The IRS is a broken, inefficient, and demoralized entity. Most of the National Office with the exception of NUGS (new guys) are worn out and counting days till retirement. Many have never had field experience. Surveys are created to get the desired result. Field Revenue Officers and Agents are unable to enforce against the employers who steal trust funds from employees. The IRS is so restricted at the moment that they are conducting internal audits --- not because of any huge recognized internal problem, but because employees are easy targets. The IRS has been reduced (by Congress) to pursuing soft, easy targets. The compliance rate in 1988 was 92%. It is now approximately 73%. This current IRS is not Elliot Ness' IRS!

If the complainers and protesters don’t want help pay for a civilized society there are alternatives. They know not what they bray about. Their facts are not true facts (more like lies) and they display extreme ignorance by citing urban legends relating to the constitutionality of taxes. I suggest that they adequately inform themselves and then intelligently lobby elected officials.

[Protagoras]

Because he said he would.

I think it is naive to think politicians will keep their word on most things, certainly when they promise things at cross purposes.

[ovrtaxt]

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."

Here's the crux of the problem. This disallowed info is precisely what the trial was about. Typical kangaroo court crap when the IRS is involved.

I do agree, however, that the NRST is the way to go. Unfortunately, with the exception of Neal Boortz, nobody seems to know about it.

[Dead Corpse]

Curious, from everything I've read, Simkanin was not protesting the income tax, but the fact that as an employer he was being made a defacto IRS agent by being forced to withhold said taxes from his employees paychecks. The 14th authorizes an income tax, not withholding.

[spacewarp]

But he does have the right to be tried of a violation of criminal code. And to know what code he's being accused of violating. And that just didn't happen in this case, because they couldn't find a criminal code he was in violation of, so they just charged him with failure to comply. It's an aggregious abuse.

[sinkspur]

Where'd you get this idea?

Marbury vs. Madison sets the precedent that the USSC decides the constitutionality of laws.

You have the option of jury nullification, if you disagree with a law.

No judge has to allow a constitutional discussion at a trial.

How many times are we going to have to go around this tree?

[Cultural Jihad]

Well, your personal problems related to a divorce is different from lawful tax collection for wages earned. Here at FreeRepublic we do not cheer fraud and abuse in government, and neither do we do so in citizens.

[Dead Corpse]

Normally, I would agree that it is completely naive. However, go back through all the hub-bubb here during the election. Some of the crap Bush said he would do. All the reassurnaces by the Bots that he was only saying those things to get elected. Now look at his record. Farm bill. Medicare. $15 billion in AIDs aid to Africa. McCain-Feingold. Illegal Immagrent amnesty. The impending AW ban that he said he would re-sign.

As I said, he seems to be keeping his campaing promises. While a approve heartily of a man keeping to his words, these same examples are why I did not vote for the man in the first place. I value the Constitution and its promise of freedom too much to settle for the "lesser of two evils".

[grumple]

Time to become an illegal alien so that I may have more rights than my fellow average everyday American citizens

[Protagoras]

Here at FreeRepublic we cheer fraud and abuse by government,

Edited for clarity.

[Cultural Jihad]

Well, realistically, it may appear that the IRS is imperial when it needs and requires something so near and dear to everyone's hearts, but the alternative is to have voluntary payment of taxes. Perhaps Barbra Streisand would comply, but hardly anyone else. We can politically effect changes in the amount of taxes required, or in where they are derived from, but no amount of whining and shirking of one's responsibilities is going to alter the reality one bit.

[sinkspur]

And to know what code he's being accused of violating. And that just didn't happen in this case, because they couldn't find a criminal code he was in violation of, so they just charged him with failure to comply.

Uh, "failure to comply" is a violation of the criminal code. And the constitutionality of withholding has been upheld by the Supreme Court.