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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think it is naive to think politicians will keep their word on most things, certainly when they promise things at cross purposes.
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.
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?
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".
Edited for clarity.
Uh, "failure to comply" is a violation of the criminal code. And the constitutionality of withholding has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
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.