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.
That's EXACTLY what needs to be done.
U.S.C., TITLE 18,Part I, Chapter 13, SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
One of the primary foundations in the establishment of our country is that we have an unalienable right to the fruits of our labor.
Nonsense. There are many alternatives. But they do not suit the needs of the rulers. Or their apologists.
I will if you will.
You spoke for the whole forum with this line;
Here at FreeRepublic we do not cheer fraud and abuse in government, and neither do we do so in citizens.
It's not. The USSC has decided it.
And that "lawful tax collection" isn't so lawful after all? What if?
It is lawful. Same USSC.
We won't know because the judge decided the case before it was ever presented.
The judge does not have to allow settled law to be argued in a courtroom.
That's all you tax protesters have, to put the law on trial instead of the perp.
If you don't like the law, change the law! I'll help you. I'll give money to you.
But if I've got to pay taxes and witholding, Simkanin's got to pay taxes and witholding.
And the idjit would, apparently, rather go out of business and put people out of work than pay the taxes he owes!
Not voting, joining the other 51% of the population who can't be bothered or no longer believe in the system, is not an option either. It has long been my belief that apathy does more harm than good in the long run.
Something has got to give eventually....
Yes. Through their elected representatives.
Of course, the jury, and the people can eliminate bad law, why do you think you can still buy a mixed drink today, if your so inclined?
Yes. That was done through a constitutional amendment, not through juries deciding that people could have stills in their back yards.
Um, wrong. With RFID technology and Matrix records-crossreferencing, they are coming up with dandy ways to jail us while we seem to be free.
Article. XVI. [Proposed 1909; Questionably Ratified 1913]
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
They must be using a different copy of the Constitution. Where does it say the government can make an employer a defacto IRS agent by forcing them to withhold income taxes? Or is this another thing like Roe V Wade where the USSC is somehow granted authority, from somewhere, to WRITE law?
That's absolutely true. If anything, Simkanin ought to kick his defense attorney, Arch McColl, for not getting the right jury.
And the Constitution empowers the Congress to set exceptions to areas of review by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, nothing in Marbury v. Madison says that juries cannot examine and use as criteria their own judgement about the constitutionality of laws. If so, surely you could point it out. In fact, John Jay, first Cheif Justice of the USSC wrote in the decision Georgia v. Brailsford, "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
If you weren't aware of this, that's fine, no one could or should expect omniscience in their fellow man. But to deny this upon learning of it is to deliberately maintain ignorance in the face of evidence, ergo you are unreasonable. I won't bother trying to reason with you anymore.
The American Patriot Party is found at http://www.patriotparty.us Paul
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.