Replies

Well, let me ask, what if Simkanin was right? What if the witholding is a violation of the Constitution? And that "lawful tax collection" isn't so lawful after all? What if? We won't know because the judge decided the case before it was ever presented. Denying motions without even reading them is judicial arrogance. Sustaining objections not even made is judicial malprudence. Preventing the defense from even presenting a case, forget presenting it's case, is judicial abuse. Refusing to answer questions under oath because you know the judge won't bother you about it is arrogance and smacks of buyoffs. The whole thing doesn't pass the smell test. It stinks to high heaven.

The courts have already ruled on the matter. This guy is guilty of falling for a scam based on lies. It's no different than the people who fall for the Nigerian scam.

What if the witholding is a violation of the Constitution?

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!

Everyone is entitled to do whatsoever they want to, so long as they accept the consequences of their freewill actions. Henry David Thoreau was once jailed for refusing to pay a poll tax he thought was unjust. A friend came to visit him and asked him, "What are you doing in jail?" to which Thoreau replied, "And what are you doing out of jail?"

What if the witholding is a violation of the Constitution?

Perversly, it had nothing to do with the Constitution.

Most folks don’t realize it’s NOT the US Code, but the Code of Federal Regulations where the answers can be found.

The main question, I believe, was whether or not the gentleman involved was an ‘employer’ as defined by the code.

The fact is, you are only an employer or an employee if you are within the ‘United States.’
BUT
Both the United States and State are defined as 'include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.

The single place it differs is in the Railroad Retirement Act (Chapter 221 Sec.31.3306)
(s)The term United States when used in a geographical sense means the States.

So most people are not 'employees' or 'employers' as defined by the code.

Well, let me ask, what if Simkanin was right?

Then we can all become citizens of the Republic of Texas and not have to pay any US taxes.

Then we can all start putting in refund claims for a quarter million dollars when we didn't pay ANY taxes! I think I'll go for a million kajillion $$$ refund!

Pssst--Simkanin is a tax evader and a thief.

Well, let me ask, what if Simkanin was right? What if the witholding is a violation of the Constitution? And that "lawful tax collection" isn't so lawful after all? What if? We won't know because the judge decided the case before it was ever presented. Denying motions without even reading them is judicial arrogance. Sustaining objections not even made is judicial malprudence. Preventing the defense from even presenting a case, forget presenting it's case, is judicial abuse. Refusing to answer questions under oath because you know the judge won't bother you about it is arrogance and smacks of buyoffs. The whole thing doesn't pass the smell test. It stinks to high heaven.

In a criminal case, the judge decides what the law is and instructs the jury; the jury decides the facts.

If the judge is wrong that withholding is constitutional, the Court of Appeals can reverse the conviction. But juries don't decide constitutional questions.

BTW, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of requiring employers to withhold social security taxes from employees' paychecks back in 1937, by a vote of 8-1. They could reverse themselves, of cours (not that I think that's likely), but the issue is still not one for a jury.