Posted 1/09/2004 06:22:00 PM by Dick

Comments to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram

Sent by Bill Stegmeir:

I sent the following email to Mr. Max Baker of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram who attended and reported on the Simkanin trial. His post-trial article can be read here.


Dear Mr. Baker:

I want to thank you for your fair and unbiased article on the Simkanin verdict.

I am one of those "cult type tax protestors" as Judge McBryde calls us. However, we prefer to be called members of the "Tax Honesty Movement", thank you.

I was there for the trial but not the verdict, so I am now just hearing of the outcome.

After two failures to indict (with Simkanin allowed to testify), two indictments (with Simkanin NOT allowed to testify), and one hung jury with an alleged 11-1 vote to acquit, I am shocked at this total about face of jury sentiment. What variable in the equation changed?

Mr. Baker, we are not against taxes. We are against fraud. And we are not going away. As a matter of fact our numbers continue to grow.

Somehow, someway, someday, and soon, we will expose the IRS fraud to enough people, to that proverbial "critical mass", and the fraud will fall.

Should be interesting to say the least. Just picture all those unemployed H&R Blockers wandering around out there competing with all those unemployed IRS stiffs competing with all those unemployed CPA's! It's going to happen Mr. Baker, and it's exciting don't you think?

We will learn from this defeat. We will learn how to get the truth to juries in spite of the crooked judges efforts to the contrary.

Truth will prevail.

Again, thank you for your most fair article.

Sincerely,

Bill Stegmeier
Tea, SD

Posted 1/09/2004 06:10:00 PM by Dick

Hard Lessons Learned

January 8, 2003

by Dave Champion

As most of you know by know, my friend Dick Simkanin was convicted on 29 of the 31 counts brought against him by the federal government.

When good people like Dick Simkanin are prosecuted and jailed by a corrupt court system, that is protecting a corrupt tax system, the natural reaction is to become angry and want to find a way to express that anger. I know; I’ve seen many of these cases over the years.

There may be many ways to respond to such events, but one of them is to learn from what the person has experienced. That is the purpose of this message.

Not long ago, a dentist by the name of Pensyl was convicted for 7203 and there was a ground swell of anger and resentment within the Tax Honesty Movement. Prior to the trial I had been retained by the defense to review the government’s evidence. Unfortunately, Pensyl was the perfect profile of a guy the government wants to prosecute. He’d done just about everything wrong that a person could do wrong. He was a conviction waiting to happen.

For a person with his eyes open, there was much to learn from the Pensyl case. Although the circumstances are very different in the Simkanin case, there is still much to be learned from Dick’s tribulation. Let’s review what we know of the Simkanin matter.

Dick Simkanin is an icon of the Tax Honesty Movement. Dick is liked and respected by everyone who’s ever met him; unless their paycheck came from Uncle Sam. I even suspect quite a few government people who came in contact with Dick couldn’t help feeling a grudging respect for Dick’s courage and style.

Dick put himself “on the map” (and in the IRS’ sights) in 2001 when he and twelve other men put their names, photos, and company names in a USA Today ad (run by We The People Foundation) which was intended to educate American businesses to the fact that there is no legal requirement to withhold taxes from private-sector workers in the states of the Union. Dick’s involvement in the Movement only grew from there.

As some of you may know, Dick retained my services for a short period in 1999. During our conversations, I encouraged Dick to unerringly follow the narrow path of the law. (And remember, the law, as written, supports the Tax Honesty Movement). I shared with Dick my view of what is necessary to travel that narrow path. While Dick listened attentively to everything I said to him, he eventually took the advice of people whose views were more “adventurous”.

It is always important in these situations to see where the government’s victim [in this case, Dick] ran into trouble. In other words, “What went wrong?” Usually in these cases something went awry long before the authorities ever thought of a criminal prosecution.

Before I go further, let me say quite plainly that no matter what “tactical errors” Dick may have committed on his honorable journey, the ultimate problem is the government’s incessant protection of the improper and illegal application of the tax code. It is the government that is the evildoer in this matter, and Dick (along with countless others) is its victim.

As I’ve said over and over again, education of The People is the answer. Conversely, lack of education is the problem. We can see that simply by looking at the Simkanin case. Judge McBryde tilted the playing field so far in the government’s favor that the second trial became a joke; a travesty of justice pretending to be a court of law. Even so, it took a plainly unlawful command to the jury by Judge McBryde (during deliberations) to finally move the case in the government’s favor.

However, in the final analysis it was the ignorance and complacency of the jury that won the day for the government. Had the jury said “NO! We are aware of the fraud that the government is perpetrating, and we will not do your bidding”, Dick would be at home right now enjoying a hot supper with his wife. Those twelve jurors failed to realize that by “obeying” the judge, and convicting Dick, they failed in their duty as citizens and they injured the rights of citizens generally, including their own.

Certainly the educating this nation is, and must remain, an ongoing effort, but how can you protect yourselves from ending up in Dick’s shoes? In other words, “What can we learn from Dick’s history that will help us succeed?” If we fail to examine these types of situations thoroughly and objectively, we fail to avail ourselves of the tools to improve our own position, as well as advance our cause.

Many people in America today lock their doors and windows when they go to bed. They do so because they fear that a criminal may invade their home as they sleep. The same principle must be applied by people who choose the nontaxpayer lifestyle; our legal doors and windows must be firmly shut or the criminals (US government) may invade our world while we are going about our lives.

So what can we learn from Dick’s tragedy? Here are some suggestions:

1) If you’ve done business as a corporation, always dissolve the corporation when becoming a nontaxpayer; do not merely let it lapse by failing to pay the annual renewal fee. A corporation that does not pay its annual fees to the state doesn’t cease to exist (as some would contend) but instead it has its corporate privileges suspended. If a corporation does not pay its renewal fees, nor file papers to be dissolved, the state does not consider the corporation “ended”; it merely considers the entity to be an “irresponsible corporation” conducting its corporate activities illegally while suspended. It’s the corporate version of “driving on a suspended license”.

2) Always cancel your existing Employer Identification Number (EIN). Although in theory the mere possession of an EIN by your business should not require you to withhold from workers who are plainly not the subjects of chapter 24 of the IRC, the government’s perspective is that if you have an active EIN, they have jurisdiction and you should be withholding from your workers. In other words, if you have an active EIN, the government’s view is that you don’t have any common law workers, but only statutory employees.

3) Be very careful from who you receive counsel. Regrettably, there are many people out there who will lead you down the primrose path – right into the jaws of the lion – and take quite a bit of your money in the process. Although it can be difficult to know who to trust, I’d recommend staying away from:

a) People who seem fueled by anger.

b) People who seem to be on a reckless crusade

c) People who appear to be “too smooth”. Listen to your instincts.

d) People with solutions that don’t sound very logical.

e) People with solutions that sound legally questionable.

f) People who exhibit extremely high ego.

g) People who seem to be looking for conflict, as opposed to resolution.

h) People who have only one solution, no matter what the problem.

i) People who claim to have the “silver bullet” solution.

4) You may want to consider how public you wish to be with your nontaxpayer activities. While I admire Dick for appearing in the USA Today ad, and I am certainly “high profile”, going high profile is not for everyone. The more public exposure you receive, the tighter your game has to be. While I believe that all of us should be spreading the word as far and wide as our abilities and circumstances permit, one should carefully consider whether one wants to expose one’s activities in the media. While people like Bob Schulz, Devvy Kidd, Larken Rose, John Turner, Sherry Jackson, Joe Banister, and myself are comfortable in the public eye, it is not for everyone.

5) As I’ve said a million times – never, never, never, never, never, file for refund of taxes that you’ve already paid. Let it go. Move on. Accept that they got their pound of flesh, while taking steps to make sure they get no more. While the government will allow a nontaxpayer to leave the tax system (if done correctly), it will go after a refund-filing nontaxpayer like a rabid dog.

The Tax Honesty Movement has progressed a great deal in the last decade. We are many times more powerful than we were just a few years ago. Our numbers are growing every year. Our efforts to educate the public are having an affect. The profile of people who are joining our ranks now include mainstream businessmen, professionals, and people of wealth. Even in the face of Soviet-like tactics such as were employed in the Simkanin case, the Tax Honesty Movement continues to grow. The question is not if we will prevail, only when! However, as our battles against lawlessness and corruption continue, let us not throw ourselves upon our swords.

As I said at the outset of this message, the proper legal path of the nontaxpayer is narrow and well defined. There is no room to be “adventurous” in our legal conduct and we should immediately spurn those who would take us off the proper path and encourage us to be adventurous with tax law.

There may come a day when duty and honor will require painful sacrifices from each of us if we are to reclaim and preserve the liberties given to us by God and established by our forefathers. Until that day, stay on the narrow path and do not become a victim.

Dave Champion

Nontaxpayer.org

Posted 1/09/2004 05:58:00 PM by Dick

Tax trial verdict - the end of justice

VoxDay blogged this recently:

The jury has sent the judge another question.

Question: Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant's business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000 pages of businesses required to file?

Answer from Judge: I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U.S.A. and the defendant's business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant's business to file.

The defense objected that this amounted to a directed verdict. The judge overruled the objection.

After this, the verdict came back guilty on 29 of 31 counts. Which is understandable, given the fact that the judge simply made up the law and directed the verdict. "They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant's business to file." That was what the whole case was about; it was precisely what the jury was there to judge! This is why you must never use a lawyer in these circumstances. The jury has the power to judge the law; the judge does not, but no lawyer will dare to bring up jury nullification for fear of being disbarred. It's too bad the Simkanin jury did not know its own power.

Since there's now no law as written, it's clear that Aleister Crowley's rule is now in effect. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." I don't expect this to turn out well, in the long run. The socialist crisis is approaching - what will they do when strong arm tactics such as these still don't cause freedom-loving people to submit? And what will the next honest and informed entrepeneur take from this lesson in judicial tyranny? Some will submit and pay the taxes they know they don't owe. Some will resist and go to jail with their head held high. And some will quietly leave the country, never to return.

A nation that persecutes its best and brightest doesn't tend to survive long.
# posted by Vox @ Thursday, January 08, 2004

Posted 1/09/2004 08:55:00 AM by Dick

700 Visitors To Free Dick Simkanin Blog

Free Dick Simkanin blog had 700 visitors yesterday. Thank you all very much. Tell everybody you know. FREE DICK SIMKANIN.

Doug Kenline reporting.

Posted 1/09/2004 05:45:00 AM by Dick

A Nation of Chaos vs. A New Kilroy America!!

Welcome one and all to the New America where Kilroy - aka We The People - observes, records and confronts everything!!



Fri Jan 9 04 04:01:56 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
149.101.1.128
wdcsun28.usdoj.gov



Fri Jan 9 04 03:22:58 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.20
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov



Fri Jan 9 04 09:24:02 AM
No dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.20
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov



Fri Jan 9 04 07:19:17 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.20
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov



Bob Graham made a great comment about Dick's trial on his blog this morning:

"Sure I am angry, I had my pro bono attorney say in ‘opening arguments’ “Yes ladies and gentlemen of the jury…there has been a crime….and as you will find out…..it is the government who committed this crime. This statement was screamed at by the defense and the judge…..BUT, we then stated ….we will prove it! AND WE DID!"

Al Thompson has a great comment which should be repeated:

"I just found this quote on WorldNetDaily and I couldn't believe the audacity of
Mr. Jarvis who stated: "He must follow the rules and play by the rules like everyone else," Jarvis said. "We are a nation of laws, not a nation of chaos."

"What is so outrageous about his comment, is the fact that the whole "Tax Protestor" movement has been saying the same thing...."Show me the law...." The government doesn't want to show us the law, but expects us to obey it. Does this make any sense?"

------------------

Now let's welcome Kilroy!!



The shoe needs to go on the other foot immediately. Steps should be taken to sanction, prosecute and ultimately remove the individuals responsible for destroying Dick Simkanin's rights, business and life.

In the spirit of Kilroy, We The People need to align ourselves with the jury of Dick Simkanin's trial and be sure we get the answer to the question they posed to Judge McBryde:

"Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant's business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000 pages of businesses required to file?"

Judge McBryde's response openly proclaimed war against We The People, justice and the law by responding:

"I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U.S.A. and the defendant's business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant's business to file."

Prosecutor Jarvis and Judge McBryde needs to now answer to Kilroy:

Show We The People just how you have magically "made" this "legal determination."

Lysander Spooner wrote: "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial by the government. The jury that convicted Dick Simkanin has openly admitted that they were not allowed to see the facts based on evidence in claims of law that required Dick Simkanin to pay and withhold the taxes in question.

It's time for thousands and millions of Kilroys throughout this country and the entire world to once and for all time put this system of tyranny on trial for all the world to see. This should begin by asking Judge McBryde for complete proof as to just how he came up with "the legal determination" that obligates Dick Simkanin and Arrow Plastics to perform a "legal duty" to withhold and collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U.S.A.

It's also high time to declare a mandate for a totally open and transparent judicial system in which ALL activities can be monitored 24 X 7 with free access for any interested party to records, files, transcripts, audio and video tapes - live on demand in real-time - for all proceedings. Thousands of access channels for individuals all over the world to view firsthand the all proceedings in the light of day in all courtrooms.

As I shared in a email the other day:

"The current system is opaque. Everywhere one turns there are divisions, separations, restrictions, exceptions, rules and procedural regulations that have removed it far, far from the light and put a complete stranglehold of control on the creation and dissemination of information and facts. For Judge MyBryde to openly war against the Dick Simkanin's God-given rights by standing on his pedestal and offer up an arrogant personal "determination" of law with zero-nothing evidence to back it up is complete, utter and total outright insanity."

"The current picture reeks with fraud, deception and the arrogance of tyranny."

"Bottom line, any system of review and oversight should be supported and run by We The People. WE are the government. The system to date has zero-no oversight and regulation from the outside. As such, it has completely run off the moorings of justice. The system has NOT been monitored with any rigorous and ongoing third party oversight from day to day for years and years. Thus, the lack of transparency and openness become the foundation of the fraud, deception, lies that enable and support this tyranny of injustice. This is no different than the self-regulated fraud and deception that has reigned on the floors of the exchanges for years until We The People began asking the same questions for years."

"Bottom line, there is no lawful government operating in America. Declarations to this effect must begin in earnest. And We The People must gather together in the light of this New Day that is dawning and discuss these issues in a positive light that will transcend and overcome any and all divisions, separations and claims that work against this mandate for complete and total transparency and openness."

----------------

Again, steps should be taken immediately to sanction, prosecute and ultimately remove the individuals responsible for destroying Dick Simkanin's rights, business and life.

Please welcome Kilroy into your mind, heart and soul. It's high time for a New Kilroy America to rise up and be heard!!



And let's welcome our wonderful world to this "New Kilroy America" as we leave behind the chaos of opaqueness and darkness that's been making a mockery of divine justice in our world!!



119293!!

Fred Smart - reporting

Posted 1/08/2004 09:45:00 PM by Dick

Robert Ingle

Robert Ingle has some commentary for us today.

The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed and qualified me to preach the Gospel of good tidings to the meek, the poor, and afflicted; He has sent me to bind up and heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the [physical and spiritual] captives and the opening of the prison and of the eyes to those who are bound, [Romans 10:15]

That's what it's all about.

Thanks for blogging Robert Ingle.

Posted 1/08/2004 09:28:00 PM by Dick

Christian Bowman

Christian Bowman has some commentary for us today.

The truth is that some things are too dangerous to ignore. For fedgov and the IRS cannot allow Dick Simkanin to roam free. Go read what I read in August of 2002. I believe that the Government forced him to remove this from his site. But you cant delete something from the archive.

Great dig.

Thanks for blogging Christian Bowman.

Posted 1/08/2004 08:22:00 PM by Dick

Al Thompson

Al Thompson has a letter from Dick Simkanin's lawyer Arch McColl for us today.

Al, I gave my heart and soul to defending Dick. We had an excellent legal team and made a valiant effort against a judge who wouldn't me cross-examine and severely restricted our evidence and would not tell the jury our legal defense.

Good report.

Thanks for blogging Al Thompson.

Posted 1/08/2004 03:23:00 PM by Dick

Yesterday, Mr. Simkanin was found guilty of several counts of not
withholding income taxes from his employees at Arrow Plastics in Texas.
Simkanin's understanding of the law led him to believe he was not required
to be an unpaid tax collector for the government, nor was he required to
file and pay himself. The Federal Judge erred in this case by instructing
the jury of "facts" that are required to be decided by the jury. Below is a
summary analysis of the case outcome by attorney, Larry Becraft! JR
----- Original Message -----
From: "becraft"
To: "Bryan Malatesta"
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:02 PM
Subject: Trial error in Simkanin case


> In a criminal case, it is completely improper for a judge to direct the
> finding of any fact, even one not disputed; that is no different than
> directing a verdict on the critical fact. However, there is always
> “pressure” to do so because it disposes of those nasty factual problems
> and certainly makes instructing the jury about legal issues a whole lot
> easier. Here is an excerpt from one of my briefs:
>
> In criminal cases, a court cannot direct a verdict of guilty or direct
> the finding of any particular element of the prosecution's case; see
> United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. United
> States, 330 U.S. 395, 408, 67 S.Ct. 775, 782 (1947); United States v.
> Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 572, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1355 (1977);
> Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 83, 103 S.Ct. 969, 975 (1983);
> United States v. Hayward, 420 F.2d 142, 144 (D.C. Cir. 1969); United
> States v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165, 180 (1st Cir. 1969); United States v.
> Manuszak, 234 F.2d 421, 425 (3rd Cir. 1956); United States v. Johnson,
> 718 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Burton, 737 F.2d 439,
> 441 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Bass, 785 F.2d 1282, 1285 (5th
> Cir. 1986); Schwachter v. United States, 237 F.2d 640, 644 (6th Cir.
> 1956); Buchanan v. United States, 244 F.2d 916, 920 (6th Cir. 1957);
> United States v. Rowan, 518 F.2d 685, 693 (6th Cir. 1975); United States
> v. England, 347 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1965); United States v. Kerley, 838
> F.2d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 1988); Compton v. United States, 377 F.2d 408,
> 411 (8th Cir. 1967); United States v. Goings, 517 F.2d 891, 892 (8th
> Cir. 1975); United States v. Garaway, 425 F.2d 185 (9th Cir. 1970); and
> United States v. Goetz, 746 F.2d 705, 708 (11th Cir. 1984).
>
> In the 5th, this is a good case on the point: United States v. Bass, 784
> F.2d 1282 (5th Cir. 1986): Issue was whether defendant was employee;
> held court erred by directing verdict on issue.
>

Posted 1/08/2004 11:39:00 AM by Dick

Here is a story that WorldnetDaily has about the Dick Simkanin case. It can be found below. This has been posted by Kilroy!

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Jury eyes Texan
challenging tax laws
Employer argues code doesn't require him to withhold from workers' wages

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 8, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A Texas employer who believes the U.S. Constitution and tax code do not require him to withhold taxes from his employees has been tried for the second time in federal court on charges of violating U.S. tax laws.

Richard Simkanin, 59, owner and principal of Arrow Custom Plastics in Bedford, Texas, stopped withholding from his employees' wages in 2000.

Posted 1/08/2004 05:37:00 AM by Dick

Kilroy Was Here!!

And as the light of justice and truth shines brighter and brighter We The People will continue to observe, record and confront.....



Thu Jan 8 04 11:12:42 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : roselear.blogspot.com
208.27.202.124
rch5.gtwy.uscourts.gov



Thu Jan 8 04 11:01:19 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : search.yahoo.com
209.49.118.20
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov



Thu Jan 8 04 10:01:50 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
unable to detect referrer
(JavaScript not enabled in visitor's browser)
199.196.144.11
tias-gw1.treas.gov



Thu Jan 8 04 09:35:49 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : roselear.blogspot.com
208.27.202.124
rch5.gtwy.uscourts.gov



Thu Jan 8 04 08:48:32 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.18
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov



Thu Jan 8 04 07:26:02 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.20
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov



Thu Jan 8 04 07:11:59 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.18
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov

Posted 1/07/2004 10:15:00 PM by Dick

Eye Witness Account of Verdict Reading

Audioblog interview with Brett West (bonnieblue@ntws.net) of Decatur, Texas, eyewitness to Dick Simkanin verdict reading.

Segment 1 powered by audblog

Segment 2 powered by audblog

Segment 3 powered by audblog

Segment 4 powered by audblog

Doug Kenline reporting.

Posted 1/07/2004 08:56:00 PM by Dick

More comments on the verdict...

----- Original Message -----
From: AlthompsonCA@cs.com

OK, folks, the fix was in and Dick was found guilty.

Here's the deal. He was found guilty of violating a penalty code which isn't
law. Then of course the Title 18 charges were piled on top of those.

The internal revenue laws were repealed in 1939 and never reenacted.

We figured the fix was in, but we were hopeful for the best for Dick.

I got my information at http://www.dougkenline.blogspot.com

And I suspect someone like myself is going to be next.

These courts are operating in law merchant and not law. Period.

My old saying is, "Get an attorney, go to jail." And that holds true tonight.

Getting an attorney is like putting a viper around your neck, and seeking safety.

With all the resources spent by various people and groups, the inadequate training and
understanding what law is and isn't is killing this movement. Spending money on crap
that doesn't work is foolish. This is a prime example of that.

Pray for Dick's family, business, and friends. This is a devastating loss, but it was expected
given what the judge did to the jury.

God will punish for an eternity the evil deeds done to this man today.

Regards,
Al

Posted 1/07/2004 07:51:00 PM by Dick

More details..

From Mike Bodine with We The People Foundation:

Subj: Simkanin Convicted
Date: 1/7/04 9:48:23 PM Central Standard Time

Tragedy in Texas.

About 90 minutes ago, Simkanin was convicted of 29 of 31 federal tax charges.
More to come as we can....

Mike

Posted 1/07/2004 07:40:00 PM by Dick

Simkanin Update From Dave Champion

Date: 1/7/04 5:41:37 PM Central Standard Time
From: champion@nontaxpayer.org
To: oi-ar@LIST.QNET.COM
Sent from the Internet (Details)

The following is reported by a courtroom watcher at Simkanin's trial, but unconfirmed by any other source at this time.

The report states that the jury sent the judge a question.

Question: Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant’s business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000 pages of businesses required to file?

And that the judge answered:

Answer: I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U. S. A. and the defendant’s business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant’s business to file.

If this exchange is accurate (emphasis on "if") it would seem to indicate some frustration with, or possibly disrespect for, the court by the jury. If that be so, that would certainly be a hopeful sign in Dick's favor.

Also, a number of people have asked me if the length of time that the jurors deliberate is significant in this type of case. The general answer is "yes". In decades past, tax case juries typically came back quite quickly with verdicts. The underlying concept seemed to be that if they (the jurors) were paying income tax and you weren't, you were going to get convicted.

Thanks to years of hard work by Tax Honesty proponents at educating the public, we're seeing less of this mentality. Today's juries seem to be less trusting of government allegations and less confident that the government is acting in the interest of "justice". Additionally, despite the court's efforts to insulate juries from "issues of law" and debates on what is to be admitted into evidence, I believe that juries are "aware" that the playing field has been intentionally tilted in the government's favor in tax cases.

In the Simkanin case we must be cautious not to read too much into the length of the jury's deliberations. After all, there are 31 counts to consider. However, generally speaking, and probably in this trial, the longer the jury is out, the better for the defendant. Of course "better" does not translate into acquittal on all charges. With 31 counts, it is unlikely that Dick will be found "not guilty" on all counts, which of course was Jarvis' plan when he went back to the grand jury for a superceding indictment after the first trial.

Dave Champion

Posted 1/07/2004 07:35:00 PM by Dick

Tyranny in Action

Date: 1/7/04 9:27:40 PM Central Standard Time
From: jdulaney@nctc.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

In the trial or Richard Simkinan, going on in Fort Worth, Texas, the jury in deliberation did the following:

The jury has sent the judge another question.

Question: Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant's business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000
pages of businesses required to file?

Answer from Judge: I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U.S.A. and the defendant's business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant's business to file.

The defense objected that this amounted to a directed verdict. The judge overruled the objection.

Here is what Mr. Spooner has to say about the likes of judge McBryde

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is
admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

"The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial the government.

It was anciently called "trial per pais" that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are."

The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not
allowed to determine what those liberties are?

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other --- or at least no more accurate --- definition of a despotism than this.
.
Lysander Spooner - 19th Century lawyer, legal theorist among other things. He had a lot to say about the judiciary and their lust for power.

From one of his books "Trial by Jury";
"THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS."
Of course, this was abolished by the judges around the end of the 19th century. --

------------------------------

Solid proof.

The courts are closed.

According to one observer, the jury said it all:

Question: "Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant's business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000 pages of businesses required to file?"

And the judge, claiming the mantle of God - or some Wizard of Oz with the appropriate smoke, fire and fear spreading forth - responded:

"I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U.S.A. and the defendant's business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant's business to file."

"I have made the legal determination.......???????????"

How?

Show We The People just how you have magically "made" this "legal determination." Judge McBryde needs to now answer to We The People.

"The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial the government.

Steps should be taken to sanction, prosecute and ultimately remove the individuals responsible for destroying Dick Simkanin's rights, business and life.

119293.

Posted 1/07/2004 06:51:00 PM by Dick

Dick Simkanin Found Guilty

I just spoke with Hank Goltz. Verdict is guilty. Lost connection while talking. Left voice message for Hank to call me when he can. Will try for audioblog with Hank later.

audio post powered by audblog

Doug Kenline reporting.

Posted 1/07/2004 06:42:00 PM by Dick

Still No Verdict

Per Hank Goltz still no verdict. He will call me tonight. Stand by.

Doug Kenline reporting.

Posted 1/07/2004 03:18:00 PM by Dick

Kilroy Is Back Again!!

Wed Jan 7 04 04:52:21 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : search.yahoo.com
209.49.118.20
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov



119293.

Posted 1/07/2004 03:11:00 PM by Dick

A Comment Sent to the Star-Telegram

Robert Cole writes to the Dallas Fortworth Star-Telegram:

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Cole
To: letters@star-telegram.com
Cc: harral@star-telegram.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 5:47 AM
Subject: Trial of Mr. Simkanin


Dear Sir,Ma'am,

I have read your online story concerning the tax trial of Richard Simkanin. I also have access to information from persons who were in the courtroom what transpired.

It is clear from my reading that all of the 'facts' are not being reported.

1. The federal government twice attempted to gain an indictment through a grand jury against Simkanin. Simkanin was permitted to address the grand jury. They voted not to indict.

2. On the governments THIRD attempt, they denied Simkanin the right to address the grand jury. Is it any surprise that this jury voted to indict?

3. Simkanin went to trial, at the end of which the trial jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Judge McBryde declared a mistrial. What was NOT reported was that the jury voted 11-1 to ACQUIT.

4. Judge McBryde is not permitting Simkanin's attorney to provide effective defense by limiting what Simkanin can ask witnesses. This FACT was glossed over by reporter Max Baker. Quoting from Mr. Baker's Jan 6 article; "McBryde kept a tight rein on the questions asked by the prosecutors and especially on those posed by defense attorney Arch McColl of Dallas."

5. What actually occurred was that Judge McBryde -- who is supposed to be 'neutral' -- went out of his way to assist the government in its case by refusing to allow the defense attorney to adequately question the governments witnesses. Evidence of this can be seen at this link:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/Update04-Jan-06.htm

More information on the Simkanin case can be found here:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm

I urge you and your reporters to report on this trial in a FAIR manner. No American can be anything but outraged by 'Judge' McBryde's behavior in this sham of a trial.

Sincerely,

Robert Cole
6159 Cooper Road
Indianapolis, IN 46228
aries170@comcast.net

Posted 1/07/2004 02:51:00 PM by Dick

Still No Verdict

I just called Hank Goltz' cell phone. It was answered by Lew Cosby frm Kerville, Texas. Lew says there is still no verdict.

Lew says Bob Schulz, Charlie Beall, Arch McCall, and everybody is still inside waiting for the verdict. Lew says Hank Goltz is inside and Lew is outside trying to communicate with folks on the cell phone.

Lew says Bob Schulz wants to interview some of the jurors after the verdict is announced.

Still no word on the verdict at this time.

Doug Kenline reporting.

Posted 1/07/2004 02:41:00 PM by Dick

Entire Docket File Record of USA v. Simkanin

4:03-cr-00188 USA v. Simkanin
Date filed: 06/19/2003

Click here for the entire history

Special thanks to Ken Evans for providing this page link-record.

119293.

Posted 1/07/2004 02:00:00 PM by Dick

More Comments on Dick Simkanin's Trial

John Dulany weighs in:

"After reading the information below, one can say that the federal judges are "lap-dogs" of the IRS and the Department of Injustice of this no longer free country. Nope - Simkanin is in a kangaroo court, and this "lap-dog" judge is trying (and will probably succeed) to have this man found guilty. And one who believes that this is a "fair trial" please step forward so that i may sell the SF bridge."

Click here to review "the information" John is referring to contains this link to an article from from We The People Congress note from Joe Banister:

From: Automailer - freedomabovefortune.com

Dear Friends:

I am forwarding the latest information about the Simkanin trial as reported by the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education/We The People Congress.

There were more developments subsequent to the publishing of this article. Stay tuned to www.givemeliberty.org for more details.

Incredibly, I actually made it to the witness stand today (WITH THE JURY PRESENT). As some of you may know, many have attempted to use my testimony in criminal tax prosecutions but the prosecutors always motion the judge to prevent me from testifying in front of the jury and the judges have always granted such motions. Apparently, my personal contacts with Mr. Simkanin over the last four years played a significant role in my testimony being allowed. More details will be available in the near future. For the time being, please pray for the discernment of the jurors and pray for Mr. Simkanin and all those who put themselves at risk for others' sake.

Kind Regards,

Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, C.P.A.
Former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent
www.freedomabovefortune.com

--------------

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, we are getting closer to the time for We The People to openly declare - not just prove for the proof has already been received - that ALL the courts are closed in this country.

119293.

Posted 1/07/2004 01:50:00 PM by Dick

Kilroy Won't Go Away!!

Wed Jan 7 04 03:13:59 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.18
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov



Wed Jan 7 04 02:29:53 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : search.yahoo.com
149.101.1.130
wdcsun30.usdoj.gov



Wed Jan 7 04 02:18:26 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
unable to detect referrer
(JavaScript not enabled in visitor's browser)
199.196.144.12
tias-gw2.treas.gov



119293.

Ken Evans Reporting on Sealed Trial Documents

Subj: Sealed Documents in Simkanin Trial
Date: 1/7/04 11:35:13 AM Central Standard Time
From: kevans@dca.net
To: kevans@dca.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)

All,

I don't know if you're already aware, but I checked the Simkanin Court
docket through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and a
SEALED DOCUMENT was filed on Monday and entered yesterday. A second
document was filed RESETTING the docket number to 271.

Here is a copy & paste of the docket entries:

4:03-cr-00188 USA v. Simkanin
Date filed: 06/19/2003

271 Filed: 01/05/2004
Entered: 01/06/2004
Sealed Document

-- Filed & Entered: 01/06/2004
Reset Document Number

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

01/07/2004 07:33:02
PACER Login: ke0155 Client Code:
Description: HistDocQry Case Number: 4:03-cr-00188
Billable Pages: 8 Cost: 0.56


__________________________

FREE DICK SIMKANIN!!

"The rule taxing U.S. persons on their worldwide income arises more by
INDIRECTION than explicit statutory command: Because §61 does not
distinguish between domestic and foreign income..." The Tax Treatise
'Fundamentals of International Taxation,' 2003/2004 edition, Para
65.1.2, page 65-6, Boris I. Bittker, Lawrence Lokken

The American Heritage Dictionary (2nd Ed.) defines "indirection" as: 1.
The quality or state of being indirect; 2. Lack of direction;
aimlessness; 3. LACK OF STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS; DEVIOUSNESS

"It's voluntary to file." - IRS Supervisor Tony Burton during a recorded
audit, October 18, 2001. Hear it for yourself at this link.


PROOF OF IRS, DOJ FRAUD & JUDICIAL TYRANNY can be viewed here:

Ken Evans

http://www.reasons2vote.com

Posted 1/07/2004 08:34:00 AM by Dick

Comments From To Joe Banister on the Simkanin trial

Date: 1/7/04 2:58:56 AM Central Standard Time
From: bearowl@execpc.com
To: jbanister@freedomabovefortune.com
CC: bob@givemeliberty.org, paralegals@prodigy.net, notice@givemeliberty.org, FKSmart@aol.com, APFN@apfn.org
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Dear Joe,

The judge is clearly obstructing justice! There is no question! Mr.
Simkanin's attorney must file an indictment directly. If there is no bona
fide bill of particulars. . .there is no Constitutional-Lawful basis to put
him on trial; and obviously, absent the previous. . .the federal government
owes him a very large sum, for incarcerating him without producing the bona
fide Statutory Assessment Records of Law and Fact. . .A Genuine Bill of
Particulars. . .[And] a solid probable cause warrant signed by oath of
affirmation by a judge/court that could prove jurisdiction prior to any
proceedings. When jurisdiction is challenged. . .it must be certifiably
proven to exist by a Constitutional-Congressional Mandate. This whole
scenario brings ill repute, and total embarrassment to the very core of what
our Country is supposed to stand for. . .And this is putting it mildly! God
Help Us All!

Sincerely and Constitutionally Yours,

Dan J. Jovanovic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Automailer - freedomabovefortune.com"

To: "Dan J. Jovanovic"
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:33 AM
Subject: Forwarding Simkanin Update From We The People Foundation


Dear Friends:

I am forwarding the latest information about the Simkanin trial as
reported by the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education/We The
People Congress.

There were more developments subsequent to the publishing of this article.
Stay tuned to www.givemeliberty.org for more details.

Incredibly, I actually made it to the witness stand today (WITH THE JURY
PRESENT). As some of you may know, many have attempted to use my testimony
in criminal tax prosecutions but the prosecutors always motion the judge to
prevent me from testifying in front of the jury and the judges have always
granted such motions. Apparently, my personal contacts with Mr. Simkanin
over the last four years played a significant role in my testimony being
allowed. More details will be available in the near future. For the time
being, please pray for the discernment of the jurors and pray for Mr.
Simkanin and all those who put themselves at risk for others' sake.

Kind Regards,

Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, C.P.A.
Former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent
www.freedomabovefortune.com

Posted 1/07/2004 08:21:00 AM by Dick

Kilroy Was Here!

Wed Jan 7 04 10:08:45 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
unable to detect referrer
(JavaScript not enabled in visitor's browser)
199.196.144.17
tias-gw7.treas.gov



Wed Jan 7 04 07:50:00 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.18
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov

Posted 1/07/2004 03:39:00 AM by Dick

Federal Tyranny, Texas Style

Reporting from We The People Congress:

01-06-04

Justice Held in Contempt
Simkanin Takes The Stand

"Fort Worth -- Federal prosecutors and USDC Judge John McBryde continued in earnest yesterday afternoon to deny all reason and justice in their quest to control the trial and ensure the conviction of non-withholding employer Dick Simkanin."

Click here for more....

Posted 1/06/2004 03:33:00 PM by Dick

Ex-IRS Agent John Turner Comments on Dick Simkanin's Trial

This in a letter to "Mr. Baker", columnist at the Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram in reference to this article by Mr. Baker.

Subj: The Simkanin Trial
Date: 1/6/04 4:34:21 PM Central Standard Time
From: time4jt@att.net
To: maxbaker@star-telegram.com
CC: theinzl@star-telegram.com, wturner@star-telegram.com, jwitt@star-telegram.com, harral@star-telegram.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Hi Mr. Baker,

Sorry about the length of my email. I hope that will not dissuade you from reading it or acting upon its suggestions!

Also, please know that I am distributing this email among several people I know in the so-called “tax honesty movement”, as well as some in executive management at the Star-Telegram.

I just read your article posted today, January 6, on the federal criminal tax trial of Richard Simkanin.

Just so you know, I am not neutral on this case and could not claim to be unbiased. I support Mr. Simkanin. I am no longer able to remain neutral because of what I know. That does not mean I am anti-government or anti-tax. I support the rule of law in this nation and I support our form of government. I do believe that our judicial system has wandered far from its purpose of serving justice.

I am not so unbiased that I cannot assume for now that you are neutral and that your job is to cover and accurately report the facts. I am hoping that is the case. I will also assume that you know very little about tax law or what typically goes on in criminal tax trials, especially with respect to “willful failure to file” types of cases. If I am making a wrong assumption in this regard as to your knowledge on this subject I will be delighted to hear that and please accept my apology in advance!

In reporting on this trial, I don’t know if you will actually sit in the court room each day and watch the entire process. I don’t know if you will personally interview interested citizens outside the court room.

If you are going to have further involvement with this trial, watching it, commenting on it, talking with those who may be supporters of Mr. Simkanin, may I make some suggestions?

In your article you labeled Mr. Simkanin and his supporters in and around the court room as “Anti-tax protesters/tax protesters”. Instead, why not refer to them as “concerned citizens”? Or, “citizens concerned about the rule of law”? If you were to ask several Simkanin supporters if they consider themselves to be “tax protesters or anti-tax protesters” I am fairly certain virtually none of them would answer you with a “yes”. The IRS, as of 1998, is prohibited from referring to people as “tax protesters”. I realize that prohibition does not extend to you. However, you may want to talk with some of those people and see if they consider themselves “tax protesters” and if they agree with being labeled as such. On the other hand, I imagine that in a very narrow context, a few might offer no objections to being labeled as “tax protesters” and might also “wear it” as a “badge of pride”, a symbol of what they believe about the truth of the income tax.

These people are not against “taxes” per se. They understand that the government needs tax revenues in order to function. If these people are protesting anything, they are against the tax agency’s misapplication of the income tax and employment tax laws. I submit to you that these people are not tax protesters, in that they are not against “taxes”. The reason the billboards and placards proclaim “Obey the Constitution” is because they believe the law is not being followed. They are not against taxes; they are for taxes so long as the government is strictly obeying the law in the collection of “taxes”. It is an important distinction to make. I realize you may have space limitations in your articles but if possible you may want to explore this subject a bit more and if you can – address it more carefully in your articles.

In your article you referenced a happening in the court room yesterday. You made reference to that portion of the trial where the judge would not allow the defendant’s attorney to query government witnesses on the definitions of key words, such as “wages”, employee”, and whether or not social security taxes are mandatory. That was not a “ho-hum” moment. Above I told you that I believe that our judicial system has wandered far from its purpose of administering justice. It is not about “truth”, but it should be, especially when a man is facing many years in jail. Words have meanings, especially in law. Definitions of words in the law is “everything”. The government knows it. This judge knows it. And Mr. Simkanin knows it. The government arrested Mr. Simkanin and has tried him once with the result being a jury vote of 11-1 to acquit and a resulting declaration of a mistrial. By the way, I think it would have been nice, fair and appropriate for you to have noted that fact in your article.

The government has had him imprisoned for over 6 months now. Yesterday, he was brought him into the courtroom wearing leg-chains, as if he was some sort of flight risk or a danger to people. The government is claiming Mr. Simkanin has violated tax laws. However, if you pay close attention, you will notice a great effort on the part of the government to keep from a serious discussion of the law in the courtroom. The defense attorney’s efforts in that regard will be hampered. (You have already seen an example of that yesterday and have commented on it your article today. More from me about that below.) If the government is right, what better opportunity to illustrate the folly of the “tax protesters”? Why not get it all out in the open and make it clear to all how silly the “anti-tax protester’s” arguments are? If the government could do that I would think it would serve to make them shut up and go away. I believe that because I also believe those people are not about “not wanting to pay taxes” but are about “obeying the law”.

It is my understanding that in the first trial the jury asked Judge McBryde for 9 items while they were deliberating. He refused the jury’s request for information and clarification. They asked the judge for a copy of the law that Mr. Simkanin violated (tax withholding). They asked him for a written copy of the jury instructions which the judge had issued to them verbally the previous day. Jury instructions are another important item which can make or break the outcome of a trial. In tax trials, jury instructions are typically tilted heavily in favor of the government. This has the effect of limiting what the jury can see and consider in its deliberations. It should be obvious to you. His reply was that the verbal instructions he gave them were sufficient. He flat out denied their request to see the written Internal Revenue Code section that Mr. Simkanin had allegedly violated. Typical results: The press reports on the conviction of another “tax protester” and the public is left with the impression that the defendant had a “fair” trial and that law and order was upheld, reinforcing to the public what happens “when you don’t pay your taxes”. The law never really gets a fair examination but the “tax protesters” get another black eye and the government puts more fear into the public.

I hope you will follow up on the following suggestion. Please contact Mr. Arch McColl, the attorney for Mr. Simkanin. Ask him for a copy of the transcript of the first trial which took place in November. Also, ask him to talk with you about this subject of word definitions as it applies to Mr. Simkanin’s defense and why the subject is relevant and so very important. See if you can get him to comment as to why it is inherently not fair to prevent such a discussion in the courtroom. Ask Mr. McColl if he will share with you part of his legal briefs where he raises the issue of what the law defines “employer”, “employee”, “withholding agent”, etc. Also, ask him if he will share with you the government’s response to the meanings of those words. The meanings of these words have everything to do with Mr. Simkanin’s guilt or innocence. As such, a discussion about them in the presence of the jury cannot be allowed to be swept under the carpet. If you can do this, maybe you will have something very interesting to put into print.

After you accomplish this with Mr. McColl, why not approach the U.S. prosecutor, David Jarvis, and ask him similar questions. Ask him if the government has allowed the jury to fully see definitions of certain key words and has been given the ability to see what the law says. If it is clear to you that the government has not, ask him why not. Ask him what is it that the government is afraid of (by their effort to thwart a frank discussion of the law in the courtroom). A man is very possibly about to lose his freedom. In return, what is so difficult about an open examination of what the law says? Why the manipulation and obfuscation to only appear to be discussing the law and going about giving Mr. Simkanin a fair trial?

In the presence of the jury, the government does not want to discuss the law or important auxiliary facets of the law. The government only wants to mention the law in passing. The government only wants to “prove” that the defendant failed to do certain things and that he willfully failed to do those things. They want the jury to just assume that the law Mr. Simkanin has questioned applies to him. In federal trials judges say, “I will judge the law, you will judge the facts.” Translated, that means they control how much time and effort is given to actually spelling out clearly what the law says and what it means. They tell the jury that they will tell them what the law means. Why not spell out, specifically, what law(s) were violated? Why not illustrate what the law says about who is an “employer” and what makes that person an “employer”? Why not also illustrate what is an “employee”? Why not illustrate in law who is liable for “withholding”? Instead, the government forces the jury to assume that defendant’s are “employers”, that the “employer” had “employees”, that the “employer” was also a “withholding agent” and was required by law to “withhold”. Judges create a presumption in the minds of the jurors. The presumption, practically speaking, in combination with other tactics, becomes almost impossible to overcome. The lawyers cannot question the law nor can the jury. The judges become the law. I know that sounds radical but that is accurate. The judge says “this is the law because I say it is”, no one can challenge him, and he becomes the law. In another tax trial, I saw a jury instruction in which the judge included a paraphrase of a certain section of the Internal Revenue Code, written by the judge himself. The paraphrase was not accurate with the law as actually written. That is a very egregious tactic for a defendant to have to overcome.

The government will not allow a candid discussion in front of the jury because they would learn that Mr. Simkanin, according to a proper and strict reading of the law, is not an “employer”, never had “employees”, and was never required to “withhold”. Mr. Simkanin withheld payroll taxes from his workers in years past because he assumed he was liable; he had never read the law at that point. When Mr. Simkanin actually studied the law he concluded that he was not an “employer”, did not have “employees”, and had no requirement to “withhold”. So he ceased. That is what this case is about. It is not about him being a “protester” or not wanting to pay taxes that are legally required. Mr. Baker, take some time to read the law that is pertinent to Mr. Simkanin’s case. See if you can determine from your own reading if Mr. Simkanin appears to be the “person” who is liable as the government is maintaining he is.

If the media wants to consult government comments that have originated via their media releases or through other outlets, and from those comments, characterize or portray Mr. Simkanin as an anti-government or anti-tax citizen, that is okay so long as they make it clear to readers that they are citing government sponsored communications. However, the media should also responsibly seek out an opinion from Mr. Simkanin or his attorney if he considers himself anti-government or anti-tax. It is dangerous to liberty if the media uses a broad brush, making the labels themselves or assumes labels and information from government media releases are completely factual. The casual use of the term “tax protester” can connote the idea, all by itself, that the defendant just does not like the law and since he doesn’t agree with it, he doesn’t want to comply with it. It was in that spirit that the IRS was forbidden by Congress as of 1998 from referring to people as “tax protesters”. I am sure that Mr. Simkanin has not simply taken a position that he does not “like the law” and therefore does not want to comply. Mr. Simkanin has concluded from a careful study of the law that those specific laws in question in his trial do not apply to him. I realize that concept seems insurmountable to most people’s way of thinking. I was once personally at the same juncture. It is difficult but it is not impossible if one will read the law. If one does not read the law and depends solely upon what a man in a black robe says about the law, then yes, it is impossible for that person.

Thank you very much. I’ll look forward to an email response from you and to your additional articles about this important trial.

Sincerely,


John Turner

P.S. At one time I worked for Internal Revenue Service as an enforcement agent – 10 years. In my tenth year I studied the law and concluded that IRS was misapplying the income tax (subtitle A) and employment tax laws (subtitle C). With my conclusion, because I was a front-line enforcement agent, I could no longer justify taking continued enforcement actions resulting in the loss of property on the part of American citizens – so I resigned. With regard to employment taxes and the IRS’s efforts to enforce against employees who do not have enough tax withholding from their paychecks: I can tell you this – with respect to delinquent taxpayers part of my job consisted of implementing the “cure”, that is seeing to it that whatever was the cause of underpayment of tax, I was supposed to “fix” it before I was allowed to close my collection case. In other words, I was not allowed to evaluate the person’s ability to pay the delinquent tax and then close the case with whatever the appropriate decision was - unless I also addressed the reason for the delinquency. “Employees”, as you know, fill out Form W-4 to indicate how much tax withholding will be withheld from their paychecks. Sometimes, a person fills out the form with a certain number of exemptions which results in a smaller amount of taxes withheld, which means on April 15th that the person may owe tax that he cannot pay. Here’s the kicker, Mr. Baker. As an IRS enforcement employee, charged with correcting the source of tax delinquencies, I was not given, through training or otherwise, the legal basis for seeing to it that a person changed his withholding amount. Let me repeat it in other words: I had no statutory means of compelling a person to change his withholding. As an enforcement agent, I had to use “threats of enforcement” (retaliation) and intimidation to accomplish this. If a person refused to adjust his withholding our solution was to seize or levy upon assets. In other words, if we determined someone needed an “attitude adjustment”, levy was generally the means to cause the change in “behavior”. I ask you, does that seem right? If “withholding” is mandatory as the government maintains, why is there no legal means to accomplish adequate withholding in the first place? You should see letters the agency sends to “employers” instructing them to change “employee” withholding exemptions. They are absent statutory reference. At best, they may cite a Treasury regulation. Putting aside for the moment in the discussion as to whether or not withholding of tax from the paychecks for working Americans is required in law – the government, through this withholding mechanism, is extracting the payment of tax from people before it is due. I have known of people who didn’t have enough money to pay their necessary bills who tried to obtain the means through increasing the size of their take-home pay. If you consider the government’s line through to the logical conclusion you realize that it is by nothing more than expediency that the government moves! The government believes that its need for revenue is more important (of a higher priority) than the individual’s need to take care of himself. In other words, you don’t legally owe the tax until you sign your Form 1040 on April 15th. With respect to withheld income tax, ask the IRS if those withheld funds are a tax or a “credit”. You will find that they are treated as a credit until they receive your Form 1040, signed under penalty of perjury, on which you swore that you had “taxable income”.

If it seems that my verbiage is long-winded or that I have been trying to educate you it is only incidental with my desire to communicate accurately to you. That is a major problem in this whole “tax thing” – not enough attention is paid to what the law and definitions really say and mean. The government accuses the “tax protesters” of using “shop worn”, “frivolous” arguments (and sometimes they do!) but they routinely either ignore people’s questions about the law or they respond with ridiculously vague, off-point, frivolous answers themselves. The government would have everyone believe that if you stumbled across some money on the sidewalk you now have “income” and even if you were not a “taxpayer” before, you are now! They would have us believe that everyone is a “taxpayer”. Remember a few years ago with the huge publicity given with the anticipation of the homerun ball of Mark McGuire? Remember that IRS was involved too? That they were going to be at the ballpark and identify the “lucky” citizen who caught record-setting homerun ball and take actions with that citizen designed to ensure that he paid taxes on that event? They were going to impugn a taxable transaction, therefore a liability, from being the lucky catcher of the ball. So much negative public outcry arose that IRS backed off. Wait a minute! Was there a law involved or not? If IRS was motivated by law why didn’t they follow through with their plans even in spite of public outcry? If they had a lawful basis in the first place, wouldn’t they have had an obligation to fulfill the law, even if it was not popular with the public? Hmmmm…… just food for thought, Mr. Baker.

Posted 1/05/2004 05:45:00 PM by Dick

Kilroy Was Here!

Tue Jan 6 04 01:35:39 PM
No dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
208.27.202.124
rch5.gtwy.uscourts.gov



Tue Jan 6 04 12:07:44 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : www.google.com
209.49.118.18
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov



Tue Jan 6 04 09:51:05 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : search.yahoo.com
149.101.1.130
wdcsun30.usdoj.gov



Mon Jan 5 04 05:34:39 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
unable to detect referrer
(JavaScript not enabled in visitor's browser)
149.101.1.128
wdcsun28.usdoj.gov



Mon Jan 5 04 02:45:25 PM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : dougkenline.blogspot.com
199.173.224.20
s00dad2.ssa.gov



119293!!

Posted 1/05/2004 05:43:00 PM by Dick

Photos and Audio Reports from The Trial

Doug Kenline reports:



Audio blog reports



Blog Photo Reports



Thanks Doug!

119293!!

Posted 1/05/2004 05:18:00 PM by Dick

Photos and Audio Reports from The Trial

Doug Kenline reports:



Audio blog reports



Blog Photo Reports



Thanks Doug!

119293!!

Posted 1/05/2004 07:14:00 AM by Dick

Fort Worth Star Telegram Article on Dick Simkanin

Tax protesters plan to attend Bedford man's retrial
By Toni Heinzl
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH - For tax protesters across the country, Bedford businessman Richard Simkanin has become a hero and martyr for taking a stance against federal income taxes and rejecting the authority of the federal courts.Simkanin has been jailed since June while awaiting trial on tax charges. He accepted a plea bargain that was later thrown out because of a technical error, saw his first trial end in a mistrial and will face a retrial Monday.

Here's the link

Posted 1/05/2004 06:47:00 AM by Dick

What's Going On in Ft. Worth Today?

Received from John Dulanay:

Sent from the Internet (Details)

What's going on in Ft. Worth should tell any "thinking" American that there is no justice in this country when a tax issue comes to court. Both the prosecutor and judge are against the defendant, and the "lap dog judge" will do everything in his power to see that the defendant is convicted in criminal or loses in a civil.

---- Original Message -----
From: Tally Eddings


The newly defined Department of Treasury definition of "Income" relates ONLY
to Estates and Trusts if you read closely and don't let them hood wink you
as they always try to do. Read it for yourselves and see.

Dick Simkanin has been prohibited by the Judge on motion from the Government
from presenting his visual assists as he did in explaining his reasoning and
understanding in the first trial which resulted in an 11 to 1 jury and was
dismissed. Simkanin can APPEAL this ruling prior to his trial. I hope his
attorneys told him this and did so. How can a man NOT be allowed to
adequately present his case?

Why is the jury being sequestered PRIOR to selection, bused to the court
house, snuck in through the back door and prevented from using the same bath
rooms as the public at the trial? We know. The Judge and Prosecution don't
want the Jury to receive those "JURY RIGHTS" phamplets that some got in the
last trial and knew the truth, not what the Judge instructed them. How is
it that in MURDER, RAPE, CHILD ABUSE and major crimes such tactics are not
done but in a TAX CASE they are? Because the IRS and Government MUST have
complete control in order to get a conviction. Therefore, no ecvidence in
defense, no visuals, no witnesses, no law.

NO JUSTICE!

------------------

119293.

Posted 1/05/2004 06:37:00 AM by Dick

More Kilroy Sitings....

Mon Jan 5 04 08:06:06 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
unable to detect referrer
(JavaScript not enabled in visitor's browser)
149.101.1.124
wdcsun24.usdoj.gov



Mon Jan 5 04 08:00:19 AM
dicksimkanin.blogspot.com
Go : search.msn.com
208.27.202.124
rch5.gtwy.uscourts.gov



May the glory, power, blessings and forgiveness of of the Lord God Jesus Christ's energy, light, truth and love continue to flow into our wonderful country.

For all truth is in the light.

Our prayers are with Dick Simkanin and his family.

Peace and God Bless,

119293.