Andrew JacksonSend Those "Tax " Terrorists PackingFri Apr 15, 2005 13:3718.104.22.168
Add Yourself to Our e-Mail List!
15 April 05 - Self Fleecing Shoeple aid Evil Miscreants -
Appeal Exposes Sham Tax Trial
Simkanin Appeal Underway - [http://www.metaphysical-store.com/thestore/prods/6CELT-03.html] - Play It Loud Boys! Hear the Pipes! Hear the Drums !
ZOG/DOJ Responds - [http://www.klang.com/]
Texas business owner Dick Simkanin's appeal is finally underway in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
This appeal is being made after two failed attempts by the government (in 2001 and 2002), before two separate grand juries to indict Simkanin (after hearing direct testimony from him), a successful indictment by a grand jury (where Simkanin was prevented from testifying), one mis-trial ending in a "hung jury" (where Simkanin testified freely on the witness stand), a second patently flawed criminal trial (and conviction) that made a mockery of Justice and Simkanin’s Due Process rights, and 21 months of incarceration.
Simkanin is appealing his conviction for multiple tax charges stemming from his belief that no law required him to withhold taxes from the paychecks of his workers and no law required him to file a federal tax return.
Attorneys for Simkanin filed an appellate brief detailing the miscarriage of justice Simkanin endured at the hands of his prosecutors and a once-suspended federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas. The Department of Justice has submitted its response brief. Simkanin’s attorneys will soon file a Reply Brief. The Court of Appeals will then hear oral arguments, before issuing its decision.
The Due Process violations argued in Simkanin's appeal include both the errors federal District Court Judge McBryde committed during trial and the errors committed by Judge McBryde in doubling Simkanin's sentence above the federal guidelines. Note: Simkanin had NO previous criminal record, he had made enormous positive contributions to both his family and community throughout his life and, before deciding, in 2000, to stop withholding, he had repeatedly sought answers from his elected representatives and from the IRS to legitimate questions about the legality of the operation of the individual income tax system. All of his requests for answers fell on deaf ears.
Although WTP’s updates during and immediately following Simkanin’s trial identified many potential issues that could have been used as a basis for reversing the convictions, Simkanin’s appellate attorneys have focused on three legal arguments:
Because it was an element of the crimes he was charged with, the District Court erred when it instructed the jury, as fact, that Simkanin was under a legal obligation to withhold taxes, and
That the judge abused his discretion in failing to issue a legally proper instruction to the jury regarding the “good-faith” aspect of “willfulness,” that is, an instruction based on the definition of willfulness as previously supplied by the United States Supreme Court, and
In violation of Simkanin’s due process Rights, the court erred when it refused to allow Simkanin to submit a single piece of evidence, or to allow Simkanin to testify about what he learned about the law, or to allow Simkanin’s attorney to fully examine the witnesses.
With regard to Judge McBryde's doubling of Simknain's recommended sentence, the appeal challenges McBryde's improper consideration of Simkanin's political beliefs, Simkanin's association with We The People organization, and McBryde’s improper reliance on “facts” that were never before the jury.
In its response brief, the Department of Justice concedes that Judge McBryde (in answering a question from the jury) did specifically instruct the jury that Simkanin's company (Arrow) “did have a legal duty to collect, by withholding from the wages of its employees.…”
However, and most incredulously, DOJ goes on to argue that this instruction by McBryde to the jury did not constitute the forbidden “directed verdict” because, DOJ argues, the jury was free to disagree with the Judge. Specifically, DOJ argues that the jury was, “...free to find that Arrow's workers were not employees and that the remuneration paid to them, therefore, was not subject to employment taxes.” [emphasis added]
In defending the Judge's unlawful instruction to the jury, DOJ, in effect, argues that the jury was free to disagree with the Judge’s instruction to the jury by relying upon its (the jury’s) vast storehouse of knowledge of the Internal Revenue Laws and Regulations.
Consider the audacity of DOJ’s statement and the reckless disregard for Justice displayed by the federal government’s highest law enforcement agency. After the DOJ and the Judge blocked Simkanin from presenting exculpatory evidence to the jury regarding the legal meaning of the term “employee” and Simkanin’s legal obligation to withhold taxes, and after the Judge subsequently instructed the Jury that Simkanin’s workers were "employees" under the law and legally subject to withholding -- DOJ now argues that no due process violation occurred because the twelve ordinary citizens on the jury, with no apparent knowledge or understanding of the 9000 pages of the Internal Revenue Code, were “free” to reach a conclusion in direct opposition to the Judge’s instruction, i.e., concluding that Simkanin's workers were not “employees” as defined under U.S. tax law. This was, of course, the key issue in the trial.
The government also argues that the charge to the jury regarding willfulness was legally adequate, that Simkanin's attorneys were to blame for the court's refusal to admit any evidence into trial because Simkanin was arguing the validity of the tax laws as opposed to his understanding of the tax laws, and that Simkanin's doubled sentence was justified based on the fact that his personal and political views indicated a likelihood of committing additional crimes.
Simkanin was one of five business owners featured as part of a series of full-page ads (http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org/ads) sponsored by the We The People Foundation appearing in the nationwide edition of USA TODAY in 2001 and 2002 that exposed many details of the income tax fraud.
Simkanin's first trial (November, 2003) ended with a hung-jury that refused to convict him after DOJ attorneys failed to establish for the Court record that ordinary workers of privately owned American businesses are “employees” as the term is legally defined and applied throughout the Internal Revenue Code.
In the end, Simkanin was convicted without the government ever averring ANY specific U.S. statute that required Simkanin to withhold taxes for his workers – or file – or pay wage taxes. Again – NO specific law imposing a legal duty upon Simkanin was ever cited by the government in the indictment, in any pre-trial pleading, or at trial.
RIGHT-Click Here to download Simkanin's Appellate Brief.
[http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-03-30.htm] - [http://www.arrowplastics.net/criminal/]
Main Page -
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES