Suijuris Forums - View Single Post

#1 05-01-2004, 09:20 PM

Some of you may have already seen this case, unbelievable as always. Look at the tax laws, how can you possibly lose is the question. I'll tell you, a corrupt government not willing to follow its own laws.
<TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width="100%"></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="100%">
4-30-04
Simkanin Sentenced: 84 Months

Judge McBryde Doubles Recommended Sentence
Appeal Underway - Your Help Needed
Texas business owner, loyal American, loving husband and political prisoner Richard M. Simkanin was sentenced today to 84 months following his January conviction for willful failure to withhold and willful failure to file "income" taxes.
After several hours of legal wrestling related to findings and recommendations included in Simkanin's pre-sentencing report, USDC Judge John McBryde imposed the sentence that is approximately double what was indicated by the "point system" criteria utilized in the federal sentencing guidelines.
During the day, McBryde also sentenced two other individuals on federal charges including a bank robber and a wife-beating firearms dealer. Their combined sentences were less than half that received by Simkanin. 
Although arguably unreasonable given the circumstances of his "crimes", the upward departure from the sentencing guidelines was not unexpected given McBryde's well documented history of judicial abuses on the federal bench, his collusion with the DOJ and IRS, and his determination to direct a guilty verdict.

Simkanin's legal contentions include the following:
<UL>
<UL>
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that people had to supply him with a social security number before they could be allowed to work for him, which is not true.1
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that his workers were compelled to submit a federal W-4 withholding certificate in order to work for him, which is not true.2
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that neither his company, nor his workers could terminate a W-4 withholding certificate, which is not true.3
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that his workers fit the definition of "employee" under the internal revenue laws, which is not true.4
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that his company was a "withholding agent," under the internal revenue code, which is not true.5
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that his personal earnings as well as the earnings of his workers were taxable under the internal revenue laws, which is not true.6
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that his company was required to make returns or statements of payments to his workers, which is not true.7
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that his workers were compelled to participate in the Social Security entitlement program, which is not true.8
<LI>
He had been misled to believe that the internal revenue laws define what is meant by "income" which is not true.1 </LI>[/list][/list]<DIV id=sdfootnote1>
1 See the March 18, 1999 letter from Charles Mullen, Director Office of Public Inquiries of Social Security Administration.
2 See 31 CFR 215.2(n) (1), 215.6, 215.9 and 215.11. See also 26 USC 3402 (p)(3)(A).
3 See 26 CFR 31.3402(p)-1(b)(2).
4 See 26 USC 3401(c), 3121(d), and 3306 (i).
5 See 26 USC 7701(a)16, 26 CFR 301.7701-16 and 26 USC 1441 through 1446, 6201, and 6301.
6 See 26 CFR 1.863-1(c) and 26 CFR 1.861-1.
7 See 26 USC 6401.
8 See Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330.
9 See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206</DIV>
Simkanin's primary contention is that he is NOT, and CANNOT be under our Constitution, an "employer" as legally defined by the Internal Revenue Code, and therefore is NOT under a legal duty to withhold or file for his "employees". The legal definitions as defined in the Internal Revenue Code statutes are as follows:
26 USC 3401(d):<PRE>c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an
officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a
State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of
the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a
corporation.

(d) Employer

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the
person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of
whatever nature, as the employee of such person[...]</PRE>

Simkanin's legal battle involved multiple Grand Jury presentments, a November 2003 hung jury and re-trial, the denial of bail to Simkanin (who had no criminal record), a non-public voir dire proceeding, the sealing and alteration of trial transcripts and the well-documented denial of due process during the trial.
The most telling proofs of judicial manipulation were McBryde's improper directed findings of critical facts to the jury (e.g., that Simkanin was an employer liable to withhold), ruling that Simkanin could not enter a single piece of paper as defense evidence and McBryde's repeated quashing of testimony when he (Simkanin) attempted to put on a defense by explaining the content of the Constitution's taxing clauses and the content of federal tax law and how he relied on the words of the law to determine his actions.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>