The Vicious and Unlawful Persecution of Dick Simkanin

by Dottie: Harrison

Notice: This writing is copyrighted. However, I give my permission and encourage people to copy and distribute it provided either Part I or Part II (or both of them together) is used in its entirety. No editing is allowed.

Despot:
1. A ruler with absolute power.
2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.

Part I.

Even though I have first-hand knowledge of the rampant corruption in the judicial system, never in my wildest imaginings did I envision the rape of justice that I witnessed in the trial of Richard (Dick) Simkanin. U.S. District Judge John McBryde maliciously denied Mr. Simkanin the right to use the law in his defense. Judge McBryde had obviously decided that Mr. Simkanin is “guilty” and through his heavy-handed, tyrannical, and unlawful manipulation of due process, even to the point of lying to the jury about the law, Judge McBryde literally left the jury with no choice but to find Mr. Simkanin guilty.

Time after time, Judge McBryde abruptly cut off testimony in mid-sentence that he thought would so much as suggest the innocence of Mr. Simkanin, including testimony regarding Mr. Simkanin’s character, stating such testimony was “beyond the scope.” Time after time, Judge McBryde disallowed testimony that would have proved Mr. Simkanin’s innocence without a doubt, including the reading of the law verbatim to the jury, ruling such testimony was “beyond the scope.” On the other hand, Judge McBryde allowed the prosecution to question Mr. Simkanin and other witnesses about matters clearly irrelevant to the case which were designed to erroneously and negatively reflect on Mr. Simkanin’s character and credibility. Time after time, Judge McBryde stated that he would instruct the jury what the law is regardless of what the evidence might show. And indeed he did.

What laws has Mr. Simkanin broken that resulted in his incarceration since June of 2003? What kind of dangerous criminal are we being protected from as Mr. Simkanin is escorted into the courthouse doing the “jailhouse shuffle,” heavily manacled hand and foot? (Mr. Simkanin was imprisoned to await his trial because Judge McBryde declared this 59-year-old business owner a “flight risk,” thus stripping Mr. Simkanin of his personal freedom and his ability to run his business.)

This outrage is simply the IRS’ desperate unlawful attempt to “make an example” of Mr. Simkanin in order that their “rule by fear” is not diminished. This criminal attempt to “make an example” of Mr. Simkanin was successful only because the crime was aided and abetted by U.S. District Judge John Henry McBryde.

What did Mr. Simkanin do? Nothing but follow the law. Indeed, Mr. Simkanin has always stated emphatically and unequivocally that he wants to pay every penny of taxes that he lawfully owes. He has repeatedly requested the IRS to simply show him the law that makes him liable for the taxes that the IRS is claiming. They have refused to show him any law. (They can’t – because no such law exists.) Instead the IRS has launched a vicious unlawful assault against Mr. Simkanin clearly with the intent to devastate his family and his business.

If the IRS is right, why don’t they simply show us the law -- and thereby put an end, once and for all, to the questions they term “frivolous,” questions that are being asked via the Freedom of Information Act by thousands upon thousands of people? Instead, the IRS repeatedly ignores and fails to answer the questions that under the Freedom of Information Act they are legally required to answer!

Dick Simkanin, 59, is the owner of Arrow Custom Plastics in Bedford, Texas (the Fort Worth area). About eight years ago, Mr. Simkanin became aware that a multitude of knowledgeable people are denying the commonly accepted authority of the IRS with regard to certain taxing activities. Not willing to accept these statements without question, Mr. Simkanin began to do his own research. His extensive study and research over a period of seven or eight years resulted in what he believes to be the largest personal legal library in the state of Texas. His library includes the bloated Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Mr. Simkanin’s research revealed that within its purposely convoluted 7,000 pages, the IRC lists quite specifically the types of businesses that are required to withhold social security, medicare, and federal income taxes from their workers’ pay – contrary to the commonly held belief that all businesses are required to act as withholding agents for the IRS. Pursuant to the IRC, Mr. Simkanin’s business is not the type of business that is required to withhold those taxes, although he is not prohibited from voluntarily doing so. Therefore, according to the IRC, Mr. Simkanin had no legal duty to withhold taxes from his workers. Further, Mr. Simkanin learned from the Internal Revenue Code that filling out a W-4 by a worker is voluntary, not mandatory as commonly believed – which false common belief is fostered by the IRS. Indeed, the W-4 is the voluntary authorization to withhold taxes.

In addition, Mr. Simkanin found, contrary to another commonly held belief, that filing a 1040 and paying a personal income tax is voluntary on the part of most Americans… and in those cases where the filing is voluntary, any requirement to file or pay taxes is prohibited under the Constitution. The IRS fosters this false belief – and even forces “compliance” at gunpoint. They are able to enforce their power only through force, intimidation, and fear. Mr. Simkanin continued to uncover fraud after fraud perpetrated by the IRS, including the fact that participation in the social security program (and “contributions” to it) is voluntary as well…contrary to still another commonly held belief.

Even with the facts that Mr. Simkanin uncovered, he continued to search out the opinions, advice, and knowledge of others who corroborated his findings before he took any action with regard to those facts. Mr. Simkanin consulted with Ed Rivera, a well-known tax attorney in California. He sought information from Joseph Banister, former IRS agent with the Criminal Investigation Division who ultimately discovered the truth, resigned his high-paying position with the IRS, and devoted his life to exposing the fraud. Mr. Simkanin discussed the issues with Bob Schulz of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education (www.givemeliberty.org), who encourages employers to quit withholding taxes from their workers’ paychecks. Mr. Simkanin obtained information from Larken Rose, who is an outspoken critic of the IRS and who publishes the facts of the IRS fraud and criminal activity on his web site www.taxableincome.net. Additionally, Mr. Simkanin obtained advice from CPA Wayne Paul, brother of Ron Paul, a Texas Congressman.

Because Mr. Simkanin is a man of honesty and integrity, he decided now that he knew the truth, his conscience would not allow him to continue participating in the IRS’ theft by deception. Consequently, he quit withholding taxes from his workers’ paychecks. He requested a refund on behalf of his workers for taxes withheld during the previous few years. And he quit paying personal income tax.

WHAT? If you’re like most folks who have not studied these issues, you will probably think, “Well, if people just quit paying their income taxes like this, how are we going to run the government? If people like him get away with it, that means I’ll have to pay more.”

Not true. First of all, every bit of government we need could be financed with excise taxes and other similarly lawful taxes. For example, are you aware that you pay approximately 40 cents of taxes for every gallon of gasoline? Did you ever look at your phone bills and your utility bills and pay attention to how much you are being taxed through those bills? What do you think “your” income taxes pay for? Guess what. Almost 100 percent go toward the national debt, which, incidentally, will never be paid off, by design. To whom do we owe the national debt? Well, that would be the Federal Reserve Bank, which is anything but “federal.” The Federal Reserve Bank creates “money” out of thin air, with absolutely nothing of substance to back it up, and then charges you and me interest on the privilege of using that bogus “money.” Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank? Well, that would be a number of wealthy individuals and entities, some foreign, such as the Rothchilds. But I digress….the point is that once you begin to dig and you uncover the fraud in one area, other areas begin to be revealed. It’s like peeling an onion, layer by layer.

Why is Mr. Simkanin being viciously targeted by the IRS like this, when there are literally thousands who have discovered the IRS fraud and who are doing the exact thing Mr. Simkanin has done? The answer is that for one thing, Mr. Simkanin is “high profile.” Once he discovered the truth, he contributed financially to some of those who are working to expose the IRS fraud and he openly declares the truth. For example, Mr. Simkanin helped pay for a full page color ad in USA Today by We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education and he allowed his picture to be printed with the ad.

Perhaps the IRS considered Mr. Simkanin to be the easiest target among those who openly declare the fraud of the IRS and who openly declare they do not pay unlawful taxes. Of those who testified at Mr. Simkanin’s trial – (testified as best they could anyway, being prevented by Judge McBryde from saying anything of substance in support of Mr. Simkanin):

(1) Bob Schulz, chairman of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, says “An arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable government that has no respect for the precious liberties of every American citizen is destroying our sacred Bill of Rights – our Rights, Liberties and Freedoms.” On his web site www.givemeliberty.org, Mr. Schultz explains why people are legally and morally justified to stop filing and paying. Mr. Schulz has lead marches on Washington, politely petitioning the government for redress of grievances, having submitted 537 questions to the US Government that they have ignored and refused to answer. Mr. Schulz and We the People are organizing a class-action lawsuit against the government for redress of the grievances mentioned in this article, plus others. (Visit their web site to join the lawsuit.) Mr. Schulz has openly declared that he does not pay personal income taxes, and he encourages workers to quit withholding taxes from their workers’ paychecks. So far, the IRS has not gone after Mr. Schulz. They probably consider him to be too powerful and to have too much support.

(2) Joseph Banister, former IRS Special Agent with the Criminal Investigation Division, teaches people about the IRS fraud. Mr. Banister learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate. See his web site, www.freedomabovefortune.com. Although the IRS has attempted to silence Joe Banister, so far they have been unable to do so. With their last attempt, they intended to hold a “star chamber” hearing at a military base on an island off the coast of California so that no supporters could be present. The public outcry was so great that the government was forced to schedule the hearing inland. Mr. Banister is still not imprisoned, nor has he been.

(3) Ed Rivera, California attorney, was sued by the Department of Justice for “falsely advising customers that they do not have to pay federal taxes.” Mr. Rivera chose not to attend their proceeding, knowing full well that the outcome of these matters is decided beforehand. They succeeded, only to a degree, in silencing him. They got a default injunction against him, forcing him to take down his web site. Mr. Rivera previously offered a lot of free information through emails and through is web site; now he gives it only to paid clients. Mr. Rivera has not been prosecuted. The IRS must think he also is too powerful and well known.

(4) Larken Rose, a private individual who has taken the time to educate himself about the IRS fraud. He and his wife support themselves and their young child with a medical transcription business. Larken is quite vocal about the fact that he doesn’t pay personal income taxes, and on his web site www.taxableincome.net Larken gives proof of why millions of us are NOT liable. Larken says, “IRS employees across the country refuse to honestly address the issue, and instead resort to threats, evasions, and accusations, because their own law books expose the biggest financial fraud in history: the misrepresentation and misapplication of the federal income tax. The nationwide pattern of Gestapo-like tactics by the IRS and DOJ against those who speak the truth is shown in detail at www.Theft-By-Deception.com/declaration.html.” On his web site Larken also posts “Operation Glove in the Face – Please Prosecute Me.” He says, “I will not stand by and allow myself, my family and my neighbors to be extorted simply because some power-happy bureaucrats huff and puff about all the nasty things they will do to anyone who does not “comply” with the IRS’ misapplication of the law. To the DOJ and the IRS I say this: You know I am among the most vocal about this issue. Stop terrorizing the American public, and come get me. Make an “example” of me. Surely if my position is “frivolous” and completely devoid of merit, then the DOJ attorneys can easily refute my position in front of a jury, and have me convicted and imprisoned. (I’m not exactly hiding, am I?) You already have what would be “Exhibit A” in my defense: my Theft By Deception video. So take your best shot.” Although the IRS has terrorized the Rose family, storming into their home and holding Larken, his wife, and their young daughter at gunpoint while they searched his entire home and illegally “confiscated” (stole) copies of his videos “Theft by Deception,” Larken has not been charged with any crime. Perhaps the IRS considers Larken Rose too public a figure as well.

So – at around 8:00 p.m. on January 7, 2004, the jury judged Dick Simkanin “guilty” on 29 counts. Several times the jury had sent valid questions to the court. One of those questions was, “Please give us a full wording of the law(s) that the defendant allegedly broke that indicate he is guilty of a crime.” The judge refused to provide the law, telling the jury they didn’t need to concern themselves with that. Another question was, “Since no proof has been offered that the defendant is an employer that is required to collect taxes listed within the 7,000 pages, should we assume he is NOT one of those required?” Here the judge told the jury that they were not to concern themselves with that, and then Judge McBryde blatantly lied and instructed the jury that Arrow Custom Plastics is an employer required to collect taxes.

The jury asked the right questions. They just didn’t get the correct answers.

In sentencing, which won’t be until April 2004, Mr. Simkanin could receive five years imprisonment for each of the 29 counts. In the meantime, he will, of course, remain in jail.

Remember what I said in the first paragraph? The jury in trial number two of Mr. Simkanin had no choice – if they were to follow the orders of Judge McBryde – and this time Judge McBryde made sure that jurors knew none of their rights. This time, the potential jurors were sequestered PRIOR to selection, bused to the courthouse, snuck in through the back door, and prevented from using the same bathrooms as the public at the trial. The judge and prosecution were terrified that the jury would receive those "JURY RIGHTS" pamphlets that some jurors received prior to Mr. Simkanin’s last trial and thus knew the truth…such as the right of “jury nullification.” (See http://www.caught.net/juror.htm for “A Citizen’s Guide to Jury Duty.”) Because the first jury knew the truth, the result was a mistrial with an 11 to 1 vote for acquittal.

This matter is far from over. Naturally, there will be an appeal – pouring even more money into the “criminal justice” system. Anyone would have to be nuts to believe Mr. Simkanin is going through this persecution to avoid paying taxes if he had a legal duty to do so. Mr. Simkanin is demonstrating great courage in standing up for TRUTH! The emperor has no clothes and the people are waking up!

Thursday, January 8, 2004 – In the heading of an article by Max Baker, staff reporter, Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “Justice was served, and we’re pleased that the jury understood that no one is above the law.” – Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jarvis.

No one is above the law? No one but our own government and our own judges, that is. Stay strong, Dick. We applaud your courage. Many are working diligently to ensure that the IRS and our government have to obey the law. Mr. Jarvis and Judge McBryde, how do you and your ilk sleep at night? You have sold your souls for some pieces of silver.

Part II.

The Trial….

Above I have given a factual account. Here I will recount details of the trial, and my experiences of the trial along with some feelings that the procedure invoked.

8:30 a.m., January 5, 2004. Harry and I arrived at the U.S. courthouse in Fort Worth. We shivered on the street in the sub-freezing wind and held one of the banners provided by “We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education” which demanded justice for Dick Simkanin – and the impeachment of Judge McBryde. The numerous sign holders were not allowed to stand anywhere near where the signs might be seen by potential jurors being bused in.

Around 11:30 Harry and I went into the courthouse. Now, in addition to being practically strip-searched before being admitted to a federal building, we are not allowed to bring in cell phones or photographic equipment. Folks, these people are not afraid of “terrorists.” They’re protecting themselves from us, because they’re afraid that sooner or later enough people will WAKE UP to what they’re doing to us – and reach the point where we say, NO MORE! There’s no longer any pretense that these are OUR buildings and our PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Voir dire had been completed and the jury selected. Judge McBryde’s courtroom had an extremely small “spectator” area, with seating for about 55 maximum. After court personnel and reporters took up a couple of rows, seating for about 45 supporters remained. I’m guessing that a couple of hundred people were there, from all over the state and the country, including Hawaii, Colorado, Florida, Indiana…to bear witness to the persecution of Dick Simkanin. Those who couldn’t get into the courtroom waited in the hallway. Both the courtroom and the hallway were crawling with U.S. Marshals.

The jury consisted of eight men and six women including two alternates. Three of the women and two of the men were fairly young, and the rest were an older group.

Carved into the wall near the ceiling above Judge McBryde’s head: “Reason is the life of the law. Nay the common law itself is nothing but reason.” We read this as Judge McBryde continuously made a mockery of the law and trashed any semblance of justice.

Judge McBryde ordered the courtroom doors to be locked. Federal Marshals guarded the door. No one could get in except during a break.

Instances in which Judge McBryde interfered with justice, practiced law from the bench, and/or lied outright:

Judge McBryde would not allow the reading from the Internal Revenue Code the definition of “employee” to the jury. What? Mr. Simkanin is being charged with willful failure to withhold from his “employee’s” paychecks. What if the definition showed his workers are not “employees” under the IRC? (They aren’t.)
Upon hearing a statement that social security is voluntary, Judge McBryde exclaimed, “That is NOT true.” Wow! Practicing law from the bench, and lying to the jury in the process! Contrary to the false but commonly held belief, participating in social security is voluntary.
In reference to FICA, Medicare, and Social Security taxes, Judge McBryde commented, “…what the law requires to be withheld from wages.” He deceived the jury by telling them an outright lie. Contrary to commonly held belief, the law requires these taxes to be withheld from some workers’ paychecks, not all by a long shot.
In hearing testimony about what Mr. Simkanin had paid in taxes up to a certain time, Judge McBryde added the comments, …. “he paid what he was required to pay.” …suggesting to the jury that when Mr. Simkanin stopped withholding, he stopped “paying what he was required to pay.” Another lie.
Every time Mr. Simkanin’s attorney would say (to any witness), “You testified that….”, Judge McBryde would break in with, “You don’t need to repeat what he testified to.” (Repetition is important because maybe the jury didn’t hear it the first time. Or if they did, repetition helps to fix the statement in their minds.)
On the other hand, when Judge McBryde wanted to make something stick in the minds of the jurors, he himself would say to a witness, “You testified that….” and then he repeated the testimony himself.

Judge McBryde would not let Arch McColl (Mr. Simkanin’s attorney) ask about what in the Code mentions a C-corporation regarding the accrual method of accounting.
Judge McBryde denied the definition of “employee” from the IRC to be read to the jury. Judge McBryde’s refusal was followed with a comment by the prosecution that “it’s irrelevant anyway,” at which point the audience spontaneously broke out in derisive laughter. (Judge McBryde then threatened to clear the courtroom if there was any further laughter.)

Judge McBryde would not allow a copy of the Constitution to be shown with regard to certain incomes that are exempt from taxes. He instructed the jury that they were not to be concerned with the Constitution.

Judge McBryde would not let McColl discuss “gross income.”

Judge McBryde would not allow a question about whether everyone is legally required to have a social security number. He refused to let the jury hear the truth that is contrary to commonly held belief.
In one of the few times that Judge McBryde sustained an objection by McColl – this one was “objection – asked and answered,” Judge McBryde nevertheless then went ahead and repeated the answer himself in order to fix it in the minds of the jurors.
When McColl asked the question beginning with, “Are there Supreme Court cases that….” Judge McBryde cut him off right there, stating “beyond the scope.” He broke in before McColl even got the sentence out of his mouth. Now the prosecution doesn’t even have to enter their own objections….the judge is doing it for them! What? The defense can’t mention Supreme Court cases that would support the innocence of Mr. Simkanin?

When Judge McBryde had overruled still another of McColl’s objections, McColl said, “I think I can say…” and Judge McBryde rudely cut him off saying, “If I need a response I’ll invite one.”

Several times when Judge McBryde thought the prosecution might be opening up a can of worms during direct, something that might lead to questions on redirect that would point to Mr. Simkanin’s innocence, he would call both lawyers to the bench so he could advise the prosecution to tighten up so as not to allow McColl leeway to ask any relevant questions on redirect. (Not that he hesitated to disallow testimony or questions whenever he felt like it anyway.)

5:30 p.m. – juror number 4 (one of the young women) has her head thrown back, mouth open, fast asleep. No one said a word to wake her up.

McColl again tried to get the definition of an employee under the IRC into the record. Judge McBryde stopped him and said he will not allow any more about this subject. I become more outraged at everything that comes out of the mouth of this despot who is appointed for life as a judge. What’s wrong with this picture!

With the question to IRS Special Agent Allan McGowan, “Do you recall testifying before the grand jury a year ago?”…the judge struck the question, stating the subject was “beyond the scope.” Judge McBryde cut off any reference to “grand juries” because he refused to allow the jury to have the knowledge that Mr. Simkanin has been subjected to four grand jury hearings, in which:

number 1, he was allowed to present his evidence – result, no indictment

number 2, he was allowed to present his evidence – result, no indictment

number 3, he was NOT allowed to present his evidence – result, indictment

(Nor about the first trial, which resulted in 11 to 1 for acquittal)

number 4, he was NOT allowed to present his evidence – result, another indictment

The first day was adjourned around 7:00 p.m.

8:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 6, 2004

As we waited for the elevator to take us to the fourth floor, the Federal Marshals ordered everyone back so prisoners could be brought in. We were stunned to see Mr. Simkanin herded in among other prisoners, heavily manacled hand and foot. I will never forget that sight – or the way I felt when I saw Mr. Simkanin being treated worse than cattle. Especially when he has broken no laws! In a way, I almost wish I hadn’t seen it, because I nearly become physically ill just to think about it. But I’m glad I did to the extent that witnessing this unconscionable outrage generated a special resolve that THIS KIND OF INJUSTICE MUST END!

We waited in a group near the courtroom door for them to unlock and let us in. We wanted to make sure we got a seat. Those who didn’t get one of the coveted seats had to wait in the hall and get news from others at the breaks.

The proceedings had not yet started. Neither the judge nor the jury was in the room. A man behind me was reading a newspaper story about the previous day in the courtroom. An arrogant U.S. Marshal told him he couldn’t read a newspaper in the courtroom. I was so outraged by this arrogance that I went up to him and asked his name: David Davidson, he told me in a hostile voice. And then he asked me MY name in a threatening manner.

The audience broke into a standing ovation when Mr. Simkanin was brought into the room. Judge McBryde still wasn’t in the courtroom, but he heard the applause. He sent one of his goons…uh, marshals, out to warn us that the courtroom would be cleared in the event of any more applause.

Multiple Federal Marshals always stood within a few feet of Mr. Simkanin, like he had any possibility of escaping even if that would be his intent. This is all for intimidation, a show of how powerful they are, of how they can control us.

Agent Allan McGowan was recalled. He testified that Mr. Simkanin was “required to file a 1040,” which is a lie. But because the lie is a commonly held belief, the jury believed it. Again, Judge McBryde would not allow McColl to do a proper cross examination.

Mr. Simkanin took the stand. He was an excellent witness in his own behalf, articulate and obviously intelligent and knowledgeable about the law. However, Judge McBryde kept cutting him off in mid-sentence during his testimony, refusing to allow any testimony that would prove Mr. Simkanin’s innocence. At one point Mr. Simkanin managed to say, “Income is not defined in the tax code.” The government had objected to almost everything else out of Mr. Simkanin’s mouth – and had their objections sustained – but they were absolutely silent now. If the LAW is on their side, why didn’t they jump up and say, “Yes it is….it’s right here….” Well, we KNOW why. Mr. Simkanin is telling the truth and the government is LYING...and the crime of his unlawful conviction and incarceration is being aided and abetted by the criminal participation of Judge John Henry McBryde.
Judge McBryde would not allow Mr. Simkanin or his attorney to quote from a Supreme Court case that would support Mr. Simkanin’s innocence, asserting “We’re not going to allow you to quote legal opinion here.” If “legal opinion” (of the Supreme Court) can’t be quoted in a courtroom, where the hell can it be quoted?
Judge McBryde kept repeating the he was going to instruct the jury what the law is – what he interprets the law to be – regardless of the evidence presented. (Not that he was allowing any meaningful evidence to be presented anyway.)
Judge McBryde even denied a GAO report to be admitted into evidence! (That’s the General Accounting Office – the government’s own form could not be used as evidence!)
Wayne Paul, CPA, could not be present to testify because he is very ill with Parkinson’s disease. Judge McBryde would not allow Mr. Simkanin to say why Mr. Paul was not there to testify, which created confusion in the minds of the jurors. Why would someone who had advised Mr. Simkanin fail to come and testify?
Judge McBryde would not allow any questions or testimony regarding remuneration to IRS agents in criminal actions. (The agents are rewarded handsomely in relation to money they collect from “taxpayers,” which is reason enough in itself for their aggressive acts of persecution.)
Judge McBryde would not let Mr. Simkanin quote any of the code from the 7,000 pages of the IRC manuals, even though the books were laid out right in front of him to read from verbatim. Judge McBryde thereby prevented the jury from hearing irrefutable proof that Mr. Simkanin has broken no laws!
Mr. Simkanin stated that he had found discrepancies in BMFs and IMFs. (The IRS’ Business Master Files and Individual Master Files.) Nevertheless, Judge McBryde would not allow the testimony of Forensic Accounting expert Victoria Osborn regarding the BMFs and IMFs – nor did the jury even know that she had come from Colorado to testify on behalf of Mr. Simkanin. Judge McBryde said her testimony would be “beyond the scope.” Judge McBryde conducted the discussion about whether Ms. Osborn could testify while the jury was out of the room. He did not want the jury to know that a Forensic Accounting expert was eager to testify on behalf of Mr. Simkanin.
A statement was made that the 1040 form has never been published in the Federal Register – which it must be in order to be a valid form. The government didn’t touch that one, and the jury obviously missed the significance.
In examination about the law versus the misleading information in the IRS publications and the IRS web site, Judge McBryde called the attorneys to the bench to change the direction of the questioning so McColl would not be able to ask anything substantial of the witness.
Mr. Simkanin stated he was entitled to the refund that he requested on behalf of his workers, and cited the Internal Revenue Code to prove it. The government was silent and did not object, even though one of the “charges” against Mr. Simkanin is “filing false claims for refunds.” They were silent because they couldn’t refute Mr. Simkanin’s testimony – and they didn’t want to call attention to it. By citing the law Mr. Simkanin proved his case with regard to the “false claims” charge – but his testimony went right over the heads of the jurors – especially since Judge McBryde instructed the jury contrary to the law.
When Mr. Simkanin mentioned his seven or eight years of study of the Code’s 7,000 pages, he said “I still don’t know it all.” As he continued, “My heart goes out to the poor wage earner who….,” Judge McBryde cut him off in mid-sentence. Judge McBryde didn’t want the jurors to consider what an incomprehensible burden the tax code is to the average person.
When McColl asked Mr. Simkanin if his business had suffered (because of this persecution), Judge McBryde would not allow an answer. Mr. Simkanin managed to get out, “Truth is truth,” meaning his actions have been taken in support of the truth. (Indeed his business has suffered greatly.)
Mr. Simkanin quoted Proverbs 3:9, “Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the first fruits of all your crops.” (It doesn’t say that the “first fruits” (withholding) shall go to the government.) When asked by McColl if there were other reasons why Mr. Simkanin didn’t withhold, the government objected. Objection sustained. Judge McBryde refused to let Mr. Simkanin cite the laws that would prove his innocence. Mr. Simkanin knows the laws and can cite them chapter and verse with no stammering, no stuttering, no hesitation.
The government cross examined and dragged Mr. Simkanin through testimony about the ratification of the 16th amendment, his former notice of expatriation from the United States, the fact that he had chosen not to have a driver’s license, and all sorts of issues that had nothing to do with his case. Judge McBryde allowed all of this irrelevant questioning and testimony. I don’t even recall objections from McColl about this.
Finally, with questions ad nauseam about the driver’s license issue, McColl finally did object. Overruled.
Mr. Simkanin mentioned that Title 31 does not list the IRS as an agency of the Department of the Treasury. Judge McBryde browbeat Mr. Simkanin into answering “yes” to whether he disputes the IRS is an agency of the Treasury. (It isn’t, despite another commonly held false belief, but Judge McBryde insists that it is. In fact, in an Idaho court case, the IRS plainly states that it is not an agency of the United States.)
Judge McBryde did not allow McColl to discuss the 1040 on redirect, even though the government had already questioned about it. Judge McBryde was terribly abusive and arrogant. The prosecution is the only one that has the right to present their case. Judge McBryde is demonstrating despotism at its worst.
When Ed Rivera was on the stand, the government tried to discredit him by bringing up the injunction against him, which occurred approximately four years after his advice to Mr. Simkanin. Judge McBryde should not have allowed that kind of questioning.
When Joseph Banister was on the stand, Judge McBryde was true to form and disallowed any meaningful questions to Mr. Banister – even questions about whether he, Joe Banister, files tax returns. (Judge McBryde didn’t want the jury to hear that other people have discovered the fraud and are refusing to file.)
Judge McBryde kept interrupting the testimony of Bob Schulz, not allowing him to say much of anything meaningful. With the mention of Senator Inouye’s letter (which I believe regards the legality of the income tax), Judge McBryde would not even allow discussion of the content of the letter, much less allow having the letter read into the record.
With the government’s objection to Larken Rose’s testimony, Judge McBryde said Larken could continue…but added, “…whether it makes any sense or not” in order to instill doubt in the minds of the jurors. In addition to issuing what amounted to a directed verdict, Judge McBryde also kept continually throwing in little zingers like this to negatively influence the jury.
The government had asked each of the witnesses for Mr. Simkanin how much they had been paid to appear. The answer in every case was nothing but their plane fare and expenses. I’m sure the jury was not aware that expert witnesses usually charge big bucks to testify, and therefore the impact of that “free testimony” was lost on the jury. (I remember a recent high-profile [non IRS] case in Houston in which District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal paid a witness $105,000 of the taxpayers’ money for his testimony. Never mind that the testimony of this witness was subsequently discredited; the witness kept the money anyway.)

At one point Judge McBryde left the courtroom and the jury left the courtroom. I thought a break had been declared and I left to go to the bathroom. When I returned, the Federal Marshals refused to let me enter. I could see through the crack between the double doors that the judge was not in the room and absolutely nothing was going on. I was outraged by these Gestapo tactics. I told the marshals that I had been a court watcher in numerous courtrooms and never had I experienced a courtroom being locked. “Oh, it isn’t locked,” one replied. “Well, can I go in?” “No.” “Well, then, it is effectively locked!”

So I missed the closing arguments and the reading of the jury instructions to the jury. (Harry was still inside, and he reported that I didn’t miss much by way of the closing arguments.) It was reported to me that some 15 pages of jury instructions were read to the jury. The jurors asked for, and were refused, a written copy of the jury instructions. The jury began deliberating around 5:30 p.m. Around 7:30 they quit for the night.

Wednesday, January 7, 2004

Even on this third day, there remained a large crowd of Mr. Simkanin’s supporters in the hall. People were admitted inside the courtroom only when the jury had a question for the court. Then, in each case, the courtroom was unlocked, Mr. Simkanin was brought in, then Judge McBryde entered, and lastly, the jurors were ushered in. Then after the jury was given their answer, everyone left the courtroom, the doors were locked, and the supporters again had to wait in the hall. Every time we were inside the courtroom, I counted at least nine U.S. Marshals inside the bar.

In addition, today there were two huge, physically intimidating jack-booted thugs….uh, Federal Police… looking our way, standing spread-legged in a menacing posture at the end of the hallway.

First question of the jury today was, “Give us the three points that must be met to find the defendant guilty under counts 13-27.” (This was the charge of filing false claims for refunds on behalf of his workers.) This was the only time Judge McBryde gave a valid answer to the jurors. His answer to the jurors was:
To find the defendant guilty, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. that he knowingly presented a false claim

2. that he knew it was false

3. that the claim was material (Representation relating to matter which is so substantial and
important as to influence party to whom made is “material.”)

(Despite the fact that none of the above was proved, the jury was still left with no choice but to find Mr. Simkanin “guilty” pursuant to Judge McBryde’s orders.)

The jury asked, “Please give us a full wording of the law(s) that the defendant allegedly broke to indicate he is guilty under counts 1-12.” (Failure to withhold.) Judge McBryde refused to give the wording of the law to the jurors and instead lied when he instructed them that Arrow Custom Plastics is required to withhold, thus sealing the fate of Mr. Simkanin.
McColl submitted a motion for reconsideration of the pattern jury charges and wanted to use a section of Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), in which the Supreme Court overruled the lower court and the appeals court, stating that a good-faith belief does indeed negate willfulness, and that the jury should have been instructed as such. The Supreme Court stated that if the jury had believed Cheek’s good-faith belief was sincere, then the plaintiff would have failed to carry the burden of proof to those particular charges. Forbidding a jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial provision. (Cheek had merely “failed to file,” while the truth about “failure to withhold” is much more dangerous to the IRS. If Mr. Simkanin was found innocent, imagine the storm that would sweep across the country as thousands of employers’ suddenly began to refuse to unlawfully withhold taxes from their workers’ paychecks!)
When Judge McBryde asked McColl which section of “Cheek” he wanted to use, McColl replied that he thought the judge knew the case and McColl could not cite the particular section. Judge McBryde viciously chastised McColl as an officer of the court and denied the use of anything from “Cheek.”
At approximately 11:15 a.m. the jury sent this question: “Since no proof has been offered that the defendant is an employer defined within the 7,000 pages of the IRC that is required to collect taxes, should we read the code or should we assume that he is not one of those required?” Judge McBryde’s answer was he would instruct the jury not to concern themselves with the Code or with whether there are certain employers who are not required to collect FICA, social security, and medicare, and said “the court has made a legal determination that Mr. Simkanin did have a legal duty to collect those taxes.” Gasp! Judge McBryde just made a “legal determination” that is contrary to law.
At this point, McColl objected and said in essence Judge McBryde was giving a directed verdict. Judge McBryde overruled McColl’s objection. Why was I not surprised?

By the way, each time the jurors sent a written question to the court and Judge McBryde gave them a written answer, he instructed the jurors that all of these written communications were to be returned to him when the trial was over. I wonder why?

· 1:47 p.m. – back into the courtroom. The jurors had a question whether a juror is allowed to change his or her vote after a unanimous vote was taken. The answer was “yes.”

· 3:30 p.m. – the attorneys went into the courtroom for a ruling on McColl’s motion regarding “willful” in the jury charges. This time, only the attorneys were allowed in the courtroom. The supporters were denied entry.

Most of us in attendance at this fiasco have had personal experience with the corruption in the “justice” system and as a result have studied the law extensively. At one point in the hall, several of the supporters talked with McColl about procedure and motions which he should have used, but of which he was obviously unaware… including an important Rule of Evidence that he had failed to use. Also, we thought that McColl had not objected nearly enough during the trial. Even though his objections obviously would have been overruled, his failure to object prevents those issues from being brought up on appeal.

The jury sent word that they had reached a unanimous verdict on all but counts 1 and 2. Judge McBryde brought the jury in and asked them to deliberate further to see if they could reach a decision on the remaining two counts.

In the hallway, Bob Schulz reported to us that he, McColl, and a few others had been able to meet with Mr. Simkanin. Since we were all acutely aware of the injustice that had taken place in this trial, Mr. Simkanin was prepared for the worst. Mr. Schulz reported that Mr. Simkanin’s spirits were good and his faith is strong. We all prayed in the hallway for Mr. Simkanin.

7:40 p.m. – back in the courtroom. One Federal Marshal threatened that NO ONE comes inside the bar unless invited by the judge. If anyone does, we will all be thrown out. (I hadn’t seen anyone go inside the bar in the first place. I guess they are getting especially nervous now that a [guilty] verdict is apparently imminent.) The jury sent the statement that they are still deadlocked in counts 1 and 2 and asked if they can return a partial verdict. Judge McBryde’s response was “yes.”

Just before we were again ejected from the courtroom, my “favorite” jerk….uh, U.S. Marshal David Davidson sternly warned that he was doing a “sweep” of the building and we were not allowed to go anywhere except the hall here on the 4^th floor or the snack bar on the 1^st floor; that if we wander elsewhere, we will be escorted out of the building. I was surprised that he didn’t threaten to arrest us.

around 8:00 p.m. – the jury had reached their verdict. Before they were escorted into the courtroom, the judge sternly warned that he would have the audience section cleared if we made any noise at all upon hearing the verdict. Naturally, Judge McBryde knew what the verdict would be since he had directed it. The jury came in and returned their partial verdict: a mistrial on counts 1 and 2, and “guilty” on counts 3 through 31.

Even though the verdict was no surprise, we were stunned nevertheless. How did we ever allow OUR COUNTRY to reach a point like this?

Back in the hallway, the jack-booted thugs had now moved from the end of the hallway to right beside the doors to the courtroom.

Reporter Max Baker wanted to talk with me, but first he had to go get a copy of some of the court’s papers. He asked me to wait in the hall for him. However, the marshals ordered everyone to the 1^st floor. On the 1^st floor, the marshals ordered everyone outside. I told them the reporter wanted to talk with me and I asked if I could wait inside to talk with him there in the lobby instead of outside in the windy sub-freezing weather. Nope. Not on your life. As I said, they no longer give any pretense that these are OUR BUILDINGS and OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Most of the supporters in attendance are educated, thoughtful, and conscientious. Contrary to what is reported in the press, we are not “tax protesters,” nor is Mr. Simkanin. We simply want the IRS to halt its oppressive and unlawful misapplication of the tax laws. Again, IRS, please respond to our numerous requests under the Freedom of Information Act and simply show us the law!