Letter regarding the Simkanin conviction:

Simkanin's conviction was a foregone conclusion.

There was no chance that he would not have been

convicted no matter what he did.  No lawyer or legal

technology could've saved him.

The reasons are, first, that his was a "political"

trial.  The government tried and failed to indict him

at least twice, but would've continued trying to

indict him if it had to go through 50 grand juries.

Why?  Because the heart of the income tax system is

the withholding process wherein every employer

withholds part of each employee's paycheck and sends

the cash to the government every week--BEFORE they

employee gets the first dime to spend on himself or

his family.  Withholding is absolutely critical to the

income tax system. 

After all, if businesses stopped withholding money

from each employee's weekly paycheck, how would

government collect the income tax?  Order everyone to

pay up in full every April 15th?  Not a chance. 

Virtually all American's live hand to mouth, at least

80% of the American people would spend all of their

paycheck money every week, all year and when April

15th rolled around, virtually no one could pay a dime

let alone several thousand dollars in taxes. 

And what would government do?  Jail 80% of the

American workers?  Not possible. 

So, without withholding, people would laugh and joke

about not paying and not even filing income tax on

April 15th.  Without withholding the income tax would

be a collasal, unenforceable joke.

Withholding is the beating heart of income tax system.

Simkanin was a dagger point at that heart.  He posed

a mortal threat to withholding and thus the entire

income tax system. 

Simkanin's refusal to collect withholding on behalf of

Big Brother absolutely, positively had to be

discredited and stopped.  If he'd been found "not

guilty," businessmen around the country would've

quickly jumped on the "no withholding bandwagon" and

entire imcome tax system would've been threatened with

almost immediate collapse.  That outcome could not be

tolerated by the "system"--and so it wasn't. 

While an individual tax resistor may occassionally

beat the IRS at court, the "system" absolutely cannot

afford to allow any businesman--especially one who

made his stand public and political--to be allowed to

successfully challenge and defeat withholding.

Simkanin's refusal to collect withholding posed a

mortal threat to IRS survival.  The IRS reacted to

this mortal threat exactly as we might expect from any

other entity in a life or death battle. 

I doubt that any legal strategy, lawyer, no lawyer,

anything . . . could've saved Simkanin.  The system

could not survive his being found "not guilty" and

therefore did everything it had to do (including using

a blatantly biased judge and perhaps even "salting"

the jury with one or more government "plants") to

convict.

And I predict that mere conviction will not be enough.

I'll bet that when the sentencing hearing comes up,

the court slaps Simkanin with a sentence so harsh that

it may cause him to spend the rest of his life in

jail.  Why?  To scare the Hell ("tax resistance") out

of any other employer who might dare think about

quitting the withholding process.

It may be that Simkanin will be released in three to

five years after an appeal is slowly but finally

heard--if he can find a technicality (other than

challenging withholding) on which to base his appeal.

But I doubt that he'll see any mercy before then. 

I know Dick Simkanin and I admire his courage.  I

never thought his anti-IRS technology was viable.  But

he gave 'em fits.  He gave the IRS one helluva run for

their money.  Defeated a couple of grand jury

indictments.  Stopped one trial.  That's impressive.

Unprecedented.  Simkanin's remarkable successes only

underscore how weak the IRS's hold on the American

people has become.  IRS morale must've suffered some

serious blows when the various juries refused to

indict or convict Simkanin. 

The end may be near for the IRS.  But it will not go

quietly and it will be most dangerous when it is

closest to its demise.

In the meantime, those who make powerful, political

and public challenges to the IRS will be convicted

because--from the government's perspective--they HAVE

to be convicted.  Life or death.  This town's not big

enough for Dick Simkanin and the IRS. 

Even if the jury wasn't "fixed" with one or more

government plants and was bright enough to turn

Simkanin loose, I guarantee that the judge would've

overruled the jury's verdict and/or the prosecution

would've demanded and received another chance to try

him.  The outcome of this case was fixed from the

beginning.

Simkanin's conviction was no surprise.  He was

convicted because he HAD to be convicted.  He

threatened the IRS's very life; the IRS did what it

had to do:  convict by hook or by crook.

But this isn't over.

Now the IRS can go after the other businessmen who

participated with Simkanin in the We The People tax

resistance program and stopped withholding taxes for

Uncle Sugar.  Based on Simkanin's brutalization, we

can expect most of the remainging anti-withholding

businessmen will be cowed into plea bargains where

they promise on the mother's grave to faithfully

withhold income tax from now until Hell freezes--after

a "mere" 1 to 3 years in the slammer. 

If these other "withholding resistors" stick together,

they might have a shot at doing some real damage to

the IRS.  The IRS, however, will do its level best to

intimidate and divide-and-conquer these other

"heritics".  Human nature being what it is, most will

probably cave.

Simkanin was an uncommon man.  He had the courage of

his convictions--and he will be punished for his

courage (i.e., willfull failure to kiss ass).  We can

hope some of the other "withholding resistors" will

have similar courage, but that's not likely.

In any case, Simkanin wasn't the only or last

"withholding heretic" to be persecuted.  He was merely

the the first.

If the balance of the "withholding heretics" would get

smart, stick together, and take a chance at employing

some truly radical defenses, they  might pull it off.

Simkanin almost won.  If just one more jury had voted

in his favor, he would still have been convicted.  But

the political consequences of a judge overturning the

jury verdict would've caused great harm to the system.

If a couple more of the "withholding resistors" were

to "go the distance," and take the IRS in front of

some more juries--who can say?  Maybe a couple more

grand juries would refuse to indict.  Maybe a couple

more trial court juries would refuse to convict.  The

damage to the IRS would be massive, maybe terminal.

And the IRS knows it.  So they will try to "Bogart"

the remaining "withholding resistors" into plea

bargains (and probably succeed).  But if the remainder

stay strong, refuse to bargain, make the IRS indict,

prosecute and convict--a couple will win.  Not all of

'em, probably not most of 'em.  But some will probably

win. 

And some might be enough.

What if three out of twelve "withholding resistors"

were found not guilty?  Sure, most would be convicted,

but what if three out of twelve won?  How many more

businessmen would be encouraged by that minority of

victories (but victories nonetheless) to also stop

withholding?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Tens of

thousands? 

The IRS can't survive ANY victories of the sort

Simkanin  hoped for.  And they can't fix every trial

with hatchet man judges and "implanted" jurors without

ultimately being exposed.

So the issue now is one of courage.  How many more

"withholding resistors" will have as much courage as

Simkanin?  If there's a dozen, two or three can

prevail, and that may be enough to do incredible

damage.  On the other hand, if they all allow

themselves to be intimidated by Simkanin's misfortune,

the IRS will live to keep on oppressing the American

people.

We shall see.

Interesting times, hmm?

Alfred Adask