Dick Simkanin

[LegalEagleMan]

All I am saying is people better think about what they are doing. If you don't believe what you were saying or you do, not my concern. Just friendly advice because the amount of glass houses I see every day increases. And that isn't going to end well for anyone.

[webhick]

I didn't bring God into the mix, Nichols did.

You knew exactly what you were saying.

Look, if you want to run around the forum picking arguments, that's your prerogative, just don't expect me to play along.

[LegalEagleMan]

Look, if you want to run around the forum picking arguments, that's your prerogative, just don't expect me to play along.

There is nothing to argue about. It's your life.

[Nikki]

Terry Nichols won't get lawyer for suit over prison food
...
Nichols is complaining he needs better food because of his medical problems and religious beliefs. He claims eating refined foods is a sin against God.[/b]
...

What's the big deal?

Give him water from the nearest creek, freshly harvested wild grass seeds (not processed beyond reaping), and the road kill du jour.

Non-processed, non-refined, and 100% natural.

Of course, it will probably reduce his sentence by years.

[webhick]

Nichols is complaining he needs better food because of his medical problems and religious beliefs. He claims eating refined foods is a sin against God.

I'm pretty sure that God doesn't care what a mass murderer eats, so long as it's not people or something.

Wow, I was about to post what I thought would be an erudite comment about the lack of merit in the Nichols position, firmly grounded in my understanding of American constitutional law and the rights of citizens, when webhick came along and nailed it -- far more effectively, with aplomb and humor. In other words, she did what she always does!

The functionally illiterate triumphs again! MWHAHAHAHA!

[Famspear]

All I am saying is people better think about what they are doing. If you don't believe what you were saying or you do, not my concern. Just friendly advice because the amount of glass houses I see every day increases. And that isn't going to end well for anyone.

Thank you for your concern, but let's get something straight, fella. Nobody here is in any danger in our relationships with the Good Lord as a result of any of the comments made about Nichols on this thread so far.

Many of us have glass houses to some extent, and none of us are perfect. That doesn't mean that we cannot or should not "bring God into the mix" in discussing Nichols. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that webhick is in no trouble at all invoking God in the way she did in reference to Nichols.

In reference to the federal income tax, things generally "end quite well," thank you, for those who obey the law. I suspect that things "end quite well" for the regulars who post here at Quatloos who (I suspect) generally conform themselves fairly closely to the federal income tax law in most material respects. I suspect that the Quatloos regulars as a group file their returns and pay their taxes. They know the difference between (A) an argument that might or might not eventually be held to have legal merit (but which may be used, in good faith, on a tax return or in court) and (B) an argument that is legally frivolous.

The law is what we say the law is -- not because we say it, but because we happen to be correct.

Things have not gone well for Dick Simkanin, the subject of this thread. Mr. Simkanin was arrogant and apparently thought (or he impliedly claimed) he knew the tax law better than certain other people. He was wrong.

He went beyond merely holding a false belief, and he acted upon his false belief in a way that violated the federal criminal laws. He was wrong.

He acted with arrogance, rather than with humility. He was wrong.

He is still paying the price for his arrogance.

By contrast, the Quatloos regulars here who expose tax scams like those followed by Simkanin and Benson and Hendrickson and the others are not acting with "arrogance." We know whereof we speak.

EDIT: Hmmmm... I think the first sentence of the second paragraph should read: "Many of us have glass houses to some extent, and none of us IS perfect." ("is" instead of "are"?? as in: "none ... is perfect"?)

See what I mean?

[Famspear]

Adapted from Wikipedia (bolding added):

Simkanin owned a company in Bedford, Texas, called Arrow Custom Plastics, Inc. In 1993, an accountant advised Simkanin that a required change in the accounting method for the company would result in greater corporate income tax. Simkanin then began to question the validity of the federal income tax. On his 1994 and 1995 personal tax returns, he made notations to indicate that the returns were filed under protest, and he did not file personal returns for years 1996 through 2001. United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 2005-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,507 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1911 (2006).

Simkanin told his accountant he [Simkanin] was not required to file returns because he lived off his savings and had no income. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in affirming his conviction, stated that this assertion was false and that Simkanin had received a salary from his company. The Court also stated that Simkanin had received payments from Arrow for his personal expenses and that those payments were booked as "repair and maintenance".

In reviewing the case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

In 1996, Simkanin surrendered his Texas driver's license, and when stopped by the police while driving, he showed a card styled "British West Indies International Motor Vehicle Qualification Card" which he had acquired from a mail-order business in Connecticut. He also mailed the U.S. Treasury Secretary a statement that he had expatriated himself from the United States and repatriated to the Republic of Texas. He posted the same statement on Arrow's internet website, where he also vowed to ignore the laws of the United States.

In 1997, Simkanin removed his name from Arrow's checking and credit card accounts, replacing his name with the name of Arrow's bookkeeper [...] Simkanin told [the bookkeeper] that he did not want his name to appear on documents requiring his social security number. Simkanin then listed [the bookkeeper] as Arrow's president on various legal documents, although he retained complete de facto responsibility for the company's affairs and continued to make all of the decisions regarding finances and taxes.

By May 1999, Simkanin had become involved with an organization called We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education ("WTP"), which promotes the view that, despite common misconceptions, there is actually no law that requires most Americans to pay income taxes or most companies to withhold taxes from employees' paychecks. WTP also espouses the view that the Sixteenth Amendment was fraudulently declared to have been ratified. In accordance with these views, Simkanin told [his] accountant [...] and others that he was not required to pay taxes and that filing returns was purely voluntary. [The accountant] advised Simkanin that filing returns was not voluntary and that Simkanin could get into trouble if he did not file. Simkanin rejected this advice, and he began to pressure Arrow's employees to attend seminars sponsored by WTP.

After conviction on many tax charges, Simkanin was sentenced to seven years in federal prison. After the sentencing, the ''Houston Chronicle'' reported: "U.S. District Judge John McBryde said during the sentencing that Simkanin was 'entrenched' in a 'cultlike' anti-government group that 'holds nothing but contempt for the laws of the United States. McBryde ordered Simkanin to pay the government $302,076 in restitution." ''Houston Chronicle'', "Businessman gets 7-year term for tax protest" by Thomas Korosec; Saturday, May 1, 2004, 3 star ed., section A, page 33. The ''Houston Chronicle'' also reported that a prosecutor indicated that Internal Revenue Service agents and prosecutors had given Simkanin "repeated opportunities to reconsider his position and begin paying taxes" before the government began criminal prosecution. Assistant United States Attorney David Jarvis was quoted as saying "I guess he just figured we wouldn't do anything."

[LegalEagleMan]

Many of us have glass houses to some extent, and none of us are perfect. That doesn't mean that we cannot or should not "bring God into the mix" in discussing Nichols. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that webhick is in no trouble at all invoking God in the way she did in reference to Nichols.

I will respond some since part was in regards to me.

Webhick can do what he/she feels like doing or saying, I don't know about "trouble". Most of time when I hear people talk about God and Jesus they truly don't believe in what they are talking about. The reason I said what I did is because we all do wrong, I am not even saying I think the guy did anything wrong. It's all perspective.

I mean this country didn't have a problem dropping atomic weapons on Japan. It's all justified, and that is fine by me. If you want to say God wanted those people to suffer, I will just say let me see the memo. If that building would have been in Iraq with a US weapon being dropped on it, than God would be working his magic to I would imagine.

You and webhicks can believe and say anything you want, please don't let me stop you. My advice still stands.

In reference to the federal income tax, things generally "end quite well," thank you, for those who obey the law. I suspect that things "end quite well" for the regulars who post here at Quatloos who (I suspect) generally conform themselves fairly closely to the federal income tax law in most material respects. I suspect that the Quatloos regulars as a group file their returns and pay their taxes.

You do no obey Laws, you obey a set of rules that someone else told you to do. And that is fine in my book, you can choose whatever you want to do. Just remember the sword cuts two ways, the sooner people remember that the less people will suffer.

The rest has nothing to do with my comments so I will disregard. I will be watching all you crazy people hack each other up though. It should be entertaining.

I will end my part of this discussion right there unless more discussion is warranted.

[Quixote]

You do no obey Laws, you obey a set of rules that someone else told you to do.

Laws are a set of rules someone told us to obey. The good ones are well thought out and lead to a safer, happier and more harmonious life. But they're still just a set of rules someone told us to obey.

The reason I said what I did is because we all do wrong, I am not even saying I think the guy did anything wrong. It's all perspective.

Assuming the jury made the right call, Nichols did something wrong. You must have a violently skewed perspective if you see nothing wrong with killing babies. And the babies were not collateral damage from an attack on someone Nichols thought deserved to die. They were just the most innocent in a building full of innocents.

[Famspear]

You do no[t] obey Laws, you obey a set of rules that someone else told you to do.

With all due respect, I believe that is bloviation. You may define "Laws" differently from the way we define the term, or you may disagree with us about what the law is, but that does not change the point that we are correct.

And, in the particular context of tax protesters (tax deniers) as discussed in this forum, the "sword" does not "cut both ways." One side is morally and legally right, and the other side (the tax protesters) is morally and legally wrong. Further, there is nothing godly or patriotic about what tax protesters are doing, and we who expose these scams in this forum are justified in doing so. The sword does not cut both ways.

And you are correct in that the rest of my comments (on Dick Simkanin) were not directed at you.

[LegalEagleMan]

With all due respect, I believe that is bloviation. You may define "Laws" differently from the way we define the term, or you may disagree with us about what the law is, but that does not change the point that we are correct.

Laws are unbreakable. Rules are rules, which are made to be broken, changed, altered.
"Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"

And, in the particular context of tax protesters (tax deniers) as discussed in this forum, the "sword" does not "cut both ways."

Sure it can. Sometimes the sword doesn't cut the most appropriate people though.

One side is morally and legally right, and the other side (the tax protesters) is morally and legally wrong.

Sorry but God is not on one side or another. "Legal" is just the rules setup by someone, it could easily be setup by another with different rules. If you were moral and legal you wouldn't have to change your rules. There would just be one set of rules.

To believe such is too say God or whatever belief endorses such. Until I get the memo on that seems pretty suspect.

Further, there is nothing godly or patriotic about what tax protesters are doing, and we who expose these scams in this forum are justified in doing so.

Who said it was godly?
A slave owner has every right to keep his slave in order. The slave has every right to eliminate the slave owner.
Anything can be justified see Human History.

The sword does not cut both ways.

Sure it can. If you press the wrong button at the wrong time who knows what you will get.

[Famspear]

With all due respect, I believe that is bloviation. You may define "Laws" differently from the way we define the term, or you may disagree with us about what the law is, but that does not change the point that we are correct.

Laws are unbreakable. Rules are rules, which are made to be broken, changed, altered.
"Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"

Oh, I get it. "Gravity is a law." I guess the Internal Revenue Code is not a law?

No, my friend, the sword does not cut both ways -- not in the sense in which I mean this. Nobody is going to prosecute me filing a false tax return in which I took a position based on some nut job tax protester theory. Why not? Because I'll never file a false return, and I'll never take any such position. That's what I'm talking about.

Sorry but God is not on one side or another. "Legal" is just the rules setup by someone, it could easily be setup by another with different rules. If you were moral and legal you wouldn't have to change your rules. There would just be one set of rules.

Yes, I believe that in some cases God is on one side and not the other. We may not be sure which side God is on, though.

I believe that tax deniers who apparently believe that God is on their side with respect to their tax protester activities are wrong about that. Of course, I could be wrong.

[LegalEagleMan]

Oh, I get it. "Gravity is a law." I guess the Internal Revenue Code is not a law?

What people call Laws are govern set of rules set up by who? Oh by other people.

The slave owner has every right to keep his slaves enslaved, every slave has every right to strike down the slave owner.

No, my friend, the sword does not cut both ways -- not in the sense in which I mean this.

It surely can. Go speak to the former president of Honduras.

Nobody is going to prosecute me filing a false tax return in which I took a position based on some nut job tax protester theory. Why not? Because I'll never file a false return, and I'll never take any such position. That's what I'm talking about.

Who said someone would prosecute you? Not me.

I believe that tax deniers who apparently believe that God is on their side with respect to their tax protester activities are wrong about that. Of course, I could be wrong.

I believe the "right to life, liberty, and pursue of happiness" about expresses my thoughts on it... not that is right, that is my feelings on it... I really couldn't think of a better way to put it. I don't think God wants me to just do what someone tells me but that is just my feelings on the subject.

Either way, the slave has every right to strike down upon the slave owner. Trust me the president of Honduras is learning very quickly that the sword cuts both ways, the sooner people realize this the better.

Just my take, eventually all the people with the Law this or the Law that, will be busy hacking each other up.

[Nikki]

LegalEagleBeagle:

Which God?

You have to realize that you are in a significant minority in terms of believing a particular supreme being.

Based on the multiferous incarnations or non-incarnations of a supreme being, any references to any of the above belong in the Personal Opinion forums, not those which are discussing facts and laws enacted by the duly elected and seated government of the United States.

[LegalEagleMan]

Which God?

Any and all that you choose or choose not to believe.

You have to realize that you are in a significant minority in terms of believing a particular supreme being.

You can believe whatever you want, I am in no way telling you what to believe. Although it might be wise for one to think about it.

Based on the multiferous incarnations or non-incarnations of a supreme being, any references to any of the above belong in the Personal Opinion forums, not those which are discussing facts and laws enacted by the duly elected and seated government of the United States.

I agree. I didn't bring this topic up. I will end my discussion here to stop any unneeded discussion even if someone response so that the real topic can be discussed. I hope that helps.

[Nikki]

Which God?

Any and all that you choose or choose not to believe.

You have to realize that you are in a significant minority in terms of believing a particular supreme being.

You can believe whatever you want, I am in no way telling you what to believe. Although it might be wise for one to think about it.

Based on the multiferous incarnations or non-incarnations of a supreme being, any references to any of the above belong in the Personal Opinion forums, not those which are discussing facts and laws enacted by the duly elected and seated government of the United States.

I agree. I didn't bring this topic up. I will end my discussion here to stop any unneeded discussion even if someone response so that the real topic can be discussed. I hope that helps.

Liar, liar, pants on fire:

I believe the "right to life, liberty, and pursue of happiness" about expresses my thoughts on it... not that is right, that is my feelings on it... I really couldn't think of a better way to put it. I don't think God wants me to just do what someone tells me but that is just my feelings on the subject.

So, your incarnation of a god is opposed to representative government?

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

I believe the "right to life, liberty, and pursue of happiness" about expresses my thoughts on it... not that is right, that is my feelings on it... I really couldn't think of a better way to put it. I don't think God wants me to just do what someone tells me but that is just my feelings on the subject.

So, your incarnation of a god is opposed to representative government?

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

[Nikki]

Next player please, the preceeding quotation was not from the Book of Mormon and is therefor invalid.

[grixit]

I remember after the Okla bombing, the response by someone on a sovrun forum to the death of the children was to become indignant at the government for putting the daycare center there.

[Agent Observer]

LegalEagleMan -

There is a reason why Jehovah's Witnesses don't come around my house anymore, and it isn't because I am rude to them.

Hmm, I was never good at those "connect the dot" games as a kid. So, why is it they don't come around? Did you go "Jeffrey Dahmer" on a group of them or something?