Two Reports on the Vicious IRS

Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE): 
Free Americans Proclaiming Total Emancipation and Working Towards 
Democracy.  NOTE:  Thanks to Rick Davis for the first of these--and 
to Graham Jukes for the other.   --  kl, pp

  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5313.htm

The IRS Claims New Patriot Act Type Powers to Punish Political Dissenters

by Robert R. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED]

November 28, 2003: (ICH) In a precedent-setting case, the IRS wielded new
power to punish the political speech of those who espouse views the
government considers "inconsistent" with government-held beliefs. In a
hearing originally closed to the public in a secret tribunal on a military
island, but moved to a public location after protests from the press and the
public, the IRS wants to wield this power against a former IRS
whistleblower, who was forced to resign upon his discovery of fraud in the
agency. After monitoring and taping the whisteblower's appearances on Sixty
Minutes, talk radio shows, and political publications where he rebroadcast
his findings of IRS fraud, the IRS initiated this inquisition against their
former whistelblower. This new power may find new political targets soon
enough.

The IRS, through the small office of "Director of Practice," claims the
authority to wield carte-blanche authority over all the other powers of
government -- the authority to monitor, surveil, and eavesdrop on political
dissenters, the authority to pry into the private financial records of
banks, businesses, and taxpayers, the  authority to conduct secret
investigations under a criminal grand jury, and
the authority to censure political dissenters by branding on them a badge of
infamy and stripping them of governmentally-protected licenses. In short,
under the guise of a "practice" investigation, the IRS claims the right to
wield all intrusive and  invasive powers of government available.

A "license" to practice before the IRS -- even for people who have never
requested such a license or actually practiced before the IRS, but are given
one as a matter of law if they are accountants --"licenses" the IRS to
conduct private audits without notice to the taxpayer, confer with criminal
prosecutors without disclosure, and bring special "disbarment" proceedings
against disfavored dissenters, even if the alleged "disreputable" conduct
has nothing to do with any "practice" before the IRS.

The IRS now claims it can use these so-called "practice" investigations of
anyone who Congress licenses to practice before the IRS -- regardless of
whether they actually practice before the IRS -- to surveil the public
appearances of dissenters, eavesdrop on the political conversations of
dissenters, benefit from secret grand jury investigations, hold secret
conferences with the criminal investigators, scrumptiously tap the private
database of taxpayer information, including taxpayers who merely have some
financial "connection" to the accused, audit the political dissenter's
personal financial records, and use all this information against the
dissenter in the "practice" proceeding.

Under the guise of a "practice" investigation, the IRS can ignore all the
normal procedural protections against an illicit audit while it conducts
such an audit. Simultaneously, the IRS can ignore all the legal protections
afforded a person accused of a crime while conferencing with the people
conducting a criminal investigation. Indeed, the IRS can even ignore the
sunshine laws, as the records of such "practice investigation" are exempt
from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, as are grand jury
proceedings.

The IRS claims it can exercise this authority in a secret proceeding without
allowing a person the opportunity to cure any alleged mistakes, the
opportunity to prepare a defense by knowing the exact facts they are accused
of, without any opportunity for discovery, without any opportunity to call
witnesses necessary for their defense, without any opportunity to cross
examine their accusers, without any opportunity to testify at their own
hearing about the merits of their position, without being forced to testify
against themselves without such an assertion being held against them, and
without even an opportunity for a hearing on the evidence.

This power of this little office with a Napoleonic vision goes even beyond
the Patriot Act type authority and stories of FBI monitoring of war
protestors.

Too Hoover-ish to be true in modern America? Just read the case of the IRS
against Joe Banister scheduled for a "hearing" -- a hearing where the IRS
prohibited Banister from introducing any witnesses or presenting any
evidence as to his defenses, and even discussing the sincerity, the truth or
the "reasonableness" of his positions -- on December 1 in the city by the
bay, in the Tax Court chambers of the federal courthouse in San Francisco.
History is being made.

Robert G. Bernhoft S. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

=======================================================================

Employer Simkanin Prosecution Ends in Mistrial

Judge Stymies Both Jury & Defense
DOJ Intends to Retry Simkanin ASAP

Jury Hung at 11-1 Favoring Acquittal

After almost six months of incarceration in isolation awaiting his 
federal trial, non-withholding employer Dick Simkanin's trial ended 
this evening in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a 
verdict on federal charges that Simkanin failed to withhold taxes 
from his employees.

Simkanin, a successful Bedford, Texas business owner, had been 
charged with 12 counts of Willful Failure to Withhold employment 
taxes for his employees and 15 counts of filing False Claims for 
requesting refunds of tax pre-payments that had been made by Simkanin 
on behalf of those employees. 

Facing years in federal prison, his trial lasted only hours, 
beginning and ending yesterday - largely because the Court denied 
Simkanin the opportunity to present any expert defense witnesses or 
legal evidence regarding the contested legal obligations under US 
income tax statutes. Jury deliberations started this morning and the 
mistrial was declared around 6 PM Central time. A report from several 
sources close to the Simkanin team was that the jury hung 11-1 in 
favor of acquittal.

US Attorney Jarvis stated that he intended to retry Simkanin "as soon 
as possible."  Simkanin, who has NO criminal record, was immediately 
ordered back into federal custody by Judge John McBryde.

Reportedly contributing to the jury's inability to reach a verdict 
were nine separate requests and questions from the jury including a 
request to see a written copy of the jury instructions, a request to 
see a copy of the Internal Revenue Code and for the judge to provide 
a copy of the specific US statute that required Simkanin to withhold. 
Judge McBryde refused these significant requests. According to court 
observers, Judge McBryde also significantly impaired and repeatedly 
interfered with defense counsel Arch McColl's cross-examination of 
government witnesses.

One example of how Judge McBryde dispensed justice during the short 
trial occurred following the testimony of one of the IRS expert 
witnesses who testified that the definition of "employee" that 
applied to Simkanin as an "employer" was found at Internal Revenue 
Code Section 3401 (which is for legal definitions), and defines 
"employee" as:

"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 of the foregoing.  The term 
"employee" also includes an officer of a corporation."

During a break, Judge McBryde requested US Attorney Jarvis for the 
legal definition of "employee" to include in the jury instructions. 
Defense attorney McColl then attempted to show the judge the 
definition in the IRC at section 26 USC 3401 that had just been 
testified to by the IRS witness.  According to court observers, the 
judge dismissively "waved off" McColl with a flip of the wrist and a 
comment, "I know what your position is Mr. McColl, and I disagree. 
That is not a definition. It says 'includes' not 'defines'.  I want 
Mr. Jarvis' position."

According to courtroom observers, US Attorney Jarvis later recalled 
the IRS employee to the witness stand, and the witness subsequently 
"corrected" his previous testimony to affirmatively declare that the 
definition of "employee" which applies to Simkanin was not from 
Section 3401, but rather from Section 3121(d).

Although the definition of "employee" found at 3121 is certainly more 
encompassing than the legal definition first asserted by the IRS 
witness, the subsequent definition may ultimately cause unanticipated 
problems for the government if it attempts to retry Simkanin.  The 
following citation is from section Section 3121(e), which, (per the 
"corrected" testimony of the IRS witness), also contains legal 
definitions for the terms "State" and "United States" for the 
purposes of the withholding chapter that Texas resident Simkanin was 
allegedly charged with violating:

(e) State, United States, and citizen      For purposes of this 
chapter -      (1) State        The term ''State'' includes the 
District of Columbia, the      Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands, Guam, and      American Samoa.      (2) United States 
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense 
includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 
Guam, and American Samoa.      An individual who is a citizen of the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico      but not otherwise a citizen of the 
United States) shall be      considered, for purposes of this 
section, as a citizen of the      United States. During the two 
previous years, Simkanin had appeared before two separate federal 
grand juries, each apparently refusing to indict him after hearing 
Simkanin directly testify about the true legal substance of the US 
Income Tax Code.  At each of these grand jury proceedings, Simkanin 
also provided each grand juror with substantial documentary evidence 
showing both the constitutional problems with the income tax system 
and evidence of how our government has conspired to contain these 
truths through deception and abuse of the public trust.

According to sources on the defense team, in early October, Simkanin, 
believing his trial was being "railroaded" by the federal prosecutor, 
acting in collusion with the District court, pleaded guilty to a 
single tax charge.  Weeks later, the plea bargain was withdrawn by 
the DOJ because of an error in the government's original plea offer. 
Simkanin, apparently, reconsidering his earlier decision to plea, 
decided to go to trial and seek bona fide justice.

Today, he almost got it.

More details will follow as available...

http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/update11-26-03.htm