Judicial Lemons

Black Robes Dispense Kangaroo Justice
US Courts, DOJ Collude to Delay the Inevitable


On September 27, 2003 we posted an article in our website titled, “Tell the IRS to ‘Drop Dead,’ Lemons’ Response Last Straw.” We expressed our astonishment and anger over the response an IRS senior spokesman, Terry Lemons, gave to a New York Times reporter (David Cay Johnston), who asked Lemons why the IRS was refusing to answer, in writing, our Petitions for Redress regarding the fraudulent origin and unlawful enforcement of the income tax upon ordinary Americans.  

As reported by the Times, IRS’ Terry Lemons told Johnston the IRS was answering our Petitions through “enforcement actions.”  

Finally, an honest answer from our government.  

For the record: other than its police actions, the US Government has steadfastly and repeatedly refused to answer our Petitions. 

But, it is also true, that while our government has been sustaining the livelihood of tens of thousands of bureaucrats in the IRS (one of the few growth industries remaining in America) it is been unlawfully abusing its constitutionally limited prosecutorial and judicial powers in order to compel the federal income tax upon average Americans even though they lack any bona fide legal authority to do so.

Our cherished Republic has recently begun to adopt fascist practices where average Americans are now “brow beaten,” incarcerated and forcefully dragged before IRS and DOJ “legal” tribunals.  These are honest working men and women and small business owners, whose only crime has been to dare to openly question the legal authority for the income tax and have subsequently exercised their constitutionally protected Right to retain their money until their grievances are redressed.  

But, let’s take a closer look at what Terry Lemons means by “enforcement actions.” 

Was Lemons talking about the “Rule of Law” as constitutionally applied to income tax non-filers and non-withholders?

Was Lemons talking about due process, probable cause, warrants with supporting oaths and affirmations, fully informed juries, adherence to the canons of judicial conduct, potential defendant’s access to grand juries, speedy and public trials, impartial juries, compulsory processes for the accused to obtain witnesses in his favor, assistance of “counsel,” full access to the triers of fact with evidence by the accused, proper jury instructions, impartial judges, the presumption of innocence, prosecutors dedicated to truth over conviction and the countless other textbook principles of Jurisprudence that form our system of American justice?

Hell no! 

By “enforcement actions,” IRS’ Terry Lemons was referring to the railroading principles of “kangaroo courts” – practices now routinely witnessed in our “justice” system as the Courts, IRS and DOJ have unlawfully colluded in an attempt to delay the inevitable end of the income tax fraud. 

Consider the open collusion between the Executive and Judicial branches; biased and badgering judges; sealed affidavits; armed raids prior to indictments; indictments charging violations of “penalty statutes” while never averring any specific statutory legal obligation that was violated, pre-trial confiscation of the target’s financial resources necessary for his defense; destruction of Defendant’s business interests, unlawful seizures of legal and court records, stacked juries; restricting evidence and witnesses; improperly truncated witness testimony; hearsay over direct testimony; “inaccurate” court transcripts, excessive bail; unnecessary incarceration before convictions; lockdowns and isolation (no visitors) before conviction; judicial fiats “un-filing” or eradicating undesirable motions from the court record that are damaging to the government’s case; contacting suppliers and customers for the sole purpose of destroying the finances of defendant’s businesses; and so forth. 

In other words, the IRS, through its senior spokesman, Terry Lemons, is now openly and publicly espousing the well-known, but heretofore unspoken government policy regarding the Tax Honesty Movement’s Petitions for Redress of Grievances, “Pay us tribute, or we'll destroy you.”  

These orchestrated acts of tyranny are becoming more numerous and blatant each day. This pattern of legal and judicial abuses can only be perpetrated by the coordinated acts of those in our government that mock our founding principles and hold our system of justice in contempt. Growing evidence of these acts is a strong indication that government officials are becoming increasingly distressed as they attempt, in vain, to prevent the nation from understanding the irrefutable details of the income tax fraud.   

Fortunately, the truth is being widely communicated and the resistance to the tyranny grows daily.  Unfortunately, uncountable examples of “Judicial Lemons” continue to proliferate through America’s courtrooms and ordinary, honest, law-abiding citizens continue to pay the price of being on the front lines in the defense of liberty.  What follows are details from but a few of those court cases:

The Simkanin Case:
Destroy Employers That Resist

These are the facts as we know them: 

Dick Simkanin is the founder and owner of Arrow Custom Plastics, an injection molding company located in Bedford Texas. He is well known to us here at WTP. He is a successful, extraordinarily intelligent, practical and productive high achiever. He is soft spoken and mild mannered. He is a God-fearing man of tremendous faith who loves his country.  

In 1995, Simkanin heard there was no law requiring him to withhold taxes from the paychecks of his employees. He asked his accountant and attorney about that. Like almost all CPAs and attorneys, they did not know what the law really says. They could only point to IRS pamphlets and instructions to employers on how to handle certain matters. They could not cite any specific law that legally obligated Simkanin to withhold. Most corporate accountants and lawyers are not trained in the internal revenue law, they only know what the IRS tells them to do. 

Simkanin decided to study the law. He has a keen mind. He has a long history of reading and comprehending the most complex of subjects. He is trained and experienced in logic and analytical thinking. In his mind, as in the mind of most engineers, things have to add up.  

Simkanin’s study of the internal revenue laws eventually convinced him there was no law that required him to withhold from his employees any money they earned while applying their labor to the success of the business. Ironically, Simkanin also concluded there was some legal risk of being sued by an employee for illegally withholding without such authority. Simkanin also concluded there was no law that required him file a personal tax return. 

Simkanin attempted to discuss the results of his detail findings with his CPA and attorney. They didn’t want to discuss it. They simply told Simkanin he could get into trouble with the IRS if he stopped withholding and filing. They were unwilling, and unable, to show Simkanin where he was wrong. 

Simkanin then wrote a series of letters to the IRS and to his Congressmen, asking them questions about his findings. He never got a response from any of the federal authorities he wrote to.   

In September of 1999, Simkanin told his 48 employees that effective January 1, 2000, he was no longer going to withhold money from their paychecks based on their labor. He told his employees that he would place the legal evidence supporting his decision in the break room. He told his employees to study the information during the next three months. He told his employees that he was not at liberty to continue withholding from any paycheck and that if any employee disagreed with his decision on other than legal grounds he was free to leave the company. Simkanin also told his employees that whether they filed tax returns and paid the tax was their personal decision. 

Simkanin stopped withholding on January 1, 2000. Simkanin applied to the IRS for a refund of the company’s share of the FICA taxes paid in 1997, 1998 and 1999. The IRS Revenue Agent (Wayne Cooper) eventually said “No.” Simkanin did not pursue the matter further. 

Simkanin then became a target of a Texas federal grand jury in 2001. Simkanin asked to meet with the Grand Jury. He did. He explained to the members of the grand jury the basis of his decision to stop withholding. Each member of the grand jury received certain materials that Simkanin wanted them to read. The 2001 grand jury did not indict Simkanin. 

Simkanin was also a target of the subsequent 2002 grand jury. Simkanin again asked to meet with the Grand Jury. He did. He again explained to the members of the grand jury the basis of his decision to stop withholding. Each member of the 2002 grand jury graciously received certain materials that Simkanin wanted them to read. The 2002 grand jury did not indict Simkanin. 

Seven months went by following Simkanin’s last meeting with the 2002 grand jury. Simkanin heard nothing. He assumed he was no longer a target. 

Suddenly, in May of 2003, Simkanin was notified by the DOJ that he was a target of the 2003 federal grand jury and that the DOJ was asking the grand jury for an indictment. Simkanin told DOJ he wanted to meet with the grand jury. He received no response.  

Eventually, Simkanin received a Subpoena directing him to appear before the grand jury on June 18, 2003 with his books and records. On June 18^th Simkanin showed up with 25 copies of the same information he had delivered to the 2002 grand jury. The grand jury foreman told Simkanin to return the next day to make his presentation and to hand his printed information to the members of the grand jury.  

The next day, on June 19, 2003, Simkanin arrived outside the door of the grand jury room with the material for the grand jury. Instead of being allowed in to talk to the grand jury, he was met by the Assistant U.S. Attorney (David Jarvis) who told Dick he was free to leave because the grand jury would not be hearing from Simkanin. Simkanin demanded to be allowed in to present his exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. 

Jarvis went in and returned with the jury foreman. Jarvis got the foreman to tell Simkanin the grand jury was not interested in hearing from Simkanin. Simkanin was, therefore, denied the opportunity to meet and inform the 2003 grand jury of the results of his research and his beliefs, as he had been able to do with the 2001 and 2002 grand juries. 

Instead, within hours, and based merely on what the government told the grand jury, the grand jury issued an indictment. The indictment charged Simkanin with 13 counts of violating 26 USC 7202, an IRS penalty statute, which, in effect, says, “If you are required to withhold and don’t you have committed a crime punishable by up to five years in jail and a fine of $25,000.”  

 The indictment did not include the legally required Bill of Particulars, nor did it cite any statute that explicitly imposed any legal duty to withhold.  

The indictment also charged Simkanin with 13 counts of violating 18 USC 287, which makes it a crime for filing false claims against the US Government. DOJ wanted Simkanin charged with committing a felony crime because he filed for a refund of the FICA taxes he paid in 1997, 1998 and 1999, even though Simkanin dropped the claim after the IRS Revenue Agent refused the refund claim and even though 18 USC 287 (False Claims) includes a specific exception for tax-related claims.  (I.e., per US law, the False Claims Act cannot apply to an employer for merely requesting a tax refund.)   

On June 20, 2003, at 6:30 AM, black cars descended on Simkanin as he arrived at his business. Dozens of armed government agents, with guns drawn handcuffed and forced Simkanin into one of the cars. He was taken to a jail cell where he was held for five days. He was not allowed any visitors, not even his wife.  

The indictment set a date of June 25, 2003 for Simkanin’s Bond and Detention Hearing, and June 27, 2003 for Simkanin’s arraignment.  

Between June 20, 2003 and June 24, 2003, and with the assistance of “non-attorney counsel” (he had not yet had the time to choose an attorney to represent him), Simkanin prepared and submitted to the Court a set of papers in his defense. Simkanin was pro se; he had not yet had time to choose an attorney. Among other things, Simkanin’s motions pointed out the failure of the indictment to include a Bill of Particulars, including the statute requiring him to withhold income taxes from the paychecks of his employees.  

On June 25, 2003, Simkanin appeared before Magistrate Judge Ramirez for a full Bond and Detention Hearing.  DOJ argued strenuously that Simkanin was not only charged with a major crime, he was a threat to society and a flight risk and should remain in jail until his trial.  

However, Simkanin’s testimony and submissions to the court were able to convince the judge otherwise. The Judge ordered Simkanin released in his own recognizance, without bail. The judge’s order included the standard, boiler plate directive that Simkanin remove all firearms from his home. 

At 4:30 PM on June 26, 2003, Simkanin was served with a Motion by DOJ that had just been filed with U.S. District Court Judge John McBryde. DOJ was asking McBryde to overturn Judge Ramirez’s decision to free Simkanin and to return Simkanin to jail until his trial was over. 

NOTE:  According to legal documents, Judge McBryde has a significant history of aberrant and improper behavior from the bench. Judge McBryde was effectively suspended from the federal court in 2000 for over a year as a result of a special, several year judicial investigation that documented a long history of McBryde’s flagrant abuses of judicial power and courtroom practices that negatively affected the judicial process, i.e., denied due process.  

The following quote comes from the 5th Circuit appellate court decision of the case Judge McBryde brought to challenge the suspension and additional sanctions imposed on him following his refusal to resign from his lifetime appointment to the federal bench:

“Based on all of this evidence, the Report concludes (1) that ‘many of these individual instances, together with the patterns demonstrated over the years surveyed,’ indicate that Judge McBryde had ‘engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective administration of the business of the courts,’ and (2) that Judge McBryde's ‘pattern of abusive behavior ...  has brought disrepute upon the federal judiciary.’  Report at 150. The Report recommends that the Council ask Judge McBryde to resign, and if he refused, that it impose the three sanctions--a reprimand and two suspensions--described in the court's opinion.  Maj. Op. at 3.  The recommended reprimand states that Judge McBryde's ‘intemperate, abusive and intimidating treatment of lawyers, fellow judges, and others ha[d] detrimentally affected the effective administration of justice ...  in the Northern District of Texas’ ….” 

On June 26, 2003, Simkanin appeared before McBryde for the arraignment hearing. McBryde first required Simkanin to plead. Simkanin said, “Not guilty.” McBryde then announced that we was going to rule on DOJ’s appeal from Judge Ramirez’s decision. 

Simkanin’s court-appointed attorney (Rubin Gonzales) objected, saying he had just been assigned to Simkanin, had received the motion papers after hours just the day before and had not had time to prepare a response.  

McBryde not only overruled the objection, and refused to reschedule the hearing on DOJ’s appeal of Judge Ramirez’s decision to free Simkanin, he “un-filed” Simkanin’s pro-se submissions to the court, saying they should have been submitted by Simkanin’s court appointed attorney.  

DOJ’s demand that the court immediately incarcerate Simkanin was based on DOJ’s arguably specious arguments that Simkanin did not have a Driver’s License, that Simkanin had gone through a process of “expatriating and repatriating,” and that Simkanin’s web site had an article questioning the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts given Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the federal Constitution and 40 USC 255.  

Not only did McBryde buy into DOJ’s arguments wholesale, he expressed his anger over Simkanin’s pro se papers. McBryde then issued a bench decision. In it, McBryde simply “un-filed” (i.e., removed from the official court Record) Simkanin’s pro se pleadings.  

He also held that “There was enough here to hear more.”  He ordered a new Bond and Detention Hearing be held at a date to be announced later. He ordered Simkanin be returned to the federal detention facility until then. Within a few days McBryde set the date for the Bond and Detention Hearing for July 10, 2003.Simkanin proceeded to hire Arch McColl, III and Doug Coffin as his attorneys.   

During this approximate time frame, IRS deliberately informed several nationwide commercial credit bureaus that Simkanin’s company, Arrow Plastics, was involved in a serious tax legal dispute.  Arrow Plastic’s customers and creditors immediately called to demand instant payment in full, for all credit and materials advanced to Arrow.  On top of the normal costs of running the business, Arrow accountants and managers scrambled to collect tens of thousands of dollars to keep Arrow operating.   

On July 10, 2003, at the Bond and Detention Hearing, an IRS Special Agent (Allen McGowan) took the stand. He said he was told by an “informant,” named David Graef, that he attended a meeting in April of 2002, with Simkanin, at which Simkanin said that maybe we have to kill a couple of federal judges to save the country. During a break in the proceeding, McColl was approached by someone in the audience who said he attended that April meeting with Graef and Simkanin and others and that Simkanin never said anything remotely similar to what Graef was attributing to Simkanin.  

That man’s name was John Statmiller, a radio talk show host in the area. Statmiller was called to the stand and gave direct testimony contradicting informant Graef’s statement as retold as hearsay to the court by IRS Agent McGowan. Simkanin also directly denied, under oath, having ever said such a thing.  

McBryde then raised the issue of firearms, asking Simkanin if he owned a firearm and if he had complied with that part of Judge Ramirez’s June 25^th order. Simkanin said he did own a firearm and had followed Ramirez’s order by immediately asking his wife to remove the gun from the house. McBryde asked if the gun had been removed from the house. 

Simkanin could only say he assumed it had been. Simkanin reminded McBryde that he was free only one day after Ramirez ordered him released and before McBryde ordered him back to jail and that he had not been allowed to see or talk to his wife.  Former IRS Special Agent Joseph Banister then took the stand in Simkanin’s defense to personally attest, under oath to the fact that Simkanin was not a threat to society or a flight risk.  

McBryde rulings are demonstratively prejudiced. He was biased, favoring the government at every turn. Eventually he ruled that the Detention hearing would recess and resume on Tuesday, July 15, 2003, that Simkanin would remain incarcerated, that DOJ was to submit a Memorandum of Law explaining how McBryde could hold Simkanin in jail until his trial and, after admitting on the record that there were problems with the indictment, that McColl was to submit a Memorandum of Law explaining why the indictment should be thrown out. 

On Monday, July 14, 2003, without explanation, McBryde cancelled the Detention Hearing, ordered Simkanin held until the trial and ordered DOJ to “fix” the grand jury’s indictment.  

Since July 14, 2003, Simkanin remained incarcerated and has not been allowed to have visitors, except his attorney, Arch McColl. Staring in mid-August, Simakanin’wife was allowed occasional visits with her husband.  During this time Simkanin heard from McColl that McColl had filed a new series of Motions, arguing that the indictment was fatally defective and, in the alternative, that the charges should be dismissed.  

Unfortunately, Simkanin later learned from McColl that Judge McBryde had again “un-filed” the motions from the accused, sternly warned McColl not to resubmit them because they were “frivolous.” Simkanin learned yet later, that although McColl had resubmitted several of the key defense motions again, DOJ was not responding to them and the Judge was not going to rule on them.  

Simkanin also learned from McColl that McBryde said he was going to allow very, very, very limited evidence into the Record for the Jury to see and that he was going to restrict the number of witnesses allowed to testify for the defense, categorically ruling they would only be “repetitive.”  

Among the evidence exhibits McBryde was not going to allow into the Record was Simkanin’s letters, written during the 1990s to the IRS and his Congressmen, asking to be shown the law that required him to withhold the taxes from the paychecks of his employees. 

Apparently, the Judge was giving advance notice that he was not going to allow into evidence anything that was not previously a part of Simkanin’s “Individual Master File” at the IRS.  Simkanin concurrently learned from his attorney that DOJ now managed to obtain a “superceding indictment” from the grand jury charging failing to withhold “FICA” type employment taxes and making false claims, but dropping the charges specifically regarding the withholding of employee individual “income” taxes.  

Just as with the initial indictment, a Bill of Particulars has never been produced for this indictment.  Simkanin was now facing 13+ years in prison for failing to turn over “employment” taxes to the IRS. 

On September 16, 2003, Simkanin was brought to the courthouse for hearing on whether he could be sent to live at a “half-way” house until the conclusion of the trial. Simkanin sat on a bench in the courthouse all day waiting for the hearing. Eventually he was told the court had denied McColl’s motion to allow Dick to go to the half-way house. He was brought back to his prison cell. 

On or about September 26, 2003, McColl informed Simkanin that instead of responding to his motions, DOJ was offering Simkanin a deal: if Simkanin would plead guilty to one count of violating 26 USC 7202 (a penalty statute!), DOJ would drop the other counts under 7202 and all the counts under 18 USC 287. This would mean Simkanin’s sentence would be 36 months including time already spent. McColl also informed Simkanin that in the next day or so he was going to be allowed a visit by his wife.  

McColl also informed Simkanin that McBryde had set the sentencing hearing for January 2, 2004 and that there was a possibility that if Simkanin accepted the plea bargain before McBryde on September 30, 2003, there was a good chance Simkanin could go home until January 2, 2004, the date of the sentencing hearing.  

On September 27, 2003, Simkanin’s wife visited him at the prison and pleaded with him to accept the plea bargain and come home. 

On September 30, 2003, Simkanin formally agreed to the terms of the plea agreement.
Simkanin is still incarcerated. It appears he will not be released prior to sentencing.

Read previous WTP articles on Simkanin detailing the Court's denial of Due process:

10/02/03 Simkanin Pleads Guilty, Court Colludes With DOJ  (contains court Orders, "un-filed" motions, etc.)
07/13/03 Judge: Simkanin Indictment Fatally Flawed
06/30/03 Simkanin Back in Jail -- Federal Judge Ignores Due Process
06/25/03 Simkanin Freed! WTP Congress Watches the Court

The Patterson Case:
Frontier Justice – Due Process Scorned

Eddy and Judith Patterson were indicted for willful failure to file tax returns under 26 USC 7203, (a “penalty” statute), which states that IF individuals are required to file tax returns but don’t, it is a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. 

On May 27, 2003, the Patterson’s attorney (Oscar Stilley) filed various motions to dismiss, which were based on constitutional and statutory grounds. 

On June 26, 2003, US District Court Judge Cook denied all the motions at a pre-trial hearing and verbally ordered that the arguments and evidence presented in the motions were not to be resubmitted by the defendants or defense counsel and not to be argued before the jury because it “will only confuse the jury.”  

The order extended over virtually all testimony and materials relating to Defendant’s personal beliefs about the content of the income tax laws, their legal obligations under US law and any discussion concerning the legal jurisdiction of the IRS to impose the tax upon them in any of the fifty states.  Judge Cook ruled that these were matters of “law,” not issues of fact for a jury to hear or decide.  Counsel for Defendants was judicially “warned” not to violate the terms of this order. 

This verbal ruling was similar to the verbal ruling and written admonishments Judge McBryde issued in the Simkanin case. The difference, however, was that in the Patterson case, the attorney demanded that Judge Cook put his ruling in writing.  

NOTE: Verbal orders cannot be appealed. For an order to be appealed it has to be in writing. It is a shame that Simkanin’s attorney McColl did not require Judge McBryde to put in writing his decisions to restrict evidence, arguments and witnesses.  

On August 28, 2003, US District Court Judge H. Dale Cook issued the order in writing. Click here to view a copy of the order.  

WARNING: Reading the Order might make your blood boil. 

BREAKING NEWS: The order was just appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The three-judge panel upheld Judge Cook’s order, but a motion was filed for the matter to be heard en banc, (i.e., all the justices). The full 10^th Circuit court agreed and went on to reverse Judge Cook. The 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals also directed that the Patterson case begin all over again and that Judge Cook should recuse himself from the case, which he has done. We are trying to obtain a copy of the 10^th Circuit’s decision. We will post it when we get it.
 

The Evans Case:  
DOJ Refuses to Answer a Federal Judge’s Order 

Another travesty of justice recently occurred in the Keystone state.  Ken Evans, a Tax Honesty Movement advocate brought suit in USDC in Philadelphia to ascertain whether

IRC Section 861 is applicable in determining Evan’s taxable income. 

In brief, the “861 argument” follows the current law in Title 26 as such:

Subchapter A: Imposes a tax on one's "taxable income."  (Section 1)
Subchapter B: Lists exempt and non-exempt "ITEMS" of income.
Subchapter N: Describes which types of COMMERCE generate taxable income,
      i.e., Section 861: Income from inside U.S., Section 862: Income from outside U.S.

Therefore, the 861 argument asserts that for “income” to be taxable to an American, the taxable ITEMs of income must come from taxable SOURCEs. The statutes of Subchapter N, and related regulations, explicitly document that only income from certain INTERNATIONAL or FOREIGN commerce is taxable. 

Of course, the details that confirm this conclusion do exist in the law – but not quite so simply.  And that’s why Evans went to US District Court – to get official answers from the IRS. In brief,  

The government refused to answer the initial legal Complaint.
The government refused to answer Evan’s interrogatories.
Even after the District Court judge ordered DOJ to answer the interrogatories regarding Section 861, the government refused to answer. 

Days ago, the Evans lawsuit was summarily dismissed, without citing any rebuttal or reference to Evan’s claims regarding Section 861.

Evans faces $5,000 total in court penalties for bringing these “frivolous” issues in federal court.

Read the Order dismissing Evans’ Complaint. (Large page. Please allow time for graphics to load)

Read the Transcript from the hearing.  Evans contends substantial inaccuracies in the transcript exist.  Notice how the judge attempts to assert from the bench that Evan’s liability for federal income taxes arises out his working for a corporation that is engaged in interstate commerce.

Go to Evans' web site to hear short recordings of Evans encounters with US officials regarding Section 861.  

Finally, reproduced below is a copy of Evans press release on the matter:   

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
For more information contact:
 
Ken Evans
873 East Baltimore Pike - PMB 464
Kennett Square, Pennsylvania
(phone redacted)
kevans@dca.net
http://www.reasons2vote.com/
 
For release:   October 6, 2003
 
Federal Court Refuses to Address 861 Evidence
 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  -  On Friday October 3, 2003, Federal Judge
Charles Weiner entered a decision in the recent refund lawsuit brought
by Tax Honesty Advocate, Ken Evans.  The ruling denied Evans summary
judgment and granted judgment in favor of the federal government.

However, serious questions persist about the ruling and the proceedings.

Evans filed suit for the refund of monies withheld during the years 2000
and 2001.  Evans’s suit was based almost entirely on the proper
application of Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code.  The complaint,
which can be read online at Evans’ website, stated that he did not
engage in any of the specific sources or activities that generate
taxable income, which are detailed in federal statutes, and are found
listed in the regulations under Section 861.

“The law, though confusing is specific,” states Evans, “The federal
income tax is imposed under Section 1 on ‘taxable income.’  Other
sections of the law generally define the terms ‘gross income’ and
‘taxable income.’  But, these definitions can easily be misread as if
they apply to all money earned by everyone in the world.  Which we all
know isn’t true.  Section 861 and its related regulations, along with
what the law calls other ‘operative sections,’ spell out exactly when
income is taxable.  The federal regulations state repeatedly that these
are the sections of law to use to determine when income earned within
the United States is taxed. Anyone can look them up on the internet.”

In the memorandum of law filed by Evans on June 2, 2003, it is apparent
that the argument before the federal court was ‘Is Section 861
applicable in determining whether or not Evans received taxable income?”

The Department of Justice, representing the government, chose not to
file any response to Evans’ memorandum.  This is odd because normal
procedure in most lawsuits is to provide the court with reasoning as to
why they believe the argument is either wrong or inapplicable to that
situation.  In fact, during a pre-trial conference ordered by the judge,
an attorney for the government stated that a response would be filed,
however none ever was.

But, the oddities don’t stop there.

Evans also filed Interrogatories with the government.  Interrogatories
are specific questions related to the suit that one party asks of the
other in order to clarify the case.  The very first question Evans asked
of the government was:   “Are 26 USC § 861 and the related regulations
beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8, applicable in determining Plaintiff’s
taxable income from sources within the United States in the instant
case?”

The judge ordered a hearing for oral arguments on the parties cross
motions for summary judgment.  The hearing was held on August 22, 2003
and a transcript of the hearing is also available on Evans’ website.
From the transcript it is apparent that Evans was arguing that federal
law, specifically section 861, once properly applied, does not show that
he has any liability for income tax.

“The hearing was very interesting,” said Evans, “it seemed to me that
the judge wasn’t very familiar with the specifics of the case.  Every
time I brought up the issue of the proper application of Section 861 and
Subchapter N (which contains Section 861), the judge would change the
subject by asking me what appeared to be argumentative questions.  It
was if the judge was more of my opponent than was the Department of
Justice.  Plus, there were two law clerks observing the hearing.  They
were giggling like school children, not paying much attention while the
statements were being given.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the opinion was
actually written by the law clerks, as is sometimes the case.”

“One good thing did come out of the hearing, or so I thought,” said
Evans, “The judge instructed the Department of Justice to provide me
with answers to my interrogatories. It’s in the record.  So, I thought
to myself, ‘Great!  I can finally get something in writing from the
government about the proper application of Section 861.’  I even filed a
motion to compel an answer to the interrogatories.  The court accepted
my written motion, which I also provided to the DOJ, but for some
unknown reason, it mysteriously never showed up on the docket.”

Even stranger, is that although directed by the court to answer Evans’
Interrogatories, the DOJ has failed to do so.  Now that the court has
ruled in the case, it is unlikely that it ever will.

“I called the DOJ attorney over two weeks ago and asked when he planned
on complying with the judges instructions.  He never called me back,”
states Evans, “I also just filed an addendum to my motion for summary
judgment, pointing out to the court the DOJ’s failure to respond, along
with a large number of errors on the hearing transcript, but it must
have crossed in the mail with the court’s ruling.”

Ultimately, how did the court rule on the primary foundation of Evans’
argument, which, for those of you that haven’t been paying attention, is
the proper application of Section 861?

Remarkably, not at all.  The three-page opinion, filed this past Friday
does not mention the application of Section 861 even once.

“Not only did the court completely fail to address my actual documented
argument,” states Evans, “But it also claimed that I was making other
arguments that the record shows I did not make.  The court went so far
as to sanction me $1000 for the arguments that I didn’t make and then
disregarded the arguments that I did.”

It appears that justice is not only blind, but it’s also deaf and dumb.

Please support our work.  Make automatic monthly e-Donations.

Go to the WTP Home Page, www.GiveMeLiberty.org.