I read this much differently than Dave. It appears to me that the JUDGE is taking it upon himself to make a “legal determination”, absent any evidence, as to whether Dick or his business had a legal duty to collect taxes when the jury specifically asked to see “the Section 7202 evidence” to support such a requirement. Looks like the judge is playing the part of the prosecutor, and is deliberately misinforming the jury as to “the requirement” by making such a statement absence ANY evidence presented by the government to support a requirement to collect any tax in the first place. “They should not concern themselves as to the requirement”…what’s this, but a deliberate attempt to mislead the jury. That is the major question here…, “SHOW ME THE REQUIREMENT”.  We all know that a “tax payer” must pay any lawfully due taxes; but it has to be determined FIRST, are you a taxpayer? 

Chuck

LEGAL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This document along with any attachment(s) is intended only for the individual or entity recipient that is named above. If you are not the intended recipient, as specified by the sender, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in relation to the contents of the information contained herein, is strictly prohibited, and you are commanded to destroy this document in its entirety, and notify the sender. Access to this document by any other person or entity is unauthorized. "All rights are reserved, Without Prejudice UCC 1-207"

Subject: [oi-ar] Simkanin Update...

The following is reported by a courtroom watcher at Simkanin's trial, but unconfirmed by any other source at this time.

The report states that the jury sent the judge a question.

Question: Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant’s business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000 pages of businesses required to file?

And that the judge answered:

Answer: I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U. S. A. and the defendant’s business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant’s business to file.

If this exchange is accurate (emphasis on "if") it would seem to indicate some frustration with, or possibly disrespect for, the court by the jury.  If that be so, that would certainly be a hopeful sign in Dick's favor.

Also, a number of people have asked me if the length of time that the jurors deliberate is significant in this type of case.  The general answer is "yes".  In decades past, tax case juries typically came back quite quickly with verdicts.  The underlying concept seemed to be that if they (the jurors) were paying income tax and you weren't, you were going to get convicted.

Thanks to years of hard work by Tax Honesty proponents at educating the public, we're seeing less of this mentality.  Today's juries seem to be less trusting of government allegations and less confident that the government is acting in the interest of "justice".  Additionally, despite the court's efforts to insulate juries from "issues of law" and debates on what is to be admitted into evidence, I believe that juries are "aware" that the playing field has been intentionally tilted in the government's favor in tax cases.

In the Simkanin case we must be cautious not to read too much into the length of the jury's deliberations.  After all, there are 31 counts to consider.  However, generally speaking, and probably in this trial, the longer the jury is out, the better for the defendant.  Of course "better" does not translate into acquittal on all charges.  With 31 counts, it is unlikely that Dick will be found "not guilty" on all counts, which of course was Jarvis' plan when he went back to the grand jury for a superceding indictment after the first trial.

Dave Champion