10:55 PM -:- Posted by Allen    

On Simkanin in jail

I've dealt with my share of off-tilt judges, state and federal. I've given over my lunch to, and eaten the lunches of, some very nasty attorneys. And I've had my moments of being amazed at the lengths to which some people will go to find enough fault in someone else that they don't have to look at themselves or their friends to see how they might have done even a little something to cause the mess they're in.

I'm not saying Simkanin is doing that. But certainly at least a few of our friends have.

One fine morning well near 20 years ago, when I was stood up in a state court (Nevada) and asked if I swore or affirmed to tell the truth, etc., I very firmly declared, "No."

The shock that spread through the courtroom was thick enough to smell.

Then I turned to the judge and told him, "I give you my word that everything I say here will be true."

Basically, I was telling the judge that I would answer questions truthfully, but also was not going to volunteer anything. The judge accepted, and we proceeded.

The prosecutor wasn't ready for that. He asked his questions poorly, and through my better understanding of the words and grammar he used, I answered the questions he asked rather than the questions he thought he was asking. One of those was crucial. He got nothing of what he expected, he got upset because he thought I was lying, and he lost his case.

As I stepped down, the judge said, "Thank you, Mr. Hacker, for the lesson."

What's my point? Be the belligerent claimant in person. Know who and what you are, and where and how you stand, and know how to operate in hostile environments. Know that you always take it to them to prove they're right.

It's been reported that the Gov't used Simkanin's Recission papers against him. (Recission is the proposition that you can opt out of an erroneously-entered or fraudulently-induced jurisdiction, standing, etc.) Presumably, Simkanin's papers included a repudiation of any claims of jurisdiction over him by any federal territorial court. Personally, I would not have included that because it's moot for obviousness, but no biggie.

The biggie is when, reportedly, Simkanin was asked about this in open court at the hearing last week and apparently reaffirmed his rejection of some form or another of jurisdiction on behalf of the court, he got locked up.

This is where my commentary goes onto thin ice: I'm a little short on specifics because instead of reporting details of what did happen, too many of the observers and commentators reported their opinions as to what happened.

The reported information is that Simkanin reaffirmed his rejection of the court's jurisdiction.

Now, if that was done as a general statement, then I cannot find any basis for surprise in the judge deciding to hold him to ensure that he appeared at the appointed time. I doubt it's about a flight risk so much as that it's simply about doubting that Simkanin would show up.

What would I have done, or tried to do? What should Simkanin do?

I would not have answered simply. I would not have said anything that appeared to be a blanket dismissal of the court's authority in toto, and I would not have allowed to go unchallenged any assertion that this is what the Recission statement meant.

When asked (if asked) if I denied the court's jurisdiction, I would have said, "No." This no doubt would raise the question of consistency. So I would have added, "Not if this court is sitting as, and guarantees to sit as, an Article Three constitutional court, and accords me all of my rights at all times, presumes the waiver of none of them, including my right to be confronted by all of the evidence and allegations against me at all times, which right among all others I do unwaveringly and forever assert, claim and demand."

I'd have looked the judge right in the eye, consciousness-to-consciousness, and said, "If you will give me your word that this is, and will happen, then I give you my word that I will cooperate fully with the court's needs and schedules in this matter, because I am even more anxious than the government to get to the truth of this matter, which is in fact a question of law rather than of fact. How say you?"

And I'd have waited for the judge to declare his venue.

Only one of two things can happen next. He agrees and we're off and running toward the death of the IRS as we know it, or he refuses and I notify him of my objection to his ruling, and that I hereby challenge the jurisdiction of the court inasmuch as it appears to be sitting as a star chamber and not a lawful court vis-a-vis my standing as a free and natural citizen.

And that would be the end of the proceedings while I appealed his position. I would refuse to participate in anything further until the jurisdictional challenge was adjudicated, at the Supreme Court if necessary.

And in any event, I would never understand the charges against me. I would be so stupid that they would have to explain every single detail of the law and my alleged duty to it.

And that's all we're after, in the end, is it not?