Phil Hart

[Cpt Banjo]

Lorne, your reliance on Adam Smith is misplaced. The Supreme Court long ago held that Smith's writings are not a guide to the determination of what a direct tax is under the Constitution. Read the 1881 decision that upheld the nation's first income tax, Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881). This is one of those cases that includes the argument of the appellant right before the decision itself. Notice how Springer relies on Smith (along with Mill and others) for his claim that a tax on his income is a direct tax. Notice how the Court rejects this argument in the penultimate paragraph of the decision. Notice how the Court limits the category of direct taxes and characterizes the income tax ("Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.").

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=586

Notice, Lorne, that you and Hart are completely wrong.

[Paul]

Just another moron who doesn't understand Adam Smith. Smith never said a tax on income is a capitation. He said things like capitations "should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue," but all that means is that the tax doesn't change regardless of what the taxpayer's source of revenues (the only means of paying any tax) might be. He also pointed out that a capitation on the "lower ranks of people" was "direct tax[] upon the wages of labor," but what he meant was that, because the lower ranks have no property to serve as a source of revenue, any tax they paid came out of their wages. And none of his statements can be reversed the way the tax protestor morons try to do it -- saying "capitations are taxes on income" doesn't mean "taxes on incomes are capitations" any more than saying "dogs are maammals" means "mammals are dogs."

[lorne]

To begin with, Famspear first mentioned Adam Smith (quoting Hart) not me; I don't rely on him. Statutorily speaking, Smith has no bearing and can be put out of view. Although he's useful as a source for what the founders were reading/thinking when they penned our founding documents. Our Constitution provides that "no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census, or enumeration, therein before directed to be taken." So Congress can certainly tax labor, wages or income with this limitation. But our so-called "income tax" clearly started out as an excise tax, not a direct tax. From the first US Income Tax form: ".. and subject to an Income Tax under the excise laws of the United States." http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/social/p ... 1862-4.gif

So the next question is, did the 16th Amendment change anything, did it allow for an unapportioned, direct tax? I think not. And your Tax Court decisions and memoes are unpersuasive; very limited by nature. Perhaps we should look at what the Supreme Court says regarding . . . oh wait a minute. You have no interest in the truth do you? I'm afraid my worst fears are being confirmed here - Famspear hasn't been fooled by this scheme - HE'S A PART OF IT.

Here's a Phil Hart quote from the Intro to Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?

Being frustrated with the literature out in the public realm on the tax issue, I began to do my own research. I found the statutes and regulations, all 19,000 pages of them, to contain much smoke and mirrors of a complex nature. I decided instead to investigate the foundational underpinnings of the Congress' authority to levy an income tax. In the first seven chapters of this book you will not find a single statute quoted out of Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. Instead you will find an analysis of the history and the legal authority behind the income tax amendment to the Constitution.
I believe this approach will provide a more easily understood body of material that can be used to unravel the income tax issue. What I discovered was the entire income tax issue to be complex primarily because there are too many taxes which wear the label of "income tax" which are actually not income taxes at all. The effect of this is to make the entire income tax issue to appear more complicated than it needs to be. Of course this plays into the hands of those who benefit from the tax and hurts those who end up paying the tax.

..
It is my opinion that about three quarters of Americans don't have "constitutional income." But most Americans have unknowingly declared themselves to have "statutory taxable income." Through sleight of hand, virtually all of us have been entrapped into creating a "legal duty" for ourselves to pay this tax. A friend of mine said it is similar to getting your shirt caught in a piece of machinery. Generations of Americans have gone to the battlefields of the world believing they were fighting for freedom, yet at home they live under a form of economic tyranny where the spies and the informers report financial crimes. The goal of the bureaucracy seems to be political and social control, and the deception of the American people has been wonderfully clever.

Yes, I've been in contact with others in the tax honesty community. Very eye-opening. And thanks for the personal attacks; it shows the weakness of your position.

[Famspear]

To begin with, Famspear first mentioned Adam Smith (quoting Hart) not me; I don't rely on him. Statutorily speaking, Smith has no bearing and can be put out of view.

Correct. In other words, your friend Hart is wrong.

So the next question is, did the 16th Amendment change anything, did it allow for an unapportioned, direct tax? I think not. And your Tax Court decisions and memoes are unpersuasive; very limited by nature.

No, the Tax Court decisions are not unpersuasive. They're statement of the law. And the rest of us are not here to "persuade" you, pal. We're here to lay down the law.

Perhaps we should look at what the Supreme Court says regarding . . . oh wait a minute. You have no interest in the truth do you? I'm afraid my worst fears are being confirmed here - Famspear hasn't been fooled by this scheme - HE'S A PART OF IT.

Yeah, perhaps you should look at the Supreme Court rulings and all the other rulings. And can the phony rhetoric about your "worst fears". If you had studied this honestly, you would know what the Sixteenth Amendment did. And we've written about it over and over and over and over again.

The only "scheme" that is material here is the scheme that people like you have fallen for -- the tax protester scheme, of which there are many varieties. And you, not I, are part of the scheme, lorne.

And thanks for the personal attacks; it shows the weakness of your position.

No, there is no weakness in our position. When you, lorne, engage in personal attacks, you have no standing to complain when others respond in kind.

[Pottapaug1938]

To begin with, Famspear first mentioned Adam Smith (quoting Hart) not me; I don't rely on him. Statutorily speaking, Smith has no bearing and can be put out of view. Although he's useful as a source for what the founders were reading/thinking when they penned our founding documents. Our Constitution provides that "no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census, or enumeration, therein before directed to be taken." So Congress can certainly tax labor, wages or income with this limitation. But our so-called "income tax" clearly started out as an excise tax, not a direct tax. From the first US Income Tax form: ".. and subject to an Income Tax under the excise laws of the United States." http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/social/p ... 1862-4.gif

So the next question is, did the 16th Amendment change anything, did it allow for an unapportioned, direct tax? I think not. And your Tax Court decisions and memoes are unpersuasive; very limited by nature. Perhaps we should look at what the Supreme Court says regarding . . . oh wait a minute. You have no interest in the truth do you? I'm afraid my worst fears are being confirmed here - Famspear hasn't been fooled by this scheme - HE'S A PART OF IT.

Here's a Phil Hart quote from the Intro to Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?

Being frustrated with the literature out in the public realm on the tax issue, I began to do my own research. I found the statutes and regulations, all 19,000 pages of them, to contain much smoke and mirrors of a complex nature. I decided instead to investigate the foundational underpinnings of the Congress' authority to levy an income tax. In the first seven chapters of this book you will not find a single statute quoted out of Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. Instead you will find an analysis of the history and the legal authority behind the income tax amendment to the Constitution.
I believe this approach will provide a more easily understood body of material that can be used to unravel the income tax issue. What I discovered was the entire income tax issue to be complex primarily because there are too many taxes which wear the label of "income tax" which are actually not income taxes at all. The effect of this is to make the entire income tax issue to appear more complicated than it needs to be. Of course this plays into the hands of those who benefit from the tax and hurts those who end up paying the tax.

..
It is my opinion that about three quarters of Americans don't have "constitutional income." But most Americans have unknowingly declared themselves to have "statutory taxable income." Through sleight of hand, virtually all of us have been entrapped into creating a "legal duty" for ourselves to pay this tax. A friend of mine said it is similar to getting your shirt caught in a piece of machinery. Generations of Americans have gone to the battlefields of the world believing they were fighting for freedom, yet at home they live under a form of economic tyranny where the spies and the informers report financial crimes. The goal of the bureaucracy seems to be political and social control, and the deception of the American people has been wonderfully clever.

Yes, I've been in contact with others in the tax honesty community. Very eye-opening. And thanks for the personal attacks; it shows the weakness of your position.

Lorne, you've become much too addicted to the TD kool-aid much too quickly. To begin with, no matter what the original text of the Constitution says, or what the 1862 income tax forms say, the 16th Amendment modified it; and regardless of whether the income tax is a capitation, direct, indirect, excise or other tax, it may be levied on us regardless of the need for apportionment, or anything else.

You've just performed the TD equivalent of taking a small boat and boarding the RMS Titanic after it struck the iceberg. Recall that boat, and get away fast. The others like you who have done what you did aren't in the lifeboats; they are clinging to the railings, insisting that the ship is unsinkable....

[wserra]

I've decided to end my tax-prep business (which was a sideline anyway)

A "sideline" to what? What do you do that qualifies you to say, not only that the LLMs in tax on Quatloos are wrong, but more importantly that every court ever to rule on these subjects is wrong?

[Harvester]

Good show Lorne. Phil Hart's book is a great supplement to Cracking the Code as he gets to the heart of the 16th and what was going on at the time. It actually was an attempt to tax the rich and bring relief to wage-earners who were hit indirectly by the protective tariffs. Congress and We The People never agreed to an "income tax" on the average wage-earner.

[personal information about Famspear removed -- Arthur Rubin]

[notorial dissent]

If “lorne” has a sideline, I very much suspect that it is either mowing lawns, or more likely dumpster diving, as he is not smart enough to clean pools, and has repeatedly demonstrated this.

Lorne is a troll, first, last, and foremost a troll, and not a very good one at that. I doubt seriously that he has ever made enough at any one time to more than qualify for an EZ, and most likely had to have help doing it.

The reliance on Black’s and Adam Smith are of a particular TP subset, and while Black’s and Smith are interesting and somewhat useful as an historical reference, they ARE NOT law, and yet certain groups swear by them almost with an almost religious fervor, often I suspect because the antique language is truly incomprehensible to them, and thus more mystical and powerful.

I keep hearing the phrase "constitutional income", tossed around like a mantra, and yet I can't remember anything like that from the Constitution, other than the 16th's permission to tax it, my take being, that if you have income, it may be taxable-based on the code.

[lorne]

Lots of action for a Sunday, no? Wserra, I wouldn't call it "unanimous" but I'm well aware of how the courts usually rule; and I congratulate you on the law degree (although where we're headed it may not be that useful). It would appear the income tax deception is just one of many that have been perpetrated on the American people for quite a long time. And now that these frauds are becoming known, exposed for what they are must be quite frightening for you. Understandably you're scared and lashing out, struggling to protect the Sacred Tax. But your ship is sinking - certainly this is not news to you?

Let's just say I have "other businesses" and leave it at that. I'm learning that I need to deal with the IRS "information returns" as they play a large role in this scheme. Needless to say, I've become quite friendly with my former client who closed his corp and started afresh. With no problems I might add.

[wserra]

Wserra, I wouldn't call it "unanimous" but I'm well aware of how the courts usually rule

You wouldn't call it "unanimous"? OK, please cite one court - that's one single court from the thousands in the country - that has bought Hart's BS about "constitutional income". I'll wait.

And now that these frauds are becoming known, exposed for what they are must be quite frightening for you. Understandably you're scared and lashing out, struggling to protect the Sacred Tax.

Man, you do flatter yourself. "Funny" is much closer. "Pathetic" works too.

But your ship is sinking - certainly this is not news to you?

"I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."

- Daniel Shays, of Shays' Rebellion, 1784.

Let's see - that was two hundred twenty-six years ago. Long time "sinking", don't you agree?

Let's just say I have "other businesses" and leave it at that.

I'm sure you'd like to, since it's perfectly clear that nothing in your background lends any weight to your opinions on the law.

[Nikki]

...
I've become quite friendly with my former client who closed his corp and started afresh. With no problems I might add.

Yet.

It takes a while for the IRS to put information returns and tax returns (or the lack thereof) together. However, it will happen.

With any luck, you and your friend will be contacted by a regular IRS representative and not someone fron CI.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
I've become quite friendly with my former client who closed his corp and started afresh. With no problems I might add.

What did he do, go to work for the administration or get elected?

[ashlynne39]

Lots of action for a Sunday, no? Wserra, I wouldn't call it "unanimous" but I'm well aware of how the courts usually rule; and I congratulate you on the law degree (although where we're headed it may not be that useful).

Oh ho, we better watch out. They're coming for us lawyers . . . the RAP people that is. If this isn't the biggest bunch of BS nonsense I've ever read . . .

Lawyers will not be around anymore. No more bar association. Common law. Lock your self up and read the constitution, the federalist papers, Wests Law Corpus Juris Secundum volume 38A and any old law books especially case law say before 1930, better before 1860. Read, read, read. Then go watch court trials in the audience. After 1-2 years you should be ready to get involved as your own counselor or helping others. The old lawyers know precious little about common law. They will be disadvantaged in that they are all entangled in de facto procedural law. They are also deceptive in their approach to law which will hurt them and their clients in front of a common law jury. You are not going to run against someone practicing common law for 20 years since this is all new here. So you can begin a career in honest legal representation, or run for Judge or prosecutor. I have no idea what is going to happen to the law schools but the bar will be gone and that is the legal licensing agency. So what sort of schools that will emerge is a good guess. I suppose some folks will research and study and get a curriculum together. What the members of the bar will do is a good question. Many will try to go into common law. Some will make it, many will not. Many will get frustrated by an honest system and leave the field. Many will be forced to find honest work no longer being able to hold Esq titles of nobility and operate as officers of the court in a conspiracy against the public. So do consider careers as legal counselors. Even the absolutely guilty have a right to legal counsel under the constitution.

[Pottapaug1938]

Friends, I think that it's time for lorne to join Van Pelt and Harvester on the Ignore list. He is too busy chugging the TP kool-aid and running headlong down the path leading to arrest, prosecution and conviction for tax evasion to say anything useful to us, while he ducks, weaves and dodges challenges in a manner worthy of Van Pelt and Harvester. We can always hit the "Un-Ignore" button if he provides the challenged court cases to support his assertions; but I'm not going to hold my breath....

[lorne]

You may be recollecting the French, Ashlynne, when they first threw off their despotic capitation-fed government, among their earliest acts was leading virtually every tax collector straight to the guillotine for a de-capitation? No relax, we're a peaceful forgiving people.

Wserra, a court ruling for "Constitutional income?" Do you fancy yourself a seeker of truth? A Quatloosian who's read Harts book? (you can answer via PM and preserve your reputation). There are a few wins, however in light of the retaliatory nature of whoever is running this scheme, even the winners stand in great peril from the beast afterward. Prudence suggests we not give further publicity by naming them here.

Of course, many court decisions are quite revealing of the true nature of the Income Tax, "in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such ..", but alas the court ruled against the plaintiff who argued his federal railroad dividends weren't income (DUH!) so I'm sure you wouldn't accept that.

No wserra, the deception doesn't date to Shays Rebellion, but to the mid 1860s, 14th Amendment et al. http://www.americandreampreservation.com/node/5

I'm not bothered in the slightest by your contrary opinions, or that many of you feel compelled to name-call. You're quite free to continue as federal citizens subject to a vast array of dizzying regulations, not the least of which is . . a return of "income" every April 15th. ENJOY!

[The Operative]

I'm not bothered in the slightest by your contrary opinions, or that many of you feel compelled to name-call. You're quite free to continue as federal citizens subject to a vast array of dizzying regulations, not the least of which is . . a return of "income" every April 15th. ENJOY!

On top of all the other delusions, I see that you have now latched on to the "14th amendment citizens" argument. I have only one question. Where in the Constitution is Congress' power to tax limited to citizens? I am sure you will post some non-answer to that one.

[Famspear]

....There are a few wins...

No, there aren't. You're a liar. No one has ever won a court case using Phil Hart's frivolous theories, or anyone else's frivolous theories, about U.S. federal income tax.

.....however in light of the retaliatory nature of whoever is running this scheme, even the winners stand in great peril from the beast afterward. Prudence suggests we not give further publicity by naming them here.

Baloney. You're a liar. You know of no cases where anyone has ever won in court under your theories.

I'm not bothered in the slightest by your contrary opinions....

Baloney. You are "bothered." That's why you "bothered" to falsely claim you're NOT "bothered."

Ain't as easy as it first looked, is it?

[wserra]

OK, please cite one court - that's one single court from the thousands in the country - that has bought Hart's BS about "constitutional income".

Wserra, a court ruling for "Constitutional income?" Do you fancy yourself a seeker of truth? Blah blah blah.

Didn't think so.

[Cpt Banjo]

Perhaps we should look at what the Supreme Court says regarding . . .

Yes, let's. In 1881 the Court said that the income tax on Mr. Springer's personal earnings was in the nature of a duty or excise. In 1895 the Court said that a tax on income from employment "has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such". In 1930 the Court said, "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them."
In 1945 the Court said that the Internal Revenue Code "is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”

Want more?

[Harvester]

So, do you make a habit of writing to convicted felons while they are in prison, to discuss the "strength" of their position?

I have. My favorite is Martin Armstrong.