COMPLAINT: BIVENS ACTION: CONSTITUTIONAL TORT, A TRESPASS ON PLAINTIFF'S LABOR: PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO LABOR HAS BEEN ARBITRARILY INTERFERED WITH BY DEFENDANTS; DEFENDANTS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO IMPOSE INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE UPON PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF 13TH AMENDMENT; AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Filed: December 29, 1997
***********************************************************************
Comes now the Plaintiff, before this Court, to seek redress of injuries to his constitutionally protected right to labor by unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents acting under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
This Court has jurisdiction in this case because it is a Federal matter. The Secretary of the Treasury (hereinafter called "Treasurer"), the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (hereinafter called "Commissioner"), and unknown number of Internal Revenue Service Agents are all officers and agents of the Federal Government acting under color of law. See: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388.
Any claim of immunity from this action is wholly without merit. The Commissioner's duties and powers are prescribed by the Treasurer (see: 26 USC, § 7802). The Treasurer employs all those persons engaged in enforcement of internal revenue laws and all such persons act under the direction and orders of the Treasurer (see: 26 USC, § 7803). In this case, it is clear that both the Treasurer and the Commissioner have directed and ordered their subordinates to arbitrarily despoil citizens of their labor. This is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Since the Treasurer, the Commissioner, and the unknown number of Internal Revenue Service Agents have acted outside their constitutional limitations, they have lost their umbrella of immunity in this case and are ripe for suit.
In addition, the Executive branch of Government is specifically denied any taxing powers pursuant to Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. This means that the taxing powers in general are also unconstitutional. Hence, any claim of immunity by the Treasurer, Commissioner, or the unknown number of Internal Revenue Service agents must fail.
The facts showing that the existence of a substantial justiciable controversy between the Plaintiff and Defendants will now be presented.
The Tort that has been perpetrated upon the Plaintiff by the Defendants is a Trespass upon Plaintiff's most sacred property, that being, his labor.
******************************** I ***********************************
For some time now, Plaintiff has been waiting for a response to Plaintiff's correspondence sent to the Internal Revenue Service, acting under the direction and orders of the Treasurer and Commissioner, demanding proof that the Internal Revenue Service has constitutional authority to impose its tax laws directly upon labor. This correspondence was sent via certified mail with return receipt on January 5, 1996 (see: exhibit A). The aforementioned correspondence was sent because of the threat made by unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents, acting under the direction and orders of the Treasurer and Commissioner, to deprive Plaintiff of Liberty (see: exhibit B). The correspondence Plaintiff sent to the Internal Revenue Service (exhibit A) was very specific on the issue of using the income tax laws to despoil Plaintiff of his labor. The recent actions of the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents, acting under the direction and orders of the Treasurer and Commissioner, against Plaintiff,- that being, the ordering of Hatcher Construction Services to begin withholding and sending 31% of Plaintiff's labor to the Internal Revenue Service,- has been done wholly without proof of authority and in violation of the Internal Revenue Service's own rules (see: exhibit C). According to Section 6331 of the Internal Revenue Code, "If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax by levy upon all property and rights to property..." Plaintiff never received such notice and demand before this action was taken by unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents, acting under the direction and orders of the Treasurer and Commissioner. The result of this arbitrary action on the part of unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents has resulted in the termination of Plaintiff's ability to contract his labor with Hatcher Construction Services (see: Supporting Affidavit) The President of Hatcher Construction Services, Nelson Hatcher, advised Plaintiff on Monday, October 28, 1996, that he was in fear of Plaintiff suing him for non-performance of contract if he began withholding 31% of Plaintiff's compensation for labor pursuant to the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agent's demands and in fear of the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents potential actions against him if he did not comply with their demands. The actions of the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents, acting under the direction and orders of the Treasurer and Commissioner, has therefore deprived Plaintiff of the ability to further contract his labor with Hatcher Construction Services. Therefore, since the actions of the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents has been done without proof of constitutional authority and in violation of their own rules, the action is arbitrary and the suit for Trespass lies.
The following is from 48 Am Jur 2d--Sections 1-3, Pg. 8O:
SECTION 1: LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS
In labor laws, the term "labor" may be used in a comprehensive sense as including those who toil with their brains as well as those performing manual work.
SECTION 2:
Constitutional protection of right to work. The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry.
Labor is deemed to be property, especially within the meaning of constitutional guaranties. Thus, the right to acquire property includes the right to acquire property by labor. The right to earn wages is just as much property and within the protection of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as earned wages.
SECTION 3:
Right to free labor market: As a general principle, every member of a community has a right to enjoy a free labor market, to have a free flow of labor for the purpose of carrying on the business in which he or it has chosen to embark. This right is not merely an abstract one; it is one recognized as the basis of a cause of action where there is an unlawful interference therewith.
******************************** II ************************************
The amount in controversy the Plaintiff has determined by estimating the amount of work lost due to the arbitrary actions of the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents, acting under the direction and orders of the Treasurer and Commissioner, combined with Punitive damages for violations of constitutionally protected rights. The Plaintiff estimates that the arbitrary actions of the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents has deprived the Plaintiff of at least two to three years worth of contracting his labor with Hatcher Construction Services. Hence, the Plaintiff prays for actual damages in the amount of $100,000. Plaintiff's 5th, 9th, 13th, and 14th Amendment rights have also been violated by the arbitrary actions of the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents. Plaintiff has been deprived of his labor without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment; has had his inalienable right to labor violated pursuant to the 9th Amendment; would have been compelled into involuntary servitude by the unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents, acting under the direction and orders of the Treasurer and Commissioner, to continue contracting work with Hatcher Construction Services in violation of the 13th Amendment; and has been deprived of his constitutional right to a free labor market in violation of the 14th Amendment. The Plaintiff values and cherishes his rights and therefore prays for punitive damages in the amount of $200,000, that is, $50,000 for each violation of constitutionally protected rights. Total damages prayed for, therefore, are $300,000.
****************************** III ************************************
Any claim that the Plaintiff knowingly and willingly waived any of his constitutional rights are wholly without merit. For many years Plaintiff was stupid and uninformed about the fact that he waived any rights in filing and paying income tax upon his labor. Plaintiff blindly believed he was obeying the law and did not believe that government officials would prey upon his ignorance of the law and his rights to gain power over him. Plaintiff finds it very distressing that, after doing extensive legal and historical research, that government officials have indeed preyed upon the ignorance of common people to despoil them of the fruits of their labor. There can be nothing more injurious to a country than designing politicians and bureaucrats capitalizing and exploiting the ignorance of common people to gain position and power over them, and yet, this very type of activity is practiced on a large scale by the Internal Revenue Service, acting under the direction and orders of the Treasurer and Commissioner. These issues will be discussed in detail in Plaintiff's supporting Briefs.
"Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Brady v U.S., 397 US 742, 90 S. Ct. Rptr. at page 1469.
Plaintiff emphatically denies that he was aware that he waived any rights during the years he filed and paid income tax upon his labor.
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that:
1. At the final hearing and determination of the Court on this matter, a permanent injunction be issued restraining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon all those persons in active concert or participation with them from enforcing their tax codes upon plaintiff's labor.
2. At the final hearing and determination of the Court on this matter, the Court grant plaintiff's demand for damages in the amount of $300,000.
3. The Court issue such other and further relief as it may deem necessary and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of December, 1997.
Adrian C. Banks,
Pro Se