SUPPORTING BRIEF #6: SERFDOM
*********************************************************************
Now that the defendants' position on labor and taxation has been made clear on page 7 of defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS which was filed on March 9, 1998, the plaintiff believes it to be necessary to show that the servile doctrines of old are once again, little by little, being introduced into our body politic.
Speaking in reference to the expediency of tax collections, the defendants' stated through their attorneys:
"Consequently, plaintiff's first request that the Court permanently enjoin defendants 'from enforcing their tax codes upon plaintiff's labor' seeks to frustrate those objectives' and should be denied." (pg. 7 of defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS)
In this discussion, we shall consider the terms FEUDALISM, SERFDOM, VILLEINAGE, and VASSAL as expounded upon by the writers of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Univ. of Chicago, 1944 ed.).
To set the stage for this discussion, we will start out with an excerpt from Herbert Hoover's book The Challenge to Liberty (Charles Scribners' Sons, N.Y., 1934) found on pages 16-17, where Mr. Hoover stated:
"Thus the scene of the tragedy of Liberty world over must be suffering and discontent among the people. The drama moves swiftly in a torrent of words in which real purposes are disguised in portrayals of Utopia; idealism without realism; slogans, phrases and statements destructive to confidence in existing institutions; demands for violent action against slowly curable ills; unfair representation that sporadic wickedness is the system itself; searing prejudice against the former order; dismay and panic in the economic organization which feeds on its own despair. Emotions rise above reason. The man on horseback, ascending triumphantly to office on the steps of constitutional process, demands and threatens the parliament into the delegation of its sacred power. Then follows consolidation of authority through powerful propaganda in the pay of the state to transform the mentality of the people. Resentment of criticism, denunciation of all opposition, moral terrorization, all follow in sequence. The last scene is the suppression of freedom. Liberty dies of the water from her own well- free speech- poisoned by untruth.
"In the Epilogue the dreams of those who saw Utopia are shattered and the people find they are marching backward toward the Middle Ages- as regimented men."
It should be noted that the income tax did not tax the earnings of laborers at this point in time, even though the income tax had existed since 1913. Hence, due to the gradual process of socialism that we have undergone for six decades, the burden upon labor has gone from 0% when Mr. Hoover penned the above words to the point where the attorneys that represent the taxing authorities take the position today that labor can be taxed at the pleasure of the political authority. We have not achieved Utopia, but something that more resembles Serfdom.
In Volume 20 of the 1944 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading of SERFDOM we read:
"The notion of serfdom is distinct from those of freedom and of slavery. The serf is not his own master: to perform services for other persons is the essence of his status, but he is not given over to his lord to be owned as a thing or an animal- there are legal limits to the lord's power. Serfdom is very often conceived as a perpetual adherence to the soil of an estate owned by a lord, but this praedial character is not a necessary feature of the condition. Hereditary serfdom may sometimes assume the shape of a personal relation between servant and master. Serfdom will be formed naturally in cases when one barbarous community conquers another, but is not able to destroy entirely the latter or to treat its members as mere chattels, but this mitigated form may be brought about as well by the paucity or comparative weakness of the victors as by the difficulty for them to draw income from pure slaves. In a state of backward agriculture and natural economy it will sometimes be more profitable for the conquerors as well as for the conquered to leave the dependent population in their own households and on their own plots, and at the same time taxing them heavily in the way of tribute and services... The chief work of the Helots was to provide a certain quantity of corn, wine and oil for the lords of the shares on which they were settled; personal services to other Spartiates were exceptional. Pollux in his account of the Helots places them distinctly in an intermediate position between freemen and slaves. The fact that in these instances governments had a good deal to say in the regulation of the status of such serfs is well worth noting: it explains to a great extent the legal limitations of the power of the lords." pg. 359.
Serfdom, in all its forms, it cannot be denied, is a form of involuntary servitude because the lords charge a certain quantity of labor from the serfs for the serf to live within the lord's realm. Labor and land have always been wed to one another. In today's society, it is the duty of the serfs to give to the lords the quantity of labor they need in the form of money so that the lords can provide a variety of services (social programs and subsidies) for the community as a whole. As quoted above, "to perform services for other persons is the essence of his status." It is immaterial whether or not the serf is made to directly perform the service in person, or whether or not the money paid for his labor is extracted from him in the form of a tax so that the service may be provided by others,- either way the lord's objectives are achieved. For example, it was pointed out that "The chief work of the Helots was to provide a certain quantity of corn, wine and oils for the lords of the shares on which they were settled." Let's say, in the alternative, the Helots labored to produce the quantity of corn, wine and oil the lord required, and sold the quantity of corn, wine and oil for money, and then turned the money over to the lord. Either way, the quantity of labor the lord required would be exacted from the serfs.
As far as the issue of status is concerned, it is pretty much common knowledge that all who labor in America today are viewed by government as having the status of "taxpayer." In Colorado, if you are a carpenter that labors for a contract price, in order to be exempted from workers' compensation laws, you must except the status of "independent contractor" and sign a form that states that you are obligated to pay all federal and state income taxes on monies earned from your contracting your labor, thus strengthening the position that all who labor are viewed by the government as having the status of "taxpayer." (see: exhibit A) Therefore, just as in ancient Greece, government has "a good deal to say in the regulation of the status of such serf." You have no say in the matter as far as the lords are concerned, you are a "taxpayer."
"The regulation by the state of the duties and customary status of peasants on government domains turns out to be one of the roots of serfdom in the Roman world, which in this respect as in many others follows on the lines laid down by Hellenistic culture. It is important for our purpose to notice that the condition of coloni was developed as a result of historic necessity by the working of economic and social agencies in the first centuries of the Roman empire and was made the subject of regular legislation in the 4th and 5th centuries. In the enactments of Justinian, summing up the whole course of development (C.J. xi., 48, 23), two classes of coloni are distinguished- the adscripticii, representing a more complete state of serfdom, and the free coloni, with property of their own." ibid.
The serfdom that exists in America today more resembles that of the "free coloni," for those that accept the lord's number (SSN's) may have credit and own property as long as the serf files and pays income tax on their labor every year. The serf who refuses to accept the lord's number and refuses to file and pay income tax on their labor can have no credit and any property that the serf has, especially the property in his labor, will be subject to seizure for not giving the lord the quantity of labor the lord requires for the lord's services (see: exhibit B).
"The Germanic tribes moved along similar (Celtic) lines. The slaves had their separate households, while the masters exacted tribute from them in the shape of corn, cattle or clothes, and the serfs had to obey to the extent of rendering such tribute (Tacitus, Germania, 21). This means, of course, that it was in the interest of the master to levy tribute and not to organize slave labour. After the conquest of the provinces by the Germanic invaders the Roman stock of coloni naturally combined with the German tributary peasants to form medieval serfdom... serfs settled on the estates of the church have to work, as a rule, three days in a week for their masters and are subject to divers rents and payments in kind... The dualism characteristic of medieval serfdom, its formation out of debased freedom and rising servitude, may be traced all through the history of the middle ages. French jurists of the 13th century, e.g, lay stress on a fundamental difference in law between the complete serf whose very body belongs to his lord (cf. the German Leibeigenschaft) and the villein or roturier, who is only bound to perform certain duties and ought not to be further oppressed by the landowners on whose soil he is settled (Beaumanoir, Coutume de Beauvaisis). ibid., 359-60.
We shall now see that the serfdom that exists in America, in substance, in that of villeinage, for all that is required is that the laborer file and pay income tax on his earnings from labor, thereby giving to the lord the service required by law. This condition has come about because of the gradual increase in the degree of servitude imposed upon the laboring class by gradually increasing the income tax rate upon their earnings from labor from 1% in 1937 to the levels we see today. Hence, we can see that today's serfdom has resulted "out of debased freedom and rising servitude."
Under the heading VILLEINAGE found on page 160 of Volume 23 of the 1944 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica we read:
"A medieval term (from villa, villanus), pointing to serfdom, a condition of men intermediate between freedom and slavery. It occurs in France as well as in England, and was certainly imported into English speech through the medium of Norman French.
"The materials for the formation of the villein class were already in existence in the Anglo- Saxon period. On the one hand, the Saxon ceorls (twihyndemen), although considered as including the typical freemen in the earlier laws (Aethelberht, Hlothhere and Edric, Ine), gradually became differentiated through the action of political and economic causes, and many of them had to recognize the patronage of magnates or to seek livelihood as tenants on the estates of the latter. The ceorls, sitting on gafolland, were, though personally free, considered a lower order of men, and lapsed gradually into more or less suppressive subjection to the lords of whom they held their land. It is characteristic in this connection that the West Saxon laws do not make any distinction between ceorls and laets or half-freemen as the Kentish laws had done: this means that half-free people were, if not Welshmen, reckoned as members of the ceorl class. Another remarkable indication of the decay of the ceorl's estate is afforded by the fact that in the treaties with the Danes the twihynde ceorls are equated with the Danish leysings or freedmen. It does not mean, of course, that their condition was practically the same, but in any case the fact testifies to the gulf which had come to separate the two principle subdivisions of the free class- the ceorl and the thegn. The Latin version of the Rectitudines Singularum Personarum, a document compiled probably in the 11th century, renders geneat (a peasant tenant of a superior kind performing lighter services than the gebur, who was burdened with heavy week-work) by villanus; but the gebur came to be also known as villanus according to the Anglo-Norman terminology. The group designated as geburs in Anglo-Saxon characters, though distinguished from mere slaves, undoubtedly included many freedmen who in point of services and economic subjection were not very much above the slaves. Both ceorls and geburs disappear as separate classes, and it is clear that the greater part of them must have passes into the ranks of villeins... They are rustics performing, as a rule, work services for their lords. But not all of the inhabitants of the villages were designated by that name. Villeins are opposed to socmen and freemen on the one hand, to bordarii, cottagers and slaves on the other. The distinction in regard to the first two of these groups was evidently derived from their greater freedom, although the difference is only one in degree and not in kind. In fact, the villein is assumed to be a person free by birth, but holding land of which he cannot dispose of freely."
Land, as we all know, is a form of property. The villein was allowed to live on the land as long as he gave to the lord the quantity of labor the lord required. Let us now apply this same principle when it comes to property in labor. One who desires to labor and earn money in the United States is considered a "taxpayer," in that, those exercising the taxing powers believe that all such people who labor must file and pay income tax. All one needs to do here is substitute the term "villein" for "taxpayer," for the same principle applies,- in order to live and work in the lord's realm, all ye who labor shall pay tribute to the lord for the privilege. In this aspect, all who labor in America are denied the free disposal of their labor, just as the villeins were denied the free disposal of their land in medieval times.
The maxim partus sequitur ventrem applied to the villeins.
"Of course, persons born from villein parents in lawful wedlock were villeins..." ibid., pg 161.
The villeins were required to regularly give week-work to their lords:
"The most important of villein services is the week-work performed by the peasantry. Every virgater or holder of a bovate has to send a labourer to do work on the lord's farm for some days in the week. Three days is the most common standard of this kind, though four or even five, as well as two." ibid., pg 162.
If we take the 31% figure as a standard for the despoliation of the peoples' labor today (exhibit C of plaintiff's COMPLAINT), this would equate to 1.55 days per week of labor (assuming a 5-day work-week) for all villeins in America. The remaining labor left to the villeins can then be used by themselves for their own subsistence.
In time money, more and more, became the mode in which the villeins gave to their lords the quantity of labor the lords required.
"Another series of momentous changes took place in the arrangement of services. Even the manorial system admitted the buying off for money of particular dues in kind and of specific performance of work. A villein might be allowed to bring a penny instead of a chicken, or to pay a rent instead of appearing with his own oxen three times a week on the lord's fields... The peasant got rid of the hateful drudgery which not only took up his time and means in an unprofitable manner, but placed him under the arbitrary control of stewards or reeves and gave occasion to all sorts of fines and extortions." ibid., pp. 162-63.
So the villeins, rather than performing the actual labor for their lords, over time, gave the equivalent of that labor in the form of money, only to be oppressed even more.
It was reported that:
"villeinage did not, however, disappear at once with the rise of copyhold. It lingered through the 16th century and appears exceptionally in the 17th. Deeds of emancipation and payments for personal enfranchisement are often noticed at the time. But these are only survivals of an arrangement which has been destroyed in its essence by a complete change of economic and political conditions." ibid., pg. 163.
This may have been true at the time that these words were written, for labor had just been encroached upon by the Social Security Act of 1935 at the meager rate of 1% of the earnings of laborers starting in 1937 and was supposed to cap at 3% in 1949; and the Victory Tax of 1942, which imposed an additional burden on the earnings of laborers at the rate of 5% was supposed to end after World War II was over. Plaintiff's research has shown neither of these things were done and the rate of taxation that is directly imposed upon the earnings of the laboring class has increased to around one third of their earnings from labor.
Hence, just as a complete change in economic and political conditions had brought about an end to the institution of villeinage by the 18th century, so another change in the economic and political conditions of a people may very well bring back the institution in another form, for all that is necessary is for the villein to give to the master the required quantity of labor for the privilege of living on the land.
Congress, by surrendering its essential legislative and taxing powers to the Executive has created a system of lords and vassals which rule over a nation of villeins. The lords, according to 26 USC, § 7802 & 7803 are the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. All those they employ that are under their direction function in the capacity of vassi dominici, since they are great officers empowered "to supervise local administration in the interests of the central power." (see: VASSAL, Vol. 23, pg. 1, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1944 ed.) This is, indeed, true when it comes to filing and paying income tax upon the money the villeins earn for their labor.
It is of interest to note some of the developments under the heading of FEUDALISM found in Volume 9 of the 1944 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. One development that is especially to be noted is the immunity.
"In the meantime another institution had grown up in this Franco-Roman society, which probably began and certainly assisted in another transformation of the same kind. This is the immunity... The king might still receive the same revenues and the same services from the district held by his lord as formerly, but for their payment a private person in his capacity as overlord was now responsible. In the course of a long period characterized by a weak central government, it was not hard to enlarge the rights which the lord thus obtained, to exclude even the king's personal authority from the immunity, and to translate the duties and payments which the tenant had once owed to the state into obligations which he owed to his lord, even finally into incidents of his tenure. The most important public function whose transformation into a private possession was assisted by the growth of the immunity was the judicial. The lord's court gradually took the place of the public court in civil, and even in degrees in criminal cases. The plaintiff, even if he were under another lord, was obliged to sue in the court of the defendant's lord, and the portion of the fine for a breach of the peace which should have gone to the state went in the end to the lord." ibid., pg. 201.
Hence, the claim of immunity is nothing new. It is old,- very, very old. Also, because of a weak Congress that has acted many times as a rubber stamp for executive legislation, the overlords (the Treasurer and the Commissioner) have been able to gain enormous powers over the peoples' labor.
"Nor was the king's aid lacking to this method of dividing up the royal authority, any more than to the immunity, for it became a frequent practice to make the administrative office into a fief, and to grant it to be held in that form of property by the count. In this way the feudal county, or duchy, formed itself, corresponding in most cases only roughly to the old administrative divisions of the state." ibid.
This similarity today cannot be denied. The overlords (Treasurer and Commissioner), today wield their power through regional administrative districts which bring in the labor harvest from the villeins each year.
"Feudalism in its most flourishing age was anything but systematic. Great diversity prevailed everywhere, and different facts or customs are found in every lordship. But underlying all the apparent confusion of fact and practice were certain fundamental principles and relationships, which were alike everywhere. The chief of these are: the relation of vassal and lord; the principle of every holder of land is a tenant and not an owner, until the highest rank is reached, sometimes even the conception rules in that rank; that the tenure by which a thing of value is held is one of honourable service, not intended to be economic, but moral and political in character; the principle of mutual obligations of loyalty, protection and service binding all the ranks of society from the highest to the lowest; and the principle of contract between lord and tenant, as determining all rights, controlling their modification, and forming the foundation of all law... The foundation of the feudal relationship proper was the fief, which was usually land, but might be any desirable thing, as an office, a revenue in money or kind, the right to collect a toll, or operate a mill." ibid., pg. 206.
Note that "every holder of land is a tenant and not an owner." If we substitute "labor" for "land," and "servant" for "tenant," we can see that, today, "every holder of labor is a servant and not an owner." If labor can be taxed and regulated as commerce, then all who labor have a servitude over the property in their labor; they are not the owners of their own labor.
If the pernicious doctrine that the defendants' attorneys have brought forward, that being, that the federal taxing powers have the right to despoil workers of the fruits of their labor without the consent of the workers, then the workers are indeed in a condition of serfdom to the federal taxing powers. As Herbert Hoover warned us over six decades ago before taxation secured a footing upon the peoples' labor:
"In the Epilogue the dreams of those who saw Utopia are shattered and the people find they are marching backward toward the Middle Ages- as regimented men."
"The feudal system would have recognize the claim made on behalf of the Federal Government for supreme power over persons and things in the Territories." Dred Scott v. Sanford19 How. 393, 513.
"Can a man, then, have a right to the labor or obedience of another without his consent?Give us this right, and it is all we ask." Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments (Pritchard, Abbott, & Loomis, Augusta, Ga., 1860), pg. 313.
Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of March, 1998.
Adrian C. Banks,
Pro Se