SUPPORTING BRIEF #7: DE USUFRUCTU; THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, Page 2
**********************************************************************
In the Institutes, a whole class of objects was referred to as genus; while a particular member of the genus was called species. For example, a whole flock of sheep is a genus, while an individual sheep is termed species. This same principle can also apply to masses of people subjected to servitude. All who labor in America today are viewed by political authority as persons who must file and pay income tax. Therefore, all who labor in American today comprise the genus. One of the mass of millions who comprise the genus are individually called species.
The property of the state was known as solum provinciale. Naturally, a perfect ownership could not be acquired of any property that was solum provinciale. For example, take the national parks today. The people may use them according to the proscribed rules laid down by the state, but that is all. Hence, we can see that the people have a usufruct over the national parks, but the usufruct they enjoy can never be consolidated into perfect ownership. This same principle applies to the property the people have in their labor. The state has gained considerable power over the peoples' labor by perverting the income tax to include the peoples' labor, thereby establishing a usufruct over the peoples' labor. Hence, the labor of the people is solum provinciale, and the people can have no perfect ownership in their own labor, even though the Constitution, as written today, is supposed to guarantee the right to free labor. Who would have ever thought that the political authority that rules over the people would deliberately engage in propaganda tactics that perverted the public mind to gain power over the peoples' labor? Hitler and the National Socialists were defeated by the Allied Powers in World War II. This we all know. But although Hitler has been dead know for over 50 years, his methods of propaganda have not died. They work quite well, for all we have to do is look at the working class of Americans today and see the perversion of their minds, in that, they have been conditioned to accept state-mandated servitude and accept numbers that identify their labor as mere articles of commerce. This very principle is what was called Gleichschaltung by the National Socialists of Germany under Hitler, which, put simply, was the nationalization of the nation's thinking. The nationalization of thought demands "that all the instruments of propaganda are co-ordinated to influence the individuals in the same direction and to produce the characteristic Gleichschaltung of all minds." The Road to Serfdom by Friedriech Hayek (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1944) pp. 153-54.) As William Channing stated in his work entitled Remarks on the Life and Character of Napoleon Bonaparte (1827-28):
"We war not with the dead. We would resist only what we deem the pernicious influence of the dead." The Works of William Channing (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1873), Vol I, pg. 71.
One thing the Roman jurists could readily see back in their day was that a right was of no value if it could not be enforced. It would be a mere inoperative abstraction. This can readily be seen today when it comes to the peoples' right to a free labor market. The politicians and bureaucrats definitely are bound and determined not to allow the people the exercise of this right, for the ability to contract labor and receive compensation for that labor has been significantly invaded by the state. This is the primary method by which the state exercises its usufruct over the peoples' labor. If the Court denies the right to free labor, then the right is useless, a mere abstraction of law; and the 13th Amendment will be overridden by the sheer force of political authority that has resolutely set its face against the peoples' Constitution.
How the state determines that there is an obligation between the individual who labors and the state is another thing. According to Justinian, obligations may arise without having their origin in mutual consent. Under the heading of LIB. III, Tit. XXVII. DE OBLIGATIONIBUS QUASI EX CONTRACTU, we read:
"Having enumerated the different kinds of contracts, let us treat of those obligations which do not spring, properly speaking, from a contract, but yet, as they do take their origin from a delict, seem to arise, as it were, from a contract." The Institutes of Justinian, pg. 385.
The leading distinction between obligations ex contractu and quasi ex contractu is, that in the former one person chooses to bind himself to another, in the latter he is placed in such circumstances that he is thereby bound to another. For example, if a person accepts an inheritance or receives money not due him, even though there is no expressed contract, the mere fact that that person conducted himself in a certain manner imposed certain duties upon that person that the law would bind him to fulfill. Let us examine the typical working person in America today. The mere fact that a person goes out and finds work and earns money from contracting their labor with another person forms a contract in the eyes of today's politicians, and the contract falls under the heading of quasi ex contractu. This type of logic is insidious and goes even beyond the logic of the slaveholders of the South in pre civil war times, for it encompasses all who labor in America without any discrimination. In short, just because I labor gives the state the right to despoil me of the fruits of my labor, and this right the state claims shall be enforced by the laws that the state writes. This is not a legitimate quasi ex contractu, but is the logic of despotism and reflects the thinking of a Napoleon or a Hitler. No wonder, then, Lord Mansfield in the Somersett case decided shortly before the Revolutionary War stated:
"The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself, from whence it was created, is erased from memory; it is of a nature that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law." Dred Scott v. Sanford 19 How. 393, 535.
Indeed, there is no logic that can justify any form of slavery. It is, and always has been, been a product of sheer power, and has always been an enemy of the rights of humanity.
"But if we are to turn our attention to the dark ages of the world, why confine our view to colored slavery? On the same principles white men were made slaves. All slavery has its origin in power, and is against right." supra, 538.
It is only logical that politicians who are of this type of mentality would attack the independence of the judiciary so that their despotism will be upheld in the law. Judges, being human like the rest of us, are just as capable of being the victims of propaganda as the rest of the people. They are also capable of being corrupted by power and could, as Thomas Jefferson warned, become a "despotism of an oligarchy." Therefore, let us examine some of the methods that have been used to pervert the minds of judges as well as the people in general.
Herbert Hoover was very clear in his book The Challenge to Liberty (Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y., 1934) that the government would have no choice but to try and control the nation's thinking to protect its political hide; and thid was when the income tax rate upon the earnings of American workers was 0%. I do not see how it can be denied that the people awakening to state-mandated servitude would be disastrous for many politicians, hence the politicians, to protect their political hides, are driven to try and hide the servitude. So when we look at certain laws that have come into being since the New Deal began in 1933, let us also consider their mental effect. First, let us consider the Social Security Act of 1935. The Social Security Act of 1935 was the first law in the history of America that imposed a direct tax upon the earnings of American workers. This was the first step towards the nationalization of labor. Before the Social Security Act of 1935, there was no income tax levied upon the earnings of American workers. American workers were not "taxpayers" in the sense that the politicians took the position they had to file and pay income tax on their labor. However, under the heading of TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT, we read:
"Sec. 802. (a) The tax imposed by section 801 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer." U.S. Statutes at Large, 74th Congress, Sess. I. Ch. 531. August 14, 1935, pg. 636.
Two things need to be noted here. One is that the employer was made the agent of the state to begin despoiling workers of the fruits of their labor; and second is the labeling of the worker as a "taxpayer." Indeed, for the politicians and bureaucrats to be able to continue with their social experiments, the labor of the people must be at their disposal, and all who labor must believe themselves to be "taxpayers," in that, all who labor must believe they have an obligation to file and pay income tax upon their labor. Lincoln himself knew that he who was able to mould public sentiment could change the government. Hence, it is possible to convert America into a Socialist State by perverting the public mind.
In 1939, Roosevelt's new appointees to the Supreme Court destroyed a principle of law that had stood unaltered for a century-and-a-half. This was the principle found in Article III, § 1 of the Constitution and was very specific about judges having a salary that would not be diminished during the judge's tenure. The reason for this was simple, for it kept the political departments, especially the taxing authorities, from coercing the judge into being a tool of faction. Many people, perhaps, do not realize how important it is to the preservation of liberty that the judicial department remain independent of the political departments. In a very early part of our history it was said "if they [the people] value and wish to preserve their Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges." Rawle on the Constitution (2d Ed.) 281. Therefore, it only stands to reason that any political force that desires a boundless taxing power over the people would try and destroy the independence of the judiciary. The case in question here is O'Malley vs. Woodrough 307 US 277.
In 1939, another peculiar law was passed. It was the Public Salary Tax Act (Public Law No. 32). What this Act did was impose taxation across the board on all government officers and all government workers. Let us now examine the pure absurdity of both the O'Malley decision and the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. As anyone should be able to logically deduce, the primary objective of revenue laws is for the raising of revenue. It is for this simple reason that government has the power to tax. Now, ask yourself a question: How can any revenue be raised by taxing the salaries of government officers or the earnings of government workers? Where does the money come from that pays the salaries and earnings of government workers? Does it not come from tax money derived from the private sector? So, we can see that taxing the salaries and earnings of government officers and workers is, in reality, taxing tax money. How can any additional revenue be gained by taxing tax money? To illustrate, a cow, after gorging itself by grazing in the field rests. While it is resting, it burps up a cud to chew on. This is what taxing tax money is. It is merely the cud that government chews on. The effect is purely psychological, in that, all who labor must be conditioned to believe that they have an obligation to file and pay income tax on their labor, irregardless if the taxation produces any additional revenue or not. This same perversion of the mind that has been perpetrated upon the people also operates upon the judicial mind to make the judge believe that all who labor have an obligation to file and pay income tax upon their labor. A fact that Mr. Sandars brought forward that may be of interest to the reader states:
"Regularity in keeping accounts, and in entering all matters of business in a private ledger, was considered one of the first duties of a Roman citizen. Cicero speaks of a failure in this duty as an almost insupposable act of negligence and dishonesty." The Institutes of Justinian, pg. 359.
Perhaps now we can further understand why the 4th Amendment was made part of the Constitution. Historically speaking, the state never has believed anyone could claim the right to the privacy of their books and papers, and, true to form, the usufructuary today believes that all who labor must keep books and records and bring those books and records forward at audit at the usufructuary's request. Welcome back to Rome.
Consider the following quote from Lawrence Dennis' book The Coming American Fascism (N.Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1936) found on pages 213-14:
"Who shall manipulate the opinions, feelings, and attitudes of the masses?- for manipulated they must be and will be in a civilization as complex and highly organized as ours. Is it preferable to have mass opinions, feelings, and social attitudes manipulated by powerful private interests for personal or minority group ends, or to have mass opinions guided by a national State in the pursuit of some idealized plan of social well-being and order?"
For myself, politicians that deliberately engage in perverting to public mind to gain position and power over the people are, in my view, the reflection of Satan himself. The worst theft there is the theft of the mind, for he who robs you of your mind can rob you virtually at will by making you think the thievery is legal.
"It is a theft, not only when any one takes away a thing belonging to another, in order to appropriate it, but generally when anyone deals with the property of another contrary to the wishes of the owner." Gai. iii. 195; D. xlvii. 2. 54. pr.; The Institutes of Justinian, pg. 403.
Is it the will of the people that their labor be bound to servitude? Have they "voluntarily" given the state the right of usufruct over their labor so that the state can conduct their massive social experiments? Or, in order to accomplish the nationalization of labor, have the politicians and bureaucrats engaged in a continuing one-sided propaganda campaign to pervert the public mind? The latter is the obvious answer, for no one in their right mind would consent to any form of slavery being imposed upon them. That is simply deduced from human nature.
An editorial column by Jeff Jacoby found on page 51A of the April 11, 1998 edition of The Rocky Mountain News pointed out that "80 percent of the public, according to a recent poll, thinks the IRS has too much power. Seventy-five percent believe the IRS treats taxpayers as guilty until proven innocent." It is apparent that the majority of the people sense that something is wrong. As Mr. Jacoby also pointed out "You are assigned a 'Taxpayer Identification Number' at birth, and no matter where you go or what you do, the IRS finds out about it. Get a job, sell a house, earn a paycheck, take out a loan, make a deposit, start a business, write a check, receive an inheritance, buy some stock, have a baby, everything in your life is reported to the IRS." I found it interesting that Mr. Jacoby had figured out the predetermination of our childrens' "taxpayer" status at birth. His is but one small step away from coming to the realization that slavery has returned to America, even though it is today in a mild form. But, just as the serfs of the Middle Ages had become so because they had surrendered their rights to land to powerful lords, and left their children no choice but to make the best terms they could with their lords as regards living on the land; so we today, by surrendering our right to labor to powerful lords, have left our children in the position of making the best terms they can with the lords when they come of age to labor. This, I submit, is a dirty trick to play on our children and grandchildren, and is contrary to the part of the Preamble which states: "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
The truth is something that is readily accepted when it is pleasant, and is scorned when it is bitter. Thus, the status of slavery will not be recieved by many, even though it be the truth.
I am a man of 40 years of age, and there are many others in America in my age group. They no doubt number in the millions. All those in my age group that anticipate receiving an old age pension should be given a picture of what will pay their pensions. They are the children that are already assigned their taxpayer identification numbers playing in the schoolyards and babies assigned their taxpayer identification numbers lying in cribs in the maternity wards of hospitals all across America. It is their labor that will fill your cups, and it is all made possible because of an ancient principle of Roman Law called DE USUFRUCTU.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of June, 1998.
Adrian C. Banks,
Pro Se