SUPPORTING BRIEF #2: INCOME TAX, AS IMPOSED UPON LABOR, IS VOID FORVAGUENESS AND DEVOID OF ANY VOLUNTARY NATURE, Page 2
*********************************************************************
This researcher will now present the following illustration to clarify the point brought out in the Pollock case that what was intended to be a tax on capital could end up being a tax on occupations and labor.
Lets say a factory produces a certain product and sells that product on the open market. Naturally, the persons that own the factory needs the human labor to help produce the product. A tax is imposed upon the gains profits the factory receives in selling their product, thus diminishing the profits. At first, the tax imposed does not damage the profits too much, and the factory continues to function. However, once the power to impose a tax is conferred on the government, no limits are placed on how far it can go as long as it stays uniform. As the tax imposed on the profits of the factory increase, the owners of the factory become concerned about how they can stay in business and maintain an acceptable profit margin. The only way to accomplish this would be to reduce the cost of production. Certain costs are fixed, such as, the cost of machinery, electricity, spare parts, etc.. The owners of the factory therefore have no choice but to turn to the labor and occupations of the human beings working in the factory and say; "Dear workers, in order to stay in business, we must pay you less for your labor in order to reduce the costs of production." Hence, the tax initially imposed upon the gains and profits of the factory becomes a tax on the occupations and labor needed to run the factory.
Then what was the purpose of the 16th Amendment, if it conferred no new taxing power upon Congress? Mr Chief Justice White clarifies this in the Brushaber case.
"...but the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1, at page 241.
Thus, the 16th Amendment took away any consideration as to the sources from which "income" was derived. The sources would mainly be the human labor needed for the business activity to function. However, no power was given Congress by the passage of the 16th Amendment that allowed it to directly tax the source of income, that is, the occupations and labor needed to sustain any business activity engaged in for gains and profits. Human labor is not a commodity or article of commerce.
"It was the view that where personal services are involved, a price to fix the compensation is legal. It seemingly was influenced by the declaration in § 6 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U.S.C. § 17, 15 U.S.C.A. § 17, that 'the labor of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce'..." U.S. v National Association of Real Estate Boards, 339 US 485, 70 S. Ct.Rptr. at page 714.
Therefore, the individual who merely provides labor and is compensated for that labor is not to be deemed as "doing business for gains or profits". That individual is merely exercising his/her rights secured by the Federal Constitution.
Let us now examine whether or not the "income tax", as directly imposed upon labor, can be deemed as not being repugnant to the Federal Constitution because, as the Court ruled in Flora v. U.S., it is based on "voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint". As stated earlier in this brief, the information that the people gets from the Internal Revenue Service does not address this issue, and the individual believes the tax to be a positive law.
For something to be "voluntary", it must truly be "voluntary". Let us examine the legal definition of the word.
Voluntary. Unconstrained by interference; unimpelled by another's influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself. Done by design or intention. Proceeding from the free and unrestrained will of the person. Produced in or by an act of choice. Resulting from free choice, without compulsion or solicitation. The word, especially in statutes, often implies knowledge of essential facts. Without valuable consideration; gratuitous, as a voluntary conveyance. Also, having a merely nominal consideration; as, a voluntary deed. Black's Law Dict. 6th Ed., pages 1574 & 1575.
It is clear then that something that is truly voluntary must give the person freedom of choice and have none of the elements of compulsion associated with it. Can this be said about the "income tax" as directly imposed upon labor? Only a madman would answer "yes". The mere fact that the Internal Revenue Service arbitrarily exercises coercive powers upon an individual who refuses to conform to a tax directly imposed upon his/her labor shows that the "income tax" is not lacking any of the elements of compulsion. It cannot then, be viewed as "voluntary", for the penalty for not "volunteering" is loss of Liberty.
Prior cases that have come before the Supreme Court have addressed the very issue of whether or not something is truly "voluntary". Consider Mr. Justice Roberts' words in U.S. v Butler, 296 U.S. 1, explaining a prior decision in the Supreme Court.
"In Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v R.R. Commission, 271 U.S. 583, 46 S. Ct. 605, 70 L. Ed. 1101, 47 A.L.R. 457, a state act was considered which provided for supervision and regulation of transportation for hire by automobile on the public highways. Certificates of convenience and necessity were to be obtained by persons desiring to use the highways for this purpose. The regulatory commission required that a private contract carrier should secure such a certificate as a condition of its operation. The effect of the commission's action was to transmute the private carrier into a public carrier. In other words, the privilege of using the highways as a private carrier for compensation was conditioned upon his dedicating his property to the quasi public use of public transportation. While holding that the private carrier was not obliged to submit himself to the condition, the commission denied him the privilege of using the highways if he did not do so. The argument was, as here, that the carrier had a free choice. This court said, in holding the act as construed unconstitutional: 'If so, constitutional guaranties, so carefully safeguarded against direct assault, are open to destruction by the indirect, but no less effective, process of requiring surrender, which, though in form voluntary, in fact lacks none of the elements of compulsion. Having regard to form alone, the act here is an offer to the private carrier of a privilege, which the state may grant or deny, upon a condition which the carrier is free to accept or reject. In reality, the carrier is given no choice, except a choice between the rock and the whirlpool- an option to forgo a privilege which may be vital to his livelihood or submit to a requirement which may constitute an intolerable burden.'" U.S. v Butler, 296 US 1, 56 S. Ct. Rptr. at page 322.
Mr. Justice Roberts, in the Butler case, also made reference to other cases regarding this issue, such as, the Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v Wallace, 259 U.S. 44; and U.S. v Constantine, 296 U.S. 287. As far as the Butler case is concerned, the same issue of whether or not something was truly "voluntary" was brought before them.
"The government asserts that whatever might be said against the validity of the plan, if compulsory, it is constitutionally sound because the end is accomplished by voluntary co-operation. There are two sufficient answers to this contention. The regulation is not in fact voluntary. The farmer, of course, may refuse to comply, but the price of such refusal is the loss of benefits. The amount offered is intended to exert pressure on him to agree to the proposed regulation. The power to confer or withhold unlimited benefits is the power to coerce or destroy. If the cotton grower elects not to accept the benefits, he will receive less for his crops; those who receive payments will be able to undersell him. The result may well be financial ruin. The coercive purpose and intent of the statute is not obscured by the fact that is has not been perfectly successful. It is pointed out that, because there still remained a minority whom the rental and benefit payments were insufficient to induce to surrender their independence of action, the Congress has gone further, and, in the Bankhead Cotton Act, used the taxing power in a more directly minatory fashion to compel submission. This progression only serves more fully to expose the coercive purpose of the so-called tax imposed by the present act. It is clear that the Department of Agriculture has properly described the plan as one to keep a non co-operating minority in line. This is coercion by economic pressure. The asserted power of choice is illusory." supra, at pages 321 & 322.
This same line of reasoning, without question, applies to the "income tax" today. The fear of financial ruin and imprisonment are constantly before the people for not filing and paying the tax each year. In other words, the majority of people, being ignorant of the law and their rights, and out of fear of IRS retribution, keep filing and sacrificing their precious labor every year. Common sense dictates that this must be the case.
After all, what individual in their right mind would "volunteer" into such an oppressive scheme of taxation that today requires them to work about four months out of the year just to pay the tax? Look at how many people, if they had the full benefit of the fruits of their labor, could significantly upgrade the standard of living for themselves and their families? How many families have been torn apart by this excessive financial burden? It is simply contrary to common sense that a human being would impose such a burden on himself, and in doing so, sacrifice precious constitutional guarantees.
In the case of U.S. v Minker, 350 US 179, which dealt with the immigration service's actions against Minker, Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated:
"The subpoena power, is a power capable of oppressive use, especially when it may be indiscriminately delegated and the subpoena is not returnable before a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in the form of an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity but litigation." U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, 76 S. Ct. Rptr. at page 286.
This case brings out the fact that government officials do indeed prey upon the ignorance of many people. Many people indeed are ignorant of the law and their rights. They just blindly believe that their government would never attempt to violate them. They also have a respect for the law and when something legal in form is put before them, they feel an obligation to obey the law and act accordingly. This researcher can testify from experience that he was ignorant of the law and his rights for many years. The only way he was able to gain this knowledge was through extensive research and study.
Juris ignorantia est, cum jus nostrum ignoramus. It is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights. 9 Pick. 130.
Ignorantia juris sui non præjudicat juri. Ignorance of one's right does not prejudice the right. Lofft. 552.
Quærere dat sapere quæ sunt legitima vere. To investigate is the way to know what things are really lawful. Littl. § 443.
The first time an individual has the "income tax" placed before him/her is usually after they finish their schooling. Most people begin working right after high school. Since, according to this researcher's personal experience, in the public schools, there is no in depth study of the Constitution, the law, and the individual's rights pursuant to the Constitution, they come out of school ignorant of the fact that they are waiving precious constitutional guarantees the first time they start filling out "income tax" forms. This researcher does not see how such practices by government officials could be tolerated in a free land, especially when a condition for holding office is an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
In the case of Brady v U.S., 397 U.S. 742, Mr. Justice White stated:
"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.
This researcher was totally unaware, as I am sure are the majority of people, that he was waiving precious constitutional guarantees when he first began filling out and signing "income tax" forms and paying "income tax". As stated earlier in this brief, the Internal Revenue Service makes no effort to advise the people as to the issues regarding their rights. The publications that the Internal Revenue Service provide the people all operate in the same manner and take unfair advantage of the ignorance of the common people. This researcher cannot see how this type of activity can be considered in accordance with the Constitution.
Any individual, who unknowingly waived precious constitutional guarantees, has every right to reassert them and should not be punished for doing so. If it be held that he can be punished for reasserting rights that were unknowingly waived, then the judiciary no longer acts as a separate body of government, but merely acts in a chancery capacity enforcing the will of the legislative and executive branches of government. According to Madison, this would constitute the very definition of tyranny.
"The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The Federalist #47, Madison.
This leads us to the question: When did the "income tax" become a tax directly imposed upon Labor? It is contrary to logic that a tax directly imposed upon labor was began abruptly after the adoption of the 16th Amendment of the Tariff Act of 1913. The strong position the Supreme Court took regarding the citizen's right to labor both before and after the passage of the aforementioned Amendment and Act prove this point. It would be strange indeed that, on the one hand, the Court would strongly uphold the citizen's right to labor and, on the other hand, condone a tax being imposed upon the enjoyment of the right.
Researching all of the Supreme Court cases from the time of Brushaber (1916) to the present under the heading of "U.S. v. 'individual' and vice versa" proved to shed light on this issue. It only seemed logical that, if an individual refused to conform to a tax imposed directly upon his/her labor, it would only be a matter of time before a criminal case would be brought before the Supreme Court challenging the tax. This researcher was only concerned with cases fully reported (no mems.) on "internal revenue" and/or "criminal law". Surely such an issue as a tax being imposed upon the enjoyment of the most sacred property right the people had, that being their right to labor, would be worth more than a mere memorandum report. The history of researching these cases is completely devoid of any case addressing the issue of the constitutionality of the "income tax" as directly imposed upon labor. This clearly shows that the "income tax", as directly imposed upon labor, did not have its roots shortly after the adoption of the 16th Amendment or the Tariff Act of 1913. In fact, the record of this research clearly shows that the "income tax" for many years after 1913 was imposed upon persons doing business in a corporate or quasi-corporate capacity.