ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, Page 2

********************************************************************

"By virtue of it, though Congress can grant no title of nobility, they may create an oligarchy, in whose hands would be concentrated the entire power of the Federal Government." Dred Scott v. Sanford19 How. 393, 578.

In maxima potentia minima licentia. In the greatest power there is the least liberty. Hob. 159.

Also, since this statement by the defendants, through their attorneys, has begun to argue the merits of the case, service of process is a moot point.

"Illegality in the service of process by which jurisdiction is to be obtained is not waived by the special appearance of the defendant to move that the service be set aside; ...such illegality is waived only when, without having insisted upon it, he pleads in the first instance to the merits." 98 US 476. Bouvier's Law Dict., 1934 ed., pg. 624.

In the Jan. 19, 1935 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, an editorial by George Lorimer stated:

"Certainly it is wholly fair to raise the question of whether any form of liberty could survive under a process of socialism, even of the gradualist variety." pg. 22.

Also, in the Oct. 10, 1936 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, an article entitled THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE by David Lawrence stated on page 109:

"The politicians see to it that less that 3 percent of 120,000,000 people pays income taxes. The other group- more than 97 per cent- pays no income tax to the Federal Government."

Hence the question: What has happened that has perverted the income tax laws to nationalize the labor of the people? The answer is, quite simply, the massive social programs and subsidies. The money has to come from somewhere and since the bulk of the national income has always been represented by the money people are paid for their labor, it is only logical that labor must be burdened to some degree for the purposes of redistributing the national income and supporting the massive bureaucracy that supports such a scheme of government. Hence, we can see that Mr. Lorimer was correct when he raised the question of whether or not any form of liberty could survive under a process of socialism, even of the gradualist variety. It has taken over six decades for the burden upon the labor of the people to go from 1% of their earnings from labor pursuant to the Social Security Act of 1935 to the levels we see today. The peoples' free labor market is dying the death of slow poison. In addition, it is common knowledge among the people that more social programs have been added at the federal level since social security in 1935, which further burdens the labor of the people as the additional social programs expand themselves. For such a scheme of government to continue, the labor of the people must be perpetually burdened to some degree. This has happened in America over the past six decades. It was a grave error to circumvent the Constitution to gain a footing on the peoples' labor. The gradual process of socialism which has been ongoing for six decades has made it necessary for the political authority to perpetually burden the labor of the people. This is simply KING COTTON all over again in another form.

"KING COTTON cares not whether he employs slaves or freemen. It is the cotton, not he slaves, upon which the throne is based... KING COTTON is a profound statesman, and knows what measures will best sustain his throne. He is an acute mental philosopher, acquainted with the secret springs of human action, and accurately perceives who can best promote his aims. He has no evidence that colored men can grow his cotton, except in the capacity of slaves." Cotton is King and Pro- Slavery Arguments, pg. 216.

This is why our children are given Social Security Numbers (TIN numbers) shortly after birth in the hospital. It is common knowledge among the people that children born in the hospital will not be issued a birth certificate without the newborn child being assigned a social security number. Our childrens' taxpayer (slave) status has been pre-determined shortly after birth. As Justice Curtis put it in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott decision:

"If, in Missouri, the plaintiff were held to be a slave, the validity and operation of his contract of marriage must be denied. He can have no legal rights; of course, not those of a husband or a father. And the same is true of his wife and children. The denial of his rights is a denial of theirs. So that, though lawfully married in the Territory, when they came out of it, into the State of Missouri, they were no longer husband and wife; and a child of that lawful marriage, is not the fruit of that marriage, nor the child of its father, but subject to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem. Dred Scott v. Sanford19 How. 393, 599-600.

partus sequitur ventrem. The offsping follows the condition of the mother.

Perhaps now the Court can see why the defendants, acting through their attorneys, assert that the plaintiff's request that the Court should permanently enjoin defendants "from enforcing their tax codes upon plaintiff's labor" should be denied. The plaintiff, on the contrary, believes that the defendants' position be denied on this issue. It is a grave error to slowly impose servitude upon the people and awaken the Dred Scott decision. A suit of this nature was bound to happen sooner or later as the degree of servitude increased upon the people's labor. As Abraham Lincoln stated on the issue of the importance of court decisions:

"What are the uses of decisions of courts? They have two uses. As rules of property they have two uses. First- they decide upon the question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say that when a question comes up upon another person, it will be so decided again, unless the court decides in another way, unless the court overrules its decision." The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln (The Tandy-Thomas Co.; N.Y., 1905), Vol III, pg. 39.

Nulli enim res sua servit jure servitutis. No one can have a servitude over his own property. Dig. 8. 2. 26; 17 Mass. 443.

Non videtur perfecte cujusque id esse, quod ex casu auferri potest. That does not truly belong to anyone which can be taken from him upon occasion. Dig. 50 17. 159. 1.

This same principle applies to the plaintiff in this case. If it be firmly established in law that the earnings of a laborer can be taxed in one case, then the precedent will be set that human labor, once again, is nothing more than a mere article of commerce to be taxed and regulated at the pleasure of political authority, and that the condition of our offspring will be the same if not worse than it is today. As Justice White stated in the first case to come before the U.S. Supreme Court where a wage earner was challenging the constitutionality of the income tax laws:

"Where possible, court interprets congressional enactments so as to avoid raising serious constitutional questions." Cheek v. U.S. 498 US 192, 111 S. Ct. Rptr., pg. 605. (emphasis added)

If there were no "serious constitutional questions" when it came to taxing a wage-earner, then why did the Court say this? Wages represent money paid for labor. To confer the power to tax money paid for labor confers the power to impose slavery. This simple concept has been grossly perverted in the public mind. As Herbert Hoover, our 31st President put it in 1934, just before the Federal Government secured a footing on the people's labor just one short year later in 1935 when the Social Security Act was signed into law:

"...and the government, in order to protect itself from the political consequences of its actions, is driven irresistibly and without peace to a greater and greater control of the nation's thinking." The Challenge to Liberty (Charles Scribner's Sons; N.Y., 1934) pg. 135.

Along these lines, consider the words of Justice Bradley in the case of Boyd v. U.S. (1886):

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis. Boyd v. U.S. 116 US 616, S. Ct. Rptr., pg. 535.

On page 7 of defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS, the defendants claim that "PLAINTIFF CANNOT MAINTAIN A BIVENS ACTION AGAINST THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION." Here again, the defendants are creating the fiction that Title 26 USC applies to the plaintiff. Plaintiff emphatically denies that Title 26 USC applies to the laboring populous, unless one voluntarily assents to being governed by Title 26 as regards his/her compensation for labor, and that such objective is not achieved by the capitalization and exploitation of ignorance. As Chief Justice Warren stated in the case of Flora v. U.S. (1960):

"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." Flora v. U.S. 362 US 145, 176.

This statement by Chief Justice Warren is indeed accurate, for all forms of servitude in America are supposed to be voluntary, unless it is punishment for crime after the party has been duly convicted.

The fact that the defendants are attempting to use fiction of law to imply that Title 26 USC applies to him are best summed up by the statement found on page 10 of defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS, where we read: "In the present case, if the named federal officials violated any provision of law regarding federal tax collection then plaintiff may make use of one or more of the remedies Congress has provided in the Internal Revenue Code. He may not maintain a Bivens action against the named federal defendants for constitutional violations." Plaintiff only researched the I.R. Code to find out the delegation of authority to reveal the masters involved in his case, and to see if there were any rules that were broken in the taxing authorities attempt to exercise a superior right to the plaintiff's labor. The issues at bar, in relation to tax codes, are slavery questions which have arisen because of the perversion of the tax codes. Therefore, the Bivens action is maintainable.

On page 10 of defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS, the defendants claim that the Federal Tort Claims Act "is the exclusive remedy for claims of injury or loss of property arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful acts of Government employees acting within the scope of their employment." As already shown, constitutional torts are maintainable under Bivens, not under the FTCA.

On page 12 of defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS, the defendants claim that "THIS ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AGAINST MR. RUBIN AND MS. RICHARDSON PURSUANT TO RULE 12 (B) (5) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS."

Plaintiff, in accordance with Rule 4 (d) (5), served both the Secretary of the Treasury's office and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's office by certified mail with return receipt. This service of process has been completed and is on record with the Court and copies were sent to all parties to the action. The plaintiff does not understand the problem with service of process since he followed the rules. In addition, in the defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS, the merits of the case have already been argued and this constitutes a waiver of any challenge made pertaining to insufficiency of process.

At one time in America, well over a century ago, it was a custom to treat human labor as commerce. However, after the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865, this custom was emphatically disallowed. Defendants need to be reminded that slavery is not the buying and selling of human beings, it is a condition of labor.

Consuetudo semel reprobata non potest amplius induci. Custom once disallowed cannot again be produced. Dav. 33; Grounds & Rud. of Law 53.

Deceptis non decipientibus, jura subveniunt. The law helps persons who are deceived, not those deceiving. Trayner, Max. 149.

Sæpe viatorem nova non vetus orbita fallit. Often it is the new track, not the old one, which deceives the traveler. 4 Inst. 34.

From a strictly historical perspective, the arguments that have been presented by the defendants' attorneys which show that they believe government has the lawful authority to exercise a superior right to the labor of human beings is nothing new. William Channing, in his writings on SLAVERY QUESTIONS (1839) stated:

"In truth, I know no one, who, in their hearts, believe, that man may rightfully be made property, with the exception of some technical lawyers." The Works of William Channing (Boston, American Unitarian Association, 1873), Vol. V, pg. 52.

Abraham Lincoln knew that the struggle for free labor would continue after he was gone. In his joint debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln stated the following on the issue of the right or wrong of slavery:

"That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles- right and wrong- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle." The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln (The Tandy-Thomas Co., N.Y., 1905), Vol. V, pg. 65.

"Our greatest possession is the right to work. It is not a right which someone can guarantee to us. It is a right which we must guarantee to ourselves. It is a right founded on human nature. It is our natural liberty. We may think we can trade liberty for security or equality. On the contrary, we can have the measure of security and equality which we deserve only if we preserve liberty. If we trade liberty, we shall have nothing. And yet we are constantly being advised to trade it." Henry Ford, 1936.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff prays that the Court:

1. Deny defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS;

2. Grant plaintiff's REQUEST FOR THREE-JUDGE COURT;

3. Grant a hearing on plaintiff's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, and;

4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of March, 1998.

Adrian C. Banks,
Pro Se