Chapter VII
More Slavery Rhymes

"I am one of the native sons of these wild woods. I have hunted the deer and turkey here, more than fifty years. I have fought your battles, have defended your truth and honesty, and fair trading. I have always been the friend of honest white men. The Georgians have shown a grasping spirit lately; they have extended their laws, to which we are unaccustomed, which harass our braves and make the children suffer and cry; but I can do them justice in my heart. They think the Great Father, the President, is bound by the compact of 1802 to purchase this country for them, and they justify their conduct by the end in view. They are willing to buy these lands on which to build houses and clear fields. I know the Indians have an older title than theirs. We obtained the land from the living God above. They got their title from the British. Yet they are strong and we are weak. We are few, they are many. We cannot remain here in safety and comfort. I know we love the graves of our fathers, who have gone before to the happy hunting grounds of the Great Spirit - the eternal land, where the deer, the turkey and the buffalo will never give out. We can never forget these homes, I know, but an unbending, iron necessity tells us we must leave them. I would willingly die to preserve them, but any forcible effort to keep them will cost us our lands, our lives and the lives of our children. There is but one path of safety, one road to future existence as a Nation. The path is open before you. Make a treaty of cession. Give up these lands and go over beyond the great Father of Waters." Ridge of the Mountains, Cherokee Chief, Dec. 24, 1835

Whenever an institution of slavery is imposed upon a people, you have what are called "the badges of slavery." Let's look at this. What about the right to travel? One thing I found interesting in doing my research was that it took many years after the automobile was invented before states made laws that required people to have drivers licenses. Today, if you assert that driving an automobile on the public roads is a right and not a privilege, you will be refuted by those in authority, and they will emphatically assert that driving an automobile is a privilege the state grants you - end of argument. Let's look at what happened.

If we look at the definition of the word "liberty" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, we read: "Personal Liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law." In other words, if I want to travel to some place using the public roads, as long as I don't trespass on the rights of others or act in a way that endangers the rights of others, I should be free to do so. To back this up, let's look at what Chief Justice Taney had to say about this in the Dred Scott case.

"And still further pursuing its legislation, we find that in the same Statute passed 1774, which prohibited the further importation of slaves into the State, there is also a provision by which any negro, Indian or mulatto servant, who was found wandering out of the town or place to which he belonged, without a written pass such as is therein described, was made liable to be seized by anyone, and taken before the next authority to be examined and delivered up to his master - who was required to pay the charge which had accrued thereby. And a subsequent section of that same law provides, that if any free negro shall travel without such pass, and shall be stopped, seized or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. And this law was in full operation when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, and was not repealed until 1797. So that up to that time free negroes and mulattoes were associated with servants and slaves in the police regulations established by the laws of the State."1

Let's read a passage from Uncle Tom's Cabin about the nature of Uncle Tom's license to travel.

"‘Well, old man!' said Aunt Chloe, ‘why don't you go too? Will you wait to be toted down river, where they kill niggers with hard work and starving? I'd a heap rather die than go there, any day! There's time for ye, - be off with ‘Lizy, - you've got a pass to come and go any time. Come, bustle up, and I'll get your things together.' Tom slowly raised his head, and looked slowly but quietly around, and said, ‘No, no - I an't going. Eliza go - it's her right! I wouldn't be the one to say no - ‘tan't in natur for her to stay; but you heard what she said! If I must be sold, or all the people on the place, and everything go to rack, why, let me be sold. I s'pose I can b'ar it as well as any on ‘em,' he added, while something like a sigh shook his broad, rough chest convulsively. ‘Mas'r always found me on the spot - he always will. I never have broke trust, nor used my pass no ways contrary to my word, and I never will. It's better for me alone to go, than to break up the place and sell all. Mas'r ain't to blame, Chloe, an he'll take care of you and the poor ---'"2

Notice Tom's pass, or license, from his master was a "class A" license. You see, he could come and go as he pleased and if a constable or other police officer stopped him on the road, his pass, or license, was proof that he had been given the privilege to travel from his master. What happens to someone today that, for example, runs up on a road check and has no license? We all know the answer to that. "‘Ye know, Mas'r George, ye oughtenter feel ‘bove nobody, on ‘count yer privileges, ‘cause all our privileges is gi'n to us; we ought al'ays to ‘member that,' said Aunt Chloe, looking quite serious."3

Chief Justice Taney contrasted the difference between slaves and freemen back in pre civil war times.

"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished..."4

Jimmy Carter, in his book An Hour Before Daylight, pointed out that, in Georgia, drivers licenses weren't required until 1940. So it seems that the same time the "New Deal" was sowing its seeds of labor cannibalism, the states were sowing the seeds that have destroyed the peoples' right of locomotion with the drivers license laws. Let's go back in time even further, and see how the laws affected the ability of serfs to travel in the Middle Ages. George Fitzhugh quoted some passages from the October, 1841 issue of the Edinburgh Review. In this article, the operation of old laws from the Middle Ages are described.

"In the early part of Elizabeth's reign was passed a statute , 5th Eliz. Cap. 3 (1562), inflicting the usual penalties, whipping, slavery, and death, on sturdy vagabonds; that is to say, on those who, having no property but their labor, presumed to act as if they had a right to dispose of it...... No person is to depart from one parish to another, or from one hundred or county to serve in another hundred or county, without a license from the local authorities."5

Once again we see the 13th amendment being circumvented to destroy a right. In this instance the right of locomotion has been destroyed. Destroying this right has allowed the labor cannibals to impose any taxes and fees upon the privilege. For example, mandatory insurance laws operate mostly upon the labor of working people - another servitude imposed by law. The Constitution does not forbid the licensing of drivers, as long as the license is a representation of the person's right of locomotion. Now, if that person abuses their right, is there a remedy at law? Absolutely. Charge the person criminally and put them on trial before a jury. If found guilty then the person's right of locomotion can be taken away and replaced with a state granted privilege so that strict police regulations can be imposed upon this person. Driving drunk is a prime example of this. If you get caught driving drunk, you can be charged criminally and, if found guilty, have your right taken from you. There is no reason to strip people of their rights across the board in order to promote public safety. If the rulers think that they must do this, then the proper thing to do would have been to propose an constitutional amendment that took away the right of locomotion when it comes to driving automobiles. But I submit that it's probably too late for that, especially now that the insurance companies are reaping billions of dollars in profits every year.

To give the reader an idea of how the drivers license started, let's use some data taken from the Alabama Department of Public Safety web site.

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

Although testing of drivers was unheard of in 1935, the first provision for driver licenses was mandated by the Legislature that year. Each driver was required to buy a license for 50 cents, and the proceeds were earmarked to pay for Highway Patrol equipment and salaries. In addition to a revenue-producing measure, the new law was counted on to help reduce highway accidents, a continuing concern of the Department of Public Safety.

The new Highway Patrol officers began their missions in early 1936, after receiving their assignments throughout the state. By the end of the first nine months, the officers had logged 615,335 miles patrolling on motorcycles and 583,756 miles in automobiles. They inspected 8,951 vehicles for defective lights and brakes, issuing "courtesy cards" to call a motorist's attention to defects. They weighed more than 3,200 trucks and made some 7,000 arrests in enforcing Alabama's highway regulations. In addition, the officers began a continuing practice of assisting motorists, rendering aid to 5,269 that first year.

Charter member and former Director Bankhead Bates said Capt. Smith reinforced the early tradition of service to motorists: "He said, 'Now, by being helpful, I mean helpful. If you run across a stranded motorist and he's out of gas ... if you have to ride 50 miles, that's alright. You go get that man some gas and put it in his car. And then if he tries to pay you for that service, which he probably will want to give you a little tip, you tell him, "No thank you, you paid for that when you bought your driver license. That pays my salary, and you don't owe me anything." That is what is going to be your foundation on this Highway Patrol.' And that was the foundation of the Highway Patrol. That's what's built the reputation of the Alabama Highway Patrol -- being courteous to people."

Even in 1936, drunken driving was a concern of the Highway Patrol officers, enough of a concern that Gov. Graves specified that the officers should "get the drunks off the roads." Officers made 689 arrests for driving while intoxicated and 271 arrests for public drunkenness that first year. Major Bates recalled making one DWI arrest of a man driving a wagon pulled by a mule. "At that time, they had a little quirk in the law there," he said. "It didn't say operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, it said a vehicle. So we charged that rascal with DWI and put him in county jail."

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

Just like the tax on labor starting at its humble beginnings of 1% of labor in 1937, here we see the humble beginnings of the drivers license and the Highway Patrol/State Police. It's come a long way since then, hasn't it? The days of assisting motorists are pretty much over. Herbert Hoover, on page 46 of his 1934 book The Challenge to Liberty, said "that 23,000,000 automobiles were running about in our ‘ruins' at ever increasing speeds." At that time the population was around 120 million people. Imagine, if you can, millions of people, all across America, driving without a license and no law requiring people to have one.

What the drivers license is, in substance, an internal passport - and it will soon be nationalized starting in 2008 thanks to the Patriot Act. You know, the law that no member of congress read before voting on. Four years before the Great Terror was unleashed upon the Russian people when Stalin was Dictator, new laws were enacted by the Communist government in the fall of 1932.

"The keystone of the new legislation was the introduction of the internal passport on 27 December 1932. The ‘passportization' of the population addressed several carefully defined objectives, as the preamble to the decree explained: it was intended ‘to eliminate all social parasitism,' to prevent ‘infiltration' by kulaks into city centers and markets, to limit the rural exodus, and to safeguard the social purity of the towns. All adult townspeople over age sixteen who had not yet been deprived of their rights, such as railway workers, permanent workers on construction sites, and agricultural workers on state farms, automatically received a passport from the police. The passport was valid only after it received an official stamp (propiska) showing the legal residence of the citizen in question. The status of the individual depended on his or her propiska and could determine whether an individual received a ration card, a social security card, or the right to a home."6

What about external passports? One case that came before the Supreme Court that was decided in 1965 was Zemel v. Rusk. This case involved travel to Cuba, which was banned after the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Court said:

"The questions for decision are whether the Secretary of State is statutorily authorized to refuse to validate the passports of United States citizens for travel to Cuba, and, if he is, whether the exercise of that authority is constitutionally permissible. We answer both questions in the affirmative..... Prior to 1961 no passport was required for travel anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. On January 3 of that year, the United States broke diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba. On January 16 the Department of State eliminated Cuba from the area for which passports were not required, and declared all outstanding United States passports (except those held by persons already in Cuba) to be invalid for travel to or in Cuba ‘unless specifically endorsed for such travel under the authority of the Secretary of State.' A companion press release stated that the Department contemplated granting exceptions to ‘persons whose travel may be regarded as being in the best interests of the United States, such as newsmen or businessmen with previously established business interests.'"7

Soon it will be required that you will need a passport to travel anywhere - period. Someone can understand why travel to Cuba would have been banned after it was discovered that nuclear missiles sites were being erected in Cuba; and that the world narrowly escaped a nuclear conflict because of this. Before the 9-11-2001 terrorists attacks, you needed a passport to travel to Brazil, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and all other countries in the Western Hemisphere except Mexico and Canada (where you didn't need one); and Cuba was off limits. I wonder what the reasoning was to require passports to travel to all other countries in the Western Hemisphere that you used to be free to travel to without one back in the early 1960's? I don't think I recall any feuds the United States has had in the Western Hemisphere since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1961. So if friendly relations have been maintained in the region with the other nations since 1961, what is the reasoning for requiring passports to travel to the friendly nations when none were required before? Since national security is not an issue, the reason must simply be for the purposes of controlling the populace in the United States.

In 1992, the Child Support Recovery Act (CRSA) became law. This was amended in 1998 as the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (DPPA). This law, like all other federal laws since the "New Deal" began, was another law rubber-stamped by congress. This law empowers the Secretary of State to deny passports to non-custodial parents who are alleged to owe more than $5000 in back child support. According to the web site for the Secretary of State's office in December, 2006, 30-40 passports are denied daily because of this recent law. Now lets read some more of Chief Justice Taney's opinion from the Dred Scott case. After citing an example of the application of a slave code for the City of Washington from 1820, he said:

"This law, like the laws of the States, shows that this class of persons were governed by special legislation directed expressly to them, and always connected with the provisions for the government of slaves, and not with those for the government of free white citizens.... The conduct of the Executive Department of the government has been in perfect harmony upon this subject with this course of legislation. The question was brought officially before the late William Wirt, when he was the Attorney-General of the United States, in 1821, and he decided that the words ‘citizens of the United States' were used in the Acts of Congress in the same sense as in the Constitution; and that free persons of color were not citizens, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws; and this position has been confirmed by that of the late Attorney-General, Caleb Cushing, in a recent case, and acted upon by the Secretary of State, who refused to grant passports to them as ‘citizens of the United States.'"8

Another law in the DPPA makes it a felony to cross state lines to avoid child support if the alleged amount owed is over $5000. You can also be subject to prosecution if you live in a different state and are alleged to owe over $5000. What the labor cannibals have done is create a Fugitive Slave Law in disguise. This law says bluntly that its purpose is to punish the class of parents that are branded as "deadbeat parents." There's a provision in the Constitution that applied to pre civil war slaves that was thought to become extinct after the civil war ended. In 1992, the labor cannibals resurrected it's spirit upon the new class of slaves they have created that they label "deadbeat parents." After all, since the child support orders are orders that direct and receive the fruits of the non-custodial slaves' labor, it follows that these laws would operate upon fugitives from labor if they fled to another state or resided in another state. Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "No person held to service or labor in one state, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." The worst case scenario for today's fugitive slaves would be one where the slave is alleged to owe more than $10,000 that has remained unpaid for at least two years. Punishment for this crime, if convicted, is up to two years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. In addition, at sentencing the court will order that the amount of alleged back child support, including penalties and interest, be paid in addition to the fine. In addition to that, the child support will continue to be charged against the slave while in prison. Anyone with common sense can see that the resulting debt will be so great that it can never be repaid. After all, we're talking about working people, not the "builders of great fortunes." This reminds me of what Channing said in one of his essays against slavery in 1835: "In all ages the Individual has, in one form or another, been trodden to the dust."9 It's interesting that the word "willful," once again, appears in this law. But "willful" in these criminal cases simply means the ability to pay. You can't argue that, like in tax cases, the support order imposes no duty to pay. Since the 1970's the right of the state courts to issue child support orders against a person's labor and to enforce those orders with contempt proceedings has been etched in stone by the labor cannibals, just the same as if the finger of God wrote the order on stone tablets. In other words, if you're alive and can work, that's the end of the argument. As the 10th Circuit Court stated in U.S. v Bigford in 2004: ".....the circuit courts that have considered the issue have unanimously held that the DPPA does not permit an attack of the substantive lawfulness of the underlying support obligation or permit a federal court to revise the order in any way."

In researching criminal cases that have been prosecuted under the CRSA and DPPA that have been appealed to the Circuit Court, all the cases I've found except one have been against fathers. When we look at the gist of these cases and if we read between the lines, we can see that the system has generated an enormous quantity of hate. As already shown, hate is the essential element for setting up a minority for destruction. It's important to note that most of the trials are what are called "bench trials." That means no jury trial. The judge will decide the case. This pretty much ensures that all non-custodial slaves prosecuted will be found guilty and sentenced. In short, if you are a non-custodial slave that gets arrested under these laws, you can pretty much count on being found guilty. One cannot ignore the presumption that we are witnessing the beginning of star chamber tribunals at the federal level. I can find no record of such tribunals in the history of the United States, except, of course, back in the old slave days when the master was the tribunal. Slaves never did have the right to a jury trial. It should be noted that the old Fugitive Slave Law in pre civil war times was supposed to afford the fugitive slave a trial by jury, if the fugitive slave so desired. But listen to the circumstances under which the fugitive slave could have his jury trial.

"No doubt there would have been opposition to the act of 1793 [Fugitive Slave Law] if any member of Congress had supposed, for a moment, that it denied the right to trial by jury to a fugitive slave. It does no such thing. It leaves that right unimpaired; and if any slave in the Union, whether fugitive or otherwise, desired such a trial, it is secured to him by the Constitution and the laws of the country. But he cannot have such trial where or in what State he chooses. If he lives in Richmond, he may have a trial by jury there; but he cannot escape to Boston, and there demand this as a right. The fugitive from labor, like the fugitive from justice, has a right to a trial by jury, but neither can claim to have this trial in any part of the world he pleases."10

So, we can see that a fugitive slave had the right to a jury trial back in those days - as long as the trial was held in the master's back yard.

One case where a slave father did make a 13th amendment challenge was in the 9th Circuit. The case was U.S. v Ballek, decided in 1999. The court refuted this challenge by saying: "However, not all forced employment is constitutionally prohibited. Where the obligation is one that has traditionally been enforced by means of imprisonment, the constitutional prohibition does not apply." The court also said "Ballek was not entitled to a jury trial."You see, the Supreme Court has already "carved out exceptions" to the 13th amendment since the amendment was adopted in 1865. Exceptions were made for: imprisonment for sailors who desert their ships (Robertson v. Baldwin, 1897); imprisonment for failure to perform forced military service (Arver v. United States, 1918); and imprisonment for failure to do road work (Butler v. Perry, 1916). Think about this. By this reasoning the 13th amendment is dead both in letter and spirit. Must the auction block be brought back before the courts recognize that slavery exists? Maybe we would all be better off if the slaveholders would have won the Civil War and had enslaved all working people. After all, Fitzhugh did say: "Liberty for the few - Slavery, in every form, for the mass!"11 At least they wouldn't be hypocrites about it. It seems that Koch was right after all. The concept of "inalienable rights" is a bunch of "high-minded eighteenth-century nonsense." The court in Ballek basically said that, since we're dealing with the support of children: "We conclude that child-support awards fall within that narrow class of obligations that may be enforced by means of imprisonment without violating the constitutional prohibition against slavery." The Ballek court, in addition to taking the position that child support cases should be Star Chamber proceedings, cited an old Connecticut case from 1808 (Stanton v. Willson, 3 Day 37) where they said that a "non-custodial divorced father [was] responsible for full financial maintenance of [his] children." I couldn't find this case doing a world wide web search, but it wasn't until 1845 that white men in Connecticut who didn't own land could vote, and blacks couldn't vote until after the civil war. Therefore, the case must have applied to a rich man and not a common worker. Once again, judges dedicated to labor cannibalism dig through the charred rubble of the old free labor system when it serves their purpose in creating legal fictions. Once again we see the court taking an old case that applied to rich people and applying those legal principles to working people.

Let's examine these cases that have made exceptions to the 13th amendment. In the Robertson v. Baldwin case, the court reasoned that the 13th amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude was not violated since the seamen in question had voluntarily signed an employment contract that bound them to servitude for the duration of the voyage of the ship. The court stated:

"Does the epithet 'involuntary' attach to the word 'servitude' continuously, and make illegal any service which becomes involuntary at any time during its existence? or does it attach only at the inception of the servitude, and characterize it as unlawful because unlawfully entered into? If the former be the true construction, then no one, not even a soldier, sailor, or apprentice, can surrender his liberty, even for a day; and the soldier may desert his regiment upon the eve of battle, or the sailor abandon his ship at any intermediate port or landing, or even in a storm at sea, provided, only, he can find means of escaping to another vessel. If the latter, then an individual may, for a valuable consideration, contract for the surrender of his personal liberty for a definite time and for a recognized purpose, and subordinate his going and coming to the will of another during the continuance of the contract; not that all such contracts would be lawful, but that a servitude which was knowingly and willingly entered into could not be termed 'involuntary.' Thus, if one should agree, for a yearly wage, to serve another in a particular capacity during his life, and never to leave his estate without his consent, the contract might not be enforceable for the want of a legal remedy, or might be void upon grounds of public policy; but the servitude could not be properly termed 'involuntary.'"12

So here we see that the sailors in question had voluntarily signed an employment contract that forbade them to desert the ship, and they violated the contract that they voluntarily signed. Let's apply this test to a child support order. Is there any voluntary consent? Of course not. It's a court order that's imposed upon the non-custodial parent whether they like it or not. There's nothing voluntary about it, and if the slave get's behind then he can be thrown in jail without the right to counsel or a jury trial, and can be criminally prosecuted at the federal level too. The servitude is involuntary from the very beginning. But the labor cannibals will deny this truth by claiming that the child support obligation is "sacred" or something else along those lines. So, even though it is involuntary servitude, it isn't involuntary servitude. That's how a labor cannibal thinks. Do you think that way?

Justice Harlan wrote a strong dissenting opinion in this case. He could see that making exceptions to the 13th amendment was setting a bad legal precedent, and that it would set the stage for more exceptions to be made in future decisions. After all, if the servitude an employer is subjecting you to becomes oppressive, shouldn't you have the right to quit the employment? Makes sense to me. Justice Harlan said:

"If it be said that government may make it a criminal offense, punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, for any one to violate his private contract voluntarily made, or to refuse without sufficient reason to perform it, -a proposition which cannot, I think, be sustained at this day, in this land of freedom,-it would by no means follow that government could, by force applied in advance of due conviction of some crime, compel a freeman to render personal services in respect of the private business of another. The placing of a person, by force, on a vessel about to sail, is putting him in a condition of involuntary servitude, if the purpose is to compel him against his will to give his personal services in the private business in which that vessel is engaged. The personal liberty of individuals, it has been well said, 'consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.' 1 Bl. Comm. p. 134, c. 1."13

Harlan saw that the court was reaching way back in time to try and justify its position.

"In considering the antiquity of regulations that restrain the personal freedom of seamen, the court refers to the laws of the ancient Rhodians, which are supposed to have antedated the Christian era. But those laws, whatever they may have been, were enacted at a time when no account was taken of a man as man, when human life and human liberty were regarded as of little value, and when the powers of government were employed to gratify the ambition and the pleasures of despotic rulers rather than promote the welfare of the people.... Attention has been called by the court to the laws enacted by the towns of the Hanseatic League 300 years ago, by one of which a seaman who went ashore without leave could, in certain contingencies, be kept in prison 'upon bread and water for one year,' and by another of which an officer or seaman who quit his ship and concealed himself could be apprehended and 'stigmatized in the face with the first letter of the name of the town to which he belongs.' Why the reference to these enactments of ancient times, enforced by or under governments possessing arbitrary power inconsistent with a state of freedom? Does any one suppose that a regulation of commerce authorizing seamen who quit their ship, without leave, to be imprisoned 'upon bread and water for one year,' or which required them to be 'stigmatized in the face' with the letter of the town or state to which they belonged, would now receive the sanction of any court in the United States?"14

In the Butler v. Perry case, Perry was the sheriff of Colombia county, Florida. There was a law that required all able bodied men between the ages of 21 and 45 to do road work for six days out of each year, and the workdays had to be at least ten hours long. So you were required to work at least 60 hours per year on the roads, and you got paid $3 for this. If you refused then you got fined no more than $50 or jailed for not more than 30 days. Well, Butler refused and was thrown in jail. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the law was upheld as not violating the 13th amendment. This is what Justice Sutherland said about the 13th amendment: "It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers."15 Justice Sutherland went back to laws that were enforced the in days of medieval serfdom and ancient Rome to justify his position that forced road work did not violate the 13th amendment. He said that road work was a duty men owed to the public. Harlan was right when he predicted that more exceptions to the 13th amendment would be made. Sutherland also said that "There is no merit in the claim that a man's labor is property...." What was Sutherland smoking? Labor has been recognized as property throughout history. This just shows what some judges will do that want to justify something badly enough.

In the Arver v. United States case, this is how the court refuted the 13th amendment challenge.

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."16

This is an argument that appeals to emotion. It is not based upon logic and reason. It's interesting that it took over a century for the court uphold this power. One would think that, if congress possessed the power to force people into the military, they would have done so long before this. One would think that the most likely time for a case like this would have been back during the Civil War. Don't you find that a little strange? But once something is declared to be a "supreme and noble duty," you can forget that you have any rights whatsoever. The labor cannibals love this line of reasoning because it allows them to justify anything they want. Anyone with common sense can see that forced military service is involuntary servitude. The court, in this case, could cite no prior Supreme Court decision to back up its position. It didn't exist. The court tried to argue that forcing people into the military was a power that existed back in the days of the Revolution. If that be the case then why did George Washington have to make a heartfelt plea to his soldiers to re-enlist and offer them a $10 bonus for doing so? I saw that on the History Channel not long ago. Also, in studying the 12 volumes of The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, I noticed that every time the North needed more troops, there was a call for more "volunteers." When something is forced upon you, there's nothing voluntary about it. And yes, the court did go back in time to the Middle Ages to point out that forced military service existed back then. Of course, there was a draft during the Civil War in the Confederate States where the slaveholders forced non-slaveholding whites to perform military service, but the court failed to mention that to justify its position.

Exceptions to the 13th amendment should be clear and defined in the Constitution by further amendments. They shouldn't be sprung upon the people by the courts creating legal fictions whenever the political departments want something badly. Fictions of law are nothing more than cleverly worded legal opinions that deny constitutional rights, and all rulings that "carve out exceptions" to the 13th amendment are just that - legal fictions. The Supreme Court, in doing this around a century ago, unwittingly laid the foundation for the destruction of the 13th amendment because future fictions would continue. The Supreme Court should just legalize power over labor and get it over with. The lower federal courts and state courts have already done so, and these despotic tribunals throw disobedient slaves in jail on a regular basis by the thousands. Is there any wonder why the United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation on the face of the earth? Ballek got locked up for 21 months in federal prison for being a disobedient slave. Did this enable him to pay anything in child support? Of course not. There's something far more sinister here. If the labor cannibals really were concerned about the support of children, then why don't they put men like Ballek to forced labor and see to it that these good-for-nothing slaves are paid a reasonable wage? What was left of their wages after the expenses of keeping them alive and in good health are deducted and the expenses of maintaining the deadbeat gulag are deducted, could be applied to the support of their children. This makes far better sense than locking them up and just ordering them to pay restitution, which they'll never be able to pay anyway. This is especially true because the child support keeps adding up while they're in prison, thanks to the Bradley Amendment. What is going on here? Are as many fathers as possible to be driven to suicide? What shall the harvest be? Poor bastards!

The Bradley Amendment keeps the child support order going no matter what. Only death can terminate it. This law does the following: it overrides any state's statute of limitations; disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges; and requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification. Let's consider just three examples: (1) A veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage was arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage; (2) A Texas man wrongly accused in 1980 of murder. After 10 years in prison, the man sued the state for wrongful imprisonment. The state responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison; and, (3) A Virginia man required to pay retroactive child support even though DNA tests proved that he could not have been the father. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

This researcher is not so blind as not to see the handwriting on the wall. There's nothing new about politicians setting up whole classes of people so as to make criminals out of them, and enslaving them is the oldest tool in the book. Let's let Alexander Solzhenitsyn describe one of the methods the socialists used in the USSR. "From 1928 on it was time to call to a reckoning those late stragglers after the bourgeoisie - the NEPmen. The usual practice was to impose on them ever-increasing and finally intolerable taxes. At a certain point they could no longer pay; they were immediately arrested for bankruptcy, and their property was confiscated."17 You create a trap from which there is no escape. When you use the force of law to take up to 65% of the labor of a large class of working people away from them, you're going to have a lot of people that are going to buck the system. You have created the fodder for the criminal conduct you have created.

In reading through the dialogue in the House of Representatives concerning the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, we learn that, on October 3, 1992, that Rep. Hyde from Illinois was the "primary sponsor" of the legislation. In other words, he probably didn't write it. So who did? Mr. Hyde stated: "Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention an organization that has been a driving force behind this legislation. It is called ACES, Association for Children's Enforcement of Support. These are a wonderful group of women, most of whom, or all of whom, have been abandoned and have abandoned children, and they have been tireless in driving for this legislation. This is their victory today when this legislation passes." The legislation was drafted, not by congress, but by lawyers representing the people who are on the receiving end of the slavery. Can there be any wonder then why its enforcement has been so hostile to the non-custodial class of slaves? Rep. Hoyer said: "As someone who has handled, I suppose, hundreds, maybe thousands, of support cases over the 25 years of my practice, one of the most outrageous things that I think we have in our society is the growing number of parents who irresponsibly abandon and fail to support their progeny and expect the rest of us to do so..." The invective elements were not my concern, but the dialogue enhanced the popularity of the politicians in the eyes of most people at the expense of a small minority. In reading through this dialogue, I wanted to find out who sponsored the legislation and who actually wrote it. But here we see a man whose has been involved in the child support system saying that the number of parents not paying support has been growing in the 25 years he was involved in it. Senator Shelby, on the floor of the senate back on May 8, 1991 said: "Nationwide, $18 billion in child support obligations remain uncollected. In 1985, 4,381,000 women were supposed to receive child support. Less than half of these women received full payment, while 1,138,000 received nothing at all. When looking at women and their children who live below the poverty line, these figures become even more alarming. Clearly our society needs to take a stronger position on the abandonment of children. Our country needs to make the enforcement of child support a major priority." So, you use slavery as a tool to drive non-custodial parents out of their children's lives and then blame this class of people with "the abandonment of children." This reminds me of an illustration Lincoln used, where he said: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be the murderer!'"18 According to a Census Bureau report released on August 23, 2006, "7 million custodial parents received 69 percent of the money owed to them by the non-custodial parent." So, we've gone from 4,381,000 people in the custodial/non-custodial slave class in 1985 to around 7,000,000 in 2003. What percentage of the non-custodial slave class are criminalized in the eyes of the law? The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 68% of child support cases had arrearages owed in 2003. So let's say it's around one-half of the total. That would roughly be 3,500,000 people, or 1.17% of the population. This was what made the Jews so vulnerable before the Nazis came to power. It's easy to enslave and persecute a small minority if the general population can be made to hate them. All I see is this: The more oppressive the servitude becomes, the more oppressive the laws become, and the suicide pogrom increases along with this process. In reading through the dialogues concerning this type of legislation, I felt no love, but hate was in abundance; and the sad and most dangerous thing is that this hate is passed on to the children caught up in this system. Let's read another excerpt from Stephen Baskerville's Insight article that I've already quoted from.

"The child-support enforcement office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is compiling information not only on fathers who owe child support but on all citizens. The rationale is that the child-support system renders us all potential criminals against whom preemptive enforcement measures must be initiated now in anticipation of our likely future criminality..... ‘Some people have argued that the state should only collect the names of child-support obligors, not the general population,' notes Teresa A. Myers of the National Council of State Legislatures. ‘But this argument ignores the primary reason for collecting the names,' she explains with chilling directness: ‘At one point or another, many people will either be obligated to pay or eligible to receive child support.'

Think about this. The Constitution was adopted in 1787, thus creating Congress. If there was a growing problem with fathers not supporting their children throughout the history of the country, why did Congress wait over 200 years to do something about it? Does this make any sense?

"If the intellectuals in the plays of Chekhov who spent all their time guessing what would happen in twenty, thirty, or forty years had been told that in forty years interrogation by torture would be practiced in Russia; that prisoners would have their skulls squeezed with iron rings; that a human being would be lowered into an acid bath; that they would be trussed up naked to be bitten by ants and bedbugs; that a ramrod heated over a primus stove would be thrust up their anal canal (the ‘secret brand'); that a man's genitals would be slowly crushed beneath the toe of a jackboot; and that, in the luckiest possible circumstances, prisoners would be tortured by being kept from sleeping for a week, by thirst, and by being beaten to a bloody pulp, not one of Chekhov's plays would have gotten to its end because all the heroes would have gone off to the insane asylums..... Yes, not only Chekhov's heroes, but what normal Russian at the beginning of the century, including any member of the Russian Democratic Workers' Party, could have believed, would have tolerated, such a slander against the bright future? What has been acceptable under Tzar Aleksei Mikhailovich in the seventeenth century, what had already been regarded as barbarism under Peter the Great, what might have been used against ten or twenty people in all during the time of Biron in the mid-eighteenth century, what had already become impossible under Catherine the Great, was all being practiced during the flowering of the glorious twentieth century - in a society based on socialist principles, and at a time when airplanes were flying and the radio and talking films had already appeared - not by one scoundrel alone in one secret place only, but by tens of thousands of specially trained human beasts standing over millions of defenseless victims."19

I recall back in 1974 my mother and father went to court in North Carolina. My mother was suing him for back child support. He was counter suing her because she had forged his name on insurance papers because the house we lived in just happened to burn down when nobody was there one night. The judge ruled that the debts canceled each other, so both my mother and father ended up paying their attorneys and neither one of them was awarded one dime by the court. I'll never forget the hate I saw in my mother's eyes after the judge gave his ruling. Judges can't do that anymore because they're controlled by statutory law. Their independent judgement has been taken away and they must now abide by the directives of the labor cannibals.

When we look at the magnitude of it all - how long labor has been taxed, the increasing servitude since 1937, and the numerous lower court cases upholding labor taxation; how long drivers license laws have been in operation and all the court cases that uphold this power; how long mandatory insurance laws have been in operation and all the court cases that uphold this power; and, last but not least, how long all the family court/child support laws have been in operation and all the court cases supporting them, I am reminded of what Abraham Lincoln said not long after the Dred Scott case was decided on March 6, 1857. This quote especially applies to the class that has the greatest servitude imposed upon them - the non-custodial slave class. Even though slavery may take on different forms, it has always remained the same in spirit. In his June 27, 1857 speech in Springfield, Lincoln said:

"In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five States - New Jersey and North Carolina - that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away, and in a third - New York - it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount to prohibition. In those days legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective States, but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State constitutions to withhold that power from the legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man's bondage to the new countries was prohibited, but now Congress decides it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all; but now, to make the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining then cry. They have him in his prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him, and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key - the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is."20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford 19 How. 393, 414

2. Uncle Tom's Cabin, pg. 37

3. Ibid., pg. 23

4. Dred Scott v. Sanford 19 How. 393, 416-17

5. Cannibals All! - Or Slaves Without Masters, pg. 115

6. The Black Book of Communism: by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin; translated by Jonathan Murphy & Mark Kramer; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. & London, England, 1999, pg. 175

7. Zemel v. Rusk 381 US 1, 3

8. Dred Scott v. Sanford 19 How. 393, 421

9. The Works of William E. Channing, Vol. II, pg. 43

10. Cotton is King, pg. 447

11. Cannibals All! - Or Slaves Without Masters, pg. 63

12. Robertson v. Baldwin 165 US 275, 280-81

13. Supra., 292

14. Supra., 293-94

15. Butler v. Perry 240 U.S. 328, 333

16. Arver v. United States 245 U.S. 366, 390

17. The Gulag Archipelago, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, pg. 52

18. The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. V, pg. 323

19. The Gulag Archipelago, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, pg. 93-94

20. The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol II, pp. 326-28

Go to Chapter VIII

Home