A SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENT (Spring, 1981)
[I protested as an employer being forced to be a withholding tax collector.]
The common perception is that this is a debate between a representative of the government and me, with nine impartial judges--one on one. I don't see it that way. You judges get your paychecks from the taxes in question and therefore have a direct conflict of interest. It's ten against one, and you have the home court advantage.
Matthew 23 in The Bible is a good place to start:
"Judges love raised seats of honor. They wear large Robes with an eye to effect,
and require respect. They increase the size of their text of laws. They pile up
backbreaking burdens and lay them on other men's shoulders.
They are hypocrites, fools and frauds!"
That refers to religious authorities, but the same could be said about any similar group...
The issue is slavery and servitude: forced labor. Examples are southern plantation labor before 1865, drafted military "duty", forcing employers to be tax collectors, and jury "duty". How can I get an impartial jury when they're being held in slavery by the U.S. Government, plaintiff and accuser? Aren't juries important enough that citizens should want to be there voluntarily, and paid at least a minimum wage? What kind of judges would be responsible for humon justice, and run a large slavery operation at the same time?
I say you are hypocrites.
Now that we understand what slavery is, we can turn our
attention to the main issue: employers aren't paid anything for their labor as IRS
"withholding agents" and are forced, coerced, intimidated and threatened.
I don't want to be a tax collector; I think the job stinks
I'm asking you to abolish forced political labor that is
out of control. But you can't do that unless someone brings you a case. So that's the
purpose of disputes like this: when the crunch came, you did have the opportunity to
rule on slavery vs freedom. Should the 13th Amendment apply to the IRS and U.S.
Government? Are the principles of liberty meant to change with the whims of politicians
like shifting sands? I think not! What kind of person would say government forced labor
I call them fools.
Is Social Security a contribution or tax? Tax or theft for
a pyramid scam?
Is paper money sound fiscal policy or counterfeiting?
Is forced government labor duty or slavery?
Was Vietnam a police action or war? War or mass murder?
You see, changing the name doesn't change the nature of the thing.
During the Vietnam War, we were told war would bring peace:
War is peace
The indoctrination of children in socialist government
jury ignorance of nullification are government sources of strength:
Ignorance is strength
Now this case is about whether forced government labor is necessary to preserve freedom in America:
Freedom is slavery?
We didn't have a libertarian revolution in this country so we could live under Roman and English king's slavery laws. So we could slip slowly back into servitude, bondage and slavery on the installment plan. The ultimate result is another tyranny! Forced labor is unworkable and always has been; it creates havoc and chaos wherever it's been used.
There is no Statute of Limitations on the laws of humon nature. To advocate that government "duties" are more important than individual rights defies the spirit and letter of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and most important, it defies humon nature. The War Department, legislatures, bureaucratic persecutors, Congress, the Supreme Court and even the American people can vote that forced labor isn't slavery--but that doesn't change the reality of common sense.
Does freedom for all mean enslaving all--freedom is
slavery? Is this doublethink? Double talk?
Considering the principles this country was founded on,
it looks like a double-cross to me!
If you are judicial leaders, it's your job to be aware of
changes and progress in your field. We see improvements in transportation, medicine and
communication. Do you think we are stuck in time? Shouldn't there be progress in
governments, social organizations and freedom too? Juries don't have to be slaves; the
courts could have abolished slavery in their own house--but it's the nature of tyranny to
hang onto and expand power. What kind of person would accept a job to protect individual
rights, then do the exact opposite?
In my neck of the woods we call them frauds!
Here's what really angers me. Some of the
money I was forced to collect was put into a compulsory, bankrupt, fraudulent, pyramid
retirement scheme. Also, this money collected from my community was used to bomb other
members of my world community in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
I refuse to be part of fraud and mass, premeditated murder.
And when we complain, the Supreme Court ignores us.
You are invited to assist us in restoring the American Dream--the world dream--of individual liberty, responsibility, prosperity and peace. I'll conclude with a poem by john lennon and yoko ono titled: "imagine". It contains the phrase "no religion". This refers to the "my-God-is-bigger-and-better-than-your-God" game that can get in the way of nature's message--robes for example. So if the phrase "no religion" bothers you, think of it as "no robes"
imagine there's no
it isn't hard to do
nothing to kill or die for
and no religion too
imagine all the people
living life in peace...
you may say i'm a
but i'm not the only one
i hope someday you'll join us
so the world can be as one
[The above oral argument wasn't given, because it wasn't invited.]
THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA adapted from a concept by
Robert Pirsig in
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
The U.S. Supreme Court was facing the bull horns of Freedom or Slavery.
They had several choices:
Throw sand in the bull's eyes. The judicial arena is famous for this: storms and swirls of rules, writs, motions, technicalities and paper. Successfully filing a case with the court is an expensive, frustrating, sandstorm obstacle course.
Call it a different name: semantics. It isn't a bull with horns; it's a placid, friendly milk cow. It isn't a social security tax; it's a contribution. It isn't slavery, it's public duty.
Sing the bull to sleep. "Everything is okay, the system works; don't worry, all it needs is some fine tuning." This is the indoctrinating and brainwashing done by compulsory government schools and our tamed, timid academe and media. It's the official position of the court.
Look for a compromise between the horns. American judicial history is a march to slavery and serfdom. To give any hint that they recognize a serious problem is a crack in the wall. With a little awareness, the citizens would widen the crack in the facade. There can be NO COMPROMISE OF FREEDOM.
Refuse to enter the arena. This is simply cert. denied. They choose not to review the case and agree with the existing verdict against liberty and freedom. This would confirm that the court feels we must be slaves to the government: Freedom is Slavery. Ignoring the problem doesn't solve it, and there are other arenas besides the Supreme Court.
Eliminate the bull. We can dismantle and dissolve the tyranny bull that is creating the dilemma.
"cert. denied" --U.S. Supreme Court: U.S. v Mohn, April 20, 1981
The court confirmed that in order to insure freedom,
we must be slaves to the government-- Freedom is Slavery!
This concept is
workable for and strengthens government;
it is not acceptable for our society.