It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Legal Slavery, right here in the United States of Hypocricy!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:16 PM

I think an injustice was made while writing the 2nd-13th Amendment.

Either a huge mistake or the LAWYER's were getting even for the Original 13th Amendment!

Another HUGE conspiracy to discuss. I am going to lay out for you, the reason I believe the 13th amendment was an instrument used to not free the slaves, but to enslave us all!

For some background.

The Original 13th Amendment can be found in several State's books showing that it was indeed passed, that it was indeed an Amendment to the Constitution. But after the Civil War, for some reason the new 13th Amendment was put in place of the Original.

I am not here to discuss that, just giving some background. The Lawyer's I am sure were quite pissed about the Original so they wrote the new one with a HUGE back door.

Alright, the new 13th Amendment-

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Notice that unless convicted of a crime, involutary servitude is illegal in the US and all it's jurisdiction.

Now, let us look at the LEGAL definition of involuntary servitude.

From this link-Legal Definition of Involuntary Servitude


A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the work. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work.

However, it is necessary to prove that the person knowingly and willfully took action, by way of force, threats, intimidation or other form of coercion, causing the victim to reasonably believe that he had no way to avoid continued service, that he was confronted by the existence of a superior and overpowering authority, constantly threatening to the extent that his will was completely subjugated.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person held the victim in a condition of 'involuntary servitude';

Second: That such holding was for a 'term,'; and

Third: That the person acted knowingly and willfully.

It must be shown that a person held to involuntary servitude was so held for a 'term.' It is not necessary, however, that any specific period of time be proved so long as the 'term' of the involuntary service was not wholly insubstantial or insignificant.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1581(a) is the peonage law cited in the indictment.

The specific facts which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the offense of peonage include each and all of the three specific factual elements constituting involuntary servitude as previously stated and explained in these instructions, plus a fourth specific fact; namely, that the involuntary servitude was compelled by the person in order to satisfy a real or imagined debt regardless of amount.
Emphasis on certain components mine, but no modification to the definition has been made.

Now, I would like everyone to read through this very carefully and tell me what they see.

Replace every yellow person with "government" and tell me what you see.

Imagine that to be forced to give a percentage of one's labor, could be said to be EXACTLY the same as in the past of serfs. Forced to work and give a percentage of ones crops, or any other form of payment to exist. Is this not slavery?

We have a government that puts us into debt for their purposes alone. We have not been asked if we agree to this, even if we were, it is still involuntary servitude by the very legal definition of it.

So in conclusion, how do you like them chains slave?

[edit on 3/14/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:32 PM
It is not involuntary. You are playing along with their sick game voluntarily. You may not realize that is what you are doing, but it is. You CAN get out of it, you just have to WANT to.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by CaptChaos

Well I am going to see if what you say is true.

I have this here debt to the IRS now and I am not going to pay it. I shall see if you are correct. I very much doubt it, but I shall see.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:43 PM
Virginia never ratified TONA.

Also, your interpretation of the actual 13th amendment is absurd.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:46 PM
no it isn' law is voted on by the elected representatives.


if you had a group of farmers who decided that if each of them put up a little money to build roads throughout their farmland, so they could transport their crops to be sold, it would be cheaper than if each farmer built his own road to sell their individual crops and have to spend individual money to keep them maintained. it's a shared expense that benefits all the farmers, all the while keeping the costs down to a minimum for each farmer.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by Solasis

Well, I am glad your backup of proof is wikipedia. I guess that is a valid source for a definition of a word, but I do not trust it to be a historical reference. Maybe you should not either.

As for absurd, place government in the place of person and what do you have?

Slavery, thanks for your comment.

edit to add, I did source both the Constitution and a legal definition of involuntary servitude, maybe you should debate the subject instead of being snippy and condescending.

[edit on 3/14/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by jimmyx

Tax law voted on by representatives huh. The 16th Amendment which you are referring to was passed for the specific purpose of paying off the war debt. Then it became permanent. Wonder how that worked?

Your analogy does not work. Roads are built by the revenue created by fuel tax. So your analogy is a red herring.

Please try again.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Good thread.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I would like to point out that, the thirteenth amendment states clearly that involuntary servitude is Ok for prisoners...

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States...

Also of importance is the fact that the amendment does not mention voluntary servitude. Which is something that I do believe, through lack of education, we have been coerced into by TPTB.

"He who receives the benefit, should also bear the disadvantage."

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by dalan.

Thanks dalan,

I was thinking of bringing the voluntary component into it. I am glad you brought it up. There is numerous threads here about the voluntary nature of our tax system. Of course the pundits will sidestep the issue by saying the idiots , saying it is voluntary is something totally different.

I think one of the things the lawyers of the US do is sidestep this because the VERY definition of involuntary servitude.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

I can't believe I'm actually gonna defend the government on this but... to say that the government forces us to work just doesn't hold water with me, I'm afraid. Our society, our way of thinking DOES force us to work but the government doesn't... just look at all the people who have never held a job in their lives and are living off of what the government gives them... under your definition, we are more slaves than they are. I just do not agree with this.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by endisnighe

I can't believe I'm actually gonna defend the government on this but... to say that the government forces us to work just doesn't hold water with me, I'm afraid. Our society, our way of thinking DOES force us to work but the government doesn't... just look at all the people who have never held a job in their lives and are living off of what the government gives them... under your definition, we are more slaves than they are. I just do not agree with this.

You have to study Law to understand these concepts, those people who do not work and accept benefits do so because our system was set up for such actions:

"He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."

We are 2nd class citizens because of the Fourteenth Amendment.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Well, what I am saying is that by the very definition of involuntary servitude, the government falls under the definition of it.

Especially the first part of the definition.

A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

This part right HERE, defines exactly what all the income taxes, ss taxes, medicare taxes DO exactly.

Take money from one person and give it to another.

This is my whole problem with the income tax and all the other socialist taxes.

If I am going to defend the Constitution, I am going to defend it all.

Now, if this states that involuntary servitude is a component of socialism, then every socialist activity the government does is Un Constitutional. Including corporate welfare, e.g. the bailouts.

Just looking at the legal ramifications in regards to the 13th Amendment. I feel this is legally correct assumption. If a person was to do what the government does, than it would be illegal. Is not the government required to follow the same laws as we are?

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Well lets see this for what it is.

Blacks are made slaves in this county, millions work in labour for free against their will producing wealth and contributing significantly to to building this nation. Because there already million of blacks doing all the free work, folks dont have to pay taxes or anything like that.

So here comes along the 13th ammendment which frees african americans, blacks from slavery, but leaves america to somehow continue to pay for its roads, its public infrastructure, its defense. So what do they do? They introduce taxes (more widespread taxes) so all americans now have to contribute taxes if they wish to live in civilization. This is slavery because your being forced to pay a portion of your labour to the government..... because you dont have slaves doing it for free.

Yes I understand now.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

SG, I do not believe you accused me of what you just did. I was expecting someone like wuk to come in and try to get my goat. Lately you have been debating properly but not here-

Bad Form

Are you for war now? War must be GOOD. The 16th Amendment was to be a temporary measure, hear that, temporary to pay off the war debt. Now it is used for EMPIRE. So you must advocate taking over the world and enforcing ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE on the backs of the American People. What you have just said makes you the new slave master. How does that fit on you, like a glove?

So you bring into the debate that the income taxes created the roads and infrastructure of the country. Do you even know where the income taxes go now?

Taxes, oh for the love of taxes. Yes, if there was not INCOME taxes, civilization would not exist. That is your argument on this OP.

You brought in about 4 fallicies to your argument that I can spot without doing a breakdown of your comment.

Argue the merits of the OP or go flame another birther thread. Your tactics will not work on me.

posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:27 AM
Let's take a look at the 14th Amendment section 4 and do a breakdown of the legal meaning of it.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Now, take a look at the TOTAL meaning of this component.

ANY DEBT cannot be questioned!

Do I need any other argument that these amendments, at the time, were meant to make us slaves?

Well, does anyone want to make a defense of the problems inherent to the Amendments enacted after the civil war?

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:47 AM
To back up my slavery conspiracy. You are now forced to buy something from your slavemasters, besides being taxed for it also.

Slaves to their government.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:47 PM
There's a lot of big holes in the tax code.

Here's something I was surprised to see happen to me back in 1996. In 1996, after 15 years working for the same employer, I felt I had enough and needed some time off, a sabbatical. I wanted to enjoy a little of my retirement now while I was still relatively young. I was 39 then. So I quit and said I may or may not be back in a year or two or more or never.

Then a few months later, I received a 6 figure beneficiary check in the mail. Whoa, now I can retire for a while longer than I had expected. So anyhow, here comes 1997. I had a good year doing NOTHING except travel around the states in an RV. I had a year long vacation! I did do some work during that year, but it only amounted to a few thousand dollars for a couple weeks work. There was also a little income related to what I had sitting in a bank savings account too. My income for 1997 was pitiful, below the poverty level, but hey, I didn't care, I had more than enough net worth/investments to live on for the next 6 year or better. I was also part owner of a business that I inherited that is held in a trust for my benefit.

Then, 1998 came alone and it was time to file my 1997 taxes. And was I surprised to realize that, because my income was way low, I got damn near all my income tax paid in 1997 back on those few thousands dollars of income and interest ... .. and get this: they also sent me around $1200 EXTRA because of something called earned income credit. WHAT? You see, I also had a minor daughter still living at home, and they felt I was poor and deserve a bonus in my tax return. How nice, ha, thank you, all you other tax payers, ha. I used that for more gas for my RV while I spent the next 3.5 years just screwing around, ha.

Now, ha, was that something I should have sent back to the IRS because I didn't really need it? The IRS said I was entitled to it, but what is the purpose of that earned income credit when I had lots of net worth and simply had little income because I chose not to work? I mean, yeah, I didn't make jack in 1997 in so far as income, but I had a nice 6 figure net worth of investments, and I wasn't working only because I didn't need to.

So, was that earned income credit a present from all the other tax payers for me being in a position to not have to work for a few years?

There's a bunch of other silly loopholes too, such as you could have all your assets a trust fund and even if you owed uncle sham a million dollars in back taxes, they can't touch your trust fund. And, you can also receive up to $32,000 from your trust fund of which the IRS can't levy to pay your back taxes. In other words, if you have a lot of assets, and you owe the IRS a lot of money, you can flip them the bird if you don't mind living on $32k a year, ha.

There are a dozen more loopholes I've discovered that I won't waste time mentioning here, but you know how we can put an end to this nonsense and all these loopholes? ELIMINATE INCOME TAX and tax everyone on the front end instead .. I.E., a high VAT TAX instead of a high income tax! In this way you will also be able to collect tax revenue on all those people earning illegal unreported incomes, unless they don't spend any of their illicit income, which is highly unlikely.

What a messed up economy, huh?

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Divinorumus]

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by Divinorumus

Hey, just think if some big CEO wanted to pay himself a yearly salary of say $4000 and his company that he owns just pays the taxes on it's profits.

Then he files his taxes and gets money from the EIC. Now when the CEO decides to retire or just make money he sells his interest in the company.

I myself believe in ridding ourselves of all taxation on the individual and only allowing a sales tax. Nothing on food, clothing and rental property as primary residence.

But that would be fair you see, and taxation has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with control.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:46 PM
Endisnigh, you take things too far sir.

What you should be addressing is how might we get the things we need while not burdening the people with oceans of waste rather than rail on and on about faceless government and figureheads trying to enslave you.

Taxes are a reality, even a libertarian one, and you know I am a reasonably strong libertarian.

Instead of grinding in negative thread after negative thread, instead try introducing the merits of a better way of thinking. People tend to shy away from anger unless they are easily swayed or already angry (to any degree).

Our system is set up so that we have a say. If at any time you feel they are working against you in an amount greater than what is tolerable, it is your obligation to overthrow said government by any means you can.

Until then, I tend to stick with what we can offer.

For instance, defense is a necessary evil these days, but how to fund it? The state has the ability to levy sales tax to raise money, and with even a moderate 5 cent increase by all states we could raise quite a bit of money and the people would be quite pleased about it provided we removed the federal income tax OR the federal payroll tax.

I'd also suggest that move to a flat tax rate for corporations on the federal level with one deduction, research and development with the caveat that since it is a 1:1 tax break, that cost may not be passed on to the consumer.

People complain about income tax, but few know or pay attention to payroll taxes and how they work.

Informing the people about that might get your tax revolt a major push.


posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by KrazyJethro

Oh, this thread was written about 4 months ago. I used it in as a link to another post and noticed someone had commented without me replying. So I replied.

Completely agree by the way with your post.

One thing I have to say about taxation. I wish the founders would have only allowed one type of tax. Not all the licensing, fees, registration schemes.

The problem is those that do not realize the myriad forms of taxation has given rise to effective tax rates for people in the middle class to pay 50-75% taxation. As this thread has a slight component of taxation, the basis of my indentured servitude definition, I only responded shortly to the comment.

Thanks KJ for keeping on the straight and narrow, of course I do throw wildly!

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in