Peonage, A form of Slavery

A page from LectLaw:

"INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE - 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. "

This was the entire page on Peonage from LectLaw. I copied it here, because to have paraphrased it would have brought an injustice to this work.


How is peonage important to offenders you might ask? Simple.

When an offender is sentenced, they sign their name on the "guilty" line and form a contract with the State. When that sentence is over, the offenders debt to that state is complete. But what happens when the state takes a portion of that "contract" and continually changes it, thus changing the contract.

The offender then no longer has the ability to complete the contract, and, is forced to do things not previously agreed upon.

Also, if this wasn't disclosed to the offender at the time of signing (the ever changing nature of the contract that is), the contract becomes null and void.

Contract Law states:

"Full Disclosure n. the need in business transactions to tell the "whole truth" about any matter which the other party should know in deciding to buy or contract. In real estate sales in many states there is a full disclosure form which must be filled out and signed under penalty of perjury for knowingly falsifying or concealing any significant fact."

If the Court did not fully disclose the nature of your sentence to you, and all the definitions of each portion of your sentencing, then that contract can be viewed as void. (Contract law would be tough to go into and make it easy to understand. Do a word search for Unconscionable.)

And for those that think that sentencing (plea bargains) are not contracts, please read this.

So, if your contract is now null and void, but you have no recourse, you are now suffering from peonage. Why? Because if you don't conform to the new contract, you will be thrown in jail. Coercion. Did the Legislators "knowingly" make a new law to make things tougher for you?

I'll leave that one for you to decide.

Is There "Corruption of Blood" Working in America?

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person." --Article 1, Section 3 US Constitution

"In English law, the result of attainder, in that the attainted person lost all rights to inherit land or other hereditaments from an ancestor, to retain possession of such property and to transfer any property rights to anyone, including heirs, by virtue of his or her conviction for treason or a felony punishable by death, because the law considered the person's blood tainted by the crime.

Attainder and the consequent corruption of the blood were abolished by English statutes and are virtually unknown in the United States." --Answers.com

"...Because the Law considered the person's blood tainted by the crime." This phrase can be used on any convicted Felon. The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that as of 2007, one in thirty-one adults are on probation, parole, or in prison.

If the Law considers your "blood" tainted because of your crime, then that taint will effect your children and family as well. These people are the "heirs" to whatever potential you may have had. Does this excuse a crime committed? No.

Once a sentence has run it's course, the person is supposed to return to full citizen status. Today, stigma is attached to being a Felon. This stigma reduces your ability to find employment, a home, and build a positive life. The stigma (taint) of your crime has now turned you into a "second class citizen."

Your family, they will struggle with this for the rest of their lives. Your children will be affected by this through their most impressionable years.

Treason used to be the only crime that Corruption of Blood used to be an after effect of. Now, anything classified as a felony will attaint you with Corruption of Blood.

This stigma now removes many of the rights you were given under the Constitution of the United States of America. No longer are you allowed to vote, own a gun, or be eligible to serve this country in the Military. All of these rights (or their removal) will effect your family.

Collateral Damage is now acceptable in the United States. People say "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." But I would challenge anyone out there to find me someone that knew what the social stigma would be before his sentencing. The true punishment doesn't become apparent until long after your sentence has run it's course.

Collateral Damage is a polite way of saying that your family is under Corruption of Blood.

Don't like it, then speak up to your legislators.

A Series on the Loss of Rights: Due Process

"Due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land, instead of respecting merely some or most of those legal rights. In the laws of the United States (U.S.), this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations thereof by governments. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions."

There are two kinds of "Due Process", Procedural and Substantive. Procedural is the process by which things are done. Due process by procedures. Substantive on the other hand, are the rights given by the Constitution that are byproducts of the Bill of Rights.

Most everything you read these days is geared towards protecting your established rights. What you don't read about is the establishing of those rights.

Congress in it's near limitless power in creating a new law, often takes it upon themselves to use a House Rule to pass laws and not follow the Constitutional processes.

For example, the Senate is to have a Quorum when creating major legislation. In the definition of a Quorum, the Senate "presumes" that a Quorum is present unless someone calls for a roll call. Basically meaning that 1, 2, 5, or so people could be present to pass legislation. And unless one of those people is dumb enough to ask for a roll call vote, they can pass any legislation they want to. Couple that with Adjournment Sine Die, you get a Congress that does what it wants, when it wants, without the benefit of checks and balances.

Congress is supposed to have a quorum present (51%) when creating or passing major pieces of legislation. Congress is supposed to close it's doors at the end of their season. The Senate IS NOT to create legislation, they are to be the "cooling plate" for the House of Representatives.

So here's the question of the day. If Congress uses the House Rules to pass major legislation, are they following Procedural Due Process in the creation of laws? If they are not, are those laws considered to be Constitutional? Should they be "re-argued" with a true Quorum present? Are they completing their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution in the creation of these laws? Are our rights as citizens under the Constitution being protected when they create laws this way?

Adjournment Sine Die

Adjournment sine die - The end of a legislative session "without day." These adjournments are used to indicate the final adjournment of an annual or the two-year session of a Congress.


This interestingly bland detail introduced itself to me yesterday. As far as I can understand it (not being a Congressman or a Lawyer), this tool is used to close Congress and stop the ability for Congress to pass laws until the next scheduled session.

In case you didn't pick up the connotation there, if it's not used, then any member of Congress can sneak in, and pass laws using trickery. There are documented cases of this. Many laws that are effectively screwing up America today are caused by this very detail. I would elaborate on which ones, but I'm not ready to present such Nationally destructive info as of yet. (stay tuned as I slowly elaborate and give my evidence)

Under the original intent of the Constitution, Congress was only able to act with a Majority. That came to a screeching halt when the South seceded from the Union. Which meant that the southern states were not in Congress. Therefore, not majority could be reached. So, Lincoln wrote a writ to allow Emergency Powers to Congress so that they could get back to writing laws.

One of those nasty powers granted under the writ Lincoln wrote was a little thing called: Suspension of Rules.

I've written about Suspension of Rules before, but here's a brief synopsis. Suspension of Rules allows for the Congress to set aside the normal rules of making laws and pass laws without the normal checks and balances.

After researching this suspension of rules, I became aware that it's existence is tracked back to the 1870's, which would imply the time of the Lincoln writ. Under the Constitution and on major pieces of legislation, it states a need of a 2/3 majority vote. Congress should not have the ability to use the Suspension of Rules to pass major legislation.

Congress does have the ability to create it's own rules in the passage of laws within each House and Senate, but those rules are to help in the making of laws.

The Suspension of Rules is one of those "house rules" that is supposed to be used only on mundane things like the naming of Post Offices and whatnot. It was not meant to be used on major Constitutional issues.

I bring up the Suspension of Rules to illustrate a problem with not adjourning Congress at the end of the session. If Congress is not "officially" closed for the session, someone can come in and use things like Suspension of Rules to pass legislation while most of Congress is not present.

Adjournment Sine Die is important for keeping Congress honest. We may not even have the ability for Congress to use Adjournment Sine Die because we are at a State of War. We have been at a State of War since September 11th, 2001, because the President keeps renewing this decree. While we are at "war", Congress cannot convene.

So, if a controversial law is passed using a "house rule" and not using the Constitutional Rule, should it still be a valid law? Or, should it be considered unconstitutional because Congress didn't use procedural due process to pass that law? If Congress cannot convene, are we given due process when someone in Congress passes a major legislative piece while the session is supposed to be over?

Ultra Vires and Quo Warranto

The inspiration for this post is a long series of mounting congressional laws that are making it increasingly difficult to live under said laws. Now, being a problem solver by nature, I wanted to know by what authority was congress allowed to make such laws, and was it within their scope of the law? And in so questioning, I stumbled upon two different yet essentially identical phrases: Ultra Vires and Quo Warranto.

Ulta Vires

By definition: Ultra vires is a Latin phrase that literally means "beyond the powers". It is used as a legal term in a number of common law contexts.

Interesting. Beyond the powers... And as I understand it, if it's beyond their powers, then all subsequent laws based upon that one ultra vires falls under the same term respectively. Kinda like dominoes falling...

Quo Warranto

By definition: Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is one of the prerogative writs, that requires the person to whom it is directed to show what authority he has for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") he claims to hold.

In essence, questioning the authority of said person to prove their authority/power. If they don't have the authority/power to create a law or uphold it, then the result of "non-compliance" is null and void.

So, here we have two terms that question the authority of an entity or person.

If on one hand, they have the power and authority, but act outside the scope of their boundaries, then that law or result is void. If they don't have the power or authority, then it's a moot point anyways.

So the question remains, do they have the authority? And if so, did they act within their bounds?