Enslavement at Lone Star Roadhouse Georgia 1944

(i). Shared on this note is a case of slavery which runs parallel to that of Wei Tang (AUS, 2008) [#2]. In this case, the hotel owner Joel Pierce was charged for peonage (debt-bondage), holding involuntary to women working at his Lone Star Club roadhouse in Georgia. Peonage is classified as a form of slavery (involuntary servitude). The narratives of the case and the judgment are quite readable, for which I've forwarded here to enhance our understanding about the nature of the deprivation of personal liberty in slavery cases.

(ii). In United States of America, the slavery of all forms have been prohibited by Constitution. The 13th Amendment of US Constitution (1865):

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

Comparing with the text and context of 1926 Slavery Convention, the word "slavery" may referred to "de jure" or "Chattel" slavery, where a person (slave) was legally owned by another person (master). The word "involuntary servitude" may referred to "de facto" slavery, which it covered all other forms of slavery.

(iii). In this case, Pierce was found holding 11 women by force of threat. These women had been working as waitress and bar tenders but primarily as sex workers at his Club. At the start, Pierce bought the women clothing etc.. and afterwards claimed they owed him the debt and didn't let the women go. Two of the women, 8 & 9, who held in the Georgia State prison for being at homelessness, were being taken out by Pierce upon payment of the fine. Women 8 & 9 agreed to work with Pierce at the Club.

(iv). One interesting thing to note is a situation where peonage, initially free contracting debt-bondage, that may slipped into slavery (involuntary servitude). In this case, US Judge HUTCHESON noted (1944)[#1]:

"The peon was not a slave. He was a freeman, with political as well as civil rights. He entered into the relation from choice, for a definite period, as result of mutual contract. * * * The peon, male or female, agreed with the master upon the nature of the service, the length of its duration, and compensation. The peon then became bound to the master `for an indebtedness founded upon an advancement in consideration of service'."

In the case of Wei Tang (2008), also, Justice HAYNE of HCA noted [#2]:

"166. Accepting, ... that each of the women came to Australia voluntarily .... Taking the concession at its highest (that each woman had consciously, freely and deliberately submitted herself to the conditions that she encountered in Australia), the evidence permitted the jury to conclude that none of the women thereafter retained any freedom to choose what was done with them in Australia. .... if there were choices to be made about those matters, they were to be made by others. In this case the evidence permitted the conclusion that the respondent (Wei Tang) ...... used and possessed the complainant (sex-worker) as an item of property at the disposal of those who had bought the complainant regardless of any wish she (sex-worker) might have."

From above judgments, the slavery can occur when an employer (Joel Pierce) who has been in the position of power does not allow the employee (sex worker) to make her own decision. Therefore, the deprivation of personal liberty is said to have occurred when a person (slave) is not allowed to make an informed and rational decision -- say leaving the job or the place -- to the benefit of another person (slave owner).

(v). A more interesting aspects of slavery can be found on the discussion of Judge HUTCHESON. The Judge agreed peonage charges only to the two cases of women 8 & 9. On other counts, he has indicated there's the likelihood of involuntary servitude:

"As to the other girls, all that is made to appear is that the defendant advanced them moneys to buy clothes and threatened them if they tried to leave before they paid him back. It is not claimed that they had agreed with him to work for him until the indebtedness was paid out, and thereby put themselves in a condition of peonage. It it claimed merely that the fact that he claimed they owed him and, so claiming, subjected them, by threats and putting in fear, to involuntary servitude, makes out a condition of peonage. I do not think so. The statute has been on the books for nearly 100 years. Its meaning and effect have become well defined and established. To interpret it now to cover any case of involuntary servitude except one which constitutes peonage is, I think, to do violence to its plain meaning and established construction."

What the Judge saying was, except for 8 & 9, the rest of women were deceived by Pierce into working under him. Those women had not expressed that they agreed to enter contract with Pierce. This indicates there's a more serious form of involuntary servitude (enslavement), which may attract more severe punishment for Pierce.

(vi). The evidence in this slavery cases are much more clearer than that of Wei Tang (2008). The threatening to use force, not allowing person to contact outside were visible form of violation of rights. Pierce did not use detention to keep these sex workers. However, he used threat and implied threat of having bad consequences should these sex worker leave his Club. Pierce's action -- prevent workers from leaving his Club by use of threat -- had invoked slavery laws. In other words, severe deprivation of personal liberty of workers had occurred when the workers couldn't leave the job/place at their free will. Pierce had exercised one of the powers attaching to the rights or ownership, namely right to security of holding, over these women.

(vii). One interesting aspect of slavery laws is that the court (or Prosecutor) is not required to prove or verify the amount of money involved, or how transactions were made. It seem sufficient proving that the perpetrator held a person (slave) by force and used for certain gain. In the note [#1]:

"In a prosecution for peonage, the law takes no account of the amount of the debt, or the means and method of coercion. It is sufficient to allege and prove that a person is held against his will and made to work to pay a debt."

This, in fact, will means one less hurdle in building up of our offshore slavery cases. The court is not required to prove our politicians did receive money in brown paper bags, nor to show detention companies credited certain amount to secret bank account at Cayman Is :-) :-) Though, wouldn't it be nice to have such evidence for embezzlement of our tax payers monies ? This task of pecuniary, certainly, is not for human rights activists; but for the ASIO, AFP and Interpol !!

End-of-Note.

[#1] Pierce vs. United States (1944)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/146/84/1549455/

[#2] Queen vs. Tang (2008)
https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/case-law/aus/2009/r_v_wei_tang_2009_23_vr_...