Okay Guys.the Missing 13th.1

John Roberts and US Attorney Albritton / Rhodes: Okay guys, The missing 13th Amendment. This is a tiny sampling of the information available out there. You won’t win upon a plain incorporation argument or a 16th amendment argument. 1st you’d have to be me and have the US default and then you need more, a lot more. The missing 13th amendment is one reason all lawyers have unclean hands. Because we are still arguing over whether or not this amendment was ever ratified I purposely did not concentrate upon it but instead upon my injury and the injury to al women as that plus BVG plus the recent release of the bush memos all proves lawyers have unclean hands. I alone do not need to argue if certain amendments are legal or not or if they even exist or not. This is meant to support my claim. MASS MEDIA makes it possible to go back and examine the physical record but the record that is most important is the record of the feelings you have while doing that! You are making the attempt to feel the actual emotion known as liberty and every copy of our law could burn up tomorrow but that in no way then means our law is nom ore as it is about what you carry with you in your heart and mind. I, Susan, will never mistake liberty for something it is not – ever. Nor will I mistake Philadelphia for something it is not. It’s a law of this universe: You only come to own liberty and Philadelphia by according it to others first. Then it boomerangs back to you. If you give the knowledge to others then you yourself come to own the knowledge of liberty and Philadelphia, get it? YOU FEEL IT AS SACRED. I have found the following to be true, correct and fact and have seen the documents as they are posted as photos on the web. Unless otherwise noted I have seen the actual photo of the document. This is small part of 3 very informative websites as I only pulled what is pertinent and did not note every single time a state reprinted the missing 13th. I myself checked out every lead and used several sources besides this one. I often include other people’s websites or knowledge that they compiled independently from me as I’m trying to accord them the opportunity to be heard as it is highly unlikely they could ever enter SCOTUS; I’m practicing or acting upon what I know to be law and case law. I’m being inclusive as all anybody usually needs is to have their truth and their fact – their hard work - acknowledged. Ideally US law is never a ‘right fight’ as in who’s right and who’s wrong as you’re never actually wrong when you apply the law to your own self and then live it out. Mistaken? Yes. But wrong? No. So then as it does have to do with foreignization of our currency, endemic corruption of the legal profession and my claim re a privileged class created by SCOTUS:

TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR" In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public

records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous. The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance. To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the American Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies. Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The

French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved. Their survival at stake, the monarchies south to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks. The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England: "The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again... Take this great power away form them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in... But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit." The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you're not being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.) The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions. When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks.

Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist. Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers "sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and our federal government's unbridled growth.) If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin. It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against a paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of the productive. "Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people." [I disagree as our entire concept of money is outmoded and outdated as even a metallic standard is no longer workable. It’s cornering the market in justice that is the true value of our US dollar as that is all id not ego! I need to teach people a brand new concept regarding currency. A constitutional concept.] In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of

England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA. Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government. The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may be more significant. According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot. By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens. If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from

lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. [Not anymore, lol!] As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors). To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th "titles of nobility" Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power. Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquires" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans' political interests, the nation's economic welfare, and the Constitution's egalitarian spirit. The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system. [The problem is lawyers acting unconstitutionally and often in a criminal manner w/o any penalty whatsoever. It is not necessarily lawyer itself. It is also a mistaken belief: That judges must be lawyers or only lawyers can argue in certain courts. It is unjust men hiring lawyers advise them upon how far they can go before getting caught and as in my family case, lawyers then taking the money and doing it! I might be that one in a trillion person but after me? You’ll have lots and lots of legal geniuses as people will aspire to be come living institutions. ] - end, David Dodge June 21, 1789 (pay attention to the year as it changes - a lot): The United States Constitution is ratified with New Hampshire becoming the ninth state to ratify. Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution contain provisions that clearly prohibit the federal government and the states from granting titles:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. However, no penalty for violating the Article is specified. January 18, 1810 The 17 states in the union on this date include: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia. Senator Phillip Reed of Maryland proposes a "title of nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). The first version of the Titles Of Nobility Amendment (or TONA) is read to the Senate. "If any citizen of the United States, shall accept of any title of nobility, from any king, prince or foreign state, such citizen shall thence forth be incapable of holding any office of honor or profit, under the United States." January 29 A revised version of the proposed amendment is read to the Senate. The proposed amendment revokes the citizenship of those who violate the prohibition, and renders them ineligible to hold public office. "If any citizen of the United States, shall accept of any title of nobility, or of any other title of distinction from any emperor, king prince, potentate, or foreign state, or shall hold the same by descent, or shall intermarry with any descendent of any emperor, king or prince, or with any person of the blood royal, such citizen shall thenceforth, be incapable of exercising or enjoying any of the rights and immunities of a free citizen of the United States, or of the individual states ; and shall also be incapable of holding any office of honor, profit or trust under them, or either of them."

February 15 An amended version of the TONA is reported to the Senate which includes the phrase "title of distinction," but this language is too cumbersome in construction even for these flowery times. The phrase is stricken. "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States : and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign state. And if any citizen of the United States shall accept of any title of nobility or of any other title of distinction, above or below that of nobility, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign state, or shall hold the same by descent, such citizen shall henceforth be incapable of exercising or enjoying any of the rights and immunities of a free citizen of the United States, or of the individual states; and shall also be incapable of holding any office of profit or trust, under them, or either of them." March 5 Thomas Jefferson writes in a letter to Governor Langdon of New Hampshire and referring to the European governments states, "The question whether a measure is moral, is never asked; whether it will nourish the avarice of their merchants, or the piratical spirit of their navy, or produce any other effect which may strengthen them [the aristocrats] in their places." April 27 On motion the Senate votes to pass the 13th Amendment proposal by a vote of 26 to 1. "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." The resolution was so engrossed and read a third time, and the President of the Senate reported it to the house accordingly. [Journal of the Senate] December 25 Maryland ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 1st of 13 states required. Cover letter and Resolution addressed to James Monroe as Secretary of State, cover letter and Resolution

transmittal to Edward Lloyd, Esquire, Governor of Maryland. Resolution signed by Clerk of the House, Clerk of the Senate, certified by a Clerk of the Court of Appeals.MD January 2, 1812 Governor George William Smith of Virginia dies, having been in office less than 30 days. January 4 James Barbour is elected Governor of Virginia to replace Smith. Cover letters and copies of the Georgia Resolution are sent from the Governor to the President of the U.S. Senate and to Secretary of State James Monroe. February 27 Massachusetts ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 11th of 13 states required. March 12 New York fails ratification of the 13th Amendment. April 30 Louisiana becomes the 18th state in the Union, but is not consulted on the pending constitutional amendment. December 9 New Hampshire ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 12th of 13 states required. The resolution is signed by the Speaker, President, approved by the Governor, and certified by the Secretary. The Resolution directs the Governor to transmit copies to "the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representaives in Congress, and to each of the Governors of the several States." May 13, 1813 Connecticut fails ratification of the 13th Amendment. The Governor is requested to transmit copies to The Secretary of State of the United States, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House. The Resolution is signed by the Secretary of State of Connecticut. One copy is certified on May 29, and another on August 12. September The Governor of South Carolina sends a message to the House of Representatives enclosing New Hampshire's Resolution approving the 13th amendment, and reminding them that no decision had been made on it in South Carolina's House. A Committee, with Benjamin Huger as Chairman, was appointed to examine the proceedings of the preceding legislature. Both the Select Committee report of November 28, 1811, and the Resolution from the U.S. Congress were ordered to lie on the table, and no further action was taken. The Committee examining the previous proceedings

recommends that that out of respect for Congress and the other states, the amendment should be disposed of in the current session, and further that it should be rejected. The committee explains that it feels Congress is already empowered to refuse permission to individuals to accept presents from foreign powers and has done so, and that the new amendment might later lead to negative consequences presently unforeseen. This report was ordered to be considered on the following Thursday, but nothing was done again. August 24 The British army sets fire to the public buildings of Washington and the Library of Congress, destroying many of the journals of the U.S. House of Representatives

December 5, 1815 Governor Nicholas of Virginia sends a letter to the House of Delegates regarding proceedings in several states on a series of newly proposed constitutional amendments. December 6 Supporting documents for Virginia Governor Nicholas' letter of December 5 are read in the House and ordered to lie on the table. December 7 Thomas Ritchie is voted Printer to the Commonwealth of Virginia for 1 year. Congress awards a contract to print the collected federal laws to Philadelphia publisher Bioren & Duane. In the introduction there is a caveat that the proposed 13th Amendment (the TONA) was, at the time of printing, not yet adopted into the Constitution but it could accumulate the requisite number of ratifications any day. This is noted about 60 pages removed from the text of the proposal itself, which is simply captioned 13th Amendment and immediately follows the 12th Amendment. The two are separated from the main text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this printing. At this time, 12 of the 13 necessary states have already ratified the 13th Amendment. February 16, 1816 Virginia House rejects 7 new constitutional amendments which have been proposed by other states. The original 13th Amendment is not included in the vote. Governor Nicholas orders word of the vote sent to the U.S. Congress members from Virginia, and to the governors of every state. November 12 Thomas Ritchie, official Printer to the Commonwealth of Virginia, is ordered henceforth to send 4 copies of the House Journals to every county, 1 copy to every county clerk, and

1 copy to every court in the state. Ritchie is given a non-voting seat in the House, in order to take detailed notes of the Debates. February 15, 1817 Authorized by an Act of the Virginia Legislature, the complete revision of the State's laws are entrusted to five of Virginia's most respected lawyers and legal scholars: Judge William Brockenbrough of the Virginia general and circuit courts, Benjamin Watkins Leigh - attorney and prominent Virginia legislator, Judge Robert White of the Superior Court of Law, District of Virginia, Justice Spencer Roane and Justice John Coalter of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. March 19 Senator Phillip Reed, who proposed the 13th Amendment, returns to Congress to serve again. December 10 Mississippi becomes the 20th state. Prior to that, it had been a territory since 1798. The new state is not consulted on the pending 13th Amendment. December 31 U.S. House of Representatives accepts the resolve of Representative Edwards of North Carolina that President Monroe inquire into the ratification status of the 13th Amendment. [See Resolve] Congress further resolves, on the suggestion of Representative Johnson from Kentucky, to print the present laws to all the states and territories, but in no more than 6 newspapers. January 2, 1818 President Monroe requests that Secretary of State Adams ask the governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut as to the status of the 13th Amendment in their respective States. The four new States (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the Union between 1810 and 1818 are not included in Monroe's order. February 3 Secretary of State John Quincy Adams sends a two page report to the U.S. House of Representatives. Adams states that 12 States have ratified Article XIII, three States have rejected it, and he has no information from South Carolina and Virginia. Adams was only concerned with the seventeen states who had participated in the initial process under Article V of the Constitution. He does not report with regard to Louisiana, Illinois, Indiana or Mississippi, and clearly, does not consider them a part of the process. February 6 President Monroe reports to the House that the Secretary of State Adams has

written to the governors of Virginia, Connecticut, and South Carolina to tell them that the proposed Amendment has been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and has asked the governors to notify him of their legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) March 21 A letter from John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State to Charles Buck, states in part, "Upon a return from the Executive of Virginia, for which application has been made by this Dept. it will be known with precision what is the fate of the proposed amendment, and no time will be lost in communicating it to you." March 24 Pennsylvania publishes the 13th Amendment in the Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania. Missouri publishes the 13th Amendment in the Digest of the Laws of Missouri Territory. April 20 The Fifteenth Congress passes an act [Chapter LXXX] to provide for the publication of the laws of the United States, requiring the Secretary of State to publish notification, with his certificate, that any amendment which heretofore has been, or hereafter may be, proposed to the constitution of the United States, has been adopted, according to the provisions of the constitution and that the amendment has become valid as a part of the constitution of the United States. The notification is to specify the states which have adopted the amendment. April 25 The Niles Register, a Baltimore newspaper published by H. Niles of Baltimore, carries an article forwarded by the National Intelligencer. Congress being out of session at that time, Mr. Niles took the opportunity to review much of the congressional business that had taken place prior to the publication date. An article appears stating that, while everyone believed the 13th Amendment had been duly ratified, and although Congress had already printed an edition of the Constitution which included the amendment, South Carolina had failed to ratify, and therefore the amendment was not law after all. No mention is made of Virginia. December 3 Congress contracts a Philadelphia printer to make pocket editions of the US Constitution. This printer includes the original 13th Amendment. The House passes a resolution asking President Monroe to report back if the TONA has actually been adopted. Monroe passes the project over to his Sec. of State, John Quincy Adams March 10, 1819 The Virginia legislature passes Act No. 280 (Virginia archives of Richmond, "misc." file,

p. 299 for micro-film): "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say; the Constitution of the United States and the amendments thereto. ..." VA Act 280 March 12 The Richmond Enquirer, published by Thomas Ritchie, official Printer to the Commonwealth, announces that for the first time, the complete laws of the State of Virginia are available as a compact publication in 2 volumes, edited by B. W. Leigh. The State has ordered 4,000 volumes for the use of its officers, judges and magistrates at a cost of $6 each. The 13th Amendment's official date of ratification, March 12, 1819, the date of republication of the Virginia Civil Code: 10 copies are designated for the executive branch of Virginia, 5 copies for the Clerk of the general assembly, and 4 copies for the Secretary of State of the United States; 1 copy each for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe; 1 copy each for the U.S. Senate, House, and Library of Congress, and 1 copy for every judge in the courts of Virginia. [Ch.XVIII] Ohio publishes the 13th Amendment. It also appears in a private printing in North Carolina. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams reports twice to Congress during the year that not quite enough states have ratified the proposal to accomplish its adoption. February 24, 1820 Virginia's General Assembly passes an act [Ch. XVIII] requiring the governor to transmit four copies of several different editions of Virginia's laws, for the year 1792 and specific later years, including the session laws for both 1818 and 1819; i.e., the two volume set of Virginia's 1819 Revised Code to the U.S. State Department. Thus, the Federal Government receives formal notification from Virginia that it had ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment. [At least one of these two volume sets sent to the State Department, and notated as received 29 August 1821, is still in the possession of the Library of Congress.] Sufficient copies of the Revised Code have been printed to make it available for public sale, and it is advertised as such in a Richmond newspaper. Research conducted on this subject indicates that at least six or seven other Virginia newspapers also carry advertisements for the new Code. August 10, 1821 Connecticut, having previously refused to ratify the amendment, publishes the 13th Amendment in the Statute Laws.

North Carolina also publishes the 13th. Thomas Jefferson, framer of the Constitution [wrote to Madison instructing him what to study thus was and is a framer which is why Dolly Madison was so adamant about discrediting this claim – as she was worried James Madison’s place in history would be ‘stolen’ by Jefferson as Jefferson became so popular in later years and as Madison is his legal protégé], writes to Judge Spencer Roane, editor of the Virginia Statutes in a continuing correspondence, "Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible." [If you look you will find there was much discussion over banking and its seemingly ever present abusive and criminal element in 1819 exactly; Jefferson mentions it in his letters. If they did not mean to address this problem with the missing 13th then somebody would have stated this; VA would not have waffled. It makes no reasonable or rational sense that three of our greatest legal minds all Virginians did not object upon receiving their copies of the VA code including the missing 13th as a ratified Amendment if VA had not ratified it. I will continue to examine the surviving correspondence from this period.]

1824 The 13th Amendment appears in the State Law books of Mississippi. No protest at being left out of the ratification process is noted. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Connecticut publish the 13th Amendment. [These images are available. Unless otherwise noted you can actually see the document in question or the notes pertaining to the action.] ****IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY TO MY UNIQUE CASE AND TO PROVING MARBURY V MADISON IS LAW NOT THEORY AND ALSO PERTAINS TO HONOR***:

Dec 24, 1824 Major Trueman Cross, Deputy Quarter-Master-General of the Army, requests authorization from Secretary of War John C. Calhoun to compile and publish the "Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States" See Request for Authorization Dec 30, 1824 John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War under President James Monroe, approves the publication of "Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States" [See Authorization Approval and 1825 publication notation.] Of note also, the 2nd Amendment

is properly presented as ratified and as shown in all presentations until after the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction, without the extra commas after the words "Militia" and "Arms". The only source properly presented today is that for the United States Senate on the United States Government Printing Office site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html . [I understand that the 13th amendment was printed within this volume although I have not seen the image itself but only the letters. I did see the 2nd amendment. WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AS WE HAVE THE VESTED INTEREST AND THE VESTED RIGHT TO SHOOT YOU IN SELF DEFENSE. If we never vested it we would not exist as a nation. This is NOT debatable; the right to bear arms is implicit and inherent and is also intrinsic. We’re not the US w/o that right. We can and may use a bullet to dissolve you if necessary. Ask Britain or Germany.]

1825 Missouri, Maine, Louisiana and the Territory of Florida publish the 13th Amendment.

1827 Michigan and Illinois publish the 13th Amendment. 1828 North Carolina publishes the 13th Amendment. The following "note" appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the "New York Revised Statutes": "In the edition of the 'Laws of the U.S,' before referred to, there is an amendment printed as Article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See vol. iv of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th Congress, No. 76." [1818 NOT 1819 thus BEFORE VA ratified it.]

1831 Maine, Indiana, and Ohio again publish the 13th Amendment. 1833 Ohio and the Northwest Territories, and Michigan, Illinois, publish the 13th Amendment Justice Joseph Story of the U.S. Supreme Court publishes "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", which shows only the first twelve amendments as adopted. The document is heavily relied upon by judges and attorneys everywhere.

1835 Ohio, Missouri and Connecticut publish the 13th Amendment. 1837 Florida again publishes the 13th Amendment.

1838 Indiana again publishes the 13th amendment. 1839 Missisppi, Illinois, Connecticut, and the Territory of Iowa publish the 13th Amendment.

1840 Missouri publishes the 13th Amendment. 1841 Missouri again publishes the 13th Amendment. 1845 March 3 Congress contracts an official collection of federal laws, this time with Little & Brown of Boston, called "The United States Statutes at Large". The edition shows that only 12 amendments had been adopted. No current member of the House of Representives from Virginia was serving in that state's government at the time of ratification of the original 13th Amendment. September 10 Justice Joseph Story, whose own books have been published by Little and Brown, and upon whom they have relied for reference, dies, never having altered his belief that the 13th Amendment had not been ratified. Missouri publishes the 13th Amendment again.

1848 Ohio again publishes the 13th Amendment. 1849 Virginia revises the 1819 'Civil Code of Virginia' (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). At this time one of the Code's Revisers (a lawyer named 'Patton') writes to the current Secretary of the Navy, William Ballard Preston, asking if this amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston, a Virginia native, was the son of former Virginia Governor James Patton Preston, nephew of John Floyd, also a Virginia Governor, and cousin to John Buchanan Floyd - yet another Virginia Governor. If this weren't enough, William Ballard Preston had himself been twice a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, a member of the Virginia Senate, and a Virginia member of the House of Representatives. If he did not have an answer to the query, he was certainly in a position to find out. No record of his reply is known. [It might surface if the public is made aware it may exist; maybe someone owns the document but does not know what it is or says.]

1855 The 13th Amendment is included with the Kansas Territorial Statutes. Louisiana and Nebraska Territory publish the 13th Amendment.

CIVIL WAR BREAKS OUT

1864 December 5 Congress passes another Resolve to Amend, this one outlawing slavery and removing states' rights from the Constitution [Susan: I’m still reasoning the latter statement]. This proposed amendment is signed by the Speaker of the House, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate H. Hamlin, and also later signed as "approved" by Abraham Lincoln on February 1, 1865, then certified by J.W. Forney as Secretary.

1865 January 13 The amendment of 1864 passes Congress. No protest is made regarding the errant numbering as Article XIII, and the proposal is passed in the absence of 11 former southern states. Colorado Territory publishes the original 13th Amendment. December 6 Congress reconvenes. 10 of 11 former Confederate states have governments functioning under federal direction. None of the 11 states were represented in Congress when the new Amendment was proposed in February. However, 8 of those states ratify the "new" 13th Amendment as part of the preconditions for recognition as states of the United States again. This provides the necessary three-fourths of the states, and the "new" 13th Amendment is ratified, replacing and effectively erasing the original 13th Amendment which outlaws titles of nobility, honors, and emoluments from foreign powers.

1866 April 2 A Proclamation is issued by President Andrew Johnson that all of the States formerly considered to be in rebellion have returned to a condition of normalcy, including their ratification of an "amendment abolishing slavery." In that official proclamation he does not refer to it by any number.

1867 The Territory of Colorado again publishes the original 13th Amendment in two editions, one edition translating the laws of Colorado into Spanish [This is related to De Soto and De Cabeza’s notes, that first Spanish contract as De Soto and those who came after him marched across the west. You see signs all over naming things after De Cabeza and along I-20 in NM you can listen to THE DEATH MARCH OF THE CONQUISTADORS on the radio as you drive by all the places they were. For many American Indians the Spanish were the first exposure they had to modern Europeans after we separated during the time period known commonly as The Tower Of Babel. This split actually occurred and Indians documented this history as it is said all races went their separate ways in separate directions and science bears this out, as does US history. We

can scientifically trace this with the Human Genome Project and archaeological evidence. The accounts of Native Americans match the bible and the science! They preserved it by repeating it orally and by keeping some knowledge from the Europeans. To this very day Natives have not revealed all of their sacred knowledge to us.] In Spanish: ARTICULO XIII Si algun cuidadano de los Estados Unidos aceptase, reclamase, recibiese = guardase algun titulo de honor = nobleza, = aceptase y retuviese algun presente, pension, empleo = emolumento de calquiera claso que aca, de algun Emperador, Rey, Principe = poder extranjero, sin consentimiento del Congreso, la tal persona dejara de ser ciudadano de los Estados Unidos, y no podra ocupar ningun empleo de confianza = provecho en ellos = en ningun de ellos.

The Dakota Territory again publishes the original 13th Amendment, showing the antislavery amendment as the 14th.

1868 The State of Kansas and the Territory of Colorado again publish the original 13th Amendment. In both the Kansas and the Colorado Territory publications the original 13th Amendment, despite the fact that another amendment called the 13th had been ratified, includes both the original 13th Amendment in its proper place and the newer "Anti-Slavery" Amendment on the same page as the 14th Amendment.

1871 The Wyoming Territory again publishes the original 13th Amendment, showing the anti-slavery amendment as the 14th. 1873 September 1 Nebraska, having gained Statehood in 1867, again publishes the original 13th Amendment with the issuance of the General Statutes of the State of Nebraska, compiled from the 1866 revised statutes of the Territory, the various session laws since enacted, including the acts passed at the ninth and tenth sessions of the legislature in 1873. The Anti-Slavery amendment is shown as Article XIV.

1896 In the Government Publication, "Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1896 -- in Two Volumes, Vol. II.", is an essay titled "The Proposed Amendments To The Constitution Of The United States Of America During The First Century Of Its History", by Herman V. Ames, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, [entered into the record of the House of Representatives for the 54th Congress, 2d Session., HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES., Doc. No. 353, Part 2]. One of the amendments discussed by Ames was Article XIII. On page 329, Ames reports on

the status of the ratification (1818) by twelve states, rejection by four, and that there is no record from Virginia. Ames, like Monroe, Adams and all the other political people of the time, concludes that only the original participants in the debates (17 States) were accountable to determine if there was a proper ratification or not. No mention is made of Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, or any other state that joined the Union after 1810.

1913 William Torrence of the State Library staff in Virginia removes the original vouchers of the public printers from the auditor's storage rooms.

1917 For the first time, a time limit is imposed for ratification of a constitutional amendment. Section 3 of the 18th Amendment states that: "This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified ... within seven years from the date of submission, to the States by Congress." The time limit affects only this particular amendment, but the habit of time limits is adopted for future amendments.” [Thus the 13th is not affected if you claim VA never ratified it. VA can re-ratify it today still.] Published by Dr. Earl G. Swem, Librarian, College of William and Mary, "A Bibliography of Virginia" is issued in two parts, under the heading "Bulletin Virginia State Library". Part II reads: "Containing the Titles of the Printed Official Documents of the Commonwealth, 1776-1916." The compilation is executed by William Torrence of the State Library Staff, but Dr. Swem adds considerable cachet to the publication with this statement, quoted as is, from the Introduction: "It would have been impossible to clear up the uncertainty about many items printed from 1776 to 1820, if the original vouchers of the public printers had not been found. These vouchers were among the manuscripts which the compiler of this volume removed from the auditor's storage rooms in 1913."

1920 In a habeas corpus petition concerning a man convicted under the National Prohibition Act. In Ex parte Dillon, 262 F. 563 (N.D. Cal. 1920), the court holds that the amendment became effective upon ratification, and not on the date of the Secretary's proclamation. In United States ex rel Widenmann v. Colby, 265 F. 998 (1920), aff., 257 U.S. 619, 42 S.Ct. 169 (1921), In a case concerning the proclamation made by the U. S. Secretary of State that an amendment (the 18th) had been ratified, the court holds that the Secretary of State was merely performing a ministerial act in making such proclamation and that an amendment becomes a part of the U. S. Constitution when ratified by the requisite number of states, and not when the Secretary's proclamation is made.

1921 In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S. Ct. 510 (1921) the court again holds that amendments are effective upon the date of ratification, not the date of announcement of ratification.

1975 In Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975), concerning whether the Illinois legislature had adopted the Equal Rights Amendment. The conflict revolved around an Illinois constitutional provision which required a three-fifths vote of both houses to ratify a federal amendment. Rules in both houses required the same vote. The court held that legislative houses could set their own rules for adoption of an amendment. Since both houses had adopted the amendment resolution only by a majority, the court held that the Illinois legislature had not ratified the E.R.A. (i.e., the ratification only had to be consistent with the legislature's own rules on the subject)

1983 David Dodge and Tom Dunn discover an 1825 Maine edition the U.S. Constitution containing the original 13th Amendment that no longer appears in the Constitution.

December 23, 1999 TONA Committee of Correspondence Researcher Suzanne Nevling discovers compelling evidence of Virginia's ratification of the 13th Amendment at the University of California at Davis and subsequently discovers the State Department Copy in the Library of Congress of the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia which was sent to the State Department as notification of the Ratification of the 13th Titles of Nobility and Honor Article of Amendment to the Constitution For The United States. [I, Susan, have not yet seen this document but only read the ‘alleged’ text. Several sources confirm its existence. See below.] ... Between February 2, 1811, and February 14, 1811, Virginia's two legislative houses (General Assembly) considered the Titles of Nobility amendment. Senate and House of Delegates' journal entries record that on February 14, 1811, the following took place in Virginia's Senate: "on the question being put thereupon, the said resolution was disagreed to 1 by the House.2". There is no record of Virginia's General Assembly further considering the amendment until late April, 1811. The record shows that the resolution to amend was properly enrolled and rarified May 1, 1811, and signed by the President of the Virginia Senate. The troubles leading to the War of 1812 obscure any further action until February 1817. On February 15th of 1817, both Houses authorized an act to completely revise the State's laws. Five of Virginia's most respected lawyers, legal scholars and House of Delegates

members, Judge William Brockenbrough, Supreme Court of Appeals Justices John Coalter and Spencer Roane, attorney and legislator, Benjamin Watkins Leigh, and Judge Robert White were appointed to a Revisal Committee. Benjamin Watkins Leigh was enjoined with the superintendency of this project. Fellow House of Delegates members William Munford (Clerk of the House of Delegates) and William Waller Hening (author of the Virginia Statutes at Large) joined the Revisal Committee in the next legislative session. On December 2nd of 1817, in the next legislative session, the Revisal Committee issued a report which clearly demonstrated the members' belief that a complete and careful review and revisal of Virginia's body of laws could be accomplished within one session - but had learned otherwise. On January 28, 1818, a second Revisal Committee report referred to a number of areas of concern needing attention. The Committee offered several recommendations, and two of the more important were: "... that they should be required to cause two sets of their books, with marginal notes and references, to be preserved, the one for the use of the House of Delegates, the other for the Senate ; and that they should be allowed time to perform the work with care and deliberation." Little more is reported about progress of the Revisal Committee's work until March of 1819. Matters then proceed swiftly and the concluding issues are resolved within a matter of days. Then on March 12, 1819, the two Houses communicate several times that same day, reaching agreement on "An act, "providing for the re-publication of the laws of this Commonwealth."" The Act is found to be properly enrolled, after which the President of Virginia's Senate signed Act 280 into law. The book which was published subsequent to and in compliance with this Act contains: · The Constitution of the United States and ratified amendments · The Laws of Virginia · The Declaration of Rights, and · The Constitution of Virginia Legislative references in Virginian journals of both legislatives houses demonstrate that the members were completely informed as to the contents of the Revised Codes of the Laws of Virginia book; i.e., the Constitution of the United States and amendments, including a new 13th amendment concerning Titles of Nobility. Also to be noted is that Thomas Ritchie, Printer to the Commonwealth was bonded and received payment from Virginia's Treasury to produce this book. All in all, the entire Revisal Committee project

was carried out with great care and attention to detail. Any assumption or conclusion that the Virginia General Assembly was ignorant or unaware of a proposed but yet to be ratified amendment (and thus its unauthorized inclusion) is not supported by the facts. The existence of this book with its careful side margin cross references at both Art. 1, Sec 9, cl. 2 in the body of the Constitution and the 13th amendment itself clearly indicate CONSCIOUS AWARENESS of the Titles of Nobility amendment and thus acceptance and acknowledgement of its presence and status. And the language of Act 280 itself further establishes ratification. 1. BE it enacted by the General Assembly, That there shall be published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth, in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say : The constitution of the United States, and the amendments thereto. As only one more affirmative state vote was needed, General Assembly enactment as stated here is a correct legal statement and position in regard to the Titles of Nobility amendment. If to that point the amendment had received no more than 11 affirmative state legislature votes, it would still be a proposed amendment and no statement of enactment could change that fact. With the enactment by the Virginia General Assembly completing the ratification process, the amendment became a ratified article of the Constitution and the Law Of The Nation. The following year, on February 24th, 1820, Virginia's General Assembly passed an act 3 requiring the governor to transmit four copies of several different editions of Virginia's laws, for the year 1792 and specific later years, including the session laws for both 1818 and 1819; i.e., the two volume set of Virginia's 1819 Revised Code to the U.S. State Department. At least one of these two volume sets sent to the State Department, and notated as received 29 August 1821, is still in the possession of the Library of Congress. Thus, the Federal Government did receive formal notification from Virginia that it had ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment. The only remaining mystery which we cannot fully explain is how and why John Quincy Adams and other officials of the Federal Government failed to recognize the constitutional importance of this book and body of laws, although apparently somebody in the State Department made notation "C.1." at the bottom of the frontis page to draw attention to Page A, Chapter 1, i.e. C.1.,

"1. BE it enacted by the General Assembly, That there shall be published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth, in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say : The Constitution of the United States and the amendments thereto." Susan: Again, THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS STILL LIVING WHEN THIS WAS PRINTED. He himself received a volume as part of the act as stated above as did

Madison, Monroe and EVERY judge in VA. Apparently no person in VA objected, not one judge objected. Now, here is where we start cooking with gas or so I believe as this lights the fire of the citizens when all else fails as they despise lawyers as they act today: ESQUIRE! From Constitutional Concepts.org: This Amendment was for the specific purpose of banning participation in government operations by attorneys and bankers who claimed the Title of Nobility of "Esquire." These people had joined the International Bar Association or the International Bankers Association and owed their allegiance to the King of England. Banning Titles of Nobility began in the Articles of Confederation, continued in two places in the Constitution, and finally was added as an Amendment to the Constitution -- an Amendment that was needed as the other bans had no teeth in them to punish those persons who chose to ignore the Constitutional Law. As I claimed - Jefferson hated lawyers for a reasoning, lol. More from CC.org: The Constitution does not mention attorney, or lawyer, because it presumed that only residency and age would be the requirements to hold any of the offices created under the Constitution. In fact, there is a little mentioned clause that precludes attorneys and lawyers from serving in many government offices. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office - Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2.

Attorneys and lawyers are officers of the court. As such they take an Oath of Office concerning their activities and allegiance to the court. If they are appointed, or elected to any other office under the United States then they have to take an Oath of Office for that position. Can a man serve two masters? Holding positions in two different Branches of the Government is a violation of the Separation of Powers established in the Constitution. For an attorney, or lawyer, to be a part of the Legislature is a direct conflict of interest because they are then in a position to create the laws in such a way as to benefit themselves and their associates.

On February 5, 1790, the third day of the U. S. Supreme Court conducting business, "the first three practitioners before the bar were admitted as counselors...and Rules of Court were adopted as to the form of writs and as to the admission of counselors and attorneys." At that time, without any Constitutional authority whatsoever, five United States Supreme Court Justices and Chief Justice John Jay, all former Crown Lawyers, ordered...it shall be requisite to the admission of attorneys or counselors to practice in this court, that they shall have been such for three years past in the Supreme Court of the State to which they respectively belong... The Constitution certainly doesn't make any such requirement. And, remember, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Violating the provisions of the Constitution is no different than breaking any other law. Then, to compound the situation, on February 8th, 9th, and 10th, the only business transacted was the admission of sixteen further counselors and seven attorneys. Of the nineteen counselors admitted at this first Term...two were Senators and nine were Representatives. This is a clear violation of the Separation of Powers established in Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2, as stated above. Whenever someone was appointed as a Crown Lawyer they were granted a Title of Nobility - Esquire - and swore strict allegiance to the King. Our Supreme Court was staffed by Crown Lawyers. Is it any wonder that the form of the writs adopted were the ones being used in England? Starting with the Jay Supreme Court the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution has been totally ignored. Over the years the bulk of the people in our Legislature are attorneys, in direct violation of the provisions We, the People established in our Constitution. The very first Supreme Court established government by lawyers, and we are still suffering under that problem today. As we have attempted to demonstrate, there are ongoing unlawful attempts to abrogate and modify our Constitution. Susan: Yes, as attorneys pervert the law to their advantage. They write law and make law that benefits them. They adjudicate cases in favor of other attorneys. It’s not lawyer it’s MONEY, acting as a lawyer and so accepting money to then argue what you know to be WRONG and UNJUST. Based on its suspicious beginnings and as it does actually violate

the separation if powers named in our law can you now see WHY it is so important to allow a nonlawyer entry in person? In 1790 we did not have Marbury V Madison. So let’s say all of the prior action to allow crown lawyers entry and to allow members of Congress entry is unconstitutional. Did we get a do over once Marshall authored Marbury V Madison? YES. If American law does not yet exist what do you do? Act and so set precedent. If it’s unconstitutional somebody will end it. Eventually. First we must establish a body of US case law. After we have victims!!! But to do this we need...lawyers, and crown lawyers will do, won’t they? I’m the victim acting upon ownership of the knowledge of US law and US case law plus American history. Letting crown lawyers in and letting members of Congress enter the bar was sort of necessary corruption. It was not unconstitutional as SCOTUS did not exist then as it exists today plus in 1790? We did not have constitutional review of any kind that was actual and real. Even our vote was not yet legal. Marbury reset our clock as it is uniquely American and as it clearly states your allegiance is to The Constitution, as your power is that, and authority exists or is between you and the Creator not you and another man as you can read or you are to own the knowledge of BOTH the letter and the spirit of the law. Marbury made your vote your power and authority; it forces you to constitutionally review your own self. Of all bodies of government SCOTUS is to know and my case was always good even w/o this. Thus in April of 2008? SCOTUS became my victimizer whether it meant to or not as it acted to violate Marbury and then to address CORP US defaulting thus we know I MADE MY CASE YET WAS DENIED ENTRY IN FAVOR OF DEAD INSTITUTIONS! FOR THE FIRST TIME THE US IN THE FORM OF SCOTUS SIDED WITH CORP US AND DEATH THUS ‘RULED’ WE ARE A NATION OF DEAD INSTITUTIONS NOT A LIVING GOVERNMENT AS THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE RULING IF YOU DENY CASES IN GOOD STANDING AND IN WHICH THEIR EXISTS AN ACTUAL FIRST PERSON VICTIM ACTING PRO SE REDRESS. I changed it all up by suing PRO SE, get it? OJ will always be a pro se case; how do you know? The Declaration and the ensuing Revolution is pro se legal action as every person involved acted pro se as we did not conscript or force anyone to fight for us. A case of OJ will always and forever be a pro se case or else it is not actual or legal OJ. BVG is fatally flawed because of this even if you discount the math as a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS THEN OJ IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL DISPUTE SUCH AS NATURAL BORN OR EQUAL PROTECTION AS WE INVENTED IT! We are first! Due to that then any person suing over a Presidential election to then act as President and/or Commander or to then be equal to them in legal power in any way must act pro se. PERIOD. NO HIRED LAWYERS ALLOWED AS THAT THEN IS NOT ACTUAL OR LEGAL OJ AS SET BY PRECEDENT KNOWN AS THE DECLARATION , REVOLUTION , MARBURY V MADISON and IN RE SUSAN. All of these plaintiffs acted pro se as did all the citizens involved thus they vested their interest and right. You may hire a lawyer if you

are the defendant but not the plaintiff in a case of actual and legal OJ as: America won the Revolution or so I allege. The People will ultimately decide if the 13th Amendment was or was not ratified. VA can restate its ratification or not. The People will decide what its application is or is not. They’ll rethink voting for lawyers and appointing lawyers. People are still arguing about Hilary Clinton’s legality as under our law she may not serve as Secretary of State because of a constitutional conflict. CONGRESS denies all of this!!!! AS IF IT NEVER HAPPENED!!! Or as if the law does not apply to Congress...or women or to me alone. The pro se. I always tell lawyers to remove the word esquire and I am always warning lawyers who go get a license as it is not necessary to then think long and hard if they wish to act as an expert and in so doing collect MONEY IN THE FORM OF PROFIT. If you do then you’re liable as you have a higher, stricter standard to meet. THE STRICTEST. There’s no Good Samaritan law covering lawyers, lololol! No lawyer happens upon a case lying in the road. If they happen upon a person, a victim of injustice, lying in the road bleeding to death? They step right over that person and keep going as they see the person bleeding but do not see a paycheck. Ask yourself: WHY are lawyers killing themselves to protect and defend each other’s crimes??? One reason alone: Power and control. Well, I’m arguing power and authority or sovereignty as defined by Marshall and as is within our governing documents as originally authored. I render several legal arguments regarding the 13th, 16th and 17th amendments moot as I have proven LEGALLY and ACTUALLY we were never incorporated but we did indeed give our power and authority thus our sovereignty away to foreigners, lawyers and privateers. We let them come to own us by owning our labor aka our money and by controlling the process with a form of exclusive privilege: ENTRY TO SCOTUS. Americans could not know the facts behind the Federal Reserve, IMF or UN or even SCOTUS and the missing 13th until today. Two facts that seem to hold water? Not only were both competing Bills concerning a monetary overhaul authored by the same man, Philip Warburgh (sp), a German, but all three 1912 Presidential candidates received campaign funding from his law firm. These people had motivation to deny the 13 th amendment as you must examine the role of bankers in its creation AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED BY ITS AUTHORS AND HOW BANKERS, SOME FOREIGN, ALONG WITH LAWYERS, EVER CAME TO CONTROL THE MINTING AND ISSUANCE OF CURRENCY THUS CREATE A FALSE DEBT BASED UPON NOTHING AT ALL BUT SECRECY AND LIES. IT’S NOT REALITY!!! It’s not constitutional!!! Foreign notes are real but are they constitutional? Nope. And what we are doing does not even

match actual reality, as that money exists nowhere; it is an arbitrary not real and not actual value only. The Fed artificially raises and lowers rates to manipulate the false and mistaken belief the People have, as they are not consciously aware of what the Fed is and does. Go check: Examine the very predictable economic up and down turns surrounding a war. That is not a coincidence. You are being played like puppets. And the act quitclaiming the Treasury to the IMF thus to foreign nations or to foreign authority is not even legal as it is bad math. These men had reason to deny the 13th amendment even existed. It might have gone missing accidentally due to war and clerical error but it did not stay missing accidentally. WE BECAME THE SOURCE OF A OF GLOBAL WELFARE FUND; WE ARE SUBSIDIZING EARTH – HUMANITY - AND ALL ITS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES AS WE DO NOT DEMAND THEY ADOPT OUR LAW. THIS WELFARE SYSTEM IS BUILT SOLELY ON THE BACKS OF AMERICANS AS WHAT IS EXPLOITED IS OUR PURITAN WORK ETHIC, AN ETHIC UNLIKE ANY OTHER NATION. See France rioting to secure their ‘protected right’ of a shortened work week, vacations and a cushy for life government job. There’s no place for ignorance under US law and no actual reason to deny people knowledge unless you fear losing what is nothing more than perceived thus unjust power. You are lying when you claim you cannot inform people of the actual truth, as it is not safe. It’s not safe to lie. I mentioned created emergencies thus ‘legally enforced fear’ over two years ago and didn’t the former “Homeland Security Csar” claim he was pressured to lie about the level of the terror threat? That’s the height of what is unsafe for a People. Doesn’t the word HOMELAND worry you? I’m surprised they did not resort to FATHERLAND or MOTHERLAND. Justice Story had a reason to believe VA had not ratified the 13th Amendment, as it seems as if he never knew of the State Department records. It seems as if he had no idea VA ratified it by publishing it officially upon a committee examining it and a formal vote and then sent copies ahead to the Fed but never formally told the Fed except for its transmittal of VA’s formal, official law which included the 13th amendment. It seems as if he was not aware the military published it officially. Justice Story had no conscious awareness of it due to no fault of his own. Poetic, huh? His name is STORY even, lol. Was he telling us one? Forget arguing the 16th Amendment was never ratified as many do as that in no way then affects current taxation as current taxation is the direct result of Art. 1 Sec. 8 and SCOTUS slowly changing its mind about what may or may not be taxed. You’ll never win a “we don’t have to pay taxes as the 16th Amendment was never ratified” argument. Legally its ratification is questionable but so what? Remove it and you remove nothing. If Congress truly believes this is where the power to tax resides as do most citizens alive today you want to address this but the more or even most interesting legal question is:

May you legally tax what is – IS - a liberty right?

A list of cases that so-called extremists have filed. They have all missed the legal argument most by a mile. At least the parts I read did. Again this is WHY I did not bother to concentrate upon the 13th amendment or any one amendment. None of these people connected it to money or the IMF/UN Treaty. The legal problem? Every judge ruling EXCEPT a SCOTUS Justice has a conflict they can never overcome, lol. Recall I said “You’re not likely to overcome lawyer anytime soon if you’re a sitting judge”? I meant it and look – did they not act to protect each other even in the face of what is an actual crime, that pulled complaint I gave them? THE JAX CLERK HAS NEVER DENIED THAT SHE PULLED IT BUT INSTEAD TOLD ME SHE DID! TO MY FACE! She thought it was legal and ethical for a judge to ask her to do that. She said his reason was MONEY as in the poor persons form. NO AS I CERTIFIED IT MYSELF INSTEAD OF PAYING A NOTARY AS YOU MAY. The actual reason: Proof of a crime was within it and it is a crime committed by another judge on the very same bench. When I told or informed Henry Adams I was going back to SCOTUS after having forced direct action? He announced his retirement, lol. The Federal Appellate’s action proves it is endemic and that no court can or will address my case unless SCOTUS does. As lawyers they are not willing; as men they are not willing. If SCOTUS does not address my case which is the People’s case you’ll have another actual Revolution on your hands soon as the People are getting angry and very frustrated as blame and rumor circulates and as Congress keeps ignoring the law; Obama seems to be a last straw and socialized healthcare a final straw. The case law, from another web site: First, lawyers cannot be considered to hold titles of nobility by virtue of being lawyers because Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution contain provisions that clearly prohibit the states and the federal government from granting titles: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex postfacto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. For example, judges in the U.S. are typically addressed as "Your Honor," but this is a matter of custom, not nobility. The following court cases provide just a sampling of the ridiculous claims put forward (oddly, mostly filed and lost by tax protesters):

U.S. v. Smith, 1991 WL 326647 (Civ. A. No. 91-A-292-S, M.D.Ala. 1991) "Taxpayer" is not a title of nobility. U.S. v. Riley, 1991 WL 192115 (Civ. A. No. 89-1403-T, D.Kan. 1991) "Magistrate" is not a title of nobility. U.S. v. Singer, 1990 WL 161258 (No. 85-00283-01, E.D.Pa. 1990) - A "person" as defined in the tax code is not a title of nobility. Woodson v. Davis, 887 F.2d 1082 (4th Cir. 1989) - "Officer of the Court" is not a title of nobility. Hilgeford v. People's Bank, 113 F.R.D. 161 (N.D.Ind. 1986) - Being a lawyer is not a title of nobility. Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F.Supp. 50 (E.D.Wis. 1985) - Employment by the I.R.S. is not a title of nobility. Frederick v. Clark, 587 F.Supp. 789 (W.D.Wis. 1984) - Being a lawyer is not a title of nobility. White v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1981 WL 11137 (No. 1183-80, U.S. Tax Ct. 1981) - Having a degree is not a title of nobility. The only case cited by extremists to support their claim is the opinion of Judge Saffold in Horst v. Moses, an Alabama case from 1872 (48 Ala. 129). First, the opinions in this case were delivered seriatim (individually by each judge), so a single judge's opinion is of no precedential value. Second, the opinion refers to the definition of "title of nobility" in the state, not federal constitution, so it hasdubious relevance and no precedential value. Third, the opinion has never been cited since, except in one law review article in 1984, so its propositions can be safely dismissed as aberrations. (See Delgado) Fourth, the subject matter of the case is whether a group of individuals might be authorized by the state to conduct a lottery even while a criminal statute prohibiting lotteries remained in place for all other individuals. It was in this context only that Saffold wrote that "[t]o confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order.... [The purpose of the prohibition on titles of nobility in the state constitution] is to preserve the equality of citizens in respect to their public and private rights." (Id. at 142) Lawyers are licensed to practice law by state bar associations under the control of the state Supreme Court and legislature. This type of regulation falls under the police powers of the states; all professions such as lawyers, doctors, barbers, as well as cosmetologists can be regulated by state authorities. By extremist "logic," doctors, barbers, etc. therefore would be subject to

[The states possess a right to violate The Constitution? Upon consent of the legislature? That’s what happens in the cases of lawyers. I like that its believed to be a police power to violate The Constitution as cops today like lawyers do indeed believe they possess this right. All are forgetting: You can make the case for lawyers being a privileged class but: You’re violating the equal protection clauses first.] exclusion from office under the amendment. – end

Lawyer has an intrinsic conflict like no other. In a way you can never overcome lawyer, can you? By birth we’re all lawyers but the courts refuse to recognize this and God forbid the victim outsmart them at their own game. Then judges who are all lawyers become vicious. Only I discovered that no actual nonlawyer ever argued before SCOTUS thus the bell went off. I’m not formally trained even thus am a nonlaywer. Upon finding that it is accepted as fact that people like Jefferson and Marshall were trained in the law formally thus are lawyers for all intensive purposes I then went looking for WHY & HOW this corruption set in and could not separate BANKING or MONEY from LAWYERS and so UNJUST PRIVILEGES. That guy on the bus insisted you had to be a lawyer as it was within our Constitution! I realized: I’m first as I can argue US case law and nobody else could ever do this UNLESS they attended law school. WHY? I hate to burst your bubble: Application of law? It’s not so complex. Professors only make it seem as if as they do not know what they are talking about most of the time. I was dumbfounded when people did not know what a Constitutional I AM statement is! If you cannot say I AM then how can you ever know what the application is for another? If you’re equal then you’re equal; you may be a man instead of a woman but there exists a male equivalent then thus how can you reason law w/o stating I AM??? As in I AM HUMAN??? I’ll tell you how: People have no idea they are a constitution or that they have a constitution, small ‘c’. They have no idea where the phrase “I’m taking my daily constitutional” comes from. It is lost on today’s citizens that YOU LIVE OUT THE CONSTITUTION; THAT YOU LEND IT YOUR CONSCIOUS AWARENESS THUS YOU OWN THE KNOWLEDGE. Logically it does not seem to make sense to claim lawyers are titles of nobility TODAY, as of my case, but before that? They were as w/o proving Marbury is law you then have only BRITISH COMMON LAW and those first British crown lawyers admitted to SCOTUS. Before Marbury we were not unique in all the world and before me lawyers were a title of nobility as only they have argued before SCOTUS and every one derives power and authority from the crown not the Constitution as they only become constitutional once they are no longer a privileged class. I have yet to appear in person to do this. Paper entry is not it. Fact is: if you did not go to law school or do not have a license or if no outside authority has acknowledged you as a legal expert or if you do not have the money to hire a lawyer than SCOTUS thus the Constitution does not recognize you so ARGUING BEFORE SCOTUS IN PERSON is a privilege ONLY LAWYERS have. It sits as a privilege only lawyers are accorded and makes justice impossible for anyone but lawyers and allows lawyers to buy and sell people as that is what

buying and selling justice constitutes. Forget the argument re crown lawyers but do consider bankers as its no coincidence that we ended up subjected to the abuse committed by English banking families instead of the actual British crown as lawyers colluding with the bankers did it to us. If any of these ‘extremists’ had my idea to act pro se they would have won. Justice and large amounts of money are never a good mix. It’s the same as paying mothers to give birth or soldiers to fight; you then attract unfit people to the profession. You must acknowledge Marbury as law and the Iroquois Confederacy as a precursor that exactly matches our law as uniquely ours, then acknowledge me as a nonlawyer pro se litigant, as uniquely AMERICAN. Marbury, once I prove it is law not a theory, PROVES or REALIZES us as uniquely American and so ends that title of nobility being derived from the British Crown and/or being a privilege accorded to lawyers only as I do not have that ‘title’ at all in any way unless you count me dating lawyers to then pry information out of them (I’m joking). Those first admitted lawyers had no choice as we did not exist yet as a body of case law but we do have a choice as now we have federal precedent known as Marbury v Madison, In Re Susan and so SCOTUS open to all plus over 200 years of rulings. Now we have American common law that is constitutional law. Hundreds even thousands of years from today people will be citing American common law. SOMETHING led clerks and other lawyers, at least every single one I contacted, to truly believe you had to be a lawyer to enter and argue before SCOTUS and that you could not ever no matter what enter directly. It was more than nobody ever did it before I did. Even if SCOTUS did not mean to do it, it created a class ‘above’ and ‘outside’ the voters thus the Constitution as at the very least lawyers should fear being made to answer in a court of law to their injured victim even in the absence of liability. They do not. They act like animals not men. All judges and all lawyers COUNTED upon me NOT BEING ALLOWED TO ENTER SCOTUS IN PERSON THUS ACTED AGAINST ME AND IN SO DOING AGAINST THE LAW and THE CASE LAW. Proof is Finkle cited no case law but yet he won??? He managed to deny me a liberty right that is always upheld in the favor of the birth mother and got a judge to say exactly that birth did not count if you were the MOTHER. THE MOTHER as in ‘women do not give birth to babies men do’. He managed to have my liberty right granted to an unrelated male who is yet a stranger to me and has no protected right nor any interest and who swore out false affidavits and perjured himself before every court he has ever been inside and perjured himself when reporting events THAT NEVER HAPPENED to social workers and doctors. That’s a crime against me yet he was deemed to be BETTER THAN the BIRTH MOTHER as if he gave birth himself and I did not or as if I am nothing more than a brood mare. It was disgusting. How Finkle did it matters not as that itself should be impossible. All NY appellate judges missed the fact that he cited no case law in his closing argument before Griffin? Or that Griffin cited what NY code 561 says she may not as her ONE and ONLY WEIGHT??? C’mon!!! I

truly believe it any person especially the judges involved knew that a nonschooled lawyer could argue before SCOTUS - that it was possible as I claimed – then they never would have taken the chance, the risk, and so never would have acted so outrageously. More proof is: The Navy? And the Secret Service? They stopped dead when I said I’m going to SCOTUS and/or I’m already inside SCOTUS on paper, as they did not know I was the first pro se nonlawyer litigant. They too thought any person could argue if they had a good case and a good federal question. Equal rights? EVERYBODY OUTSIDE OF SCOTUS CONSIDERS IT THE FEDERAL QUESTION. Anyway: you have lawyers on benches and in Congress acting to preserve, protect and defend other lawyers at our expense. And as I proved a nonlawyer may argue on behalf of others before SCOTUS w/o a law license you may have lawyers engaging in what is price fixing as they all charge the same fees and those fees are in no way justifiable. I can and may argue this as the missing 13th or as a straight privileged classed argument citing the earlier emoluments clause. Even w/o the missing 13th there is a named punishment in my unique case: Liability as CORP US thus all those licensed lawyers defaulted and then acted against me. It matters not if they are judges, Senators or even the Secretary of State herself. I can do to them exactly what they did to us: Sue the pants off of them by asking for a monetary reward OR I can order them to go home and stay home thus placing a moratorium on their own persons acting as lawyers who hold an office. [I’m tempted to ask that they be equipped with reverse monitoring anklets: If they come within 50 feet of the limits of Washington DC or any federal building the alarm sounds.] Only we have SCOTUS, a court that answers only to the People or our Constitution and is not itself legislated thus is virtually impervious to corruption. Even if it does do wacky things at times like mistakenly overturning Marbury and denying me entry in person twice over, lol. SCOTUS did not yet die, did it? I still managed to spin legal gold even when injured by SCOTUS didn’t I? That’s proof of life or Constitutionality; it means you’re a law not a theory. Now all you have to do is prove you’re golden by hearing me in person.