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 re-
publication 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 anti-
slavery 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
exclusion from office under the amendment. – end [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.]

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.