973-714-5972 jan@njhomebiz.com

Dear Fellow American,

It is with a heavy heart that I write to inform you of the fraud that has been the source of our nations internal conflicts. This fraud is known as the missing Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Article xiii, knows as the Titles of Nobility Act (TONA) of 1810, ratified unanimously by 1819. It continued to be published on record as far as 1862, the last know publication known as The Constitution, Federalist Publication of 1862. I discovered the flaw while browsing through the Internet Archive. Being aware of our current Article xiii, written up by Lincoln to abolish slavery, I came upon browsing a book that had a different Article xiii, to which led my search.

Herein, I provide all the evidence and documentation of my last few weeks of searching and reading through historical congressional and constitutional archives. My search spanned many institutional and government websites, as well as discovering other researchers in the field and their websites. This site is currently under construction as I am adding the documents and evidence regularly. I’ve amassed a small cache of information and will be uploading it for your review. It has come to my attention that Archive specialists in government offices are aware of the omission/error/fraud but due to it’s implications lack the power to enforce it.

THE ONLY ENFORCEMENT AT THIS POINT CAN BE BY MAKING AMERICANS AWARE OF IT, AND HAVING THEM REQUEST THE CHANGE FROM OUR LEADERS.

I am humble in my efforts, and my servitude is to that of the American people. I, Jan Solej, a citizen of this country by choice, do swear unto God and Country that the evidence put forth is true to my best knowledge. I ask you my fellow patriots that you spread this message far and wide, so that it may reach all Americans, all Patriots, to bring this knowledge to the fore front our discussions on politics, economics, and government.

A comprehensive write up the Titles of Nobility Act, it’s history, omission, conspiracy, application and reference by a fellow researcher is available in .pdf download for your examination. I’ve also, pasted the entire document at the bottom of this page.

In October 18th, 2004 Nevada Superior Court accepted the Amendment Article xiii Title of Nobility Act into Law. It is now Law of the Land. The caveat being that the Law of the Land is run by an illegal institution that is loyal to the British Crown, so enforcement is not so forthcoming. You can now use these documents to dispute the judges jurisdiction over your case, as the judge, being a BAR member is in fact an illegal entity, and has no jurisdiction outside of The District of Colombia. The BAR association is in fact loyal to The British Crown, and as such all members, titled Esquires, are by their own right loyal to a foreign power, thus resolved of their citizenship, and any right to practice law, take government positions, or have any rights as citizens is dissolved. How will you use your new found freedom?

Order of action at the houses of the passing of the Amendment xiii Titles of Nobility 1810

 

Journal of the Senate; Thursday, April 26th, 1810 (Pages 503-504)

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made on the 18th of January, for an amendment to the constitution of the United States, respecting titles of nobility, together with the amendments proposed thereto.

On motion,
That the further consideration thereof be postponed to the first Monday in December next.
It was determined in the negative,

{ Yeas . . . . . . . . . . 8.
Nays . . . . . . . . . 20.
On motion,
The yeas and nays having been required by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Condit, Gilman, Gregg, Leib, Mathewson, Meigs, Tait, and Whiteside.
Those who voted in the negative are,
Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Champlin, Clay, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, German, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lambert, Lloyd, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Smith, of Maryland, Smith of New York, Sumter, and Turner.
On motion,
To amend the last report of the select committee, so as to read as follows:

“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 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:”

It was determined in the affirmative,

{ Yeas . . . . . . . . . . 26.
Nays . . . . . . . . . . . 1.
On motion,
The yeas and nays having been required by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are,
Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Champlin, Clay, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Mathewson, Meigs, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Smith, of Maryland, Sumter, Tait, Turner, and Whiteside.
Mr. Smith, of New York, voted in the negative. On motion, by Mr. Pope,
To add to the resolution the following words: “And be subject to such other penalties and disabilities as may be provided by law:”
It was determined in the negative,

{ Yeas . . . . . . . . . . 12.
Nays . . . . . . . . . . 14.
On motion,
The yeas and nays having been required by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are,
Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Clay, Gregg, Leib, Lloyd, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Sumter, Tait, and Turner.
Those who voted in the negative are,
Messrs. Champlin, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lambert, Mathewson, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of New York, and Whiteside.
And the resolution having been further amended by inserting the words “and retain,” after the words “accept,” in the second instance, the President reported it to the house accordingly.

On the question, Shall this resolution be engrossed and read a third time as amended?
It was determined in the affirmative.

Journal of the Senate; Friday, April 27th, 1810 (Page 506)

Mr. Gilman, from the committee, also reported the resolution for an amendment to the constitution, respecting titles of nobility, correctly engrossed, and the resolution was read the third time as amended.

On the question, Shall this resolution pass as amended?
It was determined in the affirmative,

{ Yeas . . . . . . . . . . 19.
Nays . . . . . . . . . . . 5.
On motion,
The yeas and nays having been required by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are,

Messrs. Anderson, Champlin, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Mathewson, Meigs, Pickering, Reed, Smith, of Maryland, Sumter, Tait, and Turner.
Those who voted in the negative are,
Messrs. German, Gilman, Robinson, Smith, of New York, and Whiteside.
So it was
Resolved, That this resolution pass as amended.
Ordered, That the Secretary request the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this resolution.

Journal of the House; Friday, April 27th, 1810 (Page 404)

Another message was received from the Senate, by Mr. Otis, their Secretary :

Mr. Speaker : The Senate have … also passed a resolution providing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States ; to which amendments, bills, and resolution, they desire the concurrence of this House.

Journal of the House; Saturday, April 28th, 1810 (Page 404)

The House proceeded to consider the resolution sent from the Senate, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States ; and the same being twice read at the Clerk’s table, was ordered to be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Journal of the House; Tuesday, May 1st, 1810 (Page 423)

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution from the Senate proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States : and after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Cutts reported that the committee had, according to order, had the said resolution under consideration, and made no amendment thereto.

Thus, on May 1, 1810, during this evening sitting of the 11th Congress, 2nd sess., the Committee of the Whole (House of Representatives) considered the Titles of Nobility Resolution jointly agreed to by the Senate. The resolution was read a third time, voted upon and affirmatively approved by 87 yeas, with 3 dissenting nays. The Clerk of the House was then ordered to inform the Senate of its concurrence.

Journal of the Senate; Tuesday, May 1st, 1810 (Pages 511-512)

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Magruder, their Clerk:

Mr. President: the House of Representatives concur in the resolution for an amendment to the constitution of the United States respecting titles of nobility.

. . .Mr. Whiteside, from the committee, reported that they had examined and found duly enrolled the “Resolution for an amendment to the constitution of the United States, respecting titles of nobility;”. . .

Mr. President: the Speaker of the House of Representatives having signed an enrolled resolution, and also three enrolled bills, I am directed to bring them to the Senate for the Signature of their President,. And he withdrew.

The President signed the enrolled resolution, and also the three enrolled bills, last reported to have been examined, and they were delivered to the committee, to be laid before the President of the United States.

The final formal Resolution text is as follows:

“Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following section be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the Constitution of the United States : [emphasis added]

“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 Constitution limits consideration of constitutional amendments to states already in the union and Congress provided no qualification in this or any other resolution proposing a constitutional amendment. Thus, even if a territory reached statehood before culmination of the ratification process, there was no standing for that state to participate in the process. If Congress meant for that legislative option to be available, it would have had to so stipulate.

Between May 1 of 1810, when the Titles of Nobility Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States went out from Congress, and September 15 of 1814, the Resolution was approved by twelve state legislatures and rejected by three. All official federal government references to the history of this proposed amendment posit that with ratification by 13 state legislatures it would become a valid amendment to the Constitution.

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(1)to 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 ratified 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, º 9, cl. 2 in the body of the Constitution and the 13th amendment itself clearly indicate 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. [VA1819 Images] 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 front 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.”

Footnotes:

(1) “…disagreed to,” means not accepted, as opposed to rejected. According to house rules, the matter could not be raised again in the same session, but no rejection was ever reported, and the amendment could be, and obviously was, raised again, to be passed, in a later session.

(2) “House,” in this case, refers to the upper house, i.e., the Senate, not the lower house, the House of Delegates.

(3) From the Session Acts of the VA General Assembly [Chapter XVIII Image]

Chapter XVIII, — An act requiring the Governor of this commonwealth to transmit to the Secretary of State of the United States, copies of certain laws therein mentioned. — [passed February 24th, 1820.]

1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That it shall be the duty of the governor of this Commonwealth, and he is hereby required to procure and transmit, at the expense of the state, to the secretary of state of the United States, four copies of the Statutes at Large, four copies of the revisal of seventeen hundred and ninety-two, and of each and every revisal subsequent to that period (if to be had,) four copies of the session acts of eighteen hundred and eighteen and eighteen hundred and nineteen, and annually thereafter, four copies of the acts of each session of assembly ; one copy whereof shall be for the use of each of the two houses of Congress, one for the president of the United States, and one for the library of Congress.
2. This act shall be in force from the passing thereof.

THE HOUSES WERE WAITING ON THE DECISION OF VIRGINIA ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 1818

AND AS WE CAN TELL IN THE NEXT DOCUMENTS FROM THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, THE ARTICLE

WAS RATIFIED BY MARCH 12TH, 1819 AS IS EVIDENT

THUS, THE AMENDMENT ARTICLE XIII ‘TITLE OF NOBILITY’ WAS RATIFIED AND IN FORCE

AS IS SHOWN BY ALL THE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS UP TO 1860

BUT WAS IGNORED BY LINCOLN IN JANUARY 1ST, 1865 TO PUSH FREEDOM FROM SLAVERY ACT

WHICH OBFUSCATED THE ORIGINAL ACT WHICH PROTECTED THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN AGENTS.

If the missing 13th Amendment (TONA) were restored, “special interests” and “immunities” might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against “honors” (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), U.S. judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, the entire U.S. Government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term “honor” were applied today, U.S. Government’s ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.

Imagine! A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be … almost like … a government … of the people … by the people … for the people! Imagine: a government … whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It’s unheard of … it’s never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world.

Hidden away in archives and libraries through out the United States and libraries around the world, one who seeks the truth of our history can find evidence of the true Bill of Rights. Here is a full copy of the “THE REVISED CODE OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, MARCH 12TH, 1819”, retrieved from a Masonic Lodge. The claim that the Article xiii amendment ‘Titles of Nobility Act’ was not ratified is false, and clearly in error. The amendment needs to be restored and the foreign influence in our politics immediately removed. Yes, that will mean draining the D.C.  swamp. This is the MASTER KEY, to solve the worlds inequities with one strike of the mighty pen. Beat them at their own game, with the same tools they used to destroy our nation; The United States of America, a sovereign republic of the people, for the people.

On January 25, 1812 The commonwealth State of Virginia, put Washington on notice that they are ready for war with Great Britain due to their transgression against our nation, by covert aggressions. THERE IS NO WAY, NO HOW, THAT THEY WOULD OF REJECTED AN AMENDMENT THAT PROTECTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FOREIGN INSURGENTS. THIS WAS INDICATED BY RATIFICATION ON MAY 1, 1811. ( I do not yet have documentation of this, only by reference to non credible sources) HOWEVER, THIS GETS VINDICATED BY THE REVISED CODE OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA ON MARCH 12, 1819 WHEN ARTICLE XIII ‘TITLES OF NOBILITY ACT’  IS SHOWN AS PART OF LAW, UNITED STATES AMENDMENTS IN FULL EFFECT.

“because we believe the measure of hostility, pursued by the British Government against us, are persisted in, in the belief that we are a divided people…”

“And, regardless of all principle, the bold avowal has been made by Great Britain, that the permitted admission of her fabrics into the continent of Europe, through neutral vessels, was an indispensable preliminary to the termination of her aggressions; a condition which the United States have no right to demand in relation to the produce of their own soil or manufactures, and which their honor forbids them to demand at the instance and for the benefit of another. With a knowledge of this avowal, and the daily evidence that Great Britain executes her orders in their living spirit, which is war upon us, of the most aggravated species, a further indulgence of hope is allied with disgrace, and forbearance becomes criminal;..”

“…for the purpose of obtaining from Great Britain, by honorable negotiation, a redress of the many wrongs inflicted upon us by her orders of council, and other measure equally hostile to the interest of the United States.”

” Resolved, as the opinion of this Assembly, That, however highly we value the blessings of peace, and however we may deprecate the evils of war, the period has now arrived when peace, as we know it, is disgraceful, and war is honorable.”

“Resolved, That this Assembly will support the General Government in all constitutional and legitimate measures, which may be adopted in vindication of the rights and interests, of the people of the Unites States, and in support of the character and dignity of the Government thereof, and, for these purposes, we pledge “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

VIRGINIA IS READY TO LAY DOWN LIFE AND WEALTH TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES FROM GREAT BRITAINS AGGRESSIONS, NO WAY THEY WOULD OF REJECTED AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FROM THIS VERY PURPOSE.

Source:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=038/llsp038.db&recNum=187

 

The Missing 13th Amendment

“TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”

NOT IN REGARDS TO “SLAVERY AND SERVITUDE”, WHICH IS REALLY THE 16TH AMENDMENT, NEVER RATIFIED.

Source: http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-14.html

[01] 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.[02] – MEANING of the 13th Amendment The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “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.” [Emphasis added.} At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to “nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”, and “prince” lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though “titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.[03] – HISTORICAL CONTEXT 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.[04] – DON’T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System) 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 Page 4 of 21 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.)[05] – PAPER MONEY 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.”[06] – CONSPIRACIES A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the United States: According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public up-roar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government. Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn’t make sense, especially in light of Senate’s secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That’s subversion. The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) wonout in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 — 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn’t exist. However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United States Bank.) The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that european banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused to renew the bank’s charter. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by european investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812. That’s destruction. There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy’s efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called “2 VA LAW” in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, “This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification ~lost in the mail.’ There is no public record that this book exists.” That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), “the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts.” There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment.[07] 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.[08] – INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 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.[09] – HONOR 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” Page 8 of 21 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. As another example, think of all the “special interest” legislation our government passes: “special interests” are simply euphemisms for “special privileges” (honors).[10] – WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored) If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, “special interests” and “immunities” might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against “honors” (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term “honor” were applied today, our government’s ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated. Imagine a government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be … almost like … a government … of the people … by the people … for the people! Imagine: a government … whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It’s unheard of … it’s never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world. Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the “title of nobility” Amendment; that ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the “title of nobility” Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified. Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn’s research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story. Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came? One vote. One state’s vote. The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state’s support. One vote. David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it.[11] – PARADISE LOST In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a “title of Nobility” (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn’t passed, this was the first time a “title of nobility” amendment was proposed. Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another “Title of Nobility” Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification: “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 Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the “Title of Nobility” Amendment in 1810, there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification: Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810 Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811 Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811 Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811 Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811 New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811 Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811 Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811 Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811 North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811 Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812 New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812 Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed “title of nobility” amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war. Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature’s position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified). On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams’ letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial. However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed 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…” This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day — the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment’s official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.[12] – RATIFICATION FOUND The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.) In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification Page 12 of 21 was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that threefourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments. Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation’s ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did. Word of Virginia’s 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Main ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860. So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto something. You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which ordered it published eighteen times we’ve discovered (so far) consisted of ignorant politicians who don’t know their amendments from their … ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that our forefathers never meant to “outlaw” public servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to “look the other way.” Maybe. But before you do, there’s an awful lot of evidence to be explained.[13] – THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS In 1829, 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.” In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74). It’s not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia’s ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it’s not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed — the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence. However, because the notes authors reported no further references to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia’s ratification. This opinion — assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment — has persisted to this day. In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code’s revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of State J.Q. Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia’s ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the requisite thirteen, had ratified.) However, despite Clayton’s opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860). Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signalling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: “ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states’ rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally removed from our Constitution. On January 31, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states’ rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended with General Lee’s surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states’ rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the “new” 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effectively erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited “titles of nobility” and “honors”.[14] – SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL 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 Page 15 of 21 positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system.[15] – QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES! Each of Sen. Mitchell’s and Mr. Hartgrove’s arguments against ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the conclusions are only implied. But it’s no wonder that there’s such an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th Amendment: According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts. The evidence of ratification seems tantalizingly close but remains buried in those masses of un-catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will take some luck and some volunteers to uncover the final proof. We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove insist we can’t … quite … absolutely prove it’s a duck, and therefore, the government is under no obligation to concede it’s a duck. Maybe so. But if we can’t prove it’s a duck, they can’t prove it’s not. If the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of the government’s refusal to acknowledge the proof. We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the “missing” 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer and taunt us with cries of “make us”. Perhaps we shall. The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The answer lies buried in the archives. If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in the USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed between 1819 and 1870. If you find more evidence of the “missing” 13th Amendment please contact David Dodge, POB 985, Taos, New Mexico, 87571.

 

1) It’s worth noting that Rick Donaldson, another researcher, uncovered certified copies of the 1865 and 1867 editions of the Colorado Civil Codes which also contain the missing Amendment. Although these editions were stored in the Colorado state archive, their existence was previously un-catalogued and unknown to the Colorado archivists.

2) If there’s insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in 1819 (there is no evidence that Virginia did not), this raises a fantastic possibility. Since there was no time limit specified when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly believed only Virginia’s vote remained to be counted in the ratification issue, the current state legislature of Virginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the Constitution. 16] – Article XIII A few months back there was quite a lot of traffic concerning the “lost” 13th amendment. It has recently been mentioned again, so this may be a good time to bring this up. I was able to contact the researchers, David Dodge, Tom Dunn and Brian March and get a copy of the latest report on this topic. Many of you are very familiar with this story, but there is relatively new information concerning the records that exist which substantiate the validity of the claim that the “Titles of Nobility” was actually ratified. It is necessary to go through the report carefully, but it seems certain from the documents that have been found at the National Archives and elsewhere that TON was legally ratified. For those who are new to this I will re-hash the old news and weave in the new as I go along. In 1983, two independent researchers, David Dodge and Tom Dunn, while looking for evidence of political corruption in a library in Belfast Maine, stumbled across an 1825 copy of the Maine Civil Code. In this document, as I believe is customary, the Constitution of the U.S. was printed. They noticed that Article Thirteen of the amendments was not the same Article Thirteen which is now enumerated in the Constitution. This Article Thirteen, which is known as the “Titles of Nobility” amendment, (TON) reads as follows:

Article XIII ———— If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, 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 post went on to say that the researchers had carried on a written communication with Sen. George Mitchell (D. Maine) and as I recall, someone named Hargrave from the National Archives in Washington DC. It appears that the original position of Mitchell and Hargrave was that this was simply a printing error and that it had been immediately corrected upon discovery. This does not appear to be the case. Dodge and Dunn went on to find, at last count, 24 different state legislatures which printed this amendment as Article Thirteen, in 77 separate editions of their respective Civil Codes. This occurred over a period from 1818 until 1876. It has also been found in school text books and other publications from that period. At first I was very skeptical, but now I have seen 2nd generation photo copies of all of these documents. Almost every document carries a stamp from the library where it was found. In some cases where the document was hand written I have only seen a typed version, but after speaking with the researchers at length, I am sure that these typed reproductions are faithful. In total, they present compelling evidence that the original Article Thirteen was wrongfully removed from the Constitution. Gradually the position of Senator Mitchell and others at the National Archive changed. (Paraphrased from the letters between Dodge and Mitchell). One such position was that the article in question had been proposed in the 11th congress, 2nd session in 1810 and subsequently ratified by only 12 states before the close of 1812. As there were 17 states at the time that the Amendment was proposed it required that 13 states ratify, and this did not happen. Dodge and Dunn continued their research. They found a circular letter, dated 7, Jan. 1818, commissioned by the House of Representatives for President James Monroe and written by then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. It was sent to only 3 states, of the original 17, that had not yet responded, as to their disposition on the proposed Thirteenth Article. Virginia was one of those states. Dodge and Dunn now went to the Library of Congress and were allowed access to the rare book room. There they found an un-cataloged book entitled “The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia”, 1819. The amendment was there, listed as the Thirteenth Article of the U.S. Constitution. This, of course, indicated that a 13th state had indeed ratified the amendment, constituting a 3/4 majority of the states of the Union at the time the amendment was proposed… and now, the Senator’s position changes once again. They responded to Dodge by saying that since there were 21 states by the time that Virginia ratified in 1818 or 1819, 13 was no longer enough to bring the amendment into law. They contended that It would have then required 16 votes to ratify, not 13. This appears to be the current position of Senator Mitchell and the National Archives, although the Archives legal department has not yet formally responded to the question. The Constitution is **silent** on what is to be done concerning the addition of new states during the ratification process. Furthermore, the four new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois) who, Senator Mitchell and the archivists, claim should have been considered in this process, all, **without exception**, carried the “Titles of Nobility” amendment on their U.S. Constitutions for at least several years after 1818 or 1819. It would appear that those state’s own legislatures considered this to be the law of the land. There are some documents which have been uncovered that are not included in the current edition of the report. Brian March did a thorough search of the archives in the four states that were added during the ratification process. No evidence was found to indicate that the Secretary of State polled them as too their response on the amendment. !!!THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED!!! and as I said earlier, all four states have been shown to have published the TON amendment. The letters from those state archives are among the documents not included in the report. I have seen copies of all the documents. These guys have done some tremendous research and documented everything very well. Another “report to the President” of Feb 3, 1818, a time when the four states had already been admitted, also lists specifically the states that were involved in the ratification and !!!AGAIN, THE NEW STATES ARE NOT CONSIDERED!!! Again, this report was not available when they went to press. If you ask Brian to include some of the new material I feel certain that he will.

[17] – SUMMARY To summarize:  The current position of those in the government is that there may have been a 13th state (Virginia) ratify the amendment. However, at the time that such ratification took place, new states had entered the union. The required 3/4 majority was not met as determined by the addition of the new states.  Dodge, Dunn and March contend and provide documentation that supports the claim that at that time the new states were not considered in the process of ratification. o The circular letter of Jan. 7, 1818 o The report to the president of feb. 3 1818 o Published civil codes of the four new states which clearly show that those states considered the amendment law even though they had not been asked to vote on it.  Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of new states entering the Union during the ratification process.  Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of time limits on the ratification process itself. Today, time limits on an amendments ratification must be stipulated at the time of the acceptance of the proposal. This was not done in the case of TON, so there was/is no time limit in effect.  I know of no legal way for an amendment to be removed from the Constitution other than congressional repeal, which requires the passage of a contrary amendment. Does anyone know of another way with precedent?[18] – STATE PUBLICATIONS:  The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States: State Publications

 

Colorado 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868

Connecticut 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839 Dakota 1862, 1863, 1867

Florida 1823, 1825, 1838 Georgia 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846

Illinois 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845

Indiana 1824, 1831, 1838 Iowa 1839, 1842, 1843

Kansas 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868

Kentucky 1822

Louisiana 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]

Maine 1825, 1831 Massachusetts 1823 Michigan 1827, 1833

Mississippi 1823, 1824, 1839 Missouri 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*

Nebraska 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873

North Carolina 1819, 1828

Northwestern Territories 1833

Ohio 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848

Pennsylvania 1818, 1824, 1831

Rhode Island 1822

Virginia 1819

Wyoming 1869, 1876

[19] – PUBLICATIONS:  “The History of the World”, Samuel Maunder, Harper, New York, 1850, vol. 2, p.462. Republished by Wm. Burtis, Baltimore, 1856, vol. 2, p.462.  “The Rights of an American Citizen”, Benj. Oliver, Counsellor at Law, Boston, 1832, p. 89.  “Laws of the United States of America”, Bioren and Duane, Philadelphia & Washington, 1815, vol. 1, p.74. [See: Note below]  “The American Politician”, M. Sears, Boston, 1842, p.27.  “Constitution of the United States”, C.A. Cummings, Lynn, Massachusetts, not dated, p.35.  “Political Text Book Containing the Declaration of Independence”, Edward Currier, Blake, Holliston, Mass. 1841, p.129.  “Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States for the use of Common Schools”, John S. Hart, A.M. (Principal of Philadelphia High School and Professor of Moral Mental and Political Science), Butler and Co., Philadelphia, 1850, p.100.  “Potter’s Justice”, H. Potter, U.S. District Court Judge, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1828, p.404, 2nd Edition [the 1st Ed., 1816, does not have “Titles of Nobility”].  Note: The “Laws of the United States” was published by John Duane. Without doubt, Duane was aware of Virginia’s plan to ratify this amendment which targeted, amongst other things, the emolument of banking and the agents of foreign banking interests, the attorneys. Currency manipulation led to the failure of numerous banks and in turn to many a personal bankruptcy, including that of Thomas Jefferson. The allegiance of attorneys** has always been with the money state, whether pharaoh, caesar, monarch or corporate monopoly. [** See: “Acts of Virginia”, Feb. 20, 1812, p.143]

 The Court, in “Horst v. Moses”, 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave the following description of a title of nobility:  To 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 rises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms “privilege”, “honor”, and “emoluments”, as they are collectively in the term “title of nobility”. The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.

 “Bouvier’s Law Dictionary”, 15th Edition, vol. 1 (1885) lists the due process amendments as 5 and 15 [15 was re-numbered to 14] on p.571.  The prohibition of titles of nobility estops the claim of eminent domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of this amendment.

[20] – REFERENCES Titles of Nobility – DEFINITIONS From: Noah Webster 1828 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1848 Black’s Law Dictionary 1891 Note: Because they are so similar, the definitions have been consolidated.  “Emolument”: – A gain of profit or advantage.

 

 “Foreign Power”: – “Power” – a sovereign state; a controlling group; possession or control; authority or influence, political or otherwise.

 “Honour”: – One having dominion, advantage or privilege over another.

 “Nobility”: – Exalted rank – high social position.

 “Title of Nobility”: – An order of men, in several countries, to whom special privileges are granted,

 “privileges”: – To grant some particular right or exemption.

From a court case, in Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 123, 142 (1872), which gave the following description of “Titles of Nobility”: “to 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. These components are forbidden separately in the terms “privilege”, “honor”, and “emoluments”, as they are collectively in the term “title of nobility”. The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.”