US Federal Gov’t fraud

post by Ted:

There is much to the fraud of how we got to where we are today in the united States.  I am not sure where to begin but this video provides a good a starting point as any to see how the Constitutional Republic magically literally converted into a tyrannical state Corporation  usurping unconstitutional powers.  Well the Constitution still remains and education about what it means is the ultimate tool to empower the People to enforce their sovereignty once again (just as they did under the American revolution).

Knowing who you are is the first step of empowerment and this video sheds light on the first layer of deceptive fraud.

Edit: okay, so I can’t get the video to embed, so here is link where you can download the source as well as watch:
www.archive.org/details/scm-468928-tvniforjuly2-independencepaul
I originally found it at this site:
seattlecommunitymedia.org/series/truth-vs-new-inc/episode/tvni-july-2-independence-paul-andrew-mitchell-pag

To get past the name/NAME/Name convention deception, I forward the following:

The Nut Is Cracked, by Judge Anna von Reitz
Posted on August 1, 2014by David Robinson
Anna
The Real Criminals
1. Look up the Public Laws governing Citizen’s Arrest in your state. Get ready to use them.
2. Now, let’s pretend we set up a system of “naming conventions” such that the following rules apply:
john –quincy: adams = a living American endowed with all his natural rights
John Quincy Adams = a foreign situs trust used in commercial shipping
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS = a foreign estate trust
John Q. Adams = a public transmitting utility company
John q. Adams = a public foundation
JOHN Q. Adams = a cooperative
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS = a boat or ship used in public commerce
JOHN QUINCY Adams = a commonwealth trust
J. QUINCY Adams = a slave owned by Exxon Corporation
J.Q. Adams = a foreign pauper forbidden to own land
Adams, John Q. = a taxpayer
ADAMS, JOHN Q. = a soldier
adams, john q. = a slave
There are dozens of different potential meanings that can be arbitrarily assigned to anyone’s name and used to
“represent” radically different entities. In a verbal conversation we can talk all day long about someone or something
named “John Quincy Adams” and which john quincy adams or what kind of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS will never be
known, except from the context of the conversation — but on paper the use of such a system instantly defines what or
whom is being talked about — if you know the system.
This is what the lawyers, bankers, and politicians have used to enslave you. It is a crime known as “personage”. By
arbitrarily creating an Estate trust named after you and claiming to own this thing they created, they have falsely
claimed to own you and your assets and to literally buy and sell “you” on stock exchanges, ship “you” out of ports,
and tax “you” for doing things you’ve never done. After all, there is no law against enslaving an ESTATE trust, is
there? Or arresting a slave? Or charging a tax on importing revenue to Puerto Rico?
Hand in hand with personage comes “barratry” — the crime of knowingly bringing false claims into court. So what
happens every day all across America, when charges are brought against the ESTATES of “dead men” who are
standing right in front of the judge and jury? Barratry — a crime that is appropriately named after the “Bar
Association”.
3. Look at the front page of any law suit that has been filed in America for the past seventy years and there you will
have proof in your hand of both personage and barratry being committed against the individual people falsely named
as “DEFENDANTS”. They are being deliberately confused with foreign estate trusts merely named after them and
they are suffering the crimes of both personage and barratry.
4. Spread this explanation of the situation throughout the world. Take it to the provost marshals and the highest
ranking police officers, to the sheriffs, and the deputies and the traffic cops, to the mayors, to the politicians
responsible, to the bankers who have seized your bank accounts under the same false pretenses.
5. Go in large groups, peaceably, but with grim determination. Take your video cameras and tape recorders and stand
ready to use Citizen’s Arrest against any public official who does not agree to assist you in shutting down the “court”
system and arresting the “District Attorneys” and “judges” and others who have participated in this grotesque fraud.
Demand that the bankers agree to correct their records and honor your ownership of your private property which has
been deposited in their banks in good faith.
6. If any public official presented with this information refuses to help you, arrest them and hold them to face charges
before a Citizen’s Grand Jury composed of twelve honest men who own land in your county. If the Sheriff of your
County refuses to do his duty when confronted with this information, arrest him, and elect a new Sheriff pro tem to
serve in the office until proper elections can be held.
——————
Here is a list of the important articles from this author. These are the most important articles I have ever published on
this blog, and there are over 1650 articles here.
www.lincolncountywatch.org/annavonreitz.pdf
www.paulstramer.net/2014/09/for-deeper-understanding-by-anna-von.html
www.paulstramer.net/2014/09/the-nut-is-cracked-by-judge-anna-von.html
www.paulstramer.net/2014/09/open-letter-to-karen-hudes-from-anna.html
www.paulstramer.net/2014/09/is-this-how-world-is-really-run-you.html

The following is from the essay Trial By Jury by Lysander Spooner (1852)

JURIES OF THE PRESENT DAY ILLEGAL
It may probably be safely asserted that there are, at this day, no legal juries,
either in England or America. And if there are no legal juries, there is, of course,
no legal trial, nor “judgment,” by jury.
In saying that there are probably no legal juries, I mean that there are
probably no juries appointed in conformity with the principles of the common
law.

The term jury is a technical one, derived from the common law; and when
the American constitutions provide for the trial by jury, they provide for the
common law trial by jury; and not merely for any trial by jury that the
government itself may chance to invent, and call by that name. It is the thing,
and not merely the name, that is guarantied. Any legislation, therefore, that
infringes any essential principle of the common law, in the selection of jurors, is
unconstitutional; and the juries selected in accordance with such legislation are,
of course, illegal, and their judgments void.

It will also be shown, in a subsequent chapter, fn75 that since Magna Carta,
the legislative power in England (whether king or parliament) has never had any
constitutional authority to infringe, by legislation, any essential principle of the
common law in the selection of jurors. All such legislation is as much
unconstitutional and void, as though it abolished the trial by jury altogether. In
reality it does abolish it.

What, then, are the essential principles of the common law, controlling the
selection of jurors?

They are two. [*143]
1. That all the freemen, or adult male members of the state, shall be eligible
as jurors. fn76
Any legislation which requires the selection of jurors to be made from a less
number of freemen than the whole, makes the jury selected an illegal one.
If a part only of the freemen, or members of the state, are eligible as jurors,
the jury no longer represent “the country,” but only a part of “the country.”
If the selection of jurors can be restricted to any less number of freemen than
the whole, it can be restricted to a very small proportion of the whole; and thus
the government be taken out of the hands of ” the country,” or the whole people,
and be thrown into the hands of a few.

That, at common law, the whole body of freemen were eligible as jurors, is
sufficiently proved, not only by the reason of the thing, but by the following
evidence:
1. Everybody must be presumed eligible, until the contrary be shown. We
have no evidence, that I am aware of, of a prior date to Magna Carta, to disprove
that all freemen were eligible as jurors, unless it be the law of Ethelred, which
requires that they be elderly fn77 men. Since no specific age is given, it is
probable, I think, that this statute meant nothing more than that they be more
than twenty-one years old. If it meant anything more, it was probably contrary to
the common law, and therefore void.

2. Since Magna Carta, we have evidence showing quite conclusively that all
freemen, above the age of twenty-one years, were eligible as jurors.
The Mirror of Justices, (written within a century after Magna Carta,) in the
section “Of Judges” — that is, jurors — says:
“All those who are not forbidden by law may be judges [*144] (jurors). To
women it is forbidden by law that they be judges; and thence it is, that feme
coverts are exempted to do suit in inferior courts. On the other part, a villein
cannot be a judge, by reason of the two estates, which are repugnants; persons
attainted of false judgments cannot be judges, nor infants, nor any under the age
of twenty-one years, nor infected persons, nor idiots, nor madmen, nor deaf, nor
dumb, nor parties in the pleas, nor men excommunicated by the bishop, nor
criminal persons. * * And those who are not of the Christian faith cannot be
judges, nor those who are out of the king’s allegiance.” — Mirror of Justices,
59-60.

————omitting a section on English Juries———————–

In order that the juries in the United States may be legal that is, in
accordance with the principles of the common law it is necessary that every
adult male member of the state should have his name in the jury box, or be
eligible as a juror. Yet this is the case in hardly a single state.

In New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi, the
jurors are required to be freeholders. But this requirement is illegal, for the
reason that the term freeholder, in this country, has no meaning analogous to the
meaning it had in the ancient common law.

In Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, and Alabama, jurors are required to be
“freeholders or householders.” Each of these requirements is illegal.
In Florida, they are required to be “householders.”

In Connecticut, Maine, Ohio, and Georgia, jurors are required to have the
qualifications of “electors.”

In Virginia, they are required to have a property qualification of one hundred
dollars.

In Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, certain civil authorities of the towns, cities, and
counties are authorized to select, once in one, two, or three years, a certain
number of the people a small number compared with the whole from whom
jurors are to be taken when wanted; thus disfranchising all except, the few thus
selected.

In Maine and Vermont, the inhabitants, by vote in town meeting, have a veto
upon the jurors selected by the authorities of the town.

In Massachusetts, the inhabitants, by vote in town meeting, can strike out
any names inserted by the authorities, and insert others; thus making jurors
elective by the people, and, of course, representatives only of a majority of the
people.

In Illinois, the jurors are selected, for each term of court, by the county
commissioners.

In North Carolina, “the courts of pleas and quarter sessions shall select the
names of such persons only as are freeholders, and as are well qualified to act as
jurors, &c;.; thus giving the courts power to pack the juries.” (Revised Statutes,
147.) [*155]

In Arkansas, too, “It shall be the duty of the county court of each county * to
make out and cause to be delivered to the sheriff a list of not less than sixteen,
nor more than twenty-three persons, qualified to serve as grand jurors;” and the
sheriff is to summon such persons to serve as grand jurors.

In Tennessee, also, the jurors are to be selected by the county courts.

In Georgia, the jurors are to be selected by “the justices of the inferior courts
of each county, together with the sheriff and clerk, or a majority of them.”

In Alabama, “the sheriff; judge of the county court, and clerks of the circuit
and county courts,” or “a majority of” them, select the jurors.

In Virginia, the jurors are selected by the sheriffs; but the sheriff’s are
appointed by the governor of the state, and that is enough to make the juries
illegal. Probably the same objection lies against the legality of the juries in some
other states.

How jurors are appointed, and what are their qualifications, in New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Kentucky,
Iowa, Texas, and California, I know not. There is little doubt that there is some
valid objection to them, of the kinds already suggested, in all these states.
In regard to jurors in the courts of the United States, it is enacted, by act of
Congress:
“That jurors to serve in the courts of the United States, in each state
respectively, shall have the like qualifications and be entitled to the like
exemptions, as jurors of the highest court of law of such state now have and are
entitled to, and shall hereafter, from time to time, have and be entitled to, and
shall be designated by ballot, lot, or otherwise, according to the mode of forming
such juries now practised and hereafter to be practised therein, in so far as such
mode may be practicable by the courts of the United States, or the officers
thereof; and for this purpose, the said courts shall have power to make all
necessary rules and regulations for conforming the designation and empanelling
of jurors, in substance, to the laws and usages now in force in such state; and,
further, shall have power, by role or order, from time to time, to conform the
same to any change in these respects which may be hereafter adopted by the
legislatures of the respective states for the state courts.” St. 1840, ch. 47,
Statutes at Large, vol. 5, p. 394. [*156]

In this corrupt and lawless manner, Congress, instead of taking care to
preserve the trial by jury, so far as they might, by providing for the appointment
of legal juries incomparably the most important of all our judicial tribunals, and
the only ones on which the least reliance can be placed for the preservation of
liberty have given the selection of them over entirely to the control of an
indefinite number of state legislatures, and thus authorized each state legislature
to adapt the juries of the United States to the maintenance of any and every
system of tyranny that may prevail in such state.

Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of
the United States government into the hand of the state legislatures, to be
exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall
please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the
selection of juries for the courts of the United States.

There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a
single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions,
to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States
that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights it is
hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever
have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced.
Probably the best mode of appointing jurors would be this: Let the names of
all the adult [male] [9] members of the state, in each township, be kept in a jury
box, by the officers of the township; and when a court is to be held for a county
or other district, let the officers of a sufficient number of townships be required
(without seeing the names) to draw out a name from their boxes respectively, to
be returned to the court as a juror. This mode of appointment would guard
against collusion and selection; and juries so appointed would be likely to be a
fair epitome of “the country.” [*157]

where to learn about the common law?

I have found that most of my resources overlap consiederably but here is a list of may favorites:
www.nationallibertyalliance.org/common-law
www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm

and for those who really like reading (the take way more many words to say the same thing)
sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?’

Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money?’ The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.
It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are “bankrupt,” along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good &valuable consideration.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed knowledge” of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don’t more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country.”
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

After posting that quote, I have been unable to confirm it’s authenticity. Conveniently, National Archives (NARA) and and the Government Printing Office don’t have electronic records that extend back to 1993 ending in either 1994 or 1995. At the Library of Congress (LOC), a search showing for Traficant on the date of March 17, 1993 returns 2 records neither of which reflects what I quoted. This is what I found in the electronic record copy and pasted from LOC:
[Page: H1303]
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.

Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

I am going to support the rule. I am not sure yet if I will support this budget. I want to hear an awful lot more, not being a member of the committee, and I am not going to vote for things I do not understand or do not like, but let there be no mistake. After 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, we are standing here.

Let me say this to the minority party. Every program that Ronald Reagan wanted in 1981, he got. Reagan got it. There was a Republican Senate majority and there were 70 Democrats in this House that might as well have been Republicans, and we have the program.

The major assumption was very simple. We are going to cut taxes, put money in the pockets of the American people, and when they spend this money our gross national product is going to rise so great that even though we reduced your tax liability on a percentile basis, we will balance the budget, quoting Ronald Reagan, in 1982. It is going to take the fall of our Congress, I think, for that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, let us give this new administration a chance. Democrats gave Ronald Reagan a chance.

But let me give one word of caution here today. America already has race wars, let us be honest about it. We already have gender wars, let us be honest about it. We already have age wars, let us be honest about it.

One thing this Congress had better not get involved in and get trapped into is a class war on money. In America, if you can not earn all that you can, there is something wrong and there is no more a spirit of free enterprise.

I want to say this to the Members. We may talk about taxing the rich, but the rich people have already taken their companies and their jobs out of America. Be careful that the rich people do not take their money out of America, because the government already raises our kids, defends our families, educates our kids, feeds our kids, houses our kids, and the government it doing a very poor job of it. I think mom and dad would be better utilized there once again.

So I am going to listen to the debate. I do not know if I will vote for this budget.

Finally, I do not know if the budget makes one damn bit of difference, because we waive it all the time and I do not think we have ever followed it. I think we have an excellent chairman who worked hard. If we are going to have budget, we should follow it. If not, we once again as Members waste both our time and the people’s time.

Let me say this just in closing. Today is not the mother of all debates and the mother of all decisions. When that tax package comes, you will have the mother of all votes on the floor.

Let me say this, I am not for voting any more taxes on the backs of the American people, because I believe the tax of 1990 put on right here today, and I am very concerned about the tax package being discussed in this Congress.

I am one Democrat who believes we should stimulate the private sector. We already have more government jobs than factory jobs, and I think that is an indictment of our Congress.

One basic tenet to this Constitution is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and there can be no life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness in America without job.

I would like to see the mother of all debates center around the jobs bill.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Florida, yielding me this time.

Let me say first of all, the American people apparently today and tomorrow are going to see a very, very sad spectacle of the Democratic leadership attempting to pass two rules that are as restrictive, as narrow, as tight and deprive Members on both sides of any opportunity to offer legitimate amendments. I think that is sad. I think it is the opposite of what Ross Perot ran on. It is the opposite of openness. It is the opposite of allowing every citizen to see what is going on. I think that as a procedure is sad.

The question is was the record altered (will check the print records at the Library) or is the original quote made up. Either way there is some deception going on.  edit: I found the original speech video from c-span here:
www.c-span.org/video/?c4512605/traficant-speech-march-17th-1993

Only the first paragraph should be quoted, the remaining text was added by someone else later.

aequitas post:

Why is there no 13th Amendment? ummm,there is/was!as discovered.    The Missing 13th Amendment     www.lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtml      
David M. Dodge, Researcher, Date 08/01/91   Edit: well worth the time to read,will explain what many do not know/knew

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 (1991), 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 the U.S. 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.
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.”

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. The U.S. modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, make 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, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787);
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.

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 sought 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.
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 from them, or 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 the U.S. 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, U.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 the U.S. Federal government’s unbridled growth.)
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 the U.S. 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 U.S. country, and went far to destroy the morality of U.S. people.”
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 (1715-1820, 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 uproar 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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) won out 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, the U.S. 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 was 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.
TITLES OF NOBILITY

In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America.

Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as “legitimate businessmen”. As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them “titles of nobility”.

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as “Squires” and to those who bore the knight’s shields as “Esquires”. As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was “Esquire” (used, even today, by some lawyers).
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 to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
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” 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 U.S. judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the “special interest” legislation the U.S. government passes: “special interests” are simply euphemisms for “special privileges” (honors).
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), US 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.

Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the U.S. 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 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 the US 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.
PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND

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 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.

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 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 three- fourths 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. Maine 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 U.S. 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.
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 it 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 noted 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 John Quincy 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, signaling 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 the US 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”.
SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL

To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which the U.S. now endures, 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 they could 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 the current US government system.

At the very least, this missing 13th Amendment demonstrates that two centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and nation. Some things never change.
THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY …. Heed warnings of Founding Fathers

In his farewell address, George Washington warned of “… change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar to Virginia’s. Three of his suggestions were “freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases” and “no suspensions of the habeas corpus.”

No doubt Washington’s warning and Jefferson’s ideas were dismissed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed the U.S. legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?

Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in the U.S. courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, is suspended. (By crimes against the state, I refer to “political crimes” where there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.)

The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800’s. Judges (and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People “un-Constitutional”, waited until their decision was grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the bar associations.

Although Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that executive orders and treaties are binding upon the states (“… and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”), the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw in “Notes on the State of Virginia”, Query 17, p. 161, 1784:

“Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless… the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”

We await the inevitable convulsion. Only two questions remain:

Will we fight to revive our rights? Or,
Will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire, surrendered to the courts, and perhaps to a “new world order”?

MORE EDITIONS FOUND

As we go to press, I’ve received information from a researcher in Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th Amendment. These editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the states that voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas, 1861; and the Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867.

These finds are important because:

They offer independent confirmation of Dodge’s claims; and
They extend the known dates of publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge’s most recent find), to Colorado in 1867.

The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the “missing” 13th Amendment and the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.

This investigation has followed a labyrinthine path that started with the questions about how the U.S. courts evolved from a temple of the Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this situation had anything to do with retiring chief Justice Burger’s warning that we were “about to lose our Constitution”. My seven year investigation has been fruitful beyond belief; the information on the missing 13th Amendment is only a “drop in the bucket” of the information I have discovered. Still, the research continues, and by definition, is never truly complete.
ARGUMENTS

Imagine a nation which prohibited at least some lawyers from serving in government. Imagine a government prohibited from writing laws granting “honors” (special privileges, immunities, or advantages) to individuals, groups, or government officials. Imagine a government that could only write laws that applied to everyone, even themselves, equally.

It’s never been done before. Not once. But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United States proposed a 13th Amendment to the Constitution that might have given us just that sort of equality and political paradise. The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears on the Constitution:

“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.”

This Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legislation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not even themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of political equality in this nation that most people can’t even imagine. Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that:

The 13th Amendment prohibiting “titles of nobility” and “honors” appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories between 1819 and 1867; and
This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.

Either this Amendment was:

Unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or
Ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the Constitution by 1867.

If this 13th Amendment was unratified and mistakenly published, the story has remained unnoticed in American history for over a century. If so, it’s at least a good story — an extraordinary historical anecdote.

On the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment was truly ratified, an Amendment has been subverted from our Constitution. If so, this “missing” Amendment would still be the Law, and this story could be one of the most important stories in American History. Whatever the answer, it’s certain that something extraordinary happened to our Constitution between 1819 and 1867.
PROS AND CONS (for Ratification)

Of course, there are two sides to this issue. David Dodge, the principal researcher, argues that this 13th Amendment was ratified in 1819 and then subverted from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War. U.S. Senator George Mitchell of Maine, and Mr. Dane Hartgrove (Acting Assistant Chief, Civil Reference Branch of the National Archives) have argued that the Amendment was never properly ratified and only published in error.

There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the proposed Amendment required the support of at least thirteen states to be ratified. Both sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve states voted to support ratification. The pivotal issue is whether Virginia ratified or rejected the proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia voted to support the Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly ratified and should still be a part of our Constitution. Senator Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove disagree, arguing that Virginia did not ratify. Unfortunately, several decades of Virginia’s legislative journals were misplaced or destroyed (possibly during the Civil War; possibly during the 1930’s).

Consequently, neither side has found absolute proof that the Virginia legislature voted for (or against) ratification. A series of letters exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge, Sen. Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove illuminate the various points of disagreement. After Dodge’s initial report of a “missing” Amendment in the 1825 Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell explained that this edition was a one-time publishing error:

“The Maine Legislature mistakenly printed the proposed Amendment in the Maine Constitution as having been adopted. As you know, this was a mistake, as it was not ratified.”

Further,

“All editions of the Maine Constitution printed after 1820 [sic] exclude the proposed amendment; only the originals contain this error.”

Dodge dug deeper, found other editions (there are 30, to date) of state and territorial civil codes that contained the missing Amendment, and thereby demonstrated that the Maine publication was not a “one-time” publishing error.
YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A RATIFICATION

After examining Dodge’s evidence of multiple publications of the “missing” Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by twelve of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However, because the Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify an Amendment. Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that the 13th Amendment was published in error because it was passed by only twelve, not thirteen States. Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which states had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue hung on whether one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to ratify.

After several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the “missing” 13th Amendment. Dodge notes that, curiously, “There is no public record that shows this book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not catalogued as a holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the National Union Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law school in Portland were able to find any trace that this book exists in any of their computer programs.”

Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, “Under legislative construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is published as the official acts of the legislature are the official acts.” By publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official publication, Virginia demonstrated that they:

Knew they were the last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment;
Had voted to ratify the Amendment; and
Were publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil Code as an official notice to the world that the Amendment had indeed been ratified.

Dodge concluded, “Unless there is competing evidence to the contrary, it must be held that the Constitution of the United States was officially amended to exclude from its body of citizens any who accepted or claimed a title of nobility or accepted any special favors. Foremost in this category of ex-citizens are bankers and lawyers.”
RATIONALES (for Ratification)

Undeterred, Sen. Mitchell wrote that, “Article XIII did not receive the three-fourths vote required from the states within the time limit to be ratified.” (Although his language is imprecise, Sen. Mitchell seems to concede that although the Amendment had failed to satisfy the “time limit”, the required three-quarters of the states did vote to ratify.)

Dodge replies: “Contrary to your assertion.., there was no time limit for amendment ratification in 1811. Any time limit is now established by Congress in the Resolves for proposed amendments.”

In fact, ratification time limits didn’t start until 1917, when Sect. 3 of the Eighteenth Amendment stated 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.” A similar time limit is now included on other proposed Amendments, but there was no specified time limit when the 13th Amendment was proposed in 1810 or ratified in 1819.

Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere, that would defeat Dodge’s persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell implicitly conceded that his “published by error” and “time limit” arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute the ratification: “… regardless of whether the state of Virginia did ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment… on March 12, 1819, this approval would not have been sufficient to amend the Constitution.

In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment.” Dodge replies: “Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the Amendment process.”

Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, “President Monroe had his Secretary of State… [ask the] governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to the status of the amendment in their respective states. The four new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the union between 1810 and 1818 were not even considered.”

From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that this perspective is based on life in a stable nation that’s added only five new states in this century — about one every eighteen years. However, between 1803 and 1821 (when the 13th Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they added eight states — almost one new state every two years. This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national attitudes different from our own. The government had to be filled with the euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama. The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the nation’s growth.

For example, if a territory petitioned to join the Union while an Amendment was being considered, its access to statehood might depend on whether the territory expected to ratify or reject a proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to ratify the proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the Amendment might try to accelerate the territory’s entry into the Union. On the other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try to slow or even deny a particular territory’s statehood. These complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into the nation, or restrict the nation’s ability to pass new Amendments. Neither possibility could appeal to politicians.

Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on ratifying the 13th Amendment — they did not ask for the decisions of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it’s apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be included in the ratification process.

In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State, the four “new” states, and the seventeen “old” states, all clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was required to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia’s vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the “missing’ Amendment in 1819 (and would still be so today).
INSULT TO INJURY

Apparently persuaded by Dodge’s various arguments and proofs that the “missing” 13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the bureaucracy’s procedural requirements for ratification:

“Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of state certificates of ratification of a proposed Constitutional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

This is an extraordinary admission. Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that the 13th Amendment was ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution’s ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was not properly notified with a “certificate of ratification”. In other words, the government’s last, best argument that the 13th Amendment was not ratified boils down to this:

Though the Amendment satisfied Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single, official sheet of paper is missing in Washington.

Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people of this nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost a single “certificate of ratification”. This “certificate” may be missing because either:

Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or
The notice was “lost in the mail”; or
The notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

This final excuse insults every American’s political rights, but Mr. Hartgrove nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National Archives “received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform Congress and await further developments.” In other words, the issue of whether this 13th Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity — the ratification issue is still alive.

But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining argument against the 13th Amendment’s ratification is a procedural error involving the absence of a “certificate of ratification”.

Dodge countered Hartgrove’s procedure argument by citing some of the ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd Session, at p. 241, a “letter” (not a “certificate of ratification”) from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio’s ratification was submitted not to the Secretary of State but rather to the House of Representatives where it “was read and ordered to lie on the table.” Likewise, “The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House, while Maryland’s earlier ratification is not listed as having been returned to Congress.”

The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not required to notify the Secretary of State of their ratification decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a “certificate of ratification” with the Secretary of State. Again, despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the “missing” Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied because of some possible procedural error.
QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES!

Each of Sen. Mitchell’s and Mr. Hartgrove’s arguments against ratificationbhave 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.

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.

This raises a fantastic possibility. If there’s insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in 1819, there is no evidence that Virginia did not. Therefore, 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.

Was it ratified? There is a lot of evidence that it was. Could all of the following publications have been in error?

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:
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
Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications.
Note: “Pimsleur’s”, a checklist of legal publications, does not list many of the above volumes.

* This volume was published twice in 1845. The first published the “Titles of Nobility” amendment, the second was published right after Congress set the requirements for Missouri’s admission as a State. The “Titles of Nobility” amendment was replaced with a notation that this amendment was printed in error in 1835.
ADDITIONAL 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]
“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 stops 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.

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 will, please check your state’s archives and libraries to review any copies of the Constitution printed prior to the Civil War, or any books containing prints of the Constitution before 1870. If you locate anything related to this project we would appreciate hearing from you so we may properly fulfill this effort of research.

If you find more evidence of the “missing” 13th Amendment please contact:

David Dodge
POB 985
Taos, New Mexico, 87571

post by Ted:

Breakthrough Memorandum of Law obliterates in 20 pages the fraud that has made the 3,837-page Internal Revenue Code a monolith of impenetrability. General knowledge of the contents of the Memorandum ultimately will result in withdrawal of cooperation on the part of a sufficient number of former victims of the fraud so as to lead to its elimination.

The commercial artifice known as “income tax” has its origins in 1622 in Amsterdam, Holland, and is the creation of goldsmith-bankers of the private Bank of Amsterdam[1] (est. 1609), parent bank of the private Bank of England[2] (est. 1694), in turn, parent bank of the private Federal Reserve[3] (est. 1913), and whose principals are the collective architect of the Internal Revenue Code and, in this country, sole beneficiary of the object thereof: revenue from collections of income tax (see Memorandum for evidence and proof).

When principals of the private Bank of Amsterdam in 1622 fail to sell the Dutch government on the idea of income tax they decide to procure their own government and country and thereafter hire Oliver Cromwell, finance and foment the English Revolution, orchestrate the execution of King Charles I of England, and install their own puppet, the Dutch prince, William III of Orange, on the British throne.

William’s most important act is the granting, on July 21, 1694, of the charter of incorporation of “The Governor and Company of the Bank of England,” the world’s first state-sanctioned “fractional reserve banking” institution, allowing the bank to masquerade as a department of government (Bank “of England”) and circulate (lend) its own promissory notes, each of which bears the bank’s promise to pay to the bearer on demand a certain quantity of gold, but for which there is no gold in the bank’s vaults. The arrangement permits the private Bank of England to loan its own paper currency at no cost to itself (i.e., Monopoly™ money) under the protection of the government; to wit:

“The bank hath benefit of the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”[4] William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England.

“It [the Bank of England] coined, in short, its own credit into paper money.”[5] James E. Thorold Rogers, Professor of Economics, Oxford University.

The difference between the promissory notes of the private Bank of England and Federal Reserve Notes of the private Federal Reserve is that Fed bankers did away with the promise-to-pay-gold nuisance a long time ago (House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933), having swindled and shipped to England and Germany nearly all of America’s gold between 1916 and 1932.

Enjoying a monopoly as they do, today’s banks “loan” computer-keypad keystroke entries of digits, called “credit” (modern equivalent of the Bank of England’s hollow promissory notes), at no cost to themselves. As explained by the senior government banking official, then-Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson:

“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. This money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”[6]

The Federal Reserve banking system cannot endure without constant extraction–by way of collection of income tax by the Internal Revenue Service to hide the fraud of inflation–of a huge percentage of the digits created and injected into circulation by banks in the loan process; hence the overwhelming complexity of the Internal Revenue Code and heartlessness of those who enforce its provisions. Notwithstanding the best-laid plans of the architects thereof, however, and efforts of their enforcers, no one can stop a grass-roots movement and anyone can disabuse himself of the hoax in the pages of the attached Memorandum.

[1] J. De Vries and A. Van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997), p. 107.

[2] A. Andréadès, History of the Bank of England 1640 to 1903, Fourth Edition (Reprint), Christabel Meredith, translator (Frank Cass & Co., Ltd.: London, 1966), pp. 59-65, quoted in David Astle, The Babylonian Woe: A study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices, and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day (Published privately: Toronto, 1975), p. 140.

[3] Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, Second Edition, 1992 Election Edition (Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization: Staunton, Va., 1992), p. 102.

[4] William Paterson, quoted in Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations: A Financial Study of English History, First American Edition (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York, 1936), p. 30.

[5] James E. Thorold Rogers, The First Nine Years of the Bank of England: An Enquiry Into a Weekly Record of The Price of Bank Stock from August 17, 1694 to September 17, 1703 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1887), p. 9, quoted in Andréadès (supra, fn. 2), p. 82.

[6] Robert B. Anderson, quoted in “How Much Will Your Dollar Buy – Interview with Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson,” U.S. News & World Report, August 31, 1959, pp. 68-69.

* * * *

Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015

In continuance of the above post I am linking to the entirety of the case which shows how the Federal Gov’t has usurped power inside the 50 individual States united under the Constitution for the United States of America. If you understand how their legalese turns up to down and left to right you will have all you need to no longer fall victim to the fraud perpetuated by the Federal Reserve through the acts of Congress to deceive the People. It is complicated yet simple and this website spells it out better than any other I’ve encountered. Moreover, they beat the United States in their own court by their tacit agreement through silence. Please take the time to read all of the post which can be found here (with newest posts at the top):
supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/author/supremecourtcase/
(I have downloaded my own copy of this website for personal archive, I recommend all living in the US do the same.)

Now, let me share the basic action required to set yourself free from Federal Reserve slavery which is excerpted from the above link.
———————
“Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights harms no one.” John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn. 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 2157

The Internal Revenue Code provides for one to revoke his (apparent) general election to be treated as a resident of the United States—defined by Congress in Title 26 U.S.C. to mean the District of Columbia[1]—and can be accomplished in as little as one sentence.

As any legal professional (other than one with a vested interest in the 26 U.S.C. 6013 general-election-facility hoax) can verify: No one can elect (choose) to be a resident of a particular geographic area for purposes of taxation without also (1) physically moving there and establishing his personal abode / dwelling / home, or (2) realizing earnings there.

There is no difference between “being a resident” and “being treated as a resident” of a particular place; the legal effect is the same.

That government pretends that all of the American People are residents of the District of Columbia—and treats them as such—gives one an idea of the magnitude of the situation.

“Quando lex est specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est intelligenda. When the law is special, but its reason is general, the law is to be understood generally.” Bouvier’s, p. 2156.

“GENERAL. Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that which characterizes the species or individual. Universal, not particularized ; as opposed to special. Principal or central ; as opposed to local. Open or available to all, as opposed to select. Obtaining commonly, or recognized universally ; as opposed to particular. Universal or unbounded ; as opposed to limited. Comprehending the whole or directed to the whole ; as distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only.” Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1890), p. 534.

The purported 26 U.S.C. 6013 election facility is designated as “general” and therefore is universal or unbounded (as opposed to limited) and is the ultimate inference used by actors in government to subject its creator, the American People, to rules of conduct and regulations, in the form of statutes, and deprive them of life, liberty, and property for alleged violation thereof, under color of law, office, and authority.

There is no constitutional authority for any American legislature to impose any rule or regulation on any American except residents of the District of Columbia or one of the Territories—and no one can produce any such authority.[2]

Actors in government and the Internal Revenue Service follow the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (which are grounded in fraud); they just did not expect that anyone would figure out the true meaning thereof.

The meaning of the definition of the Internal Revenue Code terms “United States” and “State” is the District of Columbia (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, p. 6, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).

Anyone can revoke his alleged general election to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia. To see Petitioner’s “Statement of Revocation,” click on the hyperlink below.

(Note: Revocation of election applies only to the current and future tax years; it does not apply retroactively to previous tax years.)

[1] See Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 8-18, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof.

[2] The wild-card in the 16th Amendment that fooled everyone is the meaning of the operative definition of the statutory term “State,” which is used in the text thereof and comprehends the District of Columbia and the Territories (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 4-8, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).

As I keep reading through them material there are other prominent points that I wish to emphasize, but the point below is a key methodology, namely cognitive dissonance. I’ll refrain from further posts since I posted a link above to the source material.
————-
When Congress define a word or expression by legislative act, the ordinary and popular meaning (as found in the dictionary or encyclopedia) is stripped away and the new term means only what Congress define it to mean—and there is no discretion for anyone to take such term in any other way than provided in the statute.

In all civil and criminal proceedings in United States District Courts, “United States” is a term with a special definition and meaning.

In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the chapter and section that defines “court,” “debt,” “judgment,” and “United States” (Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section 3002), “United States” means a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)).

In the United States District Court conducting the Lufkin Case, “United States” means a Federal corporation—and the ultimate parent Federal corporation, over all other Federal entities of any kind—is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.[1]

Every appearance of “United States” in anything and everything relating to Federal district courts means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; e.g.:

“Congress of the United States” means, literally, Congress of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.
“Title 28 United States Code” means, literally, Title 28 District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Code.
“United States District Court” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Court.
“United States District Judge” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Judge.
“United States Attorney” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Attorney.
In Federal civil and criminal proceedings, there is no discretion for anyone to take “United States” any other way.

Actors in government rely on cognitive dissonance[2] on the part of victims of the Federal word game to perpetrate the fraud, commit treason to the Constitution, and subject the American People to District of Columbia municipal law.

The hoax is protected by a culture of silence among all initiates in the Federal judiciary, Department of Justice, and other key positions in government.

And that is how they get away with it.

In summation: United States District Courts (i.e., Article 4 § 3(2) District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Courts) have extended their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction (District of Columbia and the territories only), into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special / limited jurisdiction (the Union).

There is no constitutional authority that gives any contemporary United States District Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county in America—and no one can produce such authority.

Footnotes:
[1] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).

[2] In general, people cannot reconcile the 75 absurd, convoluted definitions of “United States” scattered throughout the United States Code with what they believe is the United States. For those few souls who manage to figure it out and speak up about it, actors in government follow a culture-of-silence policy of “Never respond, confirm, or deny.” Examples of this are (1) Chief Judge Ron Clark’s six weeks of silence following Petitioner’s motion for him to recuse himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law, and (2) ZERO government progress in the Lufkin Case in more than 14 months.

If a particular intended victim persists, government actors may mock / ridicule him by implication by quoting him, as if to say, “Can you believe how crazy this guy is? He thinks the United States is a Federal corporation!” (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)), knowing it will be next to impossible for the victim to secure general agreement in society as to the truth of the matter.

Petitioner obviates the cognitive-dissonance factor in the Lufkin Case by going straight to the supreme determinant, upon which the Lufkin Court’s very existence depends: the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas. There is no such constitutional authority—and the Lufkin Court and every other United States District Court located throughout the Union is a kangaroo court with no lawful authority to do business in any county, borough, or parish in America.

post by kateye:

You may just want to check this out…defendant overcame and nullified the hoax of Federal jurisdiction

Posted on October 28, 2015 by arnierosner
supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/sister-federal-tax-case-judge-and-doj-attorneys-abandon-case-midstream-refuse-to-participate-any-further/

Sister Federal tax case: Judge and DOJ attorneys abandon case midstream, decline to participate any further
October 28, 2015supremecourtcase Leave a comment
On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138, Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Objection and Demand”).

Plaintiff United States had 14 days to respond, but went silent (first and only time of which Petitioner is aware, that the government failed to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction).

As of September 29, 2015, it was incumbent on the Court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3) or 41(b).

The Court, however, stood mute.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioner’s Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Demand for Dismissal”).

Plaintiff had until October 14, 2015, to produce the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas.

As of this post (October 28, 2015), 44 days have passed since the filing of the Objection and Demand and 28 since the Demand for Dismissal and neither the judge nor either of the Department of Justice attorneys has responded in any way following Petitioner’s demands.

The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or deny Petitioner’s filings, is that anything that any of them may say in writing—whether for or against Petitioner—will evince treason to the Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.

Notwithstanding that the penalty for treason to the Constitution is death, the Federal judge and DOJ attorneys in this case have a more pressing situation on their hands:

The entire fraudulent Federal judicial apparatus is at stake because no contemporary Federal court has the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, or decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county, parish, or borough in America—and there is no reason why the above filings from this case will not produce the same results in any other Federal case, civil or criminal, anywhere in the Union.

If the Department of Justice cannot win a case anywhere in America, the days of the hoax of Federal jurisdiction over the American People are numbered.

The sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division was an attempt to foreclose on Federal tax liens filed against Petitioner’s ranch. Judge and plaintiff having departed the field of battle, said case is over in substance—Petitioner prevailing.

Regarding the original Federal tax case, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil No. 4:14-cv-0027 (which the Supreme Court declined to review): There are other remedies available to Petitioner and Petitioner is pursuing them. Developments will be posted on this website as they occur.

* * * *

Note: If a sufficient number of requests are received (under “Leave a comment” in the left-hand margin above), Petitioner will make available in PDF format on this website the docket and full contents of the record of both the original Houston Division case and the sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division. The record of these two cases chronicles and documents certain seminal congressional acts that are not taught in any school but have been used to deceive and deprive the American People of the unalienable and constitutional Right of Liberty and foist upon them (1) so-called civil (municipal) rights, (2) rules and regulations (statutes), and (3) municipal (Roman civil) law—a state of affairs abhorrent to the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution for which they all risked their life to escape. The Lufkin Division case is the first time in American history that a defendant overcame and nullified the hoax of Federal jurisdiction and caused the United States District Judge, United States Attorney, and Assistant United States Attorney to flee.

post by donQuixote:

That is a ground-breaking point in the saga that unveils the fraud perpetuated in United States and by extension 99% of the World under variations to the same.

Please do research this most interesting development.

This other post I collected from the web site sets the original law versus the legalese con :
Revocation of election to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia

August 20, 2015

“Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights harms no one.” John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn. 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 2157

The Internal Revenue Code provides for one to revoke his (apparent) general election to be treated as a resident of the United States—defined by Congress in Title 26 U.S.C. to mean the District of Columbia[1]—and can be accomplished in as little as one sentence.

As any legal professional (other than one with a vested interest in the 26 U.S.C. 6013 general-election-facility hoax) can verify: No one can elect (choose) to be a resident of a particular geographic area for purposes of taxation without also (1) physically moving there and establishing his personal abode / dwelling / home, or (2) realizing earnings there.

There is no difference between “being a resident” and “being treated as a resident” of a particular place; the legal effect is the same.

That government pretends that all of the American People are residents of the District of Columbia—and treats them as such—gives one an idea of the magnitude of the situation.

“Quando lex est specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est intelligenda. When the law is special, but its reason is general, the law is to be understood generally.” Bouvier’s, p. 2156.

“GENERAL. Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that which characterizes the species or individual. Universal, not particularized ; as opposed to special. Principal or central ; as opposed to local. Open or available to all, as opposed to select. Obtaining commonly, or recognized universally ; as opposed to particular. Universal or unbounded ; as opposed to limited. Comprehending the whole or directed to the whole ; as distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only.” Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1890), p. 534.

The purported 26 U.S.C. 6013 election facility is designated as “general” and therefore is universal or unbounded (as opposed to limited) and is the ultimate inference used by actors in government to subject its creator, the American People, to rules of conduct and regulations, in the form of statutes, and deprive them of life, liberty, and property for alleged violation thereof, under color of law, office, and authority.

There is no constitutional authority for any American legislature to impose any rule or regulation on any American except residents of the District of Columbia or one of the Territories—and no one can produce any such authority.[2]

Actors in government and the Internal Revenue Service follow the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (which are grounded in fraud); they just did not expect that anyone would figure out the true meaning thereof.

The meaning of the definition of the Internal Revenue Code terms “United States” and “State” is the District of Columbia (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, p. 6, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).

Anyone can revoke his alleged general election to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia. To see Petitioner’s “Statement of Revocation,” click on the hyperlink below.

(Note: Revocation of election applies only to the current and future tax years; it does not apply retroactively to previous tax years.)

[1] See Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 8-18, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof.

[2] The wild-card in the 16th Amendment that fooled everyone is the meaning of the operative definition of the statutory term “State,” which is used in the text thereof and comprehends the District of Columbia and the Territories (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 4-8, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).

post by Ted:

Let me explain more Don Quixote’s statement about treatment as a resident of the District of Columbia. You see Congress has absolute jusrisdiction over that District. They make and implement all law that affects that territory as a power given in the Constitution. What most people don’t understand but that much law that is intended to extend to the territorial jurisdiction is extended over all 50 states where Congress only has a special jurisdiction to regulate interstate and international commerce, war functions etc. Income tax laws are a common example. They are territorial in nature and when applied to the individual natural person (unless you work for the federal government or one of it’s agencies, including corporations under federal control under Bankruptcy protection).

One of the first principles in law is knowing who you are. Well unless you live in the District of Columbia or one of the territories, you are a non-resident alien in relation to the federal Gov’t. You can check to see if this applies to you as this is determined under 26 CFR 301.7701 (b)-1 and 26 USC 7701(b)(1)(B). But the trick the federal Gov’t uses to fool the people is 26 USC 6013 (g) which is a way for the IRS to treat you as if you are a resident of the District of Columbia. It reads:
“(g) Election to treat nonresident alien individual as resident of the United States
(1) In general
A nonresident alien individual with respect to whom this subsection is in effect for the taxable year shall be treated as a resident of the United States—
(A) for purposes of chapter 1 for all of such taxable year, and
(B) for purposes of chapter 24 (relating to wage withholding) for payments of wages made during such taxable year.”
You just have to kill that election after establishing yourself as a nonresident alien and you can see in all income taxes applied with title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) that your only taxable wages are from sources that are sourced from the District of Columbia. The most direct path to conclude that last statement is to see 26 USC, subtitle A, Ch. 1, subchapter A, Part I, subsection 2 – “Defintions and special rules
(d) Nonresident aliens
In the case of a nonresident alien individual, the taxes imposed by sections 1 and 55 shall apply only as provided by section 871 or 877.”
Section 877 is the case for expatriates so most can skip to section 871
“26 USC 871(a) Income not connected with United States business—30 percent tax
(1) Income other than capital gains
Except as provided in subsection (h), there is hereby imposed for each taxable year a tax of 30 percent of the amount received from sources within the United States by a nonresident alien individual as—
(A)interest (other than original issue discount as defined in section 1273), dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, and other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income,
(2) Capital gains of aliens present in the United States 183 days or more
In the case of a nonresident alien individual present in the United States for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed for such year a tax of 30 percent of the amount by which his gains, derived from sources within the United States, from the sale or exchange at any time during such year of capital assets exceed his losses, allocable to sources within the United States, from the sale or exchange at any time during such year of capital assets. For purposes of this paragraph, gains and losses shall be taken into account only if, and to the extent that, they would be recognized and taken into account if such gains and losses were effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, except that such gains and losses shall be determined without regard to section 1202 and such losses shall be determined without the benefits of the capital loss carryover provided in section 1212. Any gain or loss which is taken into account in determining the tax under paragraph (1) or subsection (b) shall not be taken into account in determining the tax under this paragraph. For purposes of the 183-day requirement of this paragraph, a nonresident alien individual not engaged in trade or business within the United States who has not established a taxable year for any prior period shall be treated as having a taxable year which is the calendar year.”

This is not obvious because Congress specially defined “United States” in title 26 and that is the controlling definition overriding any other meaning. See 26 USC 7701 (9) for the definition and you’ll see that “United States” mean only the States and the District of Columbia; except if you look at the very next definition 26 USC 7701(10) “State” means only the District of Columbia. The terms “includes and including” are limiting terms also specially defined which limiting the meaning only to the item in the same class as the given after that word. So ” United States” means only the District of Columbia though sometimes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, etc. are also included when specifically added to “United States”.

So yes, electing to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia is how we subject ourselves to an income tax obligation.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s