Time: Sun Apr 20 21:41:16 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA27339;
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:16:07 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA13398;
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:15:59 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:40:11 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: original 13th Amendment
References: <Pine.3.89.9704172026.A27031-0100000@opus.vcn.bc.ca>
<3.0.1.16.19970420201236.2937e3a8@pop.primenet.com>
At 11:37 PM 4/19/97 EDT, you wrote:
>
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:12:36 -0700 Paul Andrew Mitchell
>[address in tool bar] writes:
>>Why is it not in the Constitution today?
>>
>>It IS in the Constitution, as a matter of Law;
>>but it was removed from the published versions
>>upon which courts rely, for reasons which are
>>explained in the essay entitled "Esquires" in
>>the Supreme Law Library at URL:
>
>Paul,
>
>It would be nice if I could do it but I only have Juno right now.
>Can you give a quick and dirty?
>
>Kevin
Kevin,
In the future, I will ask for a donation from you,
to cover the massive expenses which this research
has entailed.
Fair enough? If you don't make a donation,
don't be personally offended if I don't give
you any personal attention.
Please dump Juno as soon as possible. Its limits
are infuriating, and quite an obstacle to any
serious work.
I presume you want to do serious work, rather
than mess around with amateur software, don't you?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
p.s. I am not a "Patriot," and I have made no
"profit" from this work. In fact, I am running
a rather massive "loss" (using CPA language).
Let the spin doctors have a spin at that
admission! :)
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Esquires
by
John E. Trumane
all rights reserved
As the story goes, there is a painting somewhere in the vast
hallways of the Smithsonian museum which shows British soldiers
boarding a sailing ship, muskets in hand. The ship is in an
American port, and the soldiers are returning home after the War
of 1812.
There is a problem with this picture which may not be
immediately apparent to the casual viewer. Our history books
tell us that the British lost that war. History should also tell
us that the winners in a war usually (but not always) take the
guns away from the other side. So, why were these British
soldiers boarding their warship, guns in hand?
The answer to that question was provided to me by a common
law judge in the California Republic. He had recently presided
over a jury trial in which "titles of nobility" were the issue.
The jury was presented with evidence and arguments that the
"real" 13th Amendment did not ban slavery after the Civil War.
That amendment was really the 14th Amendment.
The "real" 13th Amendment was ratified by three-fourths of
the Union states before the War of 1812. It placed into the U.S.
Constitution a specific ban against titles of nobility, and
defined a penalty for those who accepted such titles. That
penalty was a loss of citizenship and a loss of eligibility for
public office.
My friend, the common law judge, explained to me that the
jury had reached a unanimous verdict that the ban on titles of
nobility had, indeed, been duly ratified as a lawful amendment to
the Constitution for the United States of America. By banning
titles of nobility and defining the penalty for using them, the
original 13th Amendment was specifically intended to keep bar
members out of public offices throughout America.
You may recall that the qualifications for serving in the
White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives all
have one thing in common: the would-be official must be a
"Citizen of the United States." Since the 14th (15th?) amendment
did not appear until 1868, the term "United States" in these
provisions means "States United," and "Citizen of the United
States" means "Citizen of one of the States United."
The U.S. Constitution thus contains a specific prohibition
against titles of nobility, and a specific penalty for their use,
i.e., the loss of citizenship and disability from holding public
office. The loss of citizenship means that a Person who was born
or naturalized a Citizen would lose that status and thereby
become an "alien" with respect to the United States of America.
Since the qualifications for serving in federal elective offices
all require citizenship, an "alien" is, by definition,
disqualified from eligibility for these offices (President,
Senator, and Representative).
In my conversation with the common law judge from
California, we next considered if it was possible, under the
Esquires: Page 1 of 4
original 13th Amendment, to restore citizenship by renouncing or
rescinding a title of nobility. A close examination of the
amendment's language did not reveal any such provision. In
matters of statutory construction (determining the real meaning
of statutes), there is a principle that the specific mention of
one thing is the specific exclusion of all things that are not
mentioned. In Latin, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. In
other words, what was omitted was intended to be omitted.
The original 13th Amendment does not contain any provisions
for restoring citizenship by renouncing or rescinding a title of
nobility. Evidently, if the framers of that amendment had wanted
citizenship to be restored to those who renounced their titles
(e.g. Esquire), then the amendment would have contained language
to make that possible. The absence of such language can be used
to prove, under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio
alterius, that it is not possible to restore one's citizenship
after accepting a title of nobility.
Now, the original 13th Amendment raises some very
interesting questions of law, or Law, as the case may be. If a
law school graduate should join the Bar in the state of his
domicile, he would join the elite company of "Esquires." In the
United States of America, this is the title commonly appended
after the name of an attorney (see Black's Law Dictionary, fifth
edition). If we are correct in our construction of the original
13th Amendment, then it is correct to say that "Once an Esquire,
always an Esquire."
If our up-and-coming Esquire should develop a successful
practice, it could (and often does) happen that s/he might
consider running for federal office, let's say the House of
Representatives. Would s/he be eligible for that office? The
Answer is NO, because the title of Esquire makes it impossible
for that person ever to be eligible for the offices of President,
Senator, or Representative. As a resident alien, that person is
definitely NOT eligible for election to those offices, nor is
that person eligible for naturalization. So, there is no chance
that such a person could ever hold such an office, under the
supreme Law of the Land.
Let's take this argument one step further. Assume, for the
moment, that John Q. Esquire does get elected to the House of
Representatives, by some quirk of circumstances (or intentional
cover-up). Would Mr. Esquire be a lawful occupant of that
office? Answer: NO. Would Mr. Esquire be capable of exercising
the powers and privileges of that office? Answer: NO. Would
Mr. Esquire be qualified to vote on the matters which came before
that august body? Answer: NO. If Mr. Esquire did attempt to
cast a vote on any of the matters which came before the House of
Representatives, his vote would be null and void ab initio (from
the outset). In other words, his vote would not be a vote at
all, would it?
How many Esquires does it take to nullify an act of
Congress? One? Two? Fifty-one percent? How many Esquires are
presently seated in Congress? Is it greater than fifty-one
percent? Is it greater than a quorum? Or does it really take
only one Esquire to spoil the whole barrel of apples? Maybe we
should reconvene that California common law jury and put this
question to them as well, because we now appear to have a really
big problem on our hands.
Esquires: Page 2 of 4
If the Senate and House of Representatives ever consisted of
members who were disqualified from serving there by reason of
their titles of nobility, then every single act of those bodies
was completely null and void from the beginning. As an Illinois
State Court once ruled, "it never became a law and was as much a
nullity as if it had been the act or declaration of an
unauthorized assemblage of individuals." (Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill.
160) A House or Senate consisting of Esquires for members is an
unauthorized assemblage of individuals, and ALL their legislation
is completely null and void.
Now ask yourself this question: Since the War of 1812, the
approximate time at which the original 13th Amendment surely
became Law, how many sessions of the House or Senate were
conducted by Members who had previously accepted titles of
nobility? If your answer is one hundred percent, then you are
probably right.
The shocking fact is this: Every session of the House and
Senate since 1812 has consisted of members who were attorneys
with the title of Esquire conveniently appended to the end of
their names. This means that every session of the House and
Senate since 1812 has attempted to pass legislation which was
null and void from its inception. Do you have any favorite laws
which come to mind?
How about the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917? There is
a magnificent collection of research by Dr. Eugene Schroder which
shows how our vaulted Congress amended this Act in 1933 in order
to define all Americans as enemies of the United States
government. Were these acts of Congress valid, if its members
were Esquires at the time of its passage? Answer: NO.
How about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? This Act of
Congress created our vaulted Federal Reserve system, and the debt
money system to which we are all shackled for life (it seems).
Was this act of Congress valid, if its members were Esquires at
the time of its passage? Answer: NO.
How about the 16th amendment proposal? This Act of Congress
sent the 16th Amendment out to the states for ratification in
1911. Another magnificent collection of research by Bill Benson
and Red Beckman shows how the 48 states completely botched the
ratification of that proposal. Now ask yourself the obvious
question: Was Congress authorized to issue that proposal in the
first instance, if its members were Esquires at the time of its
passage? Answer: NO.
How about the 17th Amendment proposal? This Act of Congress
sent the 17th Amendment out to the states for ratification at the
same time as the 16th Amendment proposal. It purported to
convert the election of U.S. Senators to a popular vote. Under
the "old" procedure, Senators were elected by the state
legislatures (resulting in much lower campaign costs). Was the
Congress authorized to issue that proposal in the first instance,
if its members were Esquires at the time of its passage? Answer:
NO.
If the 17th Amendment was never properly ratified, then we
surely have not had a lawfully convened U.S. Senate at least
since 1917. This, then, means that all the treaties which were
allegedly approved by the U.S. Senate since then are also null
and void. What about GATT? NAFTA? the Genocide Treaty? the
United Nations? Round and round we go; where it stops, nobody
Esquires: Page 3 of 4
knows? On the contrary, we stop in 1812, the year of our second
war with England. We have not had a lawfully convened Congress
at least since the year 1812.
Now, what about those British soldiers who were boarding
their warship, guns in hand, at the end of that war? Is it
possible that they were not really the vanquished, but the
victors? Didn't they just finish burning the Library of
Congress? Wasn't that where evidence of the original 13th
Amendment had been kept, under the watchful eyes of our
government record custodians who fled for their lives?
What those soldiers didn't know was that the original 13th
Amendment had "leaked" out to other states, whose record
custodians did not suffer the loss of their libraries. When
their official versions of the U.S. Constitution show a 13th
amendment which bans titles of nobility, and those very same
versions do NOT show any ban against slavery (which didn't pass
until after the Civil War), you begin to suspect that something
very strange is going on here.
There has not been a single act of Congress since 1812 which
has been properly enacted into law. Not a single one! So, you
can throw out your Internal Revenue Code, and along with it all
of your 50 United States Codes, and your Federal Reserve Act, and
your Trading with the Enemy Act, and your treaties, and your
federal regulations, and your resolutions and your Joint
Interdepartmental delegations of authority, because they had no
authority under the real Constitution for the United States of
America. NONE!
Attorneys beware.
# # #
Esquires: Page 4 of 4
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail