Time: Fri Nov 08 05:23:18 1996
To: eputman5@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Esquires
Cc: 
Bcc: 

[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
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail