Time: Fri Nov 08 05:25:57 1996 To: Eagle Forum <eagle@eagleforum.org> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Esquires Cc: Bcc: >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 05:23:25 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: Esquires > >[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