Time: Fri Nov 08 06:19:30 1996
To: Clido@aol.com
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