Time: Sat Nov 09 05:14:54 1996
To: mleeiv@u.washington.edu
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Congresswoman Suspected of Tax Evasion
Cc: 
Bcc: 

>Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 13:01:21
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Congresswoman Suspected of Tax Evasion
>
>[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