Time: Sun Nov 24 19:06:59 1996
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: ComLaw> (Fwd) 13th Amend.
Cc: 
Bcc: Chris Wilder, Liberty Law

A common law jury near Sacramento
litigated the matter last year, and
with an expert in constitutional
law arguing the government's side,
the jury still held in favor of
the opposition, namely, that the
original 13th had, indeed, been
ratified.  After this jury finding,
the constitutional expert who argued
for the government continued to fight
for the restoration of his bar license,
which had been suspended months earlier.
This action on his part I did not 
understand, because the testimony
which persuaded the jury was that part
which indicated that the exercise of
bar licenses causes one to lose his (her)
citizenship permanently.  I had a very
long conversation with the common law
judge who presided over that case, and
he agreed with me:  once an Esquire,
always an Esquire.  So, I was forced
to conclude that the suspended bar member
preferred to lose his citizenship in
favor of having his bar license restored.
Go figure!

/s/ Paul Mitchell


At 04:15 PM 11/24/96 -0800, you wrote:
>At 03:48 PM 11/24/96 -0600, Tony F Sgarlatti wrote:
>>----- Begin Included Message -----
>>Date: Sun Nov 24 11:24:50 1996
>>To: tfs@adc.com
>>From: BEHOLD! Newsletter <behold@teleport.com>
>>Subject: 13th Amend.
>>Cc: tab@hollyent.com, ridethelightning@juno.com, rogerick@televar.com,
>>        rond@on-ramp.ior.com, postmaster@catalina.org,
>>        sampson@inetl.inetworld.net
>>Read your post on the 13th Amend. Randy and I about 8 years ago did a lot of
>>research on this issue. Your point about lawyers is well taken. Our research
>>showed the Amendment did not pass. [cut] Robert Wangrud.
>>
>>----- End Included Message -----
>
>This claim sounds like an error.  While it's been about four years since I 
>read two well-written essays about the "missing 13th" amendment, from what I 
>read nobody could legitimately claim that research _SHOWED_ "the amendment 
>did not pass."
>
>What there was, apparently, was simply a lack of definitive evidence that 
>the amendment DID pass.   That said, however, it appears from my vague 
>recollection that since then, people have found many dozen references to 
>this amendment in various books, all of which apparently suggest that the 
>amendment DID INDEED pass.   Most of those references were found (again, as 
>I recall) within the last 3-4 years, obviously after the "8 years" quoted 
>above.  
>
>Obviously, then, it is easy to be mystified as to how 8-year-old research 
>could show "the amendment did not pass."  At least hypothetically, they 
>could have found that Virginia (which was, as I vaguely recall, supposed to 
>be the last vote needed) somehow voted on the matter, and (again quite 
>hypothetically) found the record of the vote showing it failed, but that's 
>not what apparently happened. Apparently there is (was?) no official record 
>of the vote found, but a publication of Virginia specifically identifying 
>this new amendment as being official, etc.
>
>If many dozen publications of the era did indeed indicate that the amendment 
>passed, then it would take some kind of explicit evidence to show that it 
>did not, not merely some kind of "we haven't found evidence that it 
>officially passed."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jim Bell
>jimbell@pacifier.com
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail