The political media establishment is the enemy


11-30-2015 7-41-02 AM

The 2016 election is not a contest between the Democrat and Republican ideologies, nor is it a choice among various approaches to address the nation’s problems, but something far more fundamental.

It is a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political-media establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people.
It is a conflict between those who want to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law and the party leaders and a biased media, who wish to continue the practices of political expediency and crony capitalism.

It is a decadent system the political-media elite created and continues to nurture, one that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

There are only two issues that matter for the 2016 election: the political-media establishment is hopelessly corrupt and, although we have elections, we no longer have representative government.

It is a system, not incapable of, but largely unwilling to solve pressing national issues like illegal immigration, a moribund economy or the threat from radical Islam.

It is because solutions benefitting the American people conflict with the financial or ideological interests of the oligarchy, the Democrat and Republican establishments, the media and their financiers, who every four years hire a President.

It is a system that, through benign, if not criminal neglect, made possible the two-term Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, who, if he continues unopposed, will fundamentally transform the United States from a capitalist republic based on Judeo-Christian democratic principles into some kind of Islamo-Marxist totalitarian perversion, a permanently weakened and fragmented America.

It is now but a tiny step to Obama’s “America” from that which the oligarchy has already shaped, a composite government of J. L. Talmon’s “totalitarian democracy” and Sheldon S. Wolin’s “managed democracy.”

That is, a political system in which lawfully elected representatives rule a nation state whose citizens, although granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of government; a country where citizens are politically uninterested and submissive – and where elites are eager to keep them that way.

Thomas Jefferson feared that it would only be a matter of time before the American system of government degenerated into a form of “elective despotism” (1785), now fostered by corrupt politicians, enabled by wealthy special interests and facilitated by a compliant press.

“They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.”

Is it not true that members of Congress seek election, not to uphold the Constitution and serve the American people, but to obtain power, and to use that power to accrue professional and financial benefits for themselves and their major supporters?

Is it not true that all the traditional means for the American people to seek the redress of grievances have now been blocked by a self-absorbed permanent political-media elite unaccountable to the American people?

Is it not true that the current tenant in the White House leads a dishonest and lawless cabal of anti-American ideologues, who engage in activities and foster policies that risk the survival of the American republic, undermine the security of its citizens and abrogate their unalienable rights?

Is it not true that when the blatant and outrageous lies of the political-media establishment are no longer sufficient to soothe the electorate into complacency, such a government must begin to curtail liberty and oppress the people in order to remain in power?

Is it not true, as Thomas Jefferson predicted that corruption has seized the heads of our present-day government in a manner similar to that which sparked the American Revolution?
Ladies and gentlemen, we are now on our own.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at

10 13 11 flagbar

Constitution, Exposed Conspiracy To Subvert The American Republic Uncovered


11-27-2015 12-26-16 PM

*No Lawyers Allowed In Public Office*
TMR Editor’s Note:

The following investigative research project is of paramount importance. It is perhaps the most consequential ever undertaken regarding the foundational documents of the United States of America. Truly, it doesn’t get any more serious than the stunning revelations which have emerged from this clandestine plot to wrongfully alter the U.S. Constitution and subvert the American Republic.
Should this British conspiracy to subjugate the USA, which was directly responsible for the excising of the original 13th Amendment ever become common knowledge, virtually the entire U.S. Congress would be deemed illegitimate. In view of the current state of Congressional affairs, it’s no wonder that lawyers and attorneys could not be trusted to responsibly handle the people’s business. Their loyalties have always lied elsewhere.
It’s now a well-known fact of life that the legal class of the USA has degenerated into the most untrustworthy and treasonous, deceitful and dishonest. This certain eventuality was deeply feared by the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. It was for this very reason that the original 13th Amendment was carefully deliberated and legally ratified. However, it was then unlawfully removed from the U.S. Constitution “during the tumult of the Civil War” (after being completely ignored for decades). As follows:
*CAVEAT: It is because lawyers and attorneys formally registered with the BAR (British Accredited Registry) that they could not be trusted to hold public office in the fledgling United States of America. By implicitly pledging their allegience to an entity of a foreign government, they could not be trusted to act in the best interest of the American Republic or its citizens. This was particularly the case when the lawyers made their vows to the BAR of Great Britain, the USA’s only major enemy that threatened its very existence.
The Millennium Report
The Missing 13th Amendment:
*No Lawyers Allowed In Public Office*
13th Amendment — Missing

11-27-2015 12-29-56 PM

Written by David M. Dodge, Researcher
Date: 08/01/91
In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.
By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle
intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history — the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States.
Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from the U.S. Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are

The story of this “missing” Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment’s meaning and consequent current relevance.
MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of

Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure; unimportant. The references to “nobility,” “honour,” “emperor,” “king,” and “prince,” lead us to dismiss this Amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. The U.S. modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, make anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787);
Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though “titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.


To understand the meaning of this “missing” 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context — the era surrounding the American Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of “Democracy” as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid

Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved. Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn’t destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception — it was, perhaps, the first “cold war”. Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy’s counter- revolutionary efforts emanated
from English banks.

DON’T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System)

The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England:”The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin… Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… Take this great power away from them, or if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.”

The last great abuse of the U.S. banking system caused the depression of the 1930’s. Today’s abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you’re not being robbed? Guess who’s going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L’s, U.S.-taxpayer? You are.) The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions.

When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks. Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client’s gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue “extra” notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the “extra” notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist. Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a “run on the bank”. If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive
members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers “sweetheart” loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and the U.S. Federal government’s unbridled growth.)


If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin. It’s often suggested that the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against a paper economy — “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts” — was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a “paper” economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the
expense of the productive.

“Paper money,” said Pelatiah Webster, “polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of U.S. country, and went far to destroy the morality of U.S. people.”


A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the United States:
According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1820, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government. Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would U.S. Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn’t make sense, especially in light of Senate’s secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume U.S. Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That’s subversion.

The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) won out in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 — 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn’t exist.

However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, the U.S. government owned no stock in the United States Bank.) The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that European banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused to renew the bank’s charter. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by European investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812. That’s destruction.

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy’s efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called “2 VA LAW” in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, “This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this Amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification was lost in the mail. There is no public record that this book exists.” That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), “the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts.” There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment.


In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America.

Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as “legitimate businessmen”. As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them “titles of nobility”.

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as “Squires” and to those who bore the knight’s shields as “Esquires”. As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was “Esquire” (used, even today, by some lawyers).


In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank “Esquire” — a “title of nobility”. “Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States.

Why? Because the loyalty of “Esquire” lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a “title of nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.


The missing Amendment is referred to as the “title of nobility” Amendment, but the second prohibition against “honour” (honor), may be more significant.

According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster’s Dictionary, the archaic definition of “honor” (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone “obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another”. A contemporary example of an “honor” granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting “honors”, the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an “honor”) over other citizens.
If this interpretation is correct, “honor” would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while “titles of nobility” may no longer apply in today’s political system, the concept of “honor” remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific “immunity” from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an “honor”, and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the “immunities” from lawsuits that U.S. judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the “special interest” legislation the U.S. government passes: “special interests” are simply euphemisms for “special privileges” (honors).

WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)

If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, “special interests” and “immunities” might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against “honors” (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), US judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, the entire U.S. Government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term “honor” were applied today, U.S. Government’s ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.

Imagine! A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be … almost like … a government … of the people … by the people … for the people! Imagine: a government … whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It’s unheard of … it’s never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world.

Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the U.S. National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the “title of nobility” Amendment; that ratification required the thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the “title of nobility” Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn’s research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story. Can you imagine, can you understand how close the US came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came? One vote. One state’s vote.

The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state’s support. One vote. David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it.


In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a “title of Nobility” (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn’t passed, this was the first time a “title of nobility” amendment was proposed.

Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another “Title of Nobility” Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification:

“If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the “Title of Nobility” Amendment in 1810, there were states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812

Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed “title of nobility” amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature’s position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).

On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams’ letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.

However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, “misc.’ file, p. 299 for micro-film): “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto…” This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day — the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment’s official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)

In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or
communicate the ratification of amendments.

Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation’s ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.
Word of Virginia’s 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860. So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto something.

You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which ordered it published eighteen times we’ve discovered (so far) consisted of ignorant politicians who don’t know their amendments from their… ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that our U.S. forefathers never meant to “outlaw” public servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to “look the other way.” Maybe. But before you do, there’s an awful lot of evidence to be explained.


In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes:
“In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76.” In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74).

It’s not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia’s ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making it appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it’s not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed — the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence.

However, because the noted authors reported no further references to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia’s ratification. This opinion — assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment — has persisted to this day.

In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code’s revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia’s ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the
requisite thirteen, had ratified.)

However, despite Clayton’s opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860). Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signaling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.
Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president.

That resolve to amend read: “ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states’ rights. Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally removed from the US Constitution. On January 31, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states’ rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended with General Lee’s surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the “new” 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effectively erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited “titles of nobility” and “honors”.


To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which the U.S. now endures, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th “titles of nobility” Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.

Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as “Esquires” and received the “honor” of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only they could hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two-tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans’ political interests, the nation’s economic welfare, and the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit.

The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from the current US government system.

At the very least, this missing 13th Amendment demonstrates that two centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and nation. Some things never change.

THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY …. Heed warnings of Founding Fathers In his farewell address, George Washington warned of “… change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar to Virginia’s. Three of his suggestions were “freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases” and “no suspensions of the
habeas corpus.”

No doubt Washington’s warning and Jefferson’s ideas were dismissed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed the U.S. legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?

Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in the U.S. courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, is suspended. (By crimes against the state, I refer to “political crimes” where there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.)

The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800’s. Judges (and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People “un-Constitutional”, waited until their decision was grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the bar associations. Although Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that executive orders and treaties are binding upon the states (“… and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”), the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw in “Notes on the State of Virginia”, Query 17, p. 161, 1784: “Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless… the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers
are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill.

It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”

We await the inevitable convulsion. Only two questions remain: Will we fight to revive our rights? Or, Will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire, surrendered to the courts, and perhaps to a “new world order”?


As we go to press, I’ve received information from a researcher in Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th Amendment. These editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the states that voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas, 1861; and the Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867.

These finds are important because: They offer independent confirmation of Dodge’s claims; and They extend the known dates of publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge’s most recent find), to Colorado in 1867.

The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the “missing” 13th Amendment and the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition. This investigation has followed a labyrinthine path that started with the questions about how the U.S. courts evolved from a temple of the Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this situation had anything to do with retiring chief Justice Burger’s warning that we were “about to lose our Constitution”. My seven year investigation has been fruitful beyond belief; the information on the missing 13th Amendment is only a “drop in the bucket” of the information I have discovered. Still, the research continues, and by definition, is never truly complete.


Imagine a nation which prohibited at least some lawyers from serving in government. Imagine a government prohibited from writing laws granting “honors” (special privileges, immunities, or advantages) to individuals, groups, or government officials. Imagine a government that could only write laws that applied to everyone, even themselves, equally. It’s never been done before. Not once. But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United States proposed a 13th Amendment to the Constitution that might have given us just that sort of equality and political paradise. The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears on the Constitution: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” This Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legislation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not even themselves.

It might have guaranteed a level of political equality in this nation that most people can’t even imagine. Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that: The 13th Amendment prohibiting “titles of nobility” and “honors” appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories between 1819 and 1867; and This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.
Either this Amendment was: Unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or Ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the Constitution by 1867.

If this 13th Amendment was unratified and mistakenly published, the story has remained unnoticed in American history for over a century. If so, it’s at least a good story — an extraordinary historical anecdote.
On the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment was truly ratified, an Amendment has been subverted from our Constitution. If so, this “missing” Amendment would still be the Law, and this story could be one of the most important stories in American History. Whatever the answer, it’s certain that something extraordinary happened to our Constitution between 1819 and 1867.

PROS AND CONS (for Ratification)

Of course, there are two sides to this issue. David Dodge, the principal researcher, argues that this 13th Amendment was ratified in 1819 and then subverted from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War. U.S. Senator George Mitchell of Maine, and Mr. Dane Hartgrove (Acting Assistant Chief, Civil Reference Branch of the National Archives) have argued that the Amendment was never properly ratified and only published in error.

There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the proposed Amendment required the support of at least thirteen states to be ratified. Both sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve states voted to support ratification. The pivotal issue is whether Virginia ratified or rejected the proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia voted to support the Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly ratified and should still be a part of our Constitution. Senator Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove disagree, arguing that Virginia did not ratify. Unfortunately, several decades of Virginia’s legislative journals were misplaced or destroyed (possibly during the Civil War; possibly during the 1930’s). Consequently, neither side has found absolute proof that the Virginia legislature voted for (or against) ratification. A series of letters exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge, Sen. Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove illuminate the various points of disagreement.

After Dodge’s initial report of a “missing” Amendment in the 1825 Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell explained that this edition was a one-time publishing error: “The Maine Legislature mistakenly printed the proposed Amendment in the Maine Constitution as having been adopted. As you know, this was a mistake, as it was not ratified.”

Further, “All editions of the Maine Constitution printed after 1820 [sic] exclude the proposed amendment; only the originals contain this error.” Dodge dug deeper, found other editions (there are 30, to date) of state and territorial civil codes that contained the missing Amendment, and thereby demonstrated that the Maine publication was not a “one-time” publishing error.


After examining Dodge’s evidence of multiple publications of the “missing” Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by twelve of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However, because the Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify an Amendment. Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that the 13th Amendment was published in error because it was passed by only twelve, not thirteen States. Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which states had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue hung on whether one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to ratify.

After several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the “missing” 13th Amendment. Dodge notes that, curiously, “There is no public record that shows this book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not catalogued as a holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the National Union Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law school in Portland were able to find any trace that this book exists in any of their computer programs.”

Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, “Under legislative construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is published as the official acts of the legislature are the official acts.” By publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official publication, Virginia demonstrated that they: Knew they were the last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment; Had voted to ratify the Amendment; and Were publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil Code as an official notice to the world that the Amendment had indeed been ratified.

Dodge concluded, “Unless there is competing evidence to the contrary, it must be held that the Constitution of the United States was officially amended to exclude from its body of citizens any who accepted or claimed a title of nobility or accepted any special favors. Foremost in this category of ex-citizens are bankers and lawyers.”

RATIONALES (for Ratification)

Undeterred, Sen. Mitchell wrote that, “Article XIII did not receive the three-fourths vote required from the states within the time limit to be ratified.” (Although his language is imprecise, Sen. Mitchell seems to concede that although the Amendment had failed to satisfy the “time limit”, the required three-quarters of the states did vote to ratify.) Dodge replies: “Contrary to your assertion.., there was no time limit for amendment ratification in 1811. Any time limit is now established by Congress in the Resolves for proposed amendments.”

In fact, ratification time limits didn’t start until 1917, when Sect. 3 of the Eighteenth Amendment stated that, “This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified within seven years from the date of submission … to the States by Congress.” A similar time limit is now included on other proposed Amendments, but there was no specified time limit when the 13th Amendment was proposed in 1810 or ratified in 1819. Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere, that would defeat Dodge’s persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell implicitly conceded that his “published by error” and “time limit” arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute the ratification: “… regardless of whether the state of Virginia did ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment… on March 12, 1819, this approval would not have been sufficient to amend the Constitution.

In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment.” Dodge replies: “Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the Amendment process.”

Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, “President Monroe had his Secretary of State… [ask the] governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to the status of the amendment in their respective states. The four new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the union between 1810 and 1818 were not even considered.”

From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that this perspective is based on life in a stable nation that’s added only five new states in this century — about one every eighteen years. However, between 1803 and 1821 (when the 13th Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they added eight states — almost one new state every two years. This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national attitudes different from our own. The government had to be filled with the euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama. The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the nation’s growth.

For example, if a territory petitioned to join the Union while an Amendment was being considered, its access to statehood might depend on whether the territory expected to ratify or reject a proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to ratify the proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the Amendment might try to accelerate the territory’s entry into the Union. On the other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try to slow or even deny a particular territory’s statehood. These complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into the nation, or restrict the nation’s ability to pass new Amendments. Neither possibility could appeal to politicians. Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on ratifying the 13th Amendment — they did not ask for the decisions of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it’s apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be included in the ratification process.

In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State, the four “new” states, and the seventeen “old” states, all clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was required to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia’s vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the “missing’ Amendment in 1819 (and would still be so today).


Apparently persuaded by Dodge’s various arguments and proofs that the “missing” 13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the bureaucracy’s procedural requirements for ratification:

“Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of state certificates of ratification of a proposed Constitutional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

This is an extraordinary admission. Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that the 13th Amendment was ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution’s ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was not properly notified with a “certificate of ratification”. In other words, the government’s last, best argument that the 13th Amendment was not ratified boils down to this: Though the Amendment satisfied Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single, official sheet of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people of this nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost a single “certificate of ratification”. This “certificate” may be missing because either: Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or The notice was “lost in the mail”; or The notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. This final excuse insults every American’s political rights, but Mr. Hartgrove nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National Archives “received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform Congress and await further developments.” In other words, the issue of whether this 13th Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity — the ratification issue is still alive.

But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining argument against the 13th Amendment’s ratification is a procedural error involving the absence of a “certificate of ratification”.

Dodge countered Hartgrove’s procedure argument by citing some of the ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd Session, at p. 241, a “letter” (not a “certificate of ratification”) from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio’s ratification was submitted not to the Secretary of State but rather to the House of Representatives where it “was read and ordered to lie on the table.” Likewise, “The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House, while Maryland’s earlier ratification is not listed as having been
returned to Congress.”

The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not required to notify the Secretary of State of their ratification decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a “certificate of ratification” with the Secretary of State. Again, despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the “missing” Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied because of some possible procedural error.


Each of Sen. Mitchell’s and Mr. Hartgrove’s arguments against Ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the conclusions are only implied. But it’s no wonder that there’s such an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th Amendment: According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts. The evidence of ratification seems tantalizingly close but remains buried in those masses of un-catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will take some luck and some volunteers to uncover the final proof.

We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove insist we can’t … quite … absolutely prove it’s a duck, and therefore, the government is under no obligation to concede it’s a duck. Maybe so. But if we can’t prove it’s a duck, they can’t prove it’s not. If the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of the government’s refusal to acknowledge the proof. We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the “missing” 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer and taunt us with cries of “make us”. Perhaps we shall.

It’s worth noting that Rick Donaldson, another researcher, uncovered certified copies of the 1865 and 1867 editions of the Colorado Civil Codes which also contain the missing Amendment. Although these editions were stored in the Colorado state archive, their existence was previously un-catalogued and unknown to the Colorado archivists.
This raises a fantastic possibility. If there’s insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in 1819, there is no evidence that Virginia did not. Therefore, since there was no time limit specified when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly believed only Virginia’s vote remained to be counted in the ratification issue, the current state legislature of Virginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the Constitution.

Was it ratified? There is a lot of evidence that it was. Could all of the following publications have been in error?
The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Colorado1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Connecticut1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
[?] Dakota1862, 1863, 1867
Florida1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Louisiana1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine1825, 1831
Michigan1827, 1833
Mississippi1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories1833
Ohio1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island1822
Wyoming1869, 1876
Totals:24 States in 78 separate official government publications.Note: “Pimsleur’s”, a checklist of legal publications, does not list many of the above volumes.

* This volume was published twice in 1845. The first published the “Titles of Nobility” amendment, the second was published right after Congress set the requirements for Missouri’s admission as a State. The “Titles of Nobility” amendment was replaced with a notation that this amendment was printed in error in 1835.


“The History of the World”
Samuel Maunder, Harper, New York, 1850, vol. 2, p.462. Republished by
Wm. Burtis, Baltimore, 1856, vol. 2, p.462.
“The Rights of an American Citizen”
Benj. Oliver, Counsellor at Law, Boston, 1832, p. 89.
“Laws of the United States of America”
Bioren and Duane, Philadelphia & Washington, 1815, vol. 1, p.74. [See:
“The American Politician”
M. Sears, Boston, 1842, p.27.
“Constitution of the United States”
C.A. Cummings, Lynn, Massachusetts, not dated, p.35.
Political Text Book Containing the Declaration of Independence”
Edward Currier, Blake, Holliston, Mass. 1841, p.129.
“Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States for the use
of Common Schools”
John S. Hart, A.M. (Principal of Philadelphia High School and Professor
of Moral Mental and Political Science), Butler and Co., Philadelphia,
1850, p.100.
“Potter’s Justice”
H. Potter, U.S. District Court Judge, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1828,
p.404, 2nd Edition [the 1st Ed., 1816, does not have “Titles of Nobility”].

Note: The “Laws of the United States” was published by John Duane. Without doubt, Duane was aware of Virginia’s plan to ratify this amendment which targeted, amongst other things, the emolument of banking and the agents of foreign banking interests, the attorneys. Currency manipulation led to the failure of numerous banks and in turn to many a personal bankruptcy, including that of Thomas Jefferson. The allegiance of attorneys** has always been with the money state, whether pharaoh, caesar, monarch or corporate monopoly.

** See: “Acts of Virginia”, Feb. 20, 1812, p.143.

The Court, in “Horst v. Moses”, 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave the following description of a title of nobility:
To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it rises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms “privilege”, “honor”, and “emoluments”, as they are collectively in the term “title of nobility”. The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.

“Bouvier’s Law Dictionary”, 15th Edition, vol. 1 (1885) lists the due process amendments as 5 and 15 [15 was re-numbered to 14] on p.571. The prohibition of titles of nobility stops the claim of eminent domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of this amendment.

The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The answer lies buried in the archives. If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in the USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed between 1819 and 1870.

If you will, please check your state’s archives and libraries to review any copies of the Constitution printed prior to the Civil War, or any books containing prints of the Constitution before 1870. If you locate anything related to this project we would appreciate hearing from you so we may properly fulfill this effort of research.
If you find more evidence of the “missing” 13th Amendment please contact:
David Dodge
POB 985
Taos, New Mexico, 87571

This version of this research text by David Dodge was edited for clarity, and hand-coded in HTML on July 4, A.D. 2002, by The Lawful Path,, and was adapted from a prior version placed on the web by Barefoot Bob, May 5, 1996.

10 13 11 flagbar

How Do You Prepare a Child for Life in the American Police State?


By John W. Whitehead

“Fear isn’t so difficult to understand. After all, weren’t we all frightened as children? Nothing has changed since Little Red Riding Hood faced the big bad wolf. What frightens us today is exactly the same sort of thing that frightened us yesterday. It’s just a different wolf.” ― Alfred Hitchcock

In an age dominated with news of school shootings, school lockdowns, police shootings of unarmed citizens (including children), SWAT team raids gone awry (leaving children devastated and damaged), reports of school resource officers tasering and shackling unruly students, and public schools undergoing lockdowns and active drills, I find myself wrestling with the question: how do you prepare a child for life in the American police state?

Every parent lives with a fear of the dangers that prey on young children: the predators who lurk at bus stops and playgrounds, the traffickers who make a living by selling young bodies, the peddlers who push drugs that ensnare and addict, the gangs that deal in violence and bullets, the drunk drivers, the school bullies, the madmen with guns, the diseases that can end a life before it’s truly begun, the cynicism of a modern age that can tarnish innocence, and the greed of a corporate age that makes its living by trading on young consumers.

It’s difficult enough raising a child in a world ravaged by war, disease, poverty and hate, but when you add the police state into the mix—with its battlefield mindset, weaponry, rigidity, surveillance, fascism, indoctrination, violence, etc.—it becomes near impossible to guard against the toxic stress of police shootings, SWAT team raids, students being tasered and shackled, lockdown drills, and a growing unease that some of the monsters of our age come dressed in government uniforms.

Children are taught from an early age that there are consequences for their actions. Hurt somebody, lie, steal, cheat, etc., and you will get punished. But how do you explain to a child that a police officer can shoot someone who was doing nothing wrong and get away with it? That a cop can lie, steal, cheat, or kill and still not be punished?

Kids understand accidents: sometimes drinks get spilled, dishes get broken, people slip and fall and hurt themselves, or you bump into someone without meaning to, and they get hurt. As long as it wasn’t intentional and done with malice, you forgive them and you move on. Police shootings of unarmed people—of children and old people and disabled people—can’t just be shrugged off as accidents, however.

Tamir Rice was no accident. Cleveland police shot and killed the 12-year-old, who was seen playing on a playground with a pellet gun. Surveillance footage shows police shooting the boy two seconds after getting out of a moving patrol car. Incredibly, the shooting was deemed “reasonable” and “justified” by two law enforcement experts who concluded that the police use of force “did not violate Tamir’s constitutional rights.”

Aiyana Jones was also no accident. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into her family’s apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops weren’t even in the right apartment. Ironically, on the same day that President Obama refused to stop equipping police with the very same kinds of military weapons and gear used to raid Aiyana’s home, it was reported that the police officer who shot and killed the little girl would not face involuntary manslaughter charges.

Obama insists that $263 million to purchase body cameras for police will prevent any further erosions of trust, but a body camera would not have prevented Aiyana from being shot in the head. Indeed, the entire sorry affair was captured on camera: a TV crew was filming the raid for an episode of The First 48, a true-crime reality show in which homicide detectives have 48 hours to crack a case.
While that $263 million will make Taser International, the manufacturer of the body cameras, a whole lot richer, it’s doubtful it would have prevented a SWAT team from shooting 14-month-old Sincere in the shoulder and hand and killing his mother.
No body camera could have stopped a Georgia SWAT team from launching a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old’s crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.

No body camera could have prevented 10-year-old Dakota Corbitt from being shot by a Georgia police officer who tried to shoot an inquisitive dog, missed, and hit the young boy, instead.

When police shot 4-year-old Ava Ellis in the leg, shattering the bone, it actually was an accident, but it was an accident that could have been prevented. Police reported to Ava’s house after being told that Ava’s mother, who had cut her arm, was in need of a paramedic. Cops claimed that the family pet charged the officer who was approaching the house, causing him to fire his gun and hit the little girl.

Alberto Sepulveda, 11, died from one “accidental” shotgun round to the back, after a SWAT team raided his parents’ home. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a California police officer who mistook the boy’s toy gun for an assault rifle. Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the Wii remote control in Roupe’s hand for a gun, shot him in the chest.

These children are more than grim statistics on a police blotter. They are the heartbreaking casualties of the government’s endless, deadly wars on terror, on drugs, and on the American people themselves.

Not even the children who survive their encounters with police escape unscathed. Increasingly, their lives are daily lessons in compliance and terror, meted out with every SWAT team raid, roadside strip search, and school drill.
Who is calculating the damage being done to the young people forced to watch as their homes are trashed and their dogs are shot during SWAT team raids? A Minnesota SWAT team actually burst into one family’s house, shot the family’s dog, handcuffed the children and forced them to “sit next to the carcass of their dead and bloody pet for more than an hour.” They later claimed it was the wrong house.

More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.

What are we to tell our nation’s children about the role of police in their lives? Do you parrot the government line that police officers are community helpers who are to be trusted and obeyed at all times? Do you caution them to steer clear of a police officer, warning them that any interactions could have disastrous consequences? Or is there some happy medium between the two that, while being neither fairy tale nor horror story, can serve as a cautionary tale for young people who will encounter police at virtually every turn?

No matter what you say, there can be no avoiding the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills and school-wide lockdowns to incidents in which children engaging in typically childlike behavior are suspended (for shooting an imaginary “arrow” at a fellow classmate), handcuffed (for being disruptive at school), arrested (for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank), and even tasered (for not obeying instructions).

For example, a middle school in Washington State went on lockdown after a student brought a toy gun to class. A Boston high school went into lockdown for four hours after a bullet was discovered in a classroom. A North Carolina elementary school locked down and called in police after a fifth grader reported seeing an unfamiliar man in the school (it turned out to be a parent).

Better safe than sorry is the rationale offered to those who worry that these drills are terrorizing and traumatizing young children. As journalist Dahlia Lithwick points out: “I don’t recall any serious national public dialogue about lockdown protocols or how they became the norm. It seems simply to have begun, modeling itself on the lockdowns that occur during prison riots, and then spread until school lockdowns and lockdown drills are as common for our children as fire drills, and as routine as duck-and-cover drills were in the 1950s.”
These drills have, indeed, become routine.

As the New York Times reports: “Most states have passed laws requiring schools to devise safety plans, and several states, including Michigan, Kentucky and North Dakota, specifically require lockdown drills. Some drills are as simple as a principal making an announcement and students sitting quietly in a darkened classroom. At other schools, police officers and school officials playact a shooting, stalking through the halls like gunmen and testing whether doors have been locked.”

Police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.
What is particularly chilling is how effective these lessons in compliance are in indoctrinating young people to accept their role in the police state, either as criminals or prison guards. If these exercises are intended to instill fear and compliance into young people, they’re working.

Sociologist Alice Goffman understands how far-reaching the impact of such “exercises” can be on young people. For six years, Goffman lived in a low-income urban neighborhood, documenting the impact such an environment—a microcosm of the police state—on its residents. Her account of neighborhood children playing cops and robbers speaks volumes about how constant exposure to pat downs, strip searches, surveillance and arrests can result in a populace that meekly allows itself to be prodded, poked and stripped.

As journalist Malcolm Gladwell writing for the New Yorker reports:
Goffman sometimes saw young children playing the age-old game of cops and robbers in the street, only the child acting the part of the robber wouldn’t even bother to run away: I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, “I’m going to lock you up! I’m going to lock you up, and you ain’t never coming home!” I once saw a six-year-old pull another child’s pants down to do a “cavity search.”

Clearly, our children are getting the message, but it’s not the message that was intended by those who fomented a revolution and wrote our founding documents. Their philosophy was that the police work for us, and “we the people” are the masters, and they are to be our servants. Now that has been turned on its head, fueled by our fears (some legitimate, some hyped along by the government and its media mouthpieces) about the terrors and terrorists that lurk among us.

It’s getting harder by the day to tell young people that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law without feeling like a teller of tall tales. Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, unless something changes and soon for the young people growing up, there will be nothing left of freedom as we have known it but a fairy tale without a happy ending.

10 13 11 flagbar

Please! Let all be aware that there is a huge war going on.


By Anna von Reitz

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 1900 articles. Please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the bottom on that page. The above link!
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Please, let all be aware, that there is a huge war going on. Please note that this is an IMPORTANT Announcement — one that everyone on Earth should read and understand. Superficially, it addresses the action of Dr. Henderson, Ad Hoc Judge of the World Court, abolishing 501 (c) 3 corporations. More explicitly, it addresses the nature of the Evil we are confronting.

Please, let all be aware, that there is a war going on.

Those involved are of two groups—- men allied with the Creator versus men allied with the Created.

This is one way to explain it— men allied with Life and the Living versus men allied with things other men created—- money and corporations.

It is a battle, quite literally, between the Living and the Dead.

Thus we have the Book of Life and the Book of the Dead….. and people will be hard-tested to prove where they stand.

We have a choice between all that is truly valuable— life, health, family, food, homes, communities—- and the illusion of corporations, money and stocks and bonds and all else that substitutes itself for what is actual.

For thousands of years, Mankind has been living in an illusion, half-asleep, unconscious, manipulated, abused.

It’s time to wake up and hear the birds sing.

This past week an attempt was made to bring a claim of abandonment against our entire nation. The rats attempted to do to our entire country what they have done against us as individuals. They have attempted to claim to the UN that we are not a sovereign nation because their own service corporation doing business as the “United States, Inc.” is bankrupted and no successor to contract has been appointed. They also mounted a claim saying that we are not a sovereign nation because we allegedly have no currency in circulation.

We had to rebut and rebuke them before the UN Security Council. That is how bad it is.

This new action by Dr. Henderson outlaws NGO’s and other forms of “non-profit corporations” and prevents them from being used to launder money and for other nefarious purposes while allowing the operators to claim that they are “non-profit corporations”, a status that has long shielded them from prosecution and accountability.

Organizations like “Planned Parenthood” and “American Bar Association” will either have to abide by the rules of the World Trust— which has very strict accountability requirements—-or function in private association capacity, in which case, they are 100% liable for their actions and enjoy no protection as a public franchise.

This automatically puts a kabosh on there being any advantage to using non-profits for institutionalized money laundering, slave trafficking, drug transport, etc., and allows means to shut down and hold accountable any organization that indulges in this sort of criminality whether it is a hospital, a mosque, a glee club, or a sewing circle.

Some people— especially bankers and politicians—- will claim that this is an attack on the churches and other religious and charitable organizations. I don’t see it that way at all. I see it as a return to true religious freedom and the accountability that goes with it.

One of the most profoundly disturbing aspects of the research and investigations we have conducted is that religious and non-profit corporations have been widely used as “storefronts” for the most vile sorts of criminality imaginable. This is no doubt partially a result of the desire of the perpetrators to hide their activities from public view. They have specifically targeted churches and charities for bases of operation, and then, when caught, have claimed protection of their assets as non-profit corporations.

Those days are at an end.

It would be good to pause a moment and review something that has long been misunderstood by American Churches, Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, etc. These organizations have established themselves as “non-profit corporations” in order to secure what they believed to be tax exempt status. In truth, they were never subject to any kind of tax to begin with. They were always naturally tax exempt as long as they remained private associations of believers.

It was the act of incorporating that made them subject to taxation in the first place and it was then claiming to be a “non-profit” that allowed them to escape taxation—-but bear in mind—-that secondary “exemption” was granted as a privilege by Congress and it could just as easily be removed by Congress.

This circumstance gave the governmental services corporations leverage over the churches and granted administrative capacities to them, all designed to coercively threaten and control these and other religious institutions. If the non-profits didn’t do what the “government” wanted, they were threatened with loss of their tax exempt status and various other punishments.

So much for religious freedom in America.

Churches and other religious institutions and non-profit organizations can now enjoy their natural tax-free status without interference or coercion. At the same time, they will be fully accountable for what they do. If they preach violence and crime and make money selling drugs and under-age porn on the side, they will be shut down. Those responsible will be prosecuted as criminals and their own assets will be forfeit along with the assets of any such institution.

Freedom of religion like all freedoms comes at a price— responsibility for our actions and their impact on the lives of others.

This marks the beginning of an effort by many nations to clean up this mess. Get out your sponges, mops, and buckets, realizing that this is just the beginning of a process of restoration on a worldwide basis. It’s not “just” America that got off-track. Virtually all the nations that were ever part of the British Empire including Britain, Scotland, Ireland, United States of America and India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, plus the nations of Western Europe, and Japan—have all been impacted by the same evils, and those have then adversely affected the entire Earth.

Our world is a physical body. When one organ is afflicted, the entire body suffers. In this case many “organs”—- many nations— have been infected with the equivalent of a disease. That disease is a very ancient system of predation and enslavement that was first organized in the Kingdom of Ancient Summer, migrated to Babylon and Persia, then to the Levant and North Africa, then following the Punic Wars it traveled from Carthage to Rome and the British Isles.

This disease known as “idolatry” is the by-product of a sea-faring religion that was spread worldwide by the Phoenicians many centuries ago. The Phoenicians were sailors and they worshiped the god of the sea the Greeks called “Poseidon”. We more commonly know this “one-eyed god” as Satan. If you recall statues and representations of Poseidon in Greek temples you will see the familiar horns, scaly tail, cloven feet on land, and trident we now (and still) associate with the Devil. This religion was known as Druidism in the British Isles and Satanism elsewhere, but it is always characterized by the same things: worship in “sacred groves”, infanticide, sex as a sacrament, dualistic “either/or” thinking patterns, the use of two “goads” to drive public opinion and control people (think of the Democratic and Republican political parties), pretending to “be” one’s enemies— called “mirroring” (think of the Federal United States pretending to be the Continental United States), sacrifices of burned flesh (think of 9/11), endless fraud schemes, and lies.

This is literally the “religion” of all pirates and criminals, and it is tied inextricably to the Sea. Thus, we are told that the “Great Serpent” was cast down into the Sea.

We must all be aware that with one exception, Natural Law, all forms of law come from religion. It should not surprise anyone, then, that Mosaic Law and Christian Canon has given rise to the Law of the Land, while Satanism and the infamous “Jewish-but-not Jewish” Talmud, is the basis of the Law of the Sea.

The Talmud is specifically the “law” of the sea-going Tribe of Dan, whose tribal banner has always prominently displayed the serpent emblem. This is the “synagogue of Satan” that Christ referred to, and anyone who has ever read the Talmud will agree that it is one of the most vile, diabolical, profane, evil, and hate-filled documents ever produced by the hand of man. Unfortunately for all of us, it continues to exercise its influence on the Law of the Sea—that is, international law including commercial law— until the current day. It’s grand temple on land is located in the separate international city-state of Westminster, known as the Inner City of London, and is known as the Crown Temple. The Bar Associations and banks are all allied with the Crown Temple and many elite bankers and lawyers secretively worship Satan, Mammon, and Semiramis, aka, the Mother of Harlots and all Abominations, Ashtoreth, Cybele, Isis, —and here in America, the Statue of Liberty. Remember that “liberty” comes from the same root word as “libertine” and is what British sailors receive when they reach a port of call—-it has nothing to do with freedom.

This infamous religion has been suppressed for many generations, but has continued on in the practices and beliefs of many so-called Secret Societies, especially in certain sects of the Freemasons and the Roman Cult within the Catholic Church. Just as the Tribe of Dan represents only one-thirteenth of the Tribes, less than ten percent of the membership of the Freemasons and Roman Catholic Church have been initiated into the profane practices of these ancient pagan belief systems— so don’t get out the pitchforks and start poking people who merely belong to a Masonic Lodge or a Catholic Church. It’s also worth noting that other churches and fraternal organizations have also been involved. I am only citing two of the main sources of mental, spiritual, and emotional miasma.

The vicious and perverted nature of this peculiar religion has made it powerful but not popular, and its practitioners have long presented it as knowledge possessed only by the “elites” and have forbidden their members to speak of it on pain of death. However, we may speak of it, because we were never initiated into their Death Cult, never took a Bar Oath, have no obligation to them, and have our knowledge of it from completely different sources. Please note that both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were Freemasons. So were many high-ranking SS officers.

All this is necessary prelude to understanding what is going on in the world and why Americans must be on their toes, watchful, and determined to leave Babylon behind. This basic knowledge about religion and law is also the foundation needed to understand that the entire concept of money is based on the idolatry practiced by this ancient, foreign, and profane religion. Money, whether stamped gold coins or printed paper credit chits— is an idol, literally a graven image, and those who chase after it are worshipers of Mammon — the god of money and all such vain illusions.

This is why it is written that you cannot serve both the True God and Mammon. You can’t honor Truth and Falsehood in the same breath. And money by definition is a falsehood— a fraud— because it presents itself as a substitute for other things that it is not: labor and commodities.

The object of money used as a substitute “representing” labor and commodities is to cheat and chisel a portion of both from the process of trading goods and services. The purveyors of “money” are manufacturers of idols, no less than Ishmael, the Idol Maker of Tabriz. Nations under the Cain-anite spell then “value” their money and compete in terms of which idol is greater, more powerful, more popular—-and therefore, perceived to be more valuable. This results in the daily betting game known as “international exchange rates”. Note the words “perceived” and “value” —- no form of money has any very great actual value attached to it, not even gold. You can be sure that if any form of money had actual value equal to its perceived value, it would quickly disappear, because those manufacturing such “money” could not possibly make a profit otherwise.

It may be disturbing for men of many faiths to realize, but we have been worshiping graven images—idols—all along, no different than it was in ancient Babylon.

The further object of the religion of Babylon was to enslave men for the enrichment of the so-called “elites”. This is what Abraham was fleeing when he left Ur. This is what Moses was leaving behind when he led his people out of Egypt. This is what Jesus was objecting to when he drove out the Moneychangers.

By fraud and deceit, the practitioners of these ancient and profane religious cults have endeavored to take over the whole world and establish a “Kingdom of the Dead” in the midst of the living. They have very nearly accomplished their ends by obtaining misrepresented commercial contracts and licenses and pretending that their victims have knowingly and willingly agreed to give up their status as living men and women and to function as dead “things”—- as corporations, estate trusts, cooperatives, foundations, even transmitting utilities, all defined as “franchises” belonging to parent trusts and corporations owned and operated by the perpetrators of these fiduciary trust fraud schemes.

The essence of the coercive identity theft that takes place while we are still babes in our cradles has been explained elsewhere. I note only that the perpetrators have gone so far as to try to pull the same fraud against the whole Continental United States and to seize our assets as “abandoned property”. This necessitated raising an objection and filing both a renewed Declaration of Joint Sovereignty and Sovereign Letters Patent. Original copies of the attached documents were filed as of Friday, November 6. Additional copies are being forwarded to additional recipients.
Please keep copies of the attached documents in safe places throughout America and post this information as widely as possible, being especially sure to inform your religious leaders. This is your proof that a claim was entered in your behalf asserting that We, the People, are alive and well, that we object to any presumption of civil death, bankruptcy, or other false claim, that we have repudiated the odious debts fabricated and charged against us and every other American, and that we have duly informed the UN Trust Committee– North America, the UN Security Council, and the Principal Contracting Powers involved.

Here are the actual documents:

10 13 11 flagbar


http://15 Why the Fed Will Crash the Economy If It Hikes Rates In Three Charts

11-25-2015 10-35-58 AM

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 28, 2015
If you’ve been scratching your head since the middle of last year as consumer confidence surveys depicted an optimistic, eager to spend consumer while other hard economic data was showing a sputtering economy, we’re here to put your mind to rest. You’re not crazy. The U.S. economy is dramatically diverging from where most consumers think it is and we have three charts to prove it.
Most Americans have never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate. Consumers judge the availability of jobs, or lack of them, by the Unemployment Rate that is fed to them in newspaper headlines and TV sound bites monthly. The Unemployment Rate has been coming down nicely and fueling positive vibes among consumers.

Unfortunately, the Labor Force Participation Rate, which measures the number of people who are either employed or actively looking for a job has been hitting historic low numbers, suggesting far more slack in the labor market than captured by the official Unemployment Rate.

On February 4, Jim Clifton, Chairman and CEO of Gallup, told a stunned interviewer at CNBC that he was concerned he might “suddenly disappear” and not make it home that evening if he disputed the reliability of what the U.S. government is reporting as unemployed workers. Clifton’s concerns are essentially based on the fact that consumer confidence and Fed jawboning on when it’s going to hike interest rates to slow down this “strong” U.S. economy before it overheats is about all the U.S. has left in its monetary arsenal.
Clifton had penned an opinion piece on the company’s web site which punctured the rosy spin on the improving jobs market. Clifton wrote:

“Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is ‘down’ to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

“None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed…Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed…

“There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

“Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.” (Read the full article here.)

What Americans don’t know about the real labor market is captured in the chart above showing a massive divergence between the growing number of Americans not in the labor force versus consumer confidence.
Then there is the divergence between consumer confidence and spending on big ticket items, i.e., durable goods, items expected to last for three or more years. A healthy consumer should be committing to buying refrigerators, washing machines, computers, etc. But check out the chart below showing the dramatic divergence between consumer confidence and durable goods orders.

11-25-2015 10-37-10 AM

Finally, there is the capacity utilization rate’s dramatic divergence from consumer confidence readings. Our capacity utilization chart below measures the percentage at which total industry in the United States is operating. A falling percentage rate means there is growing slack in the economy. If business is running at 78.4 percent of its capacity that means there is room to grow 21.6 percent before there is need to build a new plant. Clearly, a declining level of capacity utilization is nothing to cheer about for consumers who are actually paying attention.

11-25-2015 10-39-29 AM

There is anecdotal evidence that the typical consumer is heavily influenced by the media. If you look at our first chart above, you will see a stark plunge in consumer confidence in the latter part of 2011. That plunge coincides with media coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests and occupation of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan between September 17, 2011 and November 15, 2011. The protestors focused Americans’ attention on how Wall Street got “bailed out” and the rest of us got “sold out,” and the vast income and wealth inequality between the 1 percent versus the 99 percent. That kind of talk was clearly not good for consumer confidence and it was brutally eradicated in a vicious raid by police in the early morning hours of November 15. We wrote about the specifics of the brutality against both protesters and the press in this report.

The bottom line of all of this is that the typical consumer in America is tethered to snippets of information emanating from newspaper headlines and television. If you genuinely want to know what’s coming down the pike in this economy, forget the consumer confidence readings and look at the hard data.


It seems clear to me that the average American is completely blind to reality. They are completely uninterested in anything that does not make them laugh in the first sentence, or provoke an overpowering urge to experience some pleasure. In other words, they are completely self centered, and when the SHTF they are going to scream for the government to solve their problem. They cannot accept that their government is their enemy!

10 13 11 flagbar

The War On Terror is the Hoax Foundation of the Police Spy State


11-23-2015 8-51-46 AM

By Paul Craig Roberts

The “war on terror” was a hoax. Americans were deceived by policymakers, who are pursuing a hegemonic agenda. The American people were too trusting and too gullible and, consequently, Americans were easily betrayed by Washington and by the presstitute media.

The consequences of the deceit, gullibility, and betrayal are horrendous for Americans, for millions of peoples in the Middle East, Africa, Ukraine, and for Washington’s European vassals.

The consequences for Americans are an aborted Constitution, a police/spy state and rising resentment and hatred of America around the world.

The consequences for peoples in Somolia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, and Ukraine have been massive deaths and dislocations, infrastructure destruction, internal conflicts, birth defects, invasions, bombings, drones.

Millions of peoples have been murdered by Washington’s pursuit of hegemony, and millions have been turned into refugees.

The consequences for Washington’s European vassals is that the millions of refugees from Washington’s wars are now overrunning Europe, causing social and political discord and threatening the European political parties that enabled, and participated in, Washington’s massive war crimes in eight countries.

The populations of the eight countries and Washington’s vassals are stuck with the consequences of Washington’s evil, vicious, and illegal actions. And Americans are stuck with the police/spy state and militarized police who murder three Americans each day and brutalize countless others.

The countries we have destroyed have no recourse to restitution.

Our European vassals will have to provide from their own pockets for the refugees that Washington’s wars are sending to them.

As for Americans, they seem to have settled into acquiescence to the brutal police/spy state that has crowded out freedom and democracy.

But Americans could do something about it.

It is a proven fact that the police/spy state rests on a foundation of lies and deceptions, and these lies and deceptions are now known. Even George W. Bush has admitted that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

Thousands of independent experts consisting of physicists, nano-chemists, structural engineers, high-rise architects, fire fighters and first responders, and military and civilian pilots have provided the detailed explanations of September 11, 2001, that Washington failed to provide.

Today not even an idiot believes the official explanation. The corrupt neoconservative Bush regime created a false reality and sold it to a trusting population that was anxious to prove its patriotism.

The American electorate knew that the Bush/Cheney regime had deceived them about many things, and the people, believing Obama’s promises of change, put him in office to rectify the situation. Instead, Obama protected the criminal Bush/Cheney regime and continued with the neoconservatives agenda.

We don’t have to stand for this. We can turn off Fox “News,” CNN, NPR and all the rest of the presstitutes who lie for a living. We can cease purchasing the useless newspapers. We can demand that the police/spy state that was created entirely on the basis of lies and deceptions be rolled back.
Who can possibly believe that the massive PATRIOT Act was written so quickly in the aftermath of 9/11? It is not possible that every member of Congress and the staff does not know that such a massive document was sitting on the shelf waiting its opportunity.

Who can possibly believe that a handful of Saudi Arabians acting without the support of any state and any intelligence service could outwit the entire apparatus of the American National Security State and inflict a humiliating defeat on the world’s only superpower?

9/11 is the worst national security failure in world history. Who can possibly believe that not a single one of the national security officials who so totally failed in their responsibilities was held accountable for their failures that brought total humiliation to the proud United States?

Who can possibly believe that the Bush regime’s invasion and destruction of Iraq was a response to 9/11 when Bush’s Treasury Secretary publicly stated that the invasion of Iraq was the topic of the Bush regime’s first cabinet meeting long prior to 9/11?

Are the American people really such washed-up sheeple, such cowards, that they acquiesce to a police/spy state, the foundation of which consists of nothing but lies told by criminals and repeated endlessly by whores pretending to be journalists?

If so, the American people are not a people who any longer matter, and they will continue to be treated by Washington and by their local police as people who do not matter.

About the author: Paul Craig Roberts has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.


What’s the big deal here Paul, what else would you expect from a government that can change the definition of the word Citizen to Subject?
And when are you going to learn that America is a corporation totally under the control of the International Banking Cartel? Corporations are only interested in producing PROFITS not protecting A Constitution! As a matter of fact the U.S. Corporation has it’s own Constitution, and it sure as hell does not protect the People! Let’s all get on the same page Paul. It is past time for the internet Patriots to wake up to the truth, learn it, and revise their commentary to fight it with all their might. This means educate the sheep non stop until they are as outraged as we all should be. We need to get this information out to a hundred million people ASAP. Why would an entire Nation accept a Corporation for a government? There is only one way for things to change for the better, and that is for a hundred million people to read this: You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

10 13 11 flagbar

Candidates Ready to Trash Constitution to Fight ISIS: Time To Put Life Ahead of Civil Liberties?


11-21-2015 2-55-34 PM

By Mac Slavo
Never mind who poked at the hive and stirred up an angry storm. Those are lessons of blowback for those with memory and perspective.

Right now the reactionary fervor is all that matters. Indeed, it is difficult to focus on much else.
In hindsight, the nation became sick and tired of the wars and the fear over terrorism under the reign of Bush 43. But in the moment, people embraced it – and that’s the danger again.
There is no clear or rational thought under fear of attack.

Under the auspices of retribution for 9/11, George W. Bush and his neo-con advisors launched a roaming War on Terror that brought conflict to entire regions, and didn’t blink at bending the rules or trampling on constitutional rights. Spying, surveillance, intimidation, snitching, data-basing, airport pat-downs, stop and frisk on the streets and more were all tolerated and even embraced. It was rule by fear.
The narrative didn’t add up, but that didn’t matter until later for most. People began to regret the powers granted via the PATRIOT Act to the NSA and to the executive branch to indefinitely detain anyone they declared an enemy combatant. The slide down the slippery slope was accelerating at a queasy pace.

Today, new threats from ISIS are dragging the United States dangerously close to this point again.
The one-man show that is Donald Trump, who quickly made a mockery of the GOP primary, is calling for databases and surveillance of all Muslim immigrants. Other GOP candidates are making similar proposals, eager to look toughest on this unfortunate issue. RT reports:

Donald Trump, running high in polls, proposes cataloging all Muslims living in the United States to ensure they are under constant surveillance.

“I would certainly implement that [keeping a register of Muslims]…absolutely,” Trump told NBC, adding that there are “a lot of systems, beyond databases” that could be implemented. “We should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it,” Trump said, clearly with nod in the direction of the National Security Agency (NSA) and its unprecedented surveillance capabilities.

And though the policies of opening the doors to these “refugees” is deeply flawed – and indeed invites attack from jihadists or foreign enemies – the destruction of civil rights for this group will soon harm those of every American.

It seems that someone, from one party or another, is eager to finish what Bush started, and Obama has quietly continued.

Hillary Clinton is now the only real nominee for the Democratic nomination; she has already sounded off on her plans for tougher policies and new strikes on ISIS and other targets overseas.
Now, one of her top donors, billionaire Haim Saban, has gone on the offensive, literally calling to curb civil liberties in order to meet the perceived threat of attack from ISIS. Mind you, this time, the country hasn’t even been attacked yet:

Billionaire entertainment mogul and major party donor Haim Saban, who donated a seven-digit sum to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, telling news website The Wrap it is high time to reconsider values and put life ahead of civil liberties.
Saban referred to those members of the Hollywood community who are fervently liberal and appear to value civil freedoms more than they value life.
“I disagree with that [liberal view]. You want to be free and dead? I’d rather be not free and alive,” Saban said, adding that at ‘a time of war’, interviewing Muslim refugees and migrants in a more intense way than Christians is acceptable, as well as “listening in on anyone and everybody who looks suspicious.”
If war-hawks are pouring millions (and billions) into the Clinton campaign, you can imagine that they probably want a return for their money. None of this bodes well for the next four years … or any foreseeable time afterwards.

If the ‘terrorists hated us for our freedoms’ then, they should have little reason to target us now…
It is no exaggeration to say that the response by the U.S. government to the acts of terrorism, including those on September 11, have done far more destruction to its system of freedom and prosperity than bin Laden, 19 hijackers with box cutters, or drama queens from ISIS ever could.
Brandon Smith of Alt-Market has a great perspective on this – the bait and switch to convince Americans to sell their own birthright and volunteer for their own servitude.

Today, the people of the U.S. are less prosperous in real wealth, in income and in opportunities than at any other time in history. Nearly half of the country is directly dependent on the federal government benefits for day-to-day survival, and the disaster of foreign policy continues to eviscerate the Constitution and bring decline to the American empire – all while the population lives in fear and abject terror of what may come tomorrow.
A new darkness could be closing in.

No jobs, no independence, no freedom, no future – but if the government doesn’t get more power … well, conventional wisdom says it would be better to be enslaved than dead. Others know the wisdom and the strength of Liberty or death.


There is no way in hell that I will live under total tyranny!

Give me liberty or give me death is not just some fancy words from history!

10 13 11 flagbar