THE HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE BAR AND CANNABIS

THE TEMPLE BAR AND CANNABIS - AN AMERICAN HISTORY PUBLISHED BY 710PEASANT PUBLISHING JUNE 2018

https://issuu.com/710peasantspublishing

The History of American Cannabis and The Temple Bar How America Remained a Lower British Colony and The Story of the Titles and Nobility Clause of 1810 The 13th Amendment is understood by most Americans to be associated with Abraham Lincoln and the subject of slavery. This unfortunately is revisionist history and the truth of the matter is that the 13th Amendment preceded Lincoln by quite a few years and was likely printed on hemp-based paper as it was sent out across the frontier landscape for the use by burgeoning state governments to inform them of the newly ratified article of the constitution.

The 13th Amendment has a uniquely shrouded history and although it is not taught at all in American public school educations, the history of our country is extremely important to understand accurately, thus we repeat it ignorantly.

Many Americans have never heard of the original 13th Amendment and even further, many cannabis advocates have never heard of this history, even though it is directly complicit to our current status as a nation and as a society. Our history within the 1800’s is coming back to have massive effects on us in 2018 and cannabis is right in the center of it all.

The storyline of the original 13th Amendment starts in 1810 in the State of Maryland.

The Port of Baltimore was extremely powerful and merchants from many countries took part in the lucrative tobacco trade that made Maryland famous. Much fanfare had made American news reels about the recent marriage of an American debutant to a French Nobleman who is a prominent member of the European Oligarchy and younger brother to Napoleon.

Americans, having been beaten and battered with news of the Napoleonic wars that bankrupted the Bank of England, did not like the sound of a prominent American family marrying into a Napoleonic bloodline. The result was a wave of anti-European sentiment

and a push to codify into law, a prohibition against anyone holding a title of nobility from having US citizenship, and thus being barred from US Government Positions.

The bill was popular from NY down into the South and gained passage at the state level within a short period of time in 1810. Maryland was the 1st of 13 states compelled to ratify the 13th amendment into their constitution and did so on Christmas 1810.

Kentucky was the second to ratify and did so on January 31st 1811, followed by Ohio, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina by the end of 1811 and Massachusetts ratified in Feb, 1812.

What is this amendment and how was it worded? It was referred to as the TONA - for Titles Of Nobility Amendment and had to do with disallowing barristers and title holding noblemen from functioning as US citizens within US Government positions. It enacted a barring of European nobility from being a part of the American Governmental apparatus.

Here is how the Amendment read when Maryland ratified it: The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States “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.”

[Journal of the Senate]

It is critically important to understand how this legislation would have been understood in the 1800’s so that you do not become confused with the idea that we were trying to keep kings and queens from being a part of the American government - nothing is further from the truth.

This amendment had to do with lawyers - otherwise known as BARRISTERS in the parlance of the American colonial landscape. BARRISTERS are agents of the BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY which functions at the behest of the Crown of England which is a wholly owned subsidiary to the Vatican Church and the Holy See of Vatican City.

Barrister is synonymous with lawyer. The American nomenclature is esquire or lawyer.

BAR is the acronym for the British Accredited Registry, and the registry is a subsidiary of the Temple Bar which houses numerous machinations of the Vatican Empire and has infrastructure all over the world.

Barristers functioned on behalf of the crown and the American colonialists had every intention to disbar these agents from important roles within American Government by disbarring them from citizenship.

This also implicated anyone who was knighted by any crown across the globe, or given any other title of nobility or given a symbol of association with a oligarchy. This included a great deal of businessman, clergy, and merchants who already existed within the American landscape and wanted to have influence on their local state governments. This was a major problem for several States in the Union as they were made up of European merchant systems that were heavily associated with foreign ports, and thus foreign monarchies and held numerous titles from foreign entities. Virginia , New York, and South Carolina are examples where the TONA did not get quickly ratified and trading and banking allegiances to foreign entities that should be assumed as having a “holding effect” on ratification. South Carolina, Virginia, New York, Louisiana likely had the highest volume of BAR Agents and law offices of anywhere in the western continent and so this should be assumed as a contributing factor as to why they did not ratify TONA quickly and succinctly like the other states.

This likely also included any military officers who have taken to becoming members in fraternal orders, chivalrous orders, and military officer fraternities that overlap with oligarchic armies, navies, and clandestine communities. Remember who had already been made Executive Officer of the new Federal Government and ran 13k bayonets out to Pennsylvania to stamp out the second American Revolution - the decorated George Washington - the founder of the officer’s fraternity - “Cincinnati” that housed officers from FRANCE, BRITAIN, and other OLIGARCHIES.

The Importance of Timeline Chronology of events is integral to understanding what exactly happened to the original 13th Amendment as the research that has been made public by independent researchers includes many facts pertaining to the evolution of majority ratification but also leaves out necessary commentary by the major American thinkers of the era, regarding their opinions of a new Federal Amendment to keep individuals with nobility from citizenship, and thus roles within the newly formed Federal Government, as well as State Governments.

When studying closely the sequence of events among the many states in regards to the new amendment, it is integral to study the popular collective patterns of the times in their local environment. Newspapers and pamphlets were the major communication conduit of the colonial American landscape and so it is incredibly useful to read the commentary and publications within the context of what was happening in the state of New York for instance, and then contrast it with the same in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, to create a mapping of the popular sentiments of the time, showing that sentiment was not universal among states and that publications many times had a very impactful affect on the popular appeal of a national debate or subject, and consequently, local merchants/barons have sway over what is published in the local circulars.

Maryland and Virginia are extremely close to each other geographically, but likely had a contrasting popular consideration towards the major topics of the day in the early 1800’s. The TONA Amendment originated in Maryland, just like the news of the American debutant marrying into a royal family originated in Maryland - yet the storyline of the 13th Amendment looks as though it gets increasingly murky as Virginia becomes mired in administrative change, which seems to prolong its timeline in ratification of the Amendment. This would be of little concern - except for the fact that Virginia is the original British commonwealth colony and likely has one of the most saturated environments of loyalist gentry landowners of any state in the newly formed Union.

The significance of Virginia’s history as a British colony cannot be overlooked when studying the history of the 13th Amendment’s evolution as a ratified constitutional amendment. The state itself cannot be detached from it’s ports, of which are run by merchants and barons, and not the local governments. Virginia likely had a tremendous diversity of merchant-class participants that worked tirelessly to infringe upon Virginian politics, for their limited goals.

The reason for being sure to implicate Virginia’s history as a British colony is that the inertia that this new amendment was amassing at the federal level was completely derailed by the war of 1812. If you remember correctly, Hessian mercenaries were sent to American shores to burn our capitol buildings and bring our government to the ground.

Virginia was waiting on their ratification of the Amendment, other states were on the verge of being added to the Union, making it a likely that a majority ratification would occur as Georgia, Indiana came on board as states. The ugly reality is, these new states were never offered a position from which to ratify the Amendment and help with a majority count within the union. This is due to the nature of how bills were kept to the states that were in existence when a bill is introduced. The new states were irrelevant and were happy to print the new amendment without a chance at voting their say in its ratification.

The Treaty of Ghent wasn’t signed until Christmas Eve of 1814, 3.5 years of space between when the TONA AMENDMENT was introduced and when the British and Americans signed a peace treaty in Europe. This is a tremendous amount of time! This is a long period of war that likely has commentary published in newspapers and pamphlets throughout the colonial landscape and a portion of that commentary should have to do with the ratification of the titles and nobility clause at the federal level. Andrew Jackson fought off the British at the Battle at New Orleans AFTER the war of 1812 had ended and the treaty had been signed.

This has to be considered when you assess what concessions were given to America within the Treaty - virtually none. Also to be considered is that the British attacked New Orleans after they had signed a peace treaty - they showed they had big plans for a major sea port but lost the battle and due to slow communication across the Atlantic, news of the treaty came after Jackson had fended off the British attack.

Why Did It Take So Many Years For The TONA Clause To Be Ratified?

What would be the factors that influence a state legislature to vote for or against the TONA? There were many, but it is important to realize that the many colonies were centered around their sea-port(s) and harbors for the vast majority of their economy and so the many Merchant Houses welded tremendous influence over the political apparatus

of the state’s governemnt. The merchant houses were made up of “Old Money” that came from Europe and in many cases held vast fortunes all around the world within different empires within their port cities, and within their inner merchant cirlces, could weld tremendous clandestine power. The world’s economy ran on “shipping” and so merchants had an extrememly central position to the arguement of “Federalism” vs “States Rights” and even of “Port Rights” and “Shipping Rights”. It appears, that New York, Connecticut, South Carolina all had powerful shipping ports with hugely influential Merchant Houses, and European Families that likely held titles of nobility of their own from the royal houses from which they originated before ending up in America. This may have been the political influence that kept their state legislatures from passing TONA and creating a factor of alienation for these hugely powerful and rich families.

One obvious pattern that you notice when researching the ratification of this clause, is that it takes an infinite amount of time for the clause to be offered to new states for ratification. Numerous territories became states, but were never given an opportunity to ratify the TONA Clause. This is repeated over and over in the years following the Treaty of Ghent. This leads one to believe that there was no confusion on the behalf of the legislative branch of the Federal Government as to whether new states should be offered a ratifying vote - they weren’t.

December 1818, US congress ordered the publication of a “Pocket Constitution” that includes the TONA Clause as the 13th Amendment.

This is AFTER, during the year of 1818, the states of SOUTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, and CONNECTICUT communicated that they HAD NOT ratified the amendment in their congress. This is after Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois are added to the UNION as states, but ARE NOT CONSULTED within the process of ratification.

Be sure to get this straight in your memory because it is confusing. The President of the United States ordered the printing of the full ledger of federal laws in December of 1818 that included the TONA.

Another anomaly is the communication between President James Monroe and his secretary of state John Quincy Adams with regards to his “follow-up with Charles Buck of the Virginia House of Delegates”. It seems that a retrospective look at Virginia shows that they did not have official passage of the TONA clause and never made the 13th state required to ratify it to the US Constitution.

March 12th, 1819 is the official date of ratification in Virginia of the 13th Amendment and just happens to be the same date that the Virginia commonwealth printer ordered copies of the new revised constitution for all branches of the Virginia government. This new order of constitutions included the new amendment.

In February of 1820, the Virginia General Assembly passed an act requiring the Governor to deliver all the various editions of the Virginia state law to the US State Dept. This gave the federal government an official notice that the Virginia General Assembly had passed the TONA, leaving no confusion beyond this date. Publications in local newspapers advertised the printing of the new Code of the Virginia Commonwealth.

By 1822, numerous states, who had originally refused to ratify the TONA had published that it has been ratified to the Constitution. This was done by Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island. Later, in 1825, Missouri, Maine, Louisiana, Territory of Florida all publish the revised constitution with the TONA included.

By 1826, on July 4th, when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died, so many states had published the TONA version of the US Constitution that finding a new version was not that difficult. The year before, 1825, the state of Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment included for use in its school system.

How History of the 13th Amendment is Related to Cannabis Legalization Today In America

It is important to understand that lawyers hold a special patronage to a foreign nongovernmental organization (NGO) called the “British Accredited Registry”. This is a subsidiary of the “Temple Bar” which is managed by the Vatican and Swiss prefectures of Europe in conjunction with the City of London. There is no American version of the British Accredited Registry and this is why lawyers must submit to the “BAR” for the domain of practicing law within a certain geography. This is called exclusivity. BAR Agents have exclusive rights to practice law. Laws are used to create social contracts between people in the form of a government. These laws are construed within the

Constitution and are not a part of the lower “criminal code” that is construed as the “law of the land”. Only the constitution is the law of the land.

In 1810, it was extremely common for average Americans to have knowing distrust of foreign agents in the form of Barristers, Marquess, Earls, Countesses, Viscounts, Barons due to the huge amounts of wealth and influence that Oligarchs carry beyond their kingdoms. It was not common for someone to be loyal to the crown while being supportive of new representative forms of government - especially those who operate with private land ownership and taxation only through representation. Oligarchs hated democratic republicanism and saw it as a threat to their sovereignty.

As news reached American mainstream consciousness about the marriage between Betsy Patterson, daughter of the most successful merchant in Baltimore, and the youngest brother of Napoleon, Jerome Bonaparte, many Americans voiced concerns over the American fragility to Monarchies in Europe.

From Maryland, came the original version of the TONA from a Senator named Phillip Reed. No surprise since this was the heart of the drama centered around the French aristocracy and likely a major merchant shipping center that saw American merchant ships from their harbors impressed and overhauled by the British Navy while trying to move vital goods from American ports for gold in Europe, to trade for hemp in St. Petersburg for bringing back to America. Hemp was the lifeblood of a burgeoning economy and a growing military power. The British had a monopoly on Hemp and Pig Iron from the Russian aristocracy and this was what Napoleon was trying to extinguish in order to degrade the British Empire’s ability to wage war, or continue shipping goods around the world.

What is important to consider is that large quantities of cannabis are required to wage war in any effective manner. Moreover, to have a powerful Navy, even in peacetime, you need tremendous amounts of timber and cannabis to build ships and establish rigging and sails for the masts of these wind-driven ships.

America had a considerable foundation of hemp being cultivated across the many colonies on the eastern seaboard but did not compare in production to the older areas of

cultivation found in the British West Indies, in South America, and across eastern Europe near the Baltic sea now known as Estonia and Latvia. These “Prussian Ports” supplied 90% of the global hemp goods for navies around the world and had a strategic interest for every single navy in the world to maintain access to this vast source of finished hemp goods.

This meant that our ability to wage war was limited to our ability to contract in processed hemp with the Russians to subsidize the vast shortage of our domestic production of Navy-Quality hempen goods. America needed a “hemp ally” that was not Spain/England/ France. This was found in Russia and although America attempted to remain neutral in the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon strategically blocked the British from Russian hemp, and so the British impressed American merchant clippers for the purposes of circumventing Napoleon’s Treaty with the Czar. The Czar was asked to stop trading with American clipper merchants and refused and so Napoleon destroyed himself and the French Legions by attempting to march on Moscow to teach the Czar not to shirk a treaty with a The French Empire.

The western states were heavily indoctrinated regarding impressed American sailors and the horrible atrocities that the British committed against our merchants when they found them on the open seas. When voting for war with Britain, no maritime states voted in favor of war, whereas almost all western states voted in favor. Americans on the frontier did not want to see any American merchants paying the British Crown Navy for ransoms on merchant sailors. They also didn’t want to hear about American merchants being blackmailed by British Navy frigates after being captured, to run hemp transits for the British Crown between St Petersburg, and Britain.

The seriousness of declaring war, by America, was most succinctly felt by the merchants houses in the American port cities and their shipping boats, sailors - as they sat in foreign ports, all throughout the Baltic, and European Seaboard without any knowledge that the British Navy would be enacting an immediate blockade on Baltic Ports. There is a heroic story of a crew of sailors that made it to Sweden before the diplomatic attaches were able to inform the British that we had declared war - they likely saved many thousands of lives and millions in American property.

A critical point to remember, is that the British Crown had deep resources of bullion from their former alliances and colonial extortions and had endless amounts of gold to offer to American Clipper merchants. The British would literally commandeer their vessel, force them into British Port, overhaul them (remove its cargo) and offer them gold to

sail to Russia to return with hemp cargo, where they will be offered more gold, as well as anything they can cargo for themselves from the ports in between. This in effect offers to pay the American shipping captains a “double dip” where they get paid twice for making a single run for the British. This obviously was an extremely difficult choice to make for many American clippers and many chose to take the money - as they were smart enough to know it was more of a blackmail than a bribe.

The War of 1812 was fought over cannabis trading rights and the British Crown’s continued aggressive behavior towards American clippers who trade with France, trade with Russia, and have friendly relationships with Spain and the southern American ports.

In essense, the war was declared and faught over Titles and Nobility at home, while ironically about having direct and unfettered or unbuffered, or un-ebargoed, or unscreened freedom to contract with Russia’s Oligarchy for it’s vast hemp and iron reserves, and be given free-access to foreign ports to trade for what is later taken to Russia to trade for hemp byproducts of the highest grade.

Simply put, we had the temarity to fight for what we believe in at home, while fighting for the right to associate and enterprise freely abroad - with hemp being the pinnacle of importance for a newly minted Navy and Government.

The Three-Pronged Animal of 1800 is the Three- Pronged Animal of Today

America was wrestling with a 3-pronged animal in the early 1800’s and this is entirely relatable to today’s cannabis ecosystem in America.

1810 Direct Confrontation with “Sub-Contractors” of the Crown Navy

On the Atlantic trade routes, Americans were battling with aggressive British Naval (and technically French Naval) assets who are paid in gold to “overhaul” anyone who is flying a banner that is not the Union Jack across the Atlantic. This included Barbary

Pirates as the British Crown has many flavors of “sub-contractors” that it can cull from any number of places where merchant protection is just as needed as contracted piracy.

The merchant marines were created because Americans were getting pirated by British and French subcontractors from the northern ports of Africa. These pirates were the “Al-Qaida” force the Oligarchy contracted to subvert any trading being done by anyone without proper documentation from the British Crown.

Subversion of the Constitution and Common-Law by Bar Agents

On the mainland, Americans were wrestling with the Temple Bar and the means to which the British Accredited Registry acts like a Non-Governmental Fraternity of members who take on titles of barristers and lawyers in their foreign lands and act in the favor of the crown through subversive means of LEGIS-lation - or the use of words to rule.

Currency Enslavement by Central Banking Families

In the less physical word, Americans were battling the Crown for control over the lifeblood of their nation, the currency system, and the system of capital that preserves the common fecundity of our society. The Bank of England, and the Temple Bar are essentially one in the same entity and America had a huge task in attempting to build a new nation when so many “men of law” and “men of trade” were secretly fraternizing under the banner of the British Accredited Registry.

2018 Direct Confrontation With Crown Navy in Form of DEA and Activist Judicial System Feeding the Private Prison Industry With Victimless Offenders, and Seizing Property for Full

Forfeit to The Crown

Today, this same battle is being fought by Americans as we attempt to shake off the 20th century Supra-National drug laws that came to be known as the “War on Drugs” that saw to the transition of United Nations drug policy being adopted on American soil and the transition of the League of Nations into the United Nations, a Supra-National body that usurps the U.S. Constitution. These Supra-National bodies are nothing more than present-day extensions of the oligarchies of the 1800’s. It is only our ignorance that allows us to disrespect our national sovereignty today, when we understand history accurately.

Politicization of Cannabis - Using Legalization as an Obstructionist Tool

Today, this same battle is being fought by the “inland states” as Lawyers cozy up to Politicians to enact “Legalization of Marijuana”. Marijuana of course being the fabrication of the League of Nations for the explicit fractionation of the burgeoning United States multi-racial culture. These same fraternal BAR AGENTS are working closely with lobbyists to enact “Legalization of HEMP and MARIJUANA” - both of which are legal delineations of Cannabis - not horticultural, nor etymological. These same lawyers that inhabited the colonial American landscape, and traveled around creating “legal contexts” for slavery, for moving first nations people from their lands, are now creating “LEGISlation” that legalizes a political fabrication their predecessors created. Marijuana is what is called an “ethnophaulism” and has been demonized with its association to THC - the scientifically known compound that causes entheogenic experiences in mammals by binding to their CB1 receptors in their brains and central brain stems.

Currency Control and Baronism Today, the same battle is being fought by the whole of the American populace, for control over our life-blood, our circulatory system - our currency. In the early 20th century, European bankers centralized the American currency system and created a fiat currency known as the Federal Reserve Note and put every single American born under this system into monetary bondage. Our banking system was hijacked for the express profit of a small group of families who are considered “Barons” - the same title of nobility that was of major contempt in the American 1800’s. This system of fiat currency and quantative easing and fractional reserve lending has made us into the most frightening

empire the human species has ever created. We have weapons of mass propaganda that our government uses on the populace to sway popular sentiment - people can’t look away and can’t see their victimhood as they continue to consume media on TV, in Magazines, Newspapers, and on the Internet and in Social Networking. These bankers have weaponized nearly ever facet of our society, from food, to entertainment, to education, and has made us into a consumer society that is programmed to be apathetic enough to fund perpetual war while going to ball games and buying extra dessert goods for our pagan holidays.

END OF PART ONE Part II - COMING EARLY FALL 2018 The war of 1812 was not in fact won by the United States and Resulted in a Highly Charged Period Leading up to the Civil War. Port Merchants, Peerage and Court Factors, Lawyers and Railroads CIVIL WAR - RECONSTRUCTION - CARPETBAGGING

PARALLEL Legalized States, Lawyers and Cannabis Intellectual Property, Industry Membership Associations

APPENDIX WHAT IS THE TEMPLE BAR? THE COURT According to the 1893 Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, and general literature / The R. S. Peale 9th Encyclopedia Britannica, the word legal means “the undoing of God’s law.” “ The Court is the synagogue. The Temple of Baal, enforcing Babylonian Talmudic Law. The gate (or bar) is the veil. {one enters to give sacrifice} The bench is the alter. The Black Robed Devil (the judge, administrative magistrate) is the high priest. {vicarius dei} The Attorney [from Latin, attorn = to twist or turn] is the mediator. {vicarius filii dei} The attorney’s job is to move one into Roman ‘Civil Law’ Jurisdiction and then quickly into Code and Rule Pleadings (Babylonian Law); remember he is a devil, too.

Common Law is moot, since these are not Article Three courts. The bailiffs, clerks, and stenographers are the high priest servants. [They are there to accept and make record of the sacrifice.] If one enters the veil, one is there (and is expected) to give sacrifices. The fine is the wave offering; given to escape the threat of punishment. The court cost is the heave (tribute or gift) offering.” Sir David Andrew-

LAWYERS Devil:verb : gerund or present participle: deviling 1. act as a junior assistant for a lawyer or other professional.

2. North American, harass or worry (someone).

Origin: Old English deofol (related to Dutch duivel and German Teufel), via late Latin from Greek diabolos ‘accuser, slanderer’ (used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew śatan ‘Satan’), from diaballein ‘to slander,’ from dia ‘across’ + ballein ‘to throw.’ devilling: in England, the arrangement whereby one barrister assists another. In Scotland, it has a specialised sense referring to the period of compulsory training with another advocate before call. Collins dictionary of law. W. J. Stewart. 2001.

Look at other dictionaries: devilling, 1. Working as a devil or hack: see devil n. 5 b, c; devil v. 3. Besant & Rice Seamy Side xiv. 114 The young barrister was engaged in some devilling … Useful english dictionary devilling — is the period of training, pupillage or junior work undertaken by a person wishing to become an advocate in one of the legal systems of the United Kingdom or Ireland. Contents 1 Scotland 2 Ireland 3 England and Wales 4 … Wikipedia devilling — 1. To make like a devil; to invest with the character of a devil. [1913 Webster] 2. To grill with Cayenne pepper; to season highly in cooking, as … The Collaborative International Dictionary of English devilling — noun The pupillage of a prospective advocate or barrister … Wiktionary devilling — evil spirit, demon v. harass, tease … English contemporary dictionary devilling — A term used in London of a barrister recently admitted to the bar, who assists a junior barrister in his professional work, without appearing in any way in the matter …

Black’s law dictionary

Advocate — professional in the field of law. Different countries’ legal systems use the term with somewhat differing meanings. The broad equivalent in many English lawbased jurisdictions could be a barrister or a solicitor. However, in Scottish, South African, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Scandinavian, Polish, South Asian and South American jurisdictions, advocate indicates a lawyer of superior classification such as advocate barrister type= profession activity sector= law competencies= advocacy and interpersonal skills, analytical… … Wikipedia devil — n. & v. n. 1 (usu. the Devil) (in Christian and Jewish belief) the supreme spirit of evil; Satan. 2 a an evil spirit; a demon; a superhuman malignant being. b a personified evil force or attribute. 3 a a wicked or cruel person. b a mischievously… … Useful english dictionary IMPORTANT NOTE: One of the MAIN books that all those in law school HAVE TO study is called “The Devil’s Handbook”. Numerous questions within the “Bar Exam” are based on the information in this book.

THE COURT FACTORS OF THE TEMPLE BAR CONSORTIUM The “Temple Bar” is the inter-agency network that makes up the financial and legal complexion of the larger consortium of Bankers, Barons, Oligarchs, and Pontiffs, Cardinals, and other high ranking members of the clandestine community that is largely refered to in 2018 as the “Deep State”. Much of history, much of our world commodity markets, and much of our global property is given to a strangle-hold by the inter-bred, and inter-married families of the vast remnants of the Roman and Pharonic Empires of Egypt and Europe that have preserved the Temple System from Babylonian Times.

In traditional terms, a royal monarch would hold a “court” with a number of “factors” who were members of this court. This is a mirror image of how a President and his cabinet works. The difference between a cabinet and a court is the significant difference of whether the members of the assembly are “approved” by representatives of the people or are simply appointed by the monarch. “Court Factors” held tremendous influence and could amass tremendous wealth and prestige for their families. All Royal Houses had their own internel system of peerage and nobility and so becoming inter-married and inter-bred was of the highest consideration for any family seeking to anchor it’s capicity to weld long-term influence within a Kingdom.

With time, families of “Court Factors” branched out across the globe and become vastly inter-married with existing nobility and many times even the Royal Family itself. Many Court Factor Families were deposed, put to death when upheavel occured within the Kingdom and “Royal Assets” were sacked by commoners. Many Court Factor Families were well known for their capacity to manage financial planning, infrastructure planning, transportation of goods, gathering of information, and employing religious doctrine on the masses.

One of the most well known Court Factor Families is “House of Rothschild”. The original Rothschild was a low-ranking Court Factor in Europe and rose to power through being especially useful to Monarchs for the use of clandestinely financing wars on both sides to create subterfuge for the greater purpose of the Monarch. Rothschild also became the keeper of the Vatican Gold through their relationship to the Jesuit Order of the Swiss Alps. During the shake-up of Europe, the Vatican found itself in need of loans and the “Court Factor Families” gave bids for being chosen to offer financial reprieve to the Holy See. The resulting relationship gave rise to the 19th centurty phenomenon of Zionist Communism and the British Empires resulting creation of the state of Israel. 2018 has shown the world that Jerusalem is a very important geographical landpoint to the TEMPLE BAR and that there is a clandestine community of men working to bring about the re-creation of the TEMPLE of SOLOMON on the SITE OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT.

-=-The First Temple, built by King Solomon 3,000 years ago, stood on this site, and the Third Temple must be erected in the same place.

Unfortunately, the area is already occupied – by an Islamic shrine known as the Dome of the Rock, the shimmering gold roof that dominates the Jerusalem skyline, and the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest place in the world for Muslims. -=-

APPENDIX II First 13th Article of Amendment RATIFICATION FOUND

Ref: http://voluntarysociety.org 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 seventeen 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 . . . . . . Vermont, - - - - - Oct. 24, 1811 Kentucky, - - - Jan. 31, 1811 . . . . . . Tennessee, - - - - Nov. 21, 1811 Ohio, - - - - - Jan. 31, 1811 . . . . . . Georgia, - - - - - Dec. 13, 1811 Delaware, - - - Feb. 2, 1811 . . . . . . North Carolina, - -Dec. 23, 1811 Pennsylvania, - Feb. 6, 1811 . . . . . . Massachusetts, - - Feb. 27, 1812 New Jersey, - - Feb. 13, 1811 . . . . . . 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. The fact that American Troops were sent from Washington D. C., followed by a British invasion therein, which burned the Secretary of State’s building to the ground is suspicious.

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 Secretary of State John Quincy Adams (Esquire) 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. Eleven years later these letters would later are used in the absence of contradicting information to nullify the 13th Amendment.

On February 28, 1918, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment by Virginia in the Journals of Congress.

Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State John Quincy 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 Adam’s letter.

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 instruction on what was to be included in the republication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the the day that the Act to republish the Civil Code. Therefore, the Virginia ratification of the 13th Amendment would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code, which was March 12, 1819.

The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States to ratify the 13th Amendment.

They also knew there were powerful forces allied against ratification, so they took extraordinary measures to insure 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 James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, as well as a copy to President James Monroe. (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.)

Virginia announced its ratification of the 13th Amendment by publishing it as the law of the land in the Virginia Civil Code. There is only the question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that it 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 the Fifth Article of the Constitution only prescribeswho shall propose an amendment and how and by whom

it must be ratified, not to whom it must be reported. One would expect that a report sent to (technically served upon) the President of the United States would be more than adequate notification of ratification process. ...

Knowing they were the last State necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians ware correct to announce their own and the nation’s ratification of the Amendment by publishing it in a special edition of the Constitution.

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 of Amendment 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. ...

In addition to the above information from Dodge, new information has been discovered.

More information has been received from a researcher in Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of statutes that include the Constitution and the missing, but now found, 13th Amendment.

These editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the states that voted against ratifying the 13th Amendment), in 1835; Kansas, in 1861; and the Colorado Territory, in 1865 and 1867.

These finds are important because: (1) they offer independent confirmation of Dodge’s claims; and (2) 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 our 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.”

REFERENCE: http://voluntarysociety.org

The Missing 13th Amendment 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 enormous.

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.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 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 principal source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world.

The monarchies must have realized that if the principal 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 ongoing 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.)

PAPER MONEY 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.”

CONSPIRACIES 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 uncatalogued rare manuscripts.” There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment.

TITLES OF NOBILITY 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).

INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 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 principal 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.

HONOR 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.

PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND 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.

THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS 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”.

SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL 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 twotiered 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”?

MORE EDITIONS FOUND 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.

ARGUMENTS 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.

YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A RATIFICATION 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 threefourths 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).

INSULT TO INJURY 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.

QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES! 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 Kentucky1822 Louisiana1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications] Maine1825, 1831 Massachusetts1823 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 Virginia1819 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.

ADDITIONAL PUBLICATIONS: “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: Note] “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

THE

END Part II - COMING EARLY FALL 2018 The war of 1812 was not in fact won by the United States and Resulted in a Highly Charged Period Leading up to the Civil War. Port Merchants, Peerage and Court Factors, Lawyers and Railroads CIVIL WAR - RECONSTRUCTION CARPETBAGGING PARALLEL Legalized States, Lawyers and Cannabis Intellectual Property, Industry Membership Associations