- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search



Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

Re-post, Oct. 6, 2016




Oh my, yes you do! However, since you ones fail to know anything about your Constitution--I get to lay another heavy trip on you. How many Amendments do you have? Do you know that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A LAWYER TO BE ELECTED TO CONGRESS? WHAT DOES YOUR THIRTEENTH AMEND­MENT SAY? Well, NOW it reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction...etc".




"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". (Emphasis added)


Thank you, David Dodge, Researcher and Alfred Adask, Editor, AntiShyster, August, 1991:


These ones also give you a special version of the pledge of alle­giance you might consider--for it says what the original MEANT and ceased to be accepted: I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republicthat honors that Con­stitution, one nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.






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 [?--I think not!], 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. The evidence is cor­rect and no errors are found--a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and REMOVED from your Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War--deliberately!


Since the Amendment was never LAWFULLY REPEALED, IT IS STILL THE LAW TODAY! Wouldn't you now guess that 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 your own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Lets look first at the "meaning".




The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as above cited.


At first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems a bit obscure, unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead you to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolu­tion act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in your modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist senti­ments seem so archaic and quaint that the Amendment can be ig­nored. NOT SO!


Consider some real hard 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, Sect. 9 of the Con­stitution of the United States (1788); Second, although already pro­hibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amend­ment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and was finally ratified in 1819. Clearly the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them wouldFORFEIT THEIR CITIZENSHIP. (How about Sir Schwarzkopf? and Sir Dr. Kissinger?) 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 your founding fathers than is readily ap­parent to you today.




To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, you must understand its historical context--the era surrounding the American Revolution (which of course, you are not taught).


You 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. [So, the obvious solution was to turn Democracy and Communism into a method of creating what they wanted in the first place, a Monarchy-Dictatorship, while call­ing it nice labels]. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia [financed by you nice people's bankers just as the so-called Soviet Revolution this week is sponsored and financed by the same nice people in your behalf] 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--or so it was interpreted.


Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of your 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 you stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political "typhoid Mary", the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world.


The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved.


Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy you 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.




The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England. I have given this before but it is such a dandy, I shall repeat it: "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 and all great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in.... But, 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".


One of the past great abuses of your banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's abuses are causing another and more massive depression than the world has ever known. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, LAWYERS, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI and BNL scandals running from high government officers to the Presidency itself involved in totally criminal activities) such as 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 these bailouts?) As Oberli and Dharma track further and deeper into in­volved parties attached to this present property scam/scandal--they are finding other financial institutions involved and, as named in the investigation, find Salomon Brothers and other financial institutions who are kaput and haven't even been made public--no wonder the FDIC and RTC are asking additional BILLIONS.


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. (Remember the Proto­cols of Zion? Try the issue of Oct. 1920: No. 13: "We have already established our own men in all important positions. We must en­deavor to provide the Goyim (non-Jews and including Judeans/Hebrews) with LAWYERS and doctors; the LAWYERS are au courant with all interest....", and 14: "But above all let us monopolize Education. By this means we spread ideas that are useful to us, and shape the children's brains as suits us." And then, 15: "If one of our people should unhappily fall into the hands of justice amongst the Christians, we must rush to help him;find as many WITNESSES AS HE NEEDS TO SAVE HIM FROM HIS JUDGES--UNTIL WE BECOME JUDGES OUR­SELVES"!


It is about time to again publish the Protocols, friends, but I have quite a bit of additional updating to do prior to that so let us hold up herein and not get sidetracked from the "missing" 13th Amendment--it is all tied in together, as you might have guessed by now. You may as well consider that there is total integration of the PROTO­COLS OF ZION, the CREMIEUX MANIFESTO, and the epistle emanating from the "PRINCE OF THE JEWS". Isn't it interesting that these were published in a Rothschild magazine? The "Prince of the Jews" was done in 1489 A.D. But then, who would ever think, most especially Gentiles, of connecting these things with other doc­uments emanating from Jewry, or with modern happenings? So be it!


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 your federal government's unbridled growth).




If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the Ameri­can Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The states issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 500 to 1000 paper bills for one coin.


It's then suggested that your 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 our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people".




Be patient--it may "seem" that I am not on the same subject but I am.


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 (interesting?). 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 you had WON the Revolutionary War, why would your 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 just doesn't seem to make sense does it? Especially in light of the Senate's secrecy and later fury over being exposed, UNLESS YOU ASSUME YOUR SENATORS HAD BEEN BRIBED TO SERVE THE BRITISH MONARCHY AND BETRAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE--THAT, DEAR ONES, IS 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 (usury) on, $10,000,000 THAT DID NOT 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, your 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 species by European investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812.


There are 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. There is, for example, a book called 2 VA LAW in the Library of Congress Law Library. This is an un­catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT BY SECRET AGREEMENTS ENGINEERED BY THE LAWYERS. THAT, DEAR ONES, IS ONE REASON THAT THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED BY VIRGINIA AND THE NO­TIFICATION 'LOST IN THE MAIL'. THERE IS NO PUBLIC RECORD OF THIS BOOK'S EXISTENCE!






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. Just as with Dharma and Oberli's legal case--the adversary lawyer, Mr. Horn, simply removes any papers from the file which can aid and assist the defendants! When discovered, he then threatens all sorts of heinous consequences if his trick is revealed. What is this man's name? I thought you would never ask: It is spelled STEVEN HORN. ONE OF HIS THREATS IS TO "GET THEM" IF THIS INCIDENT IS REVEALED IN ANY OF THIS SO-CALLED "DHARMA'S" WRITINGS. WELL, OLD BUDDY--THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT I DO SUGGEST THAT MR. HORN DOES!


Remember the part of the Protocols about providing witnesses sufficient to win your case? Well, he did that too--but he outsmarted himself. The first hearing came with sufficient "provided" witnesses to swamp the court with liars. But, he had presented a backup case petition which caused the Judge to disallow further proceedings at that time. So, along with the presentation of the City Clerk and City Treasurer as defendant's witnesses, the "liars" did panic and dis­appear. How handy, though, our attorneys have turned up one or two of them and we shall see how well they like lying NOW.


Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances forged in Europe generated wealth and, ultimately, respectability. Like any modern unit 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". (Isn't this fun?) As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and far 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 lawyers!).




In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organiza­tion that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "ESQUIRE"--A "TITLE OF NOBILITY"!


"Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amend­ment sought to PROHIBIT from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.


Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the Interna­tional Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of no­bility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizen­ship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from vot­ing, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the gov­ernment.




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


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 CAN NOT.


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 is 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.


This interpretation is quite true, little ones, and 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 your judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation your government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).




If the missing 13th Amendment were to be restored, "special inter­ests" and "immunities" would be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of your nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), your judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If the 13th Amendment were restored, your entire 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, your government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated. Just IMAGINE!




It's unheard of for it got deliberately undone before it could be done--it has never been done before--and you thought a poor soul called Benedict Arnold was a traitor! You have never had a Constitutional government as intended--not ever in the entire history of the world!!!


So here comes the argument: Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede this 13th Amendmentwas 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 support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office hops on the band­wagon to agree; 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 was never ratified, even if research would be flawed and only twelve states voted to ratify the Amendment--wouldn't the possibility be wondrous to imagine? So what am I saying? Am I saying that it was a dream within one vote of his­torical utopia? No! I am saying that it WAS RATIFIED.


After a break we shall continue to prove it. And, dear ones of America and ones running for office with overwhelming odds against "housecleaning"--here are your tools to do the sweeping! NOW DO YOU SEE THE VALUE OF A GOOD OLD SPACE CADET WITH X-RAY VISION? IT SURELY DOESN'T SUR­PRISE ANY OF YOU THAT THIS PARTICULAR AMEND­MENT WOULD "GET LOST"? SO BE IT.




PJ 37






FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 1991    11:27 A.M.    YEAR 5, DAY 014




Again, I give humble thanks and appreciation to David Dodge and Alfred Adask for jobs well done!


In 1789, The House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately be­come your Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Sen­ate reduced the list to twelve. During this process 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.


(Herein please note that the 16th (income tax) Amendment was truly never ratified! But here you have one which was truly rati­fied with proof thereof--and it was secretly heisted from your Constitution—are you getting a bit upset yet?)


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


NOW WATCH THE "NOW" USUAL SLEIGHT OF HAND AND FOOTWORK FOR IT HAS BECOME THE MODUS OPERANDI WHEN THE GOING GETS TIGHT: Before the 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. I'm sure the connection between the pro­posed "title of nobility" amendment which would close England out of the US government forever, and the War of 1812 BE­COMES SELF-EVIDENT! You have entered massive wars for far less--like Desert Storm in Iraq.


Four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representa­tives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment because all sorts of "strange" things were beginning to happen in your government. In a letter dated Feb. 6, 1818, Presi­dent Monroe reported to the House that 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 that 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 includes receipt of Adams' letter.) Again, however, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.


Whoopee! 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 (u)united States and the amendments thereto...." This act was the specific legislated in­structions on what was, by law, 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 same day--the day that the Civil Code was to be republished. Therefore, the 13th Amendment's official DATE OF RATIFICATION WOULD BE 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.)




Some argue that 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 to 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 the 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, 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 for they ARE THERE WAITING!


So--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 (known) consisted of igno­rant politicians who don't know their amendments from their...ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that your forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public servants who pushed peo­ple around and accepted bribes or special favors to "look the other way". Maybe. But before you do, there is a lot of evidence to be explained.




In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes:


"In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, etc., 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". (Emphasis added.) In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States. 1st vol. p.73/74.


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 notes' 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 Feb.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 continued 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. (A most interesting resource for information at any circumstance.) 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 on the information that Secretary of State J.Q. Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, BEFORE Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Funny thing--and take careful note: 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. Skunks in the woodpile?)


Note, however, that 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, signalling 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 your 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 slaveryand 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". Wasn't that about as clever as you can get?




To create the present oligarchy (rule by LAWYERS) which you now endure, 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 the 13th Amendment that 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 lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two-tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans' political interests, the nation's eco­nomic welfare, and the Constitution's egalitarian spirit.


The significance of the 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 is awakened, this missing Amendment would 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 your current 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.




In his farewell address, George Washington warned of "...change by usurpation; for though 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 you 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 your 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 your courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, 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).


I had a document handed into Dharma's hands not 15 minutes ago from the Christic Institute, entitled Avirgan v. Hull Update.


It starts off (and I shall write just a tiny portion): Ruling disregards evidence, denies right to trial by jury. On June 18 three judges of the 11th Circuit appeals court refused to reinstate Avirgan v. Hull, a civil racketeering lawsuit charging 29 members of a criminal racketeering enterprise with murder, destruction of property, drug trafficking, gun smuggling, money laundering and other crimes. The judges upheld two decisions handed down by Judge James Lawrence King of Miami: An order granting "summary judge­ments" in favor of the defendants and a subsequent ruling ordering the Christic Institute, General Counsel Daniel Sheehand and Plaintiffs Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey to pay more than

$1 million in punitive fines for allegedly filing the lawsuit "in bad faith". The Institute has asked all 11 judges of the appellate court to review the decision. If necessary, we plan to appeal to the Supreme Court…."


Just a bit more from this same case: Judge King's decision to halt proceedings shortly before the trial's scheduled opening date predicated on an argument unprecedented in law: that plaintiffs are NOT ENTITLED TO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY UNLESS THEY SUBMIT ALL OF THEIR EVIDENCE TO THE JUDGE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGINS.


It goes on and on but I haven't space here to handle that subject also. In other words, however, you have to have and prove each of the accusations to the "judge" BEFORE the lawsuit can be filed. Grounds for objection: "A judge is prohibited from this conduct when a plaintiff has formally demanded a trial by jury".


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 Art.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, anything 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".


So, you await the inevitable convulsion.


Only two questions remain: Will you fight to revive your rights? Or will you meekly submit as your last remaining rights expire, surren­dered to the courts, and perhaps to a "New World Order"?


There was an addendum to this information which must be added: Documentation has been sent as to 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: 1) they offer independent confirmation of these claims; and 2) they extend the known dates of publi­cation from Nebraska, 1860 (Dodge's most recent find and herein mentioned as such), 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.


Now in appreciation for this material I ask reprinting of the follow­ing:


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". 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.


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. Please send your comments or discoveries to:


David M. Dodge, P.O. Box 985, Taos, New Mexico 87571.


Please, you other researchers, like Patrick B.--get on this and share up what you find. You will only turn this nation around through the LAW AND IT IS ALL THERE IF YOU BUT UNCOVER AND RECOVER IT. SALU.


I have only one more tid-bit to dump on you in the "you are had" category for this writing: In uncovering the mess with the conspiracy regarding Santa Barbara Savings/RTC/Bank of America fraud and deceit involving Dharma and Oberli--it is uncovered that the follow­ing practice is common and takes place with the RTC in massive proportion these days: A bank, say, Bank of America, buys from the RTC, Santa Barbara Savings--BUT--THEY ONLY GET THE GOOD ASSETS AND THE RTC (YOU-THE-PEOPLE) CARRY ALL LOSSES AND CONTESTED PROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS IT IS COMPLETELY PRE-ARRANGED THAT THE BANK(ERS) GET ALL THE ASSETS AND YOU TAKE THE DEBTS! GOOD-LUCK, WORLD! Note that this property in question is already overshadowed by expenses against its value two to one from litigation--but in the end you-the-people will hold the bag. By the way, once again, there is found to be a deadline (which is hidden from view) in which you must file an (unknown) form by a certain date or you are forever barred from any claim. Is it not about time you do something about this fraud and plague upon your lands?


I further wish to acknowledge a publication which I admire greatly for it is DEDICATED TO RAISING HELL FOR LAWYERS! If you have a good story please send it to them--we'll get around to it, too. If you can write, if you've got a personal story about the legal system to tell, an essay to publish on injustice, or a letter to the editor, they want it. They can't pay you for it--but freedom is worthy of giving unity. The editor urges you to write and not pussyfoot around--don't let the system scare you into silence--name names, send photo copies of relevant documents, pictures of yourself or the principal parties, and say what's in your heart as well as what's in your legal dictionary. They look for documents anywhere from letter-size on up to 2,000 word essays (Well, ours is about 300,000 words, so guess it will have to be in shorthand!).




THESE PEOPLE CALL THEIR PUBLICATION: AntiShyster, 9794 Forest Lane, Suite 159, Dallas, Texas 75243. 1-800-477-­5508. Their slogan: IT'S NATIONAL ATTORNEY WEEK--TAKE A SHYSTER TO LYNCH.


In the meanwhile, anyone wanting to write up this particular case in point--we will be delighted! We are most happy to give a whole bunch of names and places. You are going to find the same ones that continually pop up in the news--Bush, Reagan, Shea & Gould, Salomon Bros, etc. The network is so massive that a "clean sweep" with your Constitutional broom is all that will do it. God Bless!


Hatonn to clear.