- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search



Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0


8/30/91 #1   HATONN




Oh my, yes you do!  However, since you 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 of HONOUR, of 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 Republic that 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 pubic 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 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", "emporer", "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 "honours" that anyone receiving them would FORFEIT 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 you 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, the 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 1930s.  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 sandals 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 for 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 No.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, No. 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 updated 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 CREMIEUZ 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 safehouses 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 company --"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, generated the trade, husbandry, and manufacturers 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 $10,000,00--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 specie 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 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, 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" (honr), 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 power; non-lawyers CAN NOT.

By prohibiting "honors", the missing 13th 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, but 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 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 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 unratified.

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.


Source:  PHOENIX JOURNAL EXPRESS, September 1991, Volume 16, Number 2, Pages 2-8.

Transcribed into HTML format by R. Montana.