Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Frog Farm Issue 10
Welcome to the tenth installment of the Frog Farm. This installment contains
the following topics:
1) The Missing 13th Amendment: Titles of Nobility and Honor (part 2 of 2)
2) Miscellaneous
3) More from the Vault: The Frog Farm Archives
**
The Missing 13th Amendment: "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
David Dodge, Researcher
Alfred Adask, Editor
Reprinted with permission from the AntiShyster, POB 540786, Dallas, Texas
75354, annual subscription $25.00.
[This is part 2 of 2.]
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 is 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 referen-
ces 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 Secre-
tary of State J.Q. 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, signalling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861,
President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.
Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thir-
teen, 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 Constitu-
tion 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 our 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 effec-
tively 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 we 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 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 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 this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion
from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawful-
ly nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of
the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amend-
ment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and
court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutional-
ly elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even
mean the removal of lawyers from our 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.
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 instru-
ment 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 dis-
missed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have
dreamed our 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 our
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.)
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 forgot-
ten, 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 heavi-
er, 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, sur-
rendered 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: 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 Colora-
do 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". My seven year inves-
tigation has been fruitful beyond belief; the information on the
missing 13th Amendment is only a "drop in the bucket" of the infor-
mation 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:
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 ad-
vantages) 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, re-
ceive, 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. {Emphasis added]
As outlined in the August AntiShyster, this Amendment would have
restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and
would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legis-
lation, 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:
1) 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 2) This amendment quietly disappeared from
the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.
Either this Amendment:
1) Was unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years;
or 2) Was 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 propos-
ed 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 jour-
nals 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 disa-
greement.
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 Main 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 ratifi-
ed." 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."*1*
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: 1) that they knew they were the
last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment; 2)
that they had voted to ratify the Amendment; and 3) that they 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 propos-
ed 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 ap-
proval 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, Vir-
ginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the
proposed amendment."
Dodge replies:
"Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent
on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-
fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is
submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of
the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only
the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of
Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable
that ratification be limited to those States that took an active
part in the Amendment process."
Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, "Presi-
dent 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
our 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 at-
titudes 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' Amend-
ment 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 constitu-
tional 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 1) Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or
2) the notice was "lost in the mail; or 3) 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 live.*2*
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 Mary-
land's earlier ratification is not listed as having been return 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 Amend-
ment: 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. Hart-
grove 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.
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 find more evidence of the "missing"
13th Amendment please contact David Dodge, POB 985, Taos, New Mexico,
87571.
1) 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.
2) If there's insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in
1819 (there is no evidence that Virginia did not), this raises a
fantastic possibility. 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 Vir-
ginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the
necessary certificates to Washington, and thereby add the
Amendment to the Constitution.
[end part 2 of 2]
**
Miscellaneous
Recently, over on another private mailing list (which some of you may
subscribe to), someone said that civil litigation is a meaningless weapon
against the judgment proof. I concur. Before you initiate any courtroom
action, you should have all your ducks in a row. Get out of the banking
system. Use trusts and common-law contracts instead of incorporating. Don't
leave your property lying out in the open where thieves can get at it. And,
as Gordon says, "get rid of your toys" (which may be the hardest part for
some of us net.geeks ;). Even if they technically win the case, you will still
come out ahead. Always cost your adversary more time and money than they can
collect from you, and then some.
When you have judgment proofed yourself, it's time to take it to the courts.
Here's a short excerpt from a piece by al007@cleveland.freenet.edu:
[begin excerpt]
The Rules of the Game
Okay, the point of the game is to get over the goal line. It's just like
football (and if you try to tempt them, they really will sack the quarterback
just because they are sadistic people). There's only one problem: they are all
professional players and you're just an amateur team. That's why the game is
rigged in your favor intentionally. But unless you're a professional gambler,
you wouldn't even know it.
Here's what they score points for: Getting you to admit anything. Getting
you to incriminate yourself. Intimidating you. Getting you to skip procedural
details.
Here's what you score points for: Getting them to admit anything. Getting
them to perjure themselves. Getting them to foul (not follow the rules).
Giving them as much frustration and anxiety as possible. Making them lose in
front of their friends (they all have bad sportsmanship problems). Making them
lose in front of the press.
I can't possibly go over all the rules. There are entire libraries full
of rules. And you thought pro-football was bad! But, there are certain basics
of the game. If you understand those, you're way ahead.
[end excerpt]
On a momentary non-legal note, I present the following analysis from someone
whom I feel privileged to claim as a friend:
[begin forwarded message]
93Aug15 10:46 pm from Tom o' Bedlam @ Beach _ MI
Imports: Get rid of them? How? The myth that politicians feed you about
America Economic Superpower is just that--a myth. We couldn't maintain our
current standard of living without imports. Our industrial capacity has never
been that high. Never. For all we produce, we sell a lot of it overseas, and
import needed items from the rest of the world.
Do you know why USX (also once known as US Steel when they had a clue about
what they were making) is in so much trouble? The Japanese? Not just them,
but all the mini-mills in the US that produce steel much more cheaply than USX
can. Oops, how unAmerican.
We were a debtor nation from 1776 to 1914--oops, I guess when the
government can't use its bullying power to mortgage us to the hilt, credit and
debt to private investors regulates itself. Gee, sounds like free enterprise
to me--and not the specious mercantilism that our government has been spouting
since the Great War.
If the government can develop a way to rent Cape Canaveral to private
aerospace companies, then they should get out of the space business--and let
private business take over.
Of course, that mainframe that LS services and runs was made possible by the
space program, which required IC's in order to work. Get government out?
Fine--but usher private companies in.
Our trade deficit can't hurt us. Private investors defaulting on loans to
foreign banks can't. Only the national debt can.
Only remaining a military superpower can hurt us. Remember the Russians?
We're in the strongest alliance in history--the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. We can bleed our military down a bit further than we have, as
soon as we have the CIS warhead situation under control. We don't need 30,000
nuclear warheads. If you're so afraid of letting all these people go, another
Conservation Corps would be cheaper, more useful, require $300,000 earthmovers
rather than $1,000,000,000 bombers, and tie up less materiel. If our foreign
oil is threatened, let it go. It's Adam Smith's way of promoting alternative
fuels, remember?
Our social priorities can hurt us. The War on Drugs is a war--every
military commander from Sun Tzu to Clauswitz understood that war is a drain on
the civil health. Institute a system like the English have for prescribing
drugs to those who are addicted. Not the methadone program--that was pranged
from the start by incompetence and half-heartedness. We've been fighting this
war since the 30's and we haven't won yet. It's turned entire communities and
police forces into disputed territories and occupation armies. It will
destroy us.
Ugh. Flame off.
[end forwarded message]
Of course, I asked him, "So who are you gonna get the money from for the
methadone program, and are you gonna ask for it or take it?". And of course
he, being an honest, likable fellow, replied no, of course he wouldn't do it
with taxation.
**
90Nov25 9:36 pm from Frog Farmer @ Interface
The Mechanic @ Interface>> Unfortunately, in this demented society of
ours it often comes down to "Us vs. Them", Us being the general public
and them being officials of whatever nature fits the discusion.<<
It comes down to "Us vs. Them", but I, and others, are not
members of your "Us", the "general public". We are examples of "the
private sector" known as WE, The People, the source of all government
power. We do not identify ourselves with "the general public",
because by now that general public has all but forgotten what freedom
means. They have all traded their rights for privileges, and have
become subject to whatever a judge may decide in their case. The
general public goes before a judge, accused of crimes that are not
crimes, and instead of belligerently claiming their rights, they plead
"Guilty, with explanation, your honor".
Mechanic>> In this case Them will win, because they are the ones with
the badges, and when it gets down to it who will the referee (judge)
listen to and tend to take sides with? Not very likely one of Us.<<
What a defeatist attitude! Any case my government feels is
worth prosecuting me for, I feel is worth defending! First of all,
that car was towed by the management of the complex (or so the post
said). They do not have any stinkin' badges! And another thing -
real judges don't take "sides". Those who do can be disqualified. If
you don't disqualify at least one judge in each case you have, then
you're not having all the fun you could be having. And even if the
judge HATES you, it really doesn't matter, unless you are depending on
that judge to tell you how things are. Some people go into court to
tell the judge how things are. I know I do. I'd have to say that out
of the many judges who have presided over my prosecutions, only one
was favorable to me. That didn't stop me from winning the cases.
See, the record determines who will win, and who will lose. The
prosecution makes their part, and we make our part of the record.
Then the appeals court decides it without even knowing the
personalities involved. You can usually tell who's going to win just
by reading the paperwork. But your average "general public" doesn't
even know that you need paperwork to win. They think that the judge
hears both sides, and picks a winner. Real Winners walk into the
courtroom knowing that they have already won, no matter what the trial
judge does. The winning papers are already in the record before the
trial starts. And free individuals know that a judge in a court that
lacks jurisdiction is a powerless figure. But an unknowing member of
the general public never challenges the jurisdiction of the court, do
they? How many times have you seen it done? And so when the
jurisdiction is unchallenged, it is assumed and presumed to exist.
So, you are right about the odds, but that is only due to the large
number of unaware trusting sheep who follow instructions all the way
to the slaughter, and the small number of knowledgeable pro se
individuals, those black sheep who kick and bite until their victory
is at hand.
Mechanic>> Yes, it is possible that Steve could get his car back, but
I believe there comes a point in time when the time and energy spent
on standing up for what you know is right is not worth it. I've been
through similar situations, and when all was said and done I wondered
why I put myself out so far for a small bit of justice.<<
Maybe everyone should decide the same thing. Then there would
be no one left to exercise and claim rights anymore, and the free
person would become an extinct species. But I think there will always
be a few who decide that freedom is worth the price. After all, many
Americans have given their lives for it. Typing some paperwork, and
spending a few hours in a courtroom is really a small price to pay for
freedom, don't you think? Heck, every case I've ever had has more
than paid for the trouble by teaching me things that could not have
been learned any other way. It's kinda like getting to see behind the
curtain in the court of the Wizard of Oz.
Courts today are just a way for the government to collect more
revenues. A competent pro se can force the court to spend $2,000 or
more just to get $500. How long do you think they'd like to keep that
up? If I don't cost them at least $2,000 per case, I'm slipping.
Eventually, they recognise folks like me, and ignore us. Or have us
killed. Like they say, "live free, or die."
90Nov29 from Frog Farmer @ Interface
Barry Wong @ Garbanzo>> FF - How does one go about becoming a free
person if they have already particpated in the system (i.e. voted and
the like)?<<
Well, first they have to come to the conclusion that they were
defrauded, and cheated of their birthright. No undue amount of study
is required to come to this conclusion, but the ability to entertain
ideas that are new to you is a great help. The main problem is
overcoming the phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance" - the tendency
to automatically disbelieve anything that goes against the ingrained
brainwashing that we are all subjected to by society from the time we
are born. I know that you have seen how difficult that can be.
You've seen the resistance that has been evidenced on this base to
certain ideas, yet notice, when cognitive dissonance is at work, the
person arguing against those ideas never really has a solid argument
to back up their opposition. Usually, vague philosophical theories
may be put forward in an attempt to discredit the truth, but these
vague theories are not the law. The law is what can put you behind
bars and take your property, not vague theories. Whether you agree
with the law or not, it helps to at least know it for what it is, and
not for what it "should" be in the ideasphere. If you know what it
really is, you'll know it when you are being lied to. That's a very
important first step towards freedom.
When you come to the conclusion that you have been wronged, the
law exists to help you put things right. But no one will help you.
Even me. I do draw the line at some point, because defending my own
rights is a full time job. You may think that this room provides some
help, and it may, in that it is a signpost to what lies up ahead...The
Twilight Zone! You think I'm joking? Not really. When you get into
it, you see that the meanings of words have been so twisted around,
that people are now automatically trained to admit to crimes that
don't exist. For instance, "driving without a license" is against the
law, but did you know that to be a "driver" is an occupation in
commerce?? If you didn't, then, even if you don't drive for profit or
gain on the highway, you probably went and got yourelf a driver's
license. And you could justify it because "everybody else did" and
"it'll save you hassles". So, for whatever excuse feels most
comfortable, people waive their rights, and by doing so slip deeper
into the quicksand of servitude and slavery. the decision to be free
is a hard one to make. Slave masters treat returned runaway slaves
worse than those who never ran away, so once you opt for freedom, you
had better be prepared for the consequences. I can live with freedom
mainly due to my belief in the Supreme Being, who gave me the rights I
exercise, and who I trust to specifically perform if I uphold my end
of my contract with Him. So far, so good.
90Nov29 from Frog Farmer @ Interface
BW>> Did you make a decision at some point to "exercise your rights"
or were you raised doing that already?<<
To some extent I was raised that way, more by my mother than by
my father. My father was the perfect slave, having worked for the
FBI. My mother was a rebel, and when I was 6 years old, she impressed
me with stories of our country and it's beginnings. I think the
earliest recollection of a feeling of solidarity with FREEDOM came
when I was taken to see the Walt Disney movie, "Johnny Tremain". My
mom gave me the soundtrack album for my 6th birthday. I played it
hundreds of times, admittedly being "brainwashed" with ideas of
freedom and loyalty to the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the
Constitution. I'm not against brainwashing, in fact, I contend that I
have purposefully brainwashed myself with the input that I choose,
rather than to be unconsciously brainwashed by my enemies. I don't
look down upon someone for being brainwashed, but just for refusing to
believe that they could be. Once they understand the principles
involved (developed to a high science during the Korean War and used
by all governments and certain others ever since), it is possible to
undo the effects, but it takes work, and is not always comfortable,
because of cognitive dissonance, which sets in, and must be dealt
with.
When I was 8 years old, I remember the time when my grandfather
came over to help my father "do his taxes" (a meaningless phrase if
there ever was one!). I remember my father (then ex-FBI man) stating
that the income tax was really being administered contrary to the law,
and they both admitted it, and yet somehow that didn't prevent them
from complying. I thought just a little less of my dad for his
cowardice in doing what he knew was wrong. He seemed to "go along to
get along", even though what he did was wrong.
The next time that I was motivated to think along those lines
was well after I had been working in the "system" for years. A
coworker invited me to a seminar, where a man named Marvin Cooley was
going to lecture on the illegalities of the income tax system. Prior
to attending the meeting, I figured out how much I had paid into the
"system", and it amounted to over 30,000 bux, yet I was barely getting
by at the time, struggling from month to month just to keep a roof
over my head, and food on the table. I really wanted to see if this
had been necessary. What I learned at that meeting convinced me that
it was not necessary, but that the blame lay with me, because I had
never looked into the law to see what it actually said, I had just
believed what I had heard from the media, and hearsay from other
people as ignorant as myself about the subject. I decided that I
would study it as well as I could, and correct the situation in my own
life. That course of action got me fired from the job I then held.
My boss was afraid to send the IRS my W-4 form, which indicated I was
exempt, since I did not owe any tax the year before, and I anticipated
owing no tax that year - the two criteria to decide if one is exempt.
He was so afraid of the IRS, he fired me, for which I could well have
sued him and won, had I known better. At that time, I didn't know
what my remedies were.
Shortly thereafter, I was robbed and severely injured, almost
killed, in a middle-of-the-night robbery in my home. Drug-crazed
robbers of Hispanic descent entered my home on a Christmas shopping
spree for gifts for their families. This is what I was later told by
persons who knew them. They were heroin addicts. They murdered
someone else two weeks later only 4 blocks from my home, in a similar
robbery. My skull was fractured in three places by a tire iron - they
thought I'd pass out like on TV when they hit me the first time.
Seven increasingly severe blows later, I was still conscious, with a
fractured skull, spurting blood in a 5-foot stream. I was hog-tied
and left for dead. They took their time piling up goodies by the
door, and loading their getaway car. After they finally left,
somehow, I managed to untie myself and get a neighbor to take me to
the hospital. Later, it came out that the local sheriffs used these
particular robbers for doing "black bag jobs" when the law couldn't
break in legally. When they "did" me, it was a freelance job, on
their own. Even though I had been new in the neighborhood, and knew
hardly anyone, after two months I found these scum, (I waited in the
parking lot of the local grocery store, waiting for them to show up)
and tracked them to where they lived, in a gov't subsidized housing
complex. They were on welfare and foodstamps. I went to the
sheriff's, asking them to arrest the people who attempted to murder
me. Then the cover-up began. The investigator said, "Yeah, we
thought it was them, but we can't do anything about it." I asked why.
He said, "We showed you pictures of 800 mexicans with moustaches who
are criminals currently at large in our county, and you failed to
point them out." (to me, all 800 criminal mexicans with moustaches
looked alike!) I replied that now that we knew who they were, bring
them in, and I'll identify them. He said, "Can't do that now, because
I just told you it was them who did it." So nothing ever was done
about it. I realized that where it counted most, at home, the
government didn't do anything for me - instead it protected those who
would kill me. That was the last straw. I determined that from then
on, any government agent or agency that wanted me to do ANYTHING had
to prove its lawful authority, and that I would never volunteer for
anything again. I wasn't going to work to support my enemies. And
every time since when government has told me I had to do this or that,
I required them to prove it, and I even go further - I prove that I
DON'T have to do whatever it is, in court if need be. I rescinded all
my contracts that I had entered into with any government agency, on
the basis of fraud, which vitiates all solemn contracts, and I made it
a point to force each issue, to the limit. By doing so, I found out
that I had been lied to all my life, and tricked into doing things I
didn't have to do. My freedom proved it to me - if I had been wrong,
I'd be in jail. I have been a free man now for over 12 years. And I
don't regret any of it. The government (which is not the law) does
not exist for me, and I do not exist for it. Still, that does not
permit me to violate the rights of anyone else, or I would be subject
to the law, and could be punished and imprisoned. In fact, the
sheriff's agent told me that if I ever harmed their pet drug-addict-
robbers, I'd go to jail.
Cryo Ruggie @ Wolf's Den>> Frog Farmer - I don't really understand
what you posted there. Do you mean to say that, as a sovreign citizen
I can simply go out and shot someone who bothers me, and the sue the
government for daring to proceed against me, since the government's
subservient to me?<<
No.
CR>> Or are you saying that true citizens don't need a government, and
that we should all live in harmonious anarchy? And anyone who
considers the need of a given society is a weakling?<<
No.
CR>> I guess that if the US were nation of strong selfish super-
patriots who wish to force the "smaller people" like me out for
considering that there's a quid-pro-quo(?), then I'd move out and let
it fester in it's fascist delusions...<<
Why would anyone force people like you out for recognizing that
there's a quid-pro-quo? You had better recognize it, since it is you
(if you claim some special privilege that is not a matter of right)
who owes that quid pro quo to the sovereign power.
TM>> I still maintain that "reality" is completely subjective.<<
People who believe as you do often go to jail when their
perception of reality collides with the other reality that most
people can perceive in common.
BW>> I agree that we all view reality from a particular point of
view, which you might call "subjective." But we're all viewing
SOMETHING. That "something" is an objective reality.<<
But, TM, Mermaids, even though we all know what they are, and
what they look like, are not part of objective reality. Same with
units of measurement that attempt to measure nothing!!
DJ @ DogLink>> In other words, there is no way to get around property
tax in this state because one cannot own property. And the state,
owning first lein on the property, can reposess the property for non-
performance and breach of contract (not paying of the taxes).<<
That's rough, DJ! All kidding aside, that means a lot of people
are wandering around Minnesota with a false notion (that they OWN
property), doesn't it? If I lived there, I'd try to pay my taxes on
time, so I wouldn't be kicked off the land. What do they want in the
form of rent? Clams, frogskins, or...?
DJ>> This was very illuminating, and I am researching the prospect of
unconstitutionality of the law because of the right to "life, liberty,
and property" clause in the Constitution. This would be extremely
difficult to do, however because the Constitution does not prevent any
state government from owning property and distributing it as it
chooses.<<
You just answered your own Constitutional Question. Look for
evidence that at one time, before State Incorporation, people weren't
paid in either gold or silver for all that land, by the State, or else
forgiven some debt that they owed the state. When people had their
gold in possession, they weren't so tied down to one piece of ground;
they could easily buy another piece somewhere else - until, of course,
the "State" owned all the land.
Right of first lien. Interesting concept. Here's another: RIGHT
OF REDEMPTION. Black's 4th says: "The right to disencumber property
or to free it from a claim or lien; the right (granted by statute only
) to free property from the incumbrance of a foreclosure or other
judicial sale, or to recover the title passing thereby, by paying what
is due, with interest, costs, etc...."
What if you want to exercise all inalienable rights in
Minnesota? What if you wanted to exercise the right to own property,
and the right of redemption? Are first liens subject to redemption?
Black's defines "First Lien" as "One which takes priority or
precedence over all other charges or incumbrances upon the same piece
of property, and which must be satisfied before such other charges are
entitled to participate in the proceeds of its sale." Will Minnesota
tell you that you are so hopelessly in debt (perpetual debt,
guaranteed by the acceptance of fractional reserve banking practices
by the public), that redemption, while theoretically possible, is
equally impossible because the people have nothing of substance with
which to redeem it? So few of the people actually want to do it, no
one knows how it's done, probably. I don't know. But a start would
be to ascertain just what this "first lien" secures for the state.
Will they come right out and admit that property ownership is
impossible, and that therefore it is a communist society? Or are we
missing something?
Thanks for that post.
Fum @ Beach>> Ha,Ha-- OK now here's what I'm involved in fighting
right now, tooth and nail to the bitter end. On Sept. 12 I was in an
accident in my company's vehicle while at work.<<
No Constitutional rights question involved here...
Fum>> I had had a few accidents recently in that vehicle and in one (
12-22-90) I had been issued a ticket which I fought at the suggestion
of the issuing officer and had removed from my record- well worth the
trip to court as it cost me nothing but time.<<
I think it's always worth a fight. The fact that the issuing
officer thought you should challenge his determination to cite you was
noteworthy. He wasn't too sure of the correctness of his position,
was he?? I read your story with interest, and while it is a civil
case, involving matters of privilege (not Rights) and therefore not
really something that I would go to any great lengths to comment on
myself here on The Frog Farm (but I don't care if others wish to
discuss it here), what was evident was the fact that you appeared to
be pursuing it "belligerently" like a winner. You appear to have been
doing your homework in a timely fashion, and your strategy looks good.
One tip: If you do get your hearing, there will come a time when
they will move to close the hearing, either by doing it themselves or
asking you if it is okay. Personally, I never agree, and always
object, to closing the hearing. They always will ask the reason for
that, and so I say something like, "But I haven't entered into the
record all the relevent testimony that I have prepared. I still have
a lot of material to show that the hearing should be decided in my
favor. (or something to that effect)" Hopefully, they will be so
tired of the hearing already, that that may cause them to rule in your
favor just to get the thing over with, and they may tell you, "Well,
we'll close the heaing with a recommendation that this matter be
decided in your favor." You'd say, "What!!? Only a recommendation?!
I can't risk it on that - I still have irrefutable evidence that I am
right and that I should win, and I move that we continue the hearing
to another day, because I can see that you are tired, and I would like
to continue when you are all fresh and are not wanting to end it just
to get out of here and go home (or something to that effect)" This
has caused them, in my case, to say, "Well, we'll note your OBJECTION
[when they moved to close, I said "I OBJECT!!"] and if the decision is
to rule against you, we will allow you to come back and add to the
record, fair enough?" That I agreed to, since I really didn't have
too much more to put into the record at that time, but I knew that
with a few days to gather more, I could come up with something,
anything. I kept a two-hour hearing going for 4 days in that manner,
and finally won by exhausting them. You might keep that in mind. I
noticed that you actually (not like most people) took the trouble to
research the law in question. See how they often misrepresent what it
really says? See how you have to be on your toes, and challenge every
wrong statement they make? You should win that one.
90Dec05 12:24 am from Frog Farmer @ Interface
Silver Ghost>> ...about the mandatory draft, FF posted the following
alleged quote from Hale v. Henkel (201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370): "An
individual OWES NOTHING to the state..." (FF's emphasis) ...Properly
taken out of context, this implies that we don't have to pay income
tax, register for the draft, obey traffic signals, or restrain
ourselves from satisfying all our hedonistic urges to kill the
neighbors' puppies.<<
I can understand from that why free persons would not have to
pay income tax or obey traffic signals, but I don't understand how it
removes the requirement to register for the draft. And nothing (NO
LAW) permits the violation of another's property rights (such as
killing the neighbors puppies). Too bad Silver Ghost flew off the
handle, or I might grant him some credibility...
SG>> But let's see what the context is. Hale v. Henkel concerns a
dude who didn't want to procure company papers, (partly) on the
grounds that "they might tend to incriminate him." The case runs 22
WestLaw pages [48 in the original reports]; here's the section FF
referred to, on page thirteen:
[deleted, cause it already has been quoted!]
It was probably that next-to-last sentence which FF lifted.<<
Actually it was the one previous to that. "He owes no such duty
to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the
protection of his life and property." Subsequent cases have shown
that we cannot presume to receive even that protection of life and
property, so I left that off. As I once said, I had quoted that from
a secondary reference source, but even looking at the original, I see
no difference in the meanings.
SG>> Me, I think it's a null statement--the last ten words are a catch
-all.<<
A catch-all? I agree - an all purpose catch-all!
SG>> It's just a summary before the next paragraph.<<
And it pretty well summarizes things, doesn't it?
SG>> In fact, it _has_ to be that sentence, because anything previous
which resembles his quote is _obviously_ dealing only with people's
rights to not incriminate themselves.<<
That's not so obvious. Universal principles are universal...
SG>> Of course, it's hard to see how "He owes nothing to the public"
could be quoted as "The individual OWES NOTHING to the state (my
emphasis)" with a straight face and no disclaimers.<
<
! ;)
SG>> Especially from a case which has flat-out absolutely _nothing_ to
do with the topic which we were discussing. I can't even think of a
more irrelevant subject.<<
I believe that you can't see the connection(s). So, go be
drafted! You obviously can't see that the 4th and 5th amendments (the
subject matter of the Hale case) have anything to do with involuntary
servitude, because they DON'T SAY anything about involuntary
servitude. But I do see the connections. Because my life, liberty,
and property are involved. Not only that, but I see a connection to
the first amendment, too! Yeah, the right to speak (or not speak) the
induction oath! Remember the Hale case said (as you pointed out) "His
power to contract is unlimited." That's "5th amendment stuff" right
there. It means I have an unlimited right to contract, OR NOT
CONTRACT! How do you think you lose your rights and come under an
admiralty jurisdiction (military code) unless it is by a contract (the
oath)??
BW>> What about "income taxes" -- can one refuse to pay and continue
to enjoy the "privileges of the democratic system?"<<
Good question, "Can one REFUSE to pay?" I would say not. Once
a tax is ASSESSED it must be paid. However, people could study and
learn how the system works as laid down by law, regarding what it
takes to have a valid assessment. Non-taxpayers can refrain from
incorrectly assuming that they ARE TAXPAYERS, and can refrain from
volunteering to pay taxes that are not owed. They can refrain from
engaging in activities that have been declared by Congress to be
taxable for revenue purposes. They can refrain from assuming that ALL
activities are taxable for revenue purposes. They CAN educate
themselves about the so-called "income tax" and the law which
administers it. It is a very interesting area of study.
80Jan01 1:00 am from Frog Farmer @ Garbanzo
This is a reply to a message posted in the politics room, but I thought it
appropriate for here also:
Ishmael @ Beach>> tickled pinko...apparently you weren't around in the sixties
and seventies when EVERYONE "knew" their rights...I can assure you that if
simply refusing to take an oath was all it took ....many would have done just
that...<<
How can you assure anyone that anyone knew what was necessary? Simply
refusing to take the oath is all it takes. But no one was assigned the task
of informing anyone of that fact. With all the "draft counseling" going on
then, I never heard that method mentioned.
It's the kind of thing you just have to figure out for yourself. It would
never get into the courts. And by the time the suckers who took the oath
figured it out, it would be too late for them. The only persons who knew
that it worked were the ones who tried it and held up under the coercion and
verbal abuse. Why, even now, when you hear it, and have the mental capacity
to reason it out, you doubt it! If "everyone" knew their rights, then why
didn't they know that they had a right not to be forced to take an oath? The
question of whether or not you can be forced to take an oath was only decided
by the courts within the last few years, in connection with giving testimony
in the courtroom. A guy named George Gordon was asked, "Do you solemnly
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Gordon
replied, "No!" and was jailed for contempt. He appealed the case in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was decided that you cannot be forced to
take an oath over a religious objection (the Bible prohibits swearing oaths).
Do you think "everyone" knew that in 1965- 1970? How about today?
Ishmael>> You sound like the lady I met in a bar the other night that
tried to convince me that should I be stopped by a police officer on the way
home that my best bet to beat a drunk driving charge would be to question the
officer on his understanding of the U.S. Constitution? <<
Questioning him on his understanding of it?? That might take forever -
how about just getting him to admit that he's sworn to uphold and defend it,
and then ask him the constitutional basis for his stopping you?
Ishmael>>...under the privacy act I can refuse to identify myself or
some such hogwash..<<
The Privacy Act is hogwash used for dealing with Federal agents (funny
concept: hog wash, pig rinse, swine flush, etc). How about the fact that you
need not identify yourself under Brown vs. Texas? How about the fact that
you are not required to answer any questions without counsel present at all
stages of any investigation? And if you don't want to give them fingerprints
without a court order, then it's Davis vs. Mississippi that proves that they
already know you can refuse to give them fingerprints.
Ishmael>> My experience has been that a few well placed "Yes Sir massa's"
would serve you just as well, if not better ;)<<
Most definitely if you are a slave to the system! Otherwise, agreeing
with an officer at a traffic stop can be dangerous to your freedom.
More politics room cross-over:
b0b @ Interface>> Silver Ghost - Thank you for putting the Hale Doctine in
context. I don't see your point, though. The portion of the decision that
you quoted does not appear to conflict with the farmer's views at all.<<
Thanks b0b, but let's give Silver Ghost this: The Hale case did not
specifically mention the draft! I'm glad to have been the catalyst in making
one more person read Hale, even though the motivation was to refute its
doctrine, and I hope SG reads it again, and uses his imagination to think of
ways that the Hale case might apply to his own life, even though SG may never
be called upon to produce corporate records for examination, or appear for
induction.
b0b>> The environment of the induction center is very intimidating in time of
war. It's very hard to stand alone for your rights in the face of all that
pressure, the "it's the law", and "don't you love your country?" arguments.<<
Right! Especially when you're standing there in your underwear! - with a
trained sergeant close at hand yelling things in your ears and face.
b0b>> Does anyone here who was drafted remember taking the oath?
When you did it, did anyone refuse? What happened?<<
Reports are that if anyone even looked like they were going to give any
trouble, they were separated from the rest ASAP, so those who were inducted
would not have been around to see what happened to the "trouble-makers". I
have heard that in the case of those who didn't take the oath, they were
subjected to all sorts of verbal humiliation and coercion, but if they
remained steadfast in their claim of Constitutional rights which they could
articulate, they were released at the close of the business day. One guy I
met who personally didn't take the oath, got the advice not to do so from his
dad's lawyer. He was instructed to ask "If I raise my right hand, take one
step forward, and repeat after you, will I be waiving any Constitutional
rights?" The answer to that question is "yes". He followed that up with
the question "Can any law require me to waive my Constitutional rights?" The
answer to that question is "No". By the way, the IRS has been made to answer
similar questions, only then the first question is "If I turn my books and
records over to you, can the government use any of the information against
me?" Again, the answer is "yes". The second question is "Do I have a legal
obligation to give you any information that can be used against me?" Again,
the answer is "no".
Using a combination of all four questions, one might indeed "live long,
and prosper..."
JB>> It seems that freedom isn't just something that is automatically
granted an individual just because they were born here ..what they ARE
granted is the right to BE free (as free as they chose to be). Which
is a different thing altogether, since it implies that a person has
the right to choose to NOT be free. I think it is Froggy's point that
it seems that the large majority of the population are assumed to have
surrendered their freedom to a large degree, simply because of an
acceptance of the `status quo.' `You can't fight city hall,' is a very
common buzz phrase. Yet, Froggy does it all the time...<<
Right, Jimbo! I'm only trying to point out that a choice has been
made, even if unconsciously. When it is made unconsciously, the
choice most often is against freedom. What I do "all the time" is be
free in my mind. To give you an example, I am currently hosting a
student from Alaska who had the choice of going to see George in
Missouri, or me here at the Frog Farm. Well, the substance I demand
in return for one-on-one tutoring is substantially less, so he decided
to do his studying here. So, as part of his "substance" that he is
paying me for my time and materials, he is doing manual labor here on
the farm. While we were working together, we played out several
"scene of the crime" and "first court appearance scenarios". By the
way, this student is close to 60 years old, and used to be a
policeman! We took turns playing the cop, the driver, the judge, the
defendant, etc. And we went over about 20 different ways that a "no
driver's license" scene could happen and be dealt with. Every time is
different! There is no "ONE WAY" to handle any case, although there
are essential elements that should be included in each one. Well, how
would Barry count that time? Did it count as time spent doing normal
productive work on the farm, or did it count as "fighting for one's
freedom"? Answer: BOTH. So, to shy away from this subject matter, or
from defending oneself for the reason that you "don't have the time"
is really just a bad excuse, and is "cutting off your nose, to spite
your face" in my estimation.
JB>>...according to him, it's great fun and results in a stretching
of his mind as the new concepts he comes into contact with are
learned.<<
It's not so much fun that I TRY to get new charges against me--
at least not anymore. BUT, should I be prosecuted again for something
that is NOT a common law crime, you can bet that I'm going to try to
make it fun. Now there is the added prize of seeing the responsible
agent pay damages after I win the Title 42 suit that will follow my win
on the original charges. I still haven't had a chance to try a lot of
new material I've been saving up...
JB>> I think the whole thing can be summed up by saying that what FF
does should also be done by a whole lot more of us IN ADDITION TO
OUR `PRODUCTIVE' OCCUPATIONS, as it appears that this is the minimum
required to be as free as is possible. If more people did it, the
need for it to be done with such intensity would diminish...<<
It probably only takes about thirty individuals in each county
to straighten things out. That's a really small percentage
overall...
JB>>...(then fewer and fewer would do these things and we'd be back
at square one again as we are today!).<<
Nah! No one who experienced freedom would go back to being a
sheep. It can only grow, as it has been doing over the years. For
instance, back in '84, one sure way to set up your case for a win
was to attempt to have your friend be your counsel in court. This
had been shown to have been lawful by many Supreme court decisions (
just like many other things) but local courts would disallow it,
saying that you must have an attorney who is a member of the bar.
That was known as a winning appealable issue. Now, it is not
uncommon to see the court accept the fact that your counsel is not a
bar attorney, or attorney of any kind. They have learned that to
deny you that right is a waste of their valuable court time, since
any conviction they obtained after a long and expensive trial could
be overturned on appeal. So now, some pro se defendants are almost
disappointed that they are allowed to have non-attorney counsel -
it's one appealable issue they can no longer rely upon! Don't
worry, there are still many others!
Popeye @ Garbanzo>> FF, what do you know about this $90.00 traffic
amnesty thing. Any info would be appreciated.<<
I saw a flyer advertising it on the wall down at the County
Center. I had to laugh. See, I know for a fact that due to the lack
of formal verified complaints in this County, all prosecutions are
undertaken with the consent (knowing or unknowing) of the defendant.
So here we have an invitation to possible defendants to come forward
and part with 90 bux, thus saving the prosecution (whoever it is?) the
need to do any work (like proving their case in court, which is
impossible to begin with if the defendant were really a fighter!).
Yeah, I had to laugh. Probably a lot of suckers will fall for it
though. But then again, if they are going to be even bigger losers
due to their ignorance, it would make sense for them to cut their
losses, I guess. If I went in and gave them 90 bux for the few
outstanding tickets on my record, that they have failed to prosecute
me for, I'd be admitting I committed a crime that I'm not guilty of,
and I'd be admitting that I know what the money of account is, and how
much of it is a dollar quantity. They've been threatening to arrest
me for over two years, and here I am, still waiting! Rather than fork
over any FRNs, I'd rather they arrest me, so I can get to try out my
LATEST updated, streamlined defenses! I've got a lot to throw at them
if they ever decide to have me arrested. After all, the information
that won all my past cases is still good, even if my new stuff fails (
which I seriously doubt it would). I think they know that some people
out here KNOW, and they would rather try to shear the sheep who don't
kick and bite. Now, even young teenagers are taking them on here in
our local courts, and giving them arguments they can't deal with.
It's only a matter of time before being a sucker is going to lose
favor with the majority of the populace.
Taking an amnesty is an admission that you broke a law. I could
never accept amnesty, since I don't violate any laws. But police will
tell you that there are people who DO confess to crimes that they
never committed. Are you thinking of accepting amnesty? If so, you
could have some fun with the money issue. You could come forward,
confess, and then ask them what the current money of account is, and
how much of it is a dollar quantity, so that you could pay your fine.
They'd reply by telling you what they will "accept", but then again,
what they will "accept" is not the question. The question is, what
can they require?
Mirage @ Garbanzo>> I love those lawyers who 'plead-bargin.' I've
never been certain that to offer a plea is ever a bargin.<<
It's a bargain for the court and the prosecution! When a court
has no jurisdiction over the case, if they can get the accused to
enter a plea (guilty, or not guilty, or no contest) or ask the judge
for anything then jurisdiction is automatically conferred upon the
court, and they can proceed with the trial. Usually, the prosecution
will charge the defendant with more than one offense, using the extra
one(s) as bargaining chips in the attempt to get a plea. I never plea
bargain. Once, a prosecutor said to me, "If you plead guilty to
driving on a suspended license, I'll drop the other two charges".
This was in the hall, outside the courtroom, in front of witnesses. I
never had a suspended license, so I said, "Let's see if I understand
you correctly - if I go in there and lie to the judge, you'll go
easier on me?" The prosecutor then stormed down the hall, franticly
smoking his cigarette. He looked like a puffing locomotive. Back in
the courtroom, the public defender (supposedly on my side, right?)
tried to get me to ask the judge for a continuance. She said, "If
you'll just ask for a continuance, the judge will continue the case
for several months, and then if you don't get stopped again, he will
dismiss the charges." I said, "Look sweetheart, the judge has no
jurisdiction over this case at this moment, but if I ask for a
continuance, he will thereby obtain it, so you go tell him the trick
didn't work, okay?" The Public Defender then got all upset and
stormed out of the room, into the judges chambers, from where they
were watching through a peephole in the door. Ten minutes later the
judge came out and dismissed the charges "in the interest of justice".
Lichen>> I can agree that rights are God (or pick your own creator) -
given, but they must be protected and allowed by the government.<<
Ideally, that would be nice, but how long do you propose that
people wait to exercise their rights if it goes against government
policy? Many people collect every year because government agents
violated their rights. It's not uncommon, just unreported. It's not
the kind of thing that makes the news, unless it's a Rodney King type
of dramatic case, suitable for the media. When Rosa Parks decided to
exercise her right to ride in the front of the bus, it was not
"protected and allowed by the government". No, she had to duke it out
on the courtroom floor with a prosecutor who was willing to tell a
jury that she "broke the law". Surely assistant district attorneys
know what they are talking about, DON'T THEY??! Seems the Supreme
Court thought differently, and they had the same Constitution in front
of them that the district attorney had in front of him. See,
government administators know that only a very small percentage of
people will fight for their rights, so they play the odds, and feel
pretty safe violating rights. It usually takes their insurance
company telling them that they won't renew their policies for them to
tone it down some. If you want to get government's attention, the
best way is to make yourself felt in their balance sheet. Check out
Title 18, sections 241 & 242, and Title 42, sections 1983 & 1985.
Barry Wong @ Interface>> FF, under what circumstances would a court
have rightful jurisdiction over you?<<
A court would have righful jurisdiction over me if it either has
proof of a breach of some contract I've willingly entered into (which
would place me under an Admiralty/Equity Jurisdiction), or if a
natural complainant came forward under penalties of perjury to show
that I had injured their rights in some way (which would place me
under a Common Law jurisdiction). It would also obtain jurisdiction
over me if I went to it with an action. In that case, I'd be
conferring it upon the court myself. Promising to Appear and
Depositing Bail also grant the court jurisdiction. Any voluntary
general appearance in court grants it jurisdiction.
BW>> It seems that in most of the cases you've discussed so far, your
first line of asserting your rights is to refuse the court
jurisdiction over you and/or your case. Am I understanding you
correctly?<<
You most certainly are understanding me, Barry! Since
jurisdiction is crucial, in that a court or agency that lacks
jurisdiction cannot act lawfully, isn't this where YOU would start,
too? For me, it begins right at "the scene of the crime".
Citizen>> I for one would not be sorry to see an end to US
imperialism, bloody wars over national boundaries like we have
chronically involving Israel, and like we just had in Kuwait/Iraq.<<
Speak for yourself, pal! MY government isn't imperialist, has not
been involved in wars over national boundaries, etc. etc. - That's
YOUR government, the Democracy of the Corporate United States of
America, ruling its subjects under the Uniform Commercial Code of
Merchants and accomplishing its tyranny over its subjects by the
action of irredeemable commercial debt paper; it is not the Republic
of the United States, created under the Constitution signed in
Philadelphia. There are TWO United States. One is a republic; the
other a democracy. The two are incompatible, but can coexist together
in space and time, depending upon the agreement of the parties. You
described the Democracy. I reserve my right to live in the Republic.
Citizen>> Wouldnt a WorldGov end a lot of this stupid "defense" or
individual countries? We here in the US sure spend enough on bombs
weapons guns planes missiles satellites etc etc etc- wouldnt it be
nice if we didnt have to do that?<<
Defense is stupid? You want to trust your rights to people who
have no idea what they are? You want to relegate yourself to an even
lower status than you now possess? All those bombs and planes you
mentioned are obtained on the credit of unborn generations of your
progeny by a particapatory democracy of the same ilk that would run
your new world order. Is that what you really want? Perpetual
indebtedness under a neo-feudalist system? My defense consists of my
own wits and my personal weapons, and that's it. No one else is
defending ME. Desert Storm was not to protect MY rights. It was a
payoff by the world's largest debtor nation to its creditors, and the
American troops functioned as mercenaries.
Citizen>> I dont know, call me a starry-eyed idealist. But Im not at
all sure about this One World idea. It has some good points. I think
John Lennon wrote a song about all this. "Imagine".<<
Well, you can "imagine" all you want, but don't try to force your
dreams on me without my consent or over my objection. I have the law
and a gun on my side. I won't harm your rights - don't go making
plans for mine. If your new world order threatens my rights, I have
the right of self-defense.
The Citizen>> Froggie, on a personal note- I think one thing that
causes you trouble interpersonally, especially on the boards (which I
admit is all the knowledge I have of your interpersonal relating) is
that you tend to answer questions so vituperatively that you seem to
be attacking the asker.<<
Pretty good technique, huh? When people are asking me questions,
it's usually to entice me to make admissions and confessions. You
have to master that technique if you want to win notwithstanding the
jury's verdict! Almost all of a policeman's, judge's or prosecutor's
questions are designed to trick you, so I practice answering questions
all the time. It's one reason I will spend the time at this message
base, just to get to field the questions as I would if standing on the
courtroom floor, defending my rights. Sometimes I imagine that you
are all the Grand Jury, judge or prosecutor. If you don't know what
I'm talking about, how can I credit you with the intelligence to
exercise any power over my life, liberty, or property? Yes, I pick on
EVERY word, if possible, because it's only words that can allow the
government to deny you your rights by turning you into a "criminal".
I just read about how Disney World in Florida was influential enough
to have persons who clashed with THEIR POLICY declared to be
criminals! Most of the people arrested and tried on the charges,
because they were told they had violated a law, plead guilty and were
sentenced. But finally, one guy, even though he knew that he had done
the forbidden act, plead "not guilty" and challenged the law. The
jury nullified the law in his case, and he went free, but it was
decided to let the law stand, because most people were content to be
told it was a valid law, and most people prosecuted were willing to
pay a fine. That was a perfect illustration of how our system works -
if anyone out there reading this wants to go around obeying
unconstitutional laws, and having their rights curtailed because it is
part of some utopian scheme, GO RIGHT AHEAD! But don't expect
everyone to bend over and take it like you do! I challenge your
jurisdiction over me right at the scene of your first question to me!
I challenge all your assumptions and presumptions of law! I
disqualify and dishonor any presentments made "under color of law"! And
I look for ANY opportunity to be hostile to ANYONE who would justify the
violation of ANY of my rights!
Lichen @ Garbanzo>> I'm curious, Frog Farmer -- what is the legal
definition of the "injured party"? Must one be physically injured (
run over, basically) or can the injury be one to their property, also?
Assuming that to be true, what about (and here I ask with tongue
quite partially in cheek) -- what about mental injuries or
difficulties; having to completely rethink their path because someone
used the wrong lane to make a left turn?<<
If having to think causes severe enough mental anguish to get
one to sign a complaint and prosecute a case, one may end up in an
institution, sooner or later. An actionable injury is a wrong done to
one's person, property, rights, or reputation. Mental anguish has
usually been associated with physical injury. The recently ratified
Genocide Convention, which is blatantly unconstitutional, recognizes
"mental damage" as the discomfort one experiences when called a
derogatory name by another. For this offense, now Americans can be
shipped overseas to stand trial in another country, if they allow it
to happen to them. In my opinion, anyone who would claim mental
damage because someone else called them a name they did not like
probably has very little mental material to damage. Luckily, people
with that limited amount of mental capacity are usually too stupid to
know how to pursue a legal action, but with all the lawyers our
society is generating it could become a whole new area of law practice
in the future. I can see the TV commercial now: "Hey! Yeah, you! Do
people call you a Nigger, Kike, Spik, Slope, Beaner, Wop, Blubber
Breath, Honky, or Paleface? Call Lawyers Action Hotline now, where
our trained lawyers will act fast to have your attacker extradited to
a country where the jury will be sure to convict! All you will have
to do is pay our initial consultation fee and be able to make an "X"
for your signature, and our lawyers will spring into action!"
I can also see a whole new travel industry springing up, since
victims will have to go to testify against the accused. Airlines will
be offering special rates and group discounts for mentally damaged
special interest groups who feel insulted. Here's one possible
advertisement: "Has somebody called you a nigger recently? Why not
hold the trial in beautiful Botswanna? Await the verdict in the
beautiful Genocide Suite of the Botswanna Hotel. Dine on antelope
steak, or get to suck blood from living cattle. Make it a memorable
experience. Call Genocide Junkets Travel Agency, 555-RACE, for
information on other possible taxpayer funded vacations."
b0b>> Wait a minute, Frog Farmer. You have no idea how Lichen, or any
other person, will react in a hypothetical situation... you're really
out in left field if you think you can accurately predict how Lichen
will react in ANY situation. You don't even KNOW the guy.<<
That's why I used the word "probably", b0b. I was trying to
rouse him into defending himself, but you beat him to it. If I was
wrong, he could correct me, just like he'd have to do in the courtroom
when either the prosecutor or judge said something that wasn't
completely accurate. But if he didn't correct me, then whatever was
said stands as true, even if it's false!! I was merely going by what
he himself said, and letting that define the probabilities. It's
clear that he is not familiar with the procedures, so he'd PROBABLY
look to the judge as a trustworthy, honest person who would tell him
the truth. MOST people do. I'd hope that everyone reading this base
would count themselves as being different than MOST PEOPLE, especially
in how they might behave in a courtroom.
In court, if you appear in a red shirt, and the prosecutor says
"Your honor, this man appears here in a blue shirt", and you do not
object timely, the record will show that you appeared in a blue shirt,
even though the court reporter and everyone else could see with their
own eyes that your shirt was red.
**
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a
mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t
aS51cz4=
=WIMt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
