1. Stocks continue to roll off recent highs, while metals catch a bid
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Thu Morning! Gold is up 6.6 to 1252, and Silver is up 17 to 16.55. Crude is up 26 to 4279. The USD is flat at 9721
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/10/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1271.40-- DOWN 8.80 Silver $17.22-- DOWN 30 Oil $45.83-- DOWN 1.83 USD $97.01 -- UP 37 TICS
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

12 Steps to Reclaim Your Estate – Birthright Citizenship vs Corp Slave Citizenship

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by Bigjon, May 8, 2015.



  1. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm living in your fucked up world and I don't like it.
    So now you are claiming to be a sovereign citizen. How far is that going to fly?
    Last I heard the cops shoot people like you on sight.
    https://www.policeone.com/investiga...tactics-for-investigating-Sovereign-Citizens/






    Well all the stuff I claim is true. I claim the Declaration of Independence as my founding document.

    And 99.99% of the people agree with me, all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. I claim the republican form of government that this Constitution FOR the united States of America grants me.
    You are operating on a made up defacto CONstitution OF that was unlawfully put in place of the original.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2016
  2. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean your made up fantasy world is real.

    The sovereign citizen argument doesn't even make sense when you say people have to file special paperwork for it.




    We use the US constitution for the biases of our laws, not the declaration of independence. Also it doesn't say what you think it does.

    Umm no they don't agree with you. You just said only 1-3 people out of over 2000 people living in a specific area agrees with you. Also you said that the vast majority of people who disagree with you don't get voting rights, so how can you call them equal?

    Didn't you just say you don't follow the Constitution but the declaration of independence instead? Also you are talking about the articles of confederation aren't you? The defunct constitution that has no legal authority in the US.

    No wonder your world view is so warped. Instead of following the US constitution which is the government we actually use in the US, you use the defunct articles of confederation that hasn't had any legal authority for 200 years, and the deceleration of independence which has nothing to do with how our government runs.

    It is baffling that anyone would take anything you say as serious legal advise. Yet people try it and end up in jail all the time.
     
  3. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    113,780
    Likes Received:
    35,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is turning out to be a heck of a lot more interesting than I thought it was going to be.
    Hats off to both Big John and Alric on this Manic Monday.....................:beer:

    How about a tune.................

     
  4. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are the one who is claiming to be a sovereign citizen, not me. You can't even keep your lies straight.
    There is a large body of law that says that individual people in the united States of America are sovereign. You can't be a Citizen and be Sovereign. A Sovereign is not under any form of government. A Citizen has agreed to under a government.


    You use a bastardized version (the constitution OF) illegally changed and adopted as a statute for your UNITED STATES INC corporation.
    The people used the Declaration to form their respective States and the States agreed to A Constitution FOR the united States of America. It has a thirteenth amendment that is referenced here that makes it illegal for lawyers and attorneys to be members of the United States Federal government.

    The bastardized version you use drops this without any legal means to do so and makes other unlawful changes to the body of the document.


    That is because they were tricked and don't understand that they were tricked they are blissfully ignorant, a function inculcated in them by the Public Fool System called schools.

    This Constitution FOR the united States of America is for the Federal government and was adopted by the States created by the Declaration. It enumerates certain functions the Federal government is supposed to provide for the States, one of which is a Republican form of government in each State.

    The people of the united States of America are not under this Constitution FOR the united States of America.

    If you claim to be a Citizen of the UNITED STATES INC you are under the Constitution OF THE UNITED STATES.

    Seems that got lost along the way to defrauding the good American people and converting them into Persons with Corporate appellations like JOHN SEEMORE DOE.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2016
  5. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,532
    Likes Received:
    2,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right


    It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual."

    [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36] (1873) emphasis added]



    "Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government... he owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties."

    U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).


    The Neutrality Act of 1939, Preamble, Title 8 USC and Title 22, USC all set forth two different jurisdictions;
    the de jure jurisdiction, under the constitution, and
    the de facto jurisdiction, under the 14th amendment.



    -------------------------------------


    28 U.S. Code § 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury


    Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

    (1)
    If executed without the United States:

    “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
    Executed on (date).
    (Signature)”.

    (2)
    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths:

    “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
    Executed on (date).
    (Signature)”.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2016
    arminius and Bigjon like this.
  6. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    I declare.....by declaration it would seem that all this court stuff is all administrative. With or without the United States kind of seems unnatural in thinking. But, but remember there was NO, and I mean no law against the commitment of murder until the Robert got killed, it was then an after measure thought. So because of this introduction of a murder statute has the federal roll changed from administrative to punitive?

    Those who think like bits would say so, which is most likely why it has a tuff time wrapping the thinking cells around this concept. I must admit that I too succumb to this thinking from time to time.

    TRYNINE has posted a most forbidden link in stating the difference between USDC and DCUS. And, while one operates only in territories the other is to operate within the purview of state boundaries in accordance with the Constitution.

    Only in a local court can remedy be found. Remedy for causation of death, theft in fact all the despicable things humans seem to inflict upon one another can be remedied there. So why have a state court? Well in the aforementioned reasons to get dragged in to court puts state courts as administrative also in that they administer the laws of the county's. So how does the administrative law have sway in the state realm; the federal administrative law that is? It's that pesky 14th again. This 14th only exists in the administrative realm of the state's BUT it has to do with what makes up a state's populace and this makes its understanding and implementation problematic. Which is why we are where we are now.

    Look, it is not like I have answers but is seems to me that Anna is just disavowing this federal administrative overreach. Fine, I'm fine with that. But these people invest so much into this state citizen thing and I'm like wtf?

    Oh and this tidbit is for bits: what ever the agreement on the arbitrator one is stuck with that arbitrator' s decision. So you can have a vonna van ritze as a judge or how ever her name is spelled.
     
  7. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if you can't be a sovereign and a citizen at the same time and being in any sort of government at all makes you a citizen, then how the hell can Ann be a judge and why are you saying you follow the deceleration of independence or Articles of federation. None of the stuff you are saying makes any sense because they are all forms of government. Perhaps far weaker forms of government but still forms of government. How the heck can someone claim to be living in a "state" or have an office within a "state" and not part of any sort of government at all? You realize that a state implies government. If there wasn't any government at all, then it wouldn't be a state.


    1. If you accept that, then by default you are not a sovereign right? You just said a citizen is anyone who is in a government, and you agree with the formation of states and the early form of government. That makes you a citizen not a sovereign by your own logic.

    2. If people agree to a Constitution for the United States, and then write a Constitutions of the United States, that is the same thing. The silly semantics games that people like you play don't actually change anything. Changing capitalization, or minor words like that don't actually change anything. And no one ever refers to the US as United States Inc, or calls it a corporation.

    3. It doesn't even matter if you think the constitution was legally passed or not. If nearly everyone agrees to it and then that is how we started doing things, then that is how it ran. Governments are political constructs, they are all illusionary by nature and require everyone to accept them to exist. That is why the US declared independence and Britain said, "Nope, you are still ours." Then we fought a war. We won, and they were forced to accept our version of government.

    You can say all this stuff you want, the fact that 99.99% of the population all say you are wrong, makes you wrong. If your laws have no real authority, and they don't, then they are meaningless. You think your laws have some kind of authority, I get that, but they don't. Just think about it. Everyone in the current government, which runs everything, which everyone is a citizen of all say you are wrong and will not accept your arguments, so what authority does your laws have? Best case scenario is that you temporarily confuse people while your spinning your bullshit and then later they realize you are full of it and you get arrested and then go to jail.


    Seems like you were the one tricked. Why else are you following nonsense that will only get you arrested and only causes you headaches if caught? You know full well that none of this stuff is used any where in the US, and you admit that nearly no one is a sovereign. If basically no one but a tiny group is 'sovereign' then clearly they have no real authority. So why pretend like they do? It doesn't even matter if you think the stuff you are saying was originally the more legal interpretation of law or not, it definitely isn't anymore.



    Lets say for the sake of argument, everyone was tricked. I say you are wrong, and think everyone agreed to the US Constitution but lets pretend for a moment you are right and everyone was tricked. The US constitution was written 226 years ago. If everyone was tricked into agreeing to it, and we have been following it that entire time, then it is too late.

    That would be like saying that if a country has a coup, and everyone is tricked and or forced into accepting it, it still isn't legitimate even if 200 years passed. Well no, the coup was never legal but if everyone goes along with it for 200 years that is the new government. It is pretty silly if someone stands up and says they want to go back to the government from 200 years ago because that is the legal government. Now if they got everyone to agree, they could attempt a coup to throw out the now legitimate government and they may use that as a legal claim to prop up their legitimacy. However, if everyone says "Your nuts, this is the government we have now, face reality." And virtually everyone agrees with them and no one with you, then your basically have no leg to stand on.

    Which is the case here. These people are running around and one person out of 2000+ declares them self judge and the other 2000+ people all ignore them and said she is nuts, well she is nuts. She has no authority and she isn't a judge. These legal claims you are basically making up have no authority in US law and because of that, they do not work. It doesn't matter if someone wants to follow the Articles of confederation because they think it is more legit than the constitution, it is a defunct document with no authority.

    Say the US Constitution is an illegal document that was passed by a secret coup agreed on by the founders of the US. Doesn't matter. Our founders wrote the US Constitution, they got the states to agree to it, they got all the government structures set up, and that is the system we are using today. That is the reality of the situation.
     
  8. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you read what you want to read.
    I have a few objections to the Constitution FOR written in 1787, but do acknowledge that it was adopted by the States and I said so.

    The body of law between the Declaration and the Civil War has a lawful government abiding by the terms set down by the founding documents. The people were then agreed to be sovereign over the government except those who were a part of government who were it's citizens and operating under the rules. Those who owned property and did not vote in elections were called free inhabitants and were sovereign.

    You seem to want to ignore the Constitution OF which is the bastardized version of the lawful Constitution FOR the united States of America.
    CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
    is not the law of the land it's an impostor, a shill, a charlatan, a wolf in sheep's clothing, but our current government claims it instead of the lawful one FOR it.
    The deceivers moved in under the cover of the Civil War and reconstructed a new government a CORPORATION with PERSONS being the governed.

    Most of the people of the united States of America are not UNITED STATES INC citizens.

    Statute at Large “ The Act of Congress of April 14, 1802” (2 Stat 153, c. 28, Sec. 1; Rev. St. Sec. 2165) Admission to become a Citizen :

    “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, AND NOT OTHERWISE”:

    He must declare b/4 a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States 2 yrs prior to his admission with renunciation of all allegiance to a potentate or sovereignty to which he may be a citizen or subject.

    He must support the United States Constitution and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance by name to all foreign princes, state, potentate or sovereignty of which he was b/4 he was a citizen or subject which proceedings shall be recorded by the CLERK OF THE COURT.

    He must show to the satisfaction of the court that he has resided within the United States for 5 yrs and within the State or Territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and during that time he displays good moral character attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same but the oath of the applicant shall IN NO CASE be allowed to prove his residence.

    This Statute was never repealed and was amended once by the Act of May 26, 1824 (4 Stat 69, c. 186, Sec 1; Rev. St. Sec 2167) which removed the 2 yr limit

    Until all 3 facts of evidence are produced to YOU by the court in writing as recorded by the clerk of the court you are not a citizen and the claim of citizenship by any oath or signed documents is only a PRESUMPTION that you are a citizen

    Fraud of the 14th amendment : 14th amendment clearly links 1 of 2 specific events (being born or naturalized) occurring IN the US (federal territory). Quite simply if you are not born or naturalized on federal territory, you are not a 14th amendment US Citizen. Simply declaring yourself to be that citizen on a govt form does not make it so. If the truth reveals otherwise then that declaration is INVALID, b/c you don’t fulfill the requirements. This is analogous to the process of selection for jury duty. If you are NOT a resident or domiciliary of the State and you are able to prove that, then you don’t qualify for jury duty selection. The issue is about “legitimacy” based on the written law. I can virtually claim anything I want to on a govt form it doesn’t mean that its true based on the written law. The law cannot be implied and must be expressly written so as to prevent ambiguity. If it is not expressly written it is not the law. The 14 th amendment is clearly written to show that if you are not born or naturalized in or on federal territory then you are not a 14th amendment US Citizen.

    Don’t forget that filling out a govt issued document of any kind is only a presumption of Citizenship not proof of it. When challenged in Court they would have to show that documentation and if that documentation doesnt show The USA or any corporate govt subdivision as the proprietor then they don’t have jurisdiction.
     
  9. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isn't true. Not voting in elections has never made you exempt from laws. I am not sure where you are getting that from, but it is completely fictional.

    I am not ignoring anything, you are just being vague and unclear and you seem confused. There is only one US Constitution. Just because the US constitution got new amendments doesn't mean it is a new document. Also the Of or For stuff doesn't actually reference anything, so you are basically talking gibberish. If you want people to understand what you are saying, you need to reference actual things. The Constitution "of" and "for" is gibberish and has no meaning. If you are referring to amendments made during the civil war then please be clear and reference them so we know what the hell you are talking about.

    I thought you were talking about the articles of confederation, because that is what people usually refer to has the 'other' constitution, but apparently you are just talking about the new amendments that were added.

    None of that made any sense. For starters, the entire first part is talking about people from other countries moving here and becoming citizen, which doesn't apply to most citizens. Second when it talks about the US, it is talking about the US has a whole. So if you are born in any US state you are a citizen. The 14th amendment is pretty clear, if you are born in the US you are a citizen. I am not sure what point you are trying to make it your rant.

    Also, if you are in the US you are under US authority. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not, you still fall under US jurisdiction if you are here in this country(aside from perhaps a couple of rare circumstances with ambassadors and stuff). Saying you are not a citizen doesn't make you immune to US laws if you are caught within the US.
     
  10. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    And, it drove another nail into the table with its forehead.

    Shall we get into the person argument now? Someday I might do an exposition on it but as I am on ignore me thinks "Why bother?" But the 14th has been raised.....I'm feeling the urge....truly am.
     
  11. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't just drop adopted amendments like the thirteenth amendment Titles of Nobility which was just dropped and a new amendment put in it's place. That is what the lying thugs did. You can't make changes to a legal document without following the legal procedure that was put in place by the Constitution FOR. (HEY GET USED TO IT, THERE IS ONE LEGAL CONSTITUTION AND ONE BASTARD OF).
     
  12. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Titles of Nobility was never ratified by the states, and hence the reason it isn't in the US Constitution. As you said you can't make changes to a legal document without following legal procedure. Since it was never ratified by the States, which is required, it was never added. It was never 'dropped', it was never in the Constitution in the first place.
     
  13. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Ratification by the states
    [​IMG]
    Ratified amendment pre-certification, 1866–1868
    Ratified amendment pre-certification after first rejecting it, 1868
    Ratified amendment post-certification after first rejecting it, 1869–1976
    Ratified amendment post-certification, 1959
    Ratified amendment, withdrew ratification (rescission), then re-ratified
    Territories of the United States in 1868, not yet states
    Ratification of the amendment was bitterly contested. State legislatures in every formerly Confederate state, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify it. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[19] It also prompted Congress to pass a law on March 2, 1867, requiring that a former Confederate state must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before "said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress".[20]

    And, that is what I think of the precious 14th

    Found it here edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
     
  14. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
    To The Constitution For The United States




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


    On March 12, 1819 the State of Virginia, with the enactment and publication of the laws of Virginia, became the 13th and FINAL state required to ratifythe above article of amendment to the Constitution For The United States, thus making it the Law Of The Land. With the enactment of Act No. 280, March 12, 1819, which was Voted, En Bloc, and publication of the Revised Code, the State of Virginia notified the Department of State, the Congress, the Library of Congress, and the President of their action by issuing to each a copy of the Laws of Virginia. [See VA 1819 Images] . In fact, the Journal of the Virginia Senate; Tuesday, May 1st, 1810 (Pages 511-512 shows that the resolution to amend was properly enrolled and ratified on that date by the Virginia House and Senate, to be laid before the President of the United States, therefore the first state to ratify.

    This Article of Amendment is intimately connected to questions of loyalty, honesty, war and national defense. It is designed to combat internal subversion and discord sowed by people who are adhering to powers foreign to the Congress of the United States without stepping across the bold Constitutional line of treason. The authors of the TONA wrote it after some additional experience with how the British Empire, as well as other European nations, actually conduct their affairs. It is a corrective and supplemental measure to go along with Constitutional treason.

    This Article of Amendment added an enforceable strict penalty, i.e., inability to hold office and loss of citizenship, for violations of the already existing constitutional prohibition in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 on titles of nobilityand other conflicts of citizenship interest, such as accepting emoluments of any kind for services or favors rendered or to be rendered, and is particularly applicable today in the 21st Century as government is increasingly FOR SALE to the highest bidder, as foreign nations and multinational corporations and individuals compete to line the pockets of politicians and political parties to accommodate and purchase protection or privilege for their special interests, i.e. with honors, such as money or allowing dual-citizenships.

    In terms familiar to the common man, this might quite properly be called the use of bribes and graft by individuals and powers foreign, i.e. external, to the Congress of the United States to subvert the constitutional process and suborn our political system and the interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

    After appearing in numerous official publications until 1876, this Article "disappeared" from our Constitution, to be replaced by another made nearly 50 years later. You may well ask how such a thing could have happened. So did we.

    It is of particular interes to read the last three paragraphs of the preface to"Echoes From The Cabinet," published in 1896 .... click here .. To understand why our legislators mad it disappear.

    The disappearance of the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been under investigation by independent modern researchers during the past -1867 years. We've learned a lot.

    We now know that the original 13th Amendment was, and still is, the Law Of The Land.

    The law is still there, waiting only to be publicly recognized and enforced once again to protect the Sovereignty and Interests of WE THE PEOPLE, and to force the elected representatives of the people to adhere strictly to their solemn and binding Oath of Office, i.e., "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." , and to the limitations of government imposed by the Constitution.

    This site is brought to you directly by the primary researchers themselves, functioning as the TONA Research Committee. We are dedicated to continuing this research, and to placing all the facts and news on this important subject before the public.

    The TONA Research Committee hopes that the hard and sometimes tedious work of the committee and the personal sacrifice of time and money involved over the past -1867 years will have a positive effect for you and our nation. The excitement of finding each new hidden piece of the puzzle has made it worthwhile for us.

    September, 2002 -- An exciting find has come into our hands, "Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States", published in 1825 under the authority of the War Department. See Military Law Book Images and the Chronology of its Publication.

    Shortly thereafter, The TONA Research Committee received images from a high school principal who had located an 1818 Digest of the Territorial Laws of Missouri in the Missouri Supreme Court Library, Jefferson City, MO ... The Organic act for Missouri Territory, of June 4,1812, separating Missouri Territory from Louisiana, became effective December 7, 1812. These images with those of 1816 Massachusetts and 1818 Pennsylvania indicate that the 13th Amendment was ratified prior to 1819 ... See Missouri Law Digest Images

    2003 -- A bill, House Concurrent Resolution 10, is now before the New Hampshire legislature, reaffirming New Hampshire's December 9, 1812 ratification of the TONA... See New Hampshire House Concurrent Resolution 10



    February 2003 -- Rep. Marple, prime sponsor of the New Hampshire Resolution 10 above, sent the TONA Committee copies of pages from the NH Journal of the Senate, Dated June 12, 1812, that has these surprising statements on pages 48 and 49:

    Page 48:


    • "The following was received from His Excellency the Governor, by the Secretary.

      • To the Senate and House of Representatives.
        I herewith communicate to the Legislature for their consideration, certain laws and resolutions passed by the Legislatures of Georgia, North-Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Vermont, upon the subject of amendments of the Constitution of the United States, together with letters from the executive officers of those States.

        WILLIAM PLUMER"
    Page 49:


    • "Voted, That Messers. Kimball and Ham, with such as the House of Representatives may join, be a committee to take into consideration certain laws and resolutions passed by the Legislatures of Georgia, North-Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Vermont, and other documents accompanying the same, communicated this day by His Excellency the Governor, and report thereon. Sent down for concurrence."
    Images of the New Hampshire Journal entries. Pages 48 and 49

    Members of the TONA Committee have long suspected that Virginia ratified the TONA in February, 1812, prior to the March 12, 1819 date of the publishing of the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia, but we do not consider these New Hampshire journal entries as definitive. However, they are substantive.



    March 2006 -- Two private publications, The True Republican, published in 1841, and the Constitution-Federalist, published in 1862 during the War Between The States, were found. Images of their pertinent pages may be seen on the Private Publications page.



    March 29, 2006 -- A very high quality private publication, Echoes From The Cabinet, published in 1855 before the War Between The States was found by Steve Kouroyen, who was able to open and scan the pages. The images of the pertinent pages may be seen on the Private Publications page. The TONA Team has two other copies, too delicate and brittle to open and scan.



    If you would like to become an associate member of our research team please send us an email. We would be pleased to welcome you as a member. And any small donations to help support this website will be gratefully accepted.


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2016
  15. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Virginia did not ratify it. That never happened.

    2. It doesn't matter even if they did. Even if Virginia did ratify it in march of 1819, at the time they needed more than 13 states to ratify it any way, so they were still short.

    So even if you are right, you are wrong. This is just math. Look at the dates and how many states there was at that time.
     
  16. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Choke
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  17. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1819 is a red herring, that is when Virginia published their laws.

    he State of Virginia notified the Department of State, the Congress, the Library of Congress, and the President of their action by issuing to each a copy of the Laws of Virginia. [See VA 1819 Images] .In fact, the Journal of the Virginia Senate; Tuesday, May 1st, 1810 (Pages 511-512 shows that the resolution to amend was properly enrolled and ratified on that date by the Virginia House and Senate, to be laid before the President of the United States, therefore the first state to ratify.
     
  18. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still doesn't matter. Even if you use the 1810 date, they still didn't have enough states to ratify it. Sorry, but the math just doesn't add up. Even including Virginia ratify it(which they didn't) at the earliest possible date, it still doesn't change the fact that they were one short.
     
  19. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you are wrong, in 1810 there were 17 States which means 13 States ratify the amedment.
     
  20. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There wasn't 13 states that had ratified it in 1810. If you include Virgina, the 13th State to ratify it was New Hampshire on December 9, 1812. In December of 1812, there was 18 states, which means they needed 14. So even if you included Virgina they were still one short.
     
  21. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,429
    Likes Received:
    2,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    Per David Dodge, not per some fukin ignorant internet troll moron ^ who would butcher the truth secondary their vested interest shilling for the bank:


    The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

    Colorado 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Connecticut 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Dakota 1862, 1863, 1867
Florida 1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana 1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa 1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky 1822
Louisiana 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine 1825, 1831
Massachusetts 1823
Michigan 1827, 1833
Mississippi 1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina 1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories 1833
Ohio 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania 1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island 1822
Virginia 1819
Wyoming 1869, 1876

    Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications. "Pimsleur's", a checklist of legal publications, does not list many of the above volumes.

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

    The Original Thirteenth Amendment
    Ratified March 12, 1819


    The Founders held an intense disdain and distrust of "Nobility" as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the "Nobility", and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against acceptance of Titles of Nobility or Honor or emoluments from external sources. The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the "Nobility" and the "MoniedClasses" from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men.

    As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities notavailable to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.

    As noted in the discussion in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States". This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted, never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted. The original records of the original 13th amendment were thought to be destroyed at the time of the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, but have since been found in the archives of the BritishMuseum, the national archives and in the archives of several of the States and territories. The fact of its existence had been lost to memory until, by chance, researchers discovered in the public library at Belfast, Maine an 1825 copy of the U. S. Constitution. Subsequent research shows that it was in the records of the ratifying states and territories until 1876, the last to drop it from record was the Territory ofWyoming after 1876. The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 ColoradoTerritory edition which includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment, on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.

    The 1876 Laws of Wyoming which similarly show the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th, the current 14th amendment is omitted, and the current 15th Amendment is in proper place.

    For further discussion and the history of the Original Thirteenth Amendment see "Demon of Discord, Ratification and Suppression of the Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

    On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Buchanan the day before Lincoln took office.

    This amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was sent to the states for ratification by the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this and the ratified Anti-Slavery amendment of 1865 are the only resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.

    The resolve to amend signed by President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days beforeLincoln's inauguration, read:

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:

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

    In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862.

    But the onslaught of the Civil War taught that the Nation may be in even greater peril from the States than they ever were from the Nation. And so, after more than seventy years of national life, the people, by the presently acknowledged 13th Amendment and the two following, laid upon the States restrictions which a few years before would have been impossible. The Constitution had gone forty-six years (1819 - 1865) without an Amendment.

    In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, approved and signed by President Lincoln, February 1, 1865, another Amendment numbered XIII (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was then presented to the States for ratification. Two months later, April 9, 1865, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln was assassinated, dying on April 15th.

    On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of "titles of nobility" and"honors" and "emoluments", and dishonest politicians have been bought and bribed and have treasonously accepted graft from external sources ever since, with no thought of penalty.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
    Bigjon likes this.
  22. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am going to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are the moron who is ignorant. Using your OWN dates, I will have put them in order for you. THIS IS ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN DATA. Your data says your a fucking idiot and you are wrong. Here is the list, by dates with the required amount of states listed as required.

    Pennsylvania 1818(1st out of 17 required)
    Virginia 1819(2nd out of 17)
    North Carolina 1819(3rd out of 17)
    Georgia 1819(4th out of 17)
    
Ohio 1819(5th out of 17)
    Connecticut 1821(6th out of 18)
    Rhode Island 1822(7th out of 18)
    Kentucky 1822(8th out of 18)
    Massachusetts 1823(9th out of 18)
    Mississippi 1823(10th out of 18)
    Florida 1823(11th out of 18)
    Indiana 1824(12th out of 18)
    Illinois 1825(13th out of 18)
    Louisiana 1825(14th out of 18)
    Maine 1825(15th out of 18)
    Missouri 1825(16th out of 18)
    Michigan 1827(17th out of 18)
    Iowa 1839(18th out of 19)
    Kansas 1855(19th out of 24)
    Nebraska 1855(20th out of 24)
    Colorado 1861(21st out of 26)
    Dakota 1862(22nd out of 26)
    Wyoming 1869(23rd out of 28)

    Notice at no point did they reach the required number of states to ratify it. That is your own data that says you are wrong. I don't even need to go into the fact that you lied and this data is wrong, because even if I accept everything you say as true you are still wrong.
     
  23. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,429
    Likes Received:
    2,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    The data you just posted states that the 13th amendment was passed.

    And of course as normal you don't have a clue what it means, but you are soo good at obfuscating reality to be what you want it to be, you must be a lawyer...

    That you're being paid as a internet shill troll is only too obvious.
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  24. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I sent an email to the people who wrote the TONA report and received this response:

    I should of said Article V of the Constitution of these United States of
    America, it does not mention 3/4th's when proposed or 3/4th's when
    ratified. We can and have proved, for the TON and Honor Amendment,

    it was 3/4's when propose which means their were only 13 States needed to

    adopt the Article XIII of the Amendents to the United States Constitution of America.
     
  25. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Umm no it doesn't. It clearly shows that it never reached the number of states needed. And no, I didn't include the northwest territories because that isn't a state.

    You are just cherry picking now. If the Constitution doesn't say either way, then you can't claim someone violated the constitution because they happened to pick the one you personally disagree with.
     
  26. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,429
    Likes Received:
    2,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    Let me try one more time, although I don't know why I'm wasting my time on such as you, I will repeat part of my post 101.

    The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

    Colorado 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Connecticut 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Dakota 1862, 1863, 1867
Florida 1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana 1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa 1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky 1822
Louisiana 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine 1825, 1831
Massachusetts 1823
Michigan 1827, 1833
Mississippi 1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina 1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories 1833
Ohio 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania 1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island 1822
Virginia 1819
Wyoming 1869, 1876
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  27. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Eye counted 23.
     
    searcher likes this.
  28. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I assume that there is clarification of the Constitutions stand in the US Code. That is the way it's done, the Code writers find out what the legislators position and intent was and then they write the Code to accord with the intent of the legislators.
     
  29. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So in other words they published it in their publication then went, "Whoops that isn't ratified yet." then removed it. According to you, everyone who mistakenly published it removed it and all did it within a few years of making the mistake. So how exactly does that help your argument?
     
  30. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,429
    Likes Received:
    2,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    Phew, good luck in life, pal.

    I'm out, can't stand the stench...
     
  31. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The argument that the number to ratify changes as more States join the USA, in this case does not make sense.
    There were 4 States added in the 1810 to 1819 period and they were never included in the ratification process. There is no record of any of the new States being offered a chance to ratify the Titles of Nobility and Honor amendment.

    Which means that the number to ratify is determined by the number of States when the process starts.
     
  32. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Interesting point of which I have never contemplated before, interesting.
     
  33. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First off when you look at the number of states to actually ratify it, instead of trying to look at weird stuff like states that mentioned it in some publication the number is only 12. So even if you go about the original number of states they never reached it. 12 was never enough. Secondly if you go by only needing the number who was states at the time it was proposed that means if one of those states ratified it today it would become an amendment with only 13 out of 50 states ratify it. That would be absolute tyranny, that a quarter of the states can change the constitution with no input from the rest.

    You are obviously just pulling anything you can out of your ass to try to justify the amendment. Even the states listed above in some attempt to say they ratified it, included a bunch of states that weren't around when the original process started, so according to you couldn't ratify it. Yet your using them to pad the numbers. Then when the numbers don't work you spin around and say, oh well it works out anyway. No, no it doesn't.

    You are even saying stuff like Virginia is one of the states that ratified it, even though they were one of the ones that specifically rejected it. We all already know that you don't actually fact check any of the random shit you read on the internet, and that is a big problem.
     
  34. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    113,780
    Likes Received:
    35,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A bit o/t but how about a quick tune...............



    Back o/t
     
  35. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are looking at the period after 1819, when it was already ratified. The record shows that Virginia was the very first to ratify it. New Hampshire gave them the 13 required States to ratify in 1812. So by 1812 it was a done deal.
     
  36. Alric

    Alric Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I am not. I am looking at 1811. According to the "Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia" which is the official document recording what happened at the State's senate, they voted no when the amendment came up. Which can be found here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433014921120;view=1up;seq=89

    You have not actually posted anything that has said Virginia ratified it in 1812. You did post something that claimed they were the 13th state too in 1819 but then immediately countered that and said the date was wrong. So where are you getting this information from?
     

Share This Page