>>KeyTopics2>>
Subcategories
T. O. N. A. proofs
VERY IMPORTANT!!! Please take notice!
When the Proposed Amendment, ( Article XIII -
"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."
) was passed by the Congress there were 17 States. Ratification requires 3/4 of the then existing States accept the Amendment. Thirteen States were required to Ratify the Amendment.
With very many thanks to multiple researchers including DW, LJ etc.
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant.
The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: * First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787); * Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819.
Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship.
Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today. http://www.tomdavisbooks.com/library/13thamend.html#mean13 From the State of Maine Constitution Printed in 1825 http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/1825const.htm The Missing 13th Amendment Copy (yes, another one) http://loveforamerica.freeyellow.com/13th.html Analysis of the Real 13th Amendment This amendment was meant to keep citizens of the United States from accepting titles of nobility from foreign powers.
The best example of this would be honorary "knighthoods" given by the rulers of England to people around the world who have performed a service for humanity. http://www.vaix.net/~captainnemo/plan/ Esquire A title applied by attorneys to themselves, to officers of the court, to members of the bar, and others of ill repute. No one in the United States is entitled to it by law, and therefore, it confers, no distinction in law. In England, it is a title next above that of a gentleman, and below a knight. Camden records four kinds of esquires, particularly regarded by the heralds:
1. The eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons, in perpetual succession.
2. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons in like perpetual succession.
3. Esquires created by the king's letters patent, or other investiture, and their eldest sons.
4. Esquires by virtue of their office, as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown.
NOBILITY. An order of men in several countries to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. The constitution of the United States provides that no state shall " grant any title of nobility; and no person can become a citizen of the United States until he has renounced all titles of nobility." The Federalist, No. 84; 2 Story, Laws U. S. 851.
There is not in the (COUNTERFEIT DC DEFACTO UNITED STATES Corporate charter presented as a constitution) de facto constitution today [cf. US v USA: http://www.usavsus.info/ ] any general prohibition against any citizen whomsoever, whether in public or private life, accepting any foreign title of nobility. An amendment of the constitution in this respect has been recommended by congress, but it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitution.
Rawle on the Const. 120; Story, Const. _1346. The Court, in "Horst v. Moses", 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave the following description of a title of nobility: To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms "privilege", "honor", and "emoluments", as they are collectively in the term "title of nobility".
The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant. The prohibition of titles of nobility estops the claim of eminent domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of this amendment. Here is the original 13th amendment to the United States Constitution that was ratified in 1819. Then attorneys caused it to disappear in order to establish their claim of superiority with Titles of Nobility over the people.
The total ramifications of this earlier 13th Amendment being unlawfully removed are very serious. Article 13, ratified in 1819, reads as follows: If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain and title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility 13th Amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the following years:
Colorado ------- 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967, 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 (ratification by 13th State)
Wyoming -------- 1869, 1876
Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications. http://www.outlawslegal.com/answers/esquire.htm
The order of ratification is:
1st State -- December 25, 1810: Maryland - RATIFIED
2nd State -- January 31, 1811: Kentucky - RATIFIED
3rd State -- January 31, 1811: Ohio - RATIFIED - UNANYMOUS
4th State -- February 2, 1811: Delaware - RATIFIED
5th State -- February 6, 1811: Pennsylvania - RATIFIED
6th State -- February 13, 1811: New Jersey - RATIFIED
7th State -- October 24, 1811: Vermont - RATIFIED
8th State -- November 21, 1811: Tennessee - RATIFIED
9th State -- November 22, 1811: Georgia - RATIFIED
10th State -- December 23, 1811: North Carolina - RATIFIED
11th State -- February 27, 1812: Massachusetts - RATIFIED
~~~~~~~ -- March 12, 1812: New York - FAILED TO RATIFY
XXXXXX -- April 30, 1812: Lousiana - Joins Union - Irrelevant
~~~~~~~ -- June 12, 1812: The War of 1812 Begins
12th State -- (June 12, 1812: Governor Plumer of new-Hampshire sends a letter to the new-Hampshire General Court House of Legislature accompanied by letters from the Chief Executive Officers of Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia indicating RATIFICATION of Article XIII by their States. Virginia thus shown as the 12th State to RATIFY.)
13th State -- December 9, 1812: new-Hampshire - RATIFIED
December 9, 1812, new-Hampshire the 13th and final state necessary to fully ratify the real, authentic, Article XIII.
March 10, 1819: The Virginia Legislature passed Act No. 280 - (please see Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro-film):
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..."
This act, by the Virginia General Assembly had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, if the 13th Amendment had not already been ratified, its official date of ratification would be as of the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819."
There is more of the evidence that the State of Virginia ratified Article XIII-TONA before new-Hampshire during 1812. Either the documentation was never forwarded to Washington or it was lost when the Capital and records were burned during the War of 1812 by the British Army.
During 2003, at what was formerly known as the New Hampshire General Court, now more ACCURATELY known as the Foreign STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CORPORATION, unlawfully occupied by NH BAR-Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorners, House Concurrent Resolution 10 was placed before the House to reaffirm New Hampshire's December 9, 1812 ratification of Article XIII-TONA.
During February or 2003, Representative Richard "Dick" Marple, the prime sponsor of HCR 10, sent the Article XIII-TONA Committee, the copies of pages from the New Hampshire 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."
Page 49 - "Voted, That Messers, Kimball and Ham, with such as the House of Representatives may join, be a com,mittee 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." WILLIAM PLUMER June 12, 1812
The above entry in the Senate Record for new-Hampshire clearly shows that Virginia ratified Article XIII prior to June 12, 1812. Early enough before that date that documents from Virginia reached new-Hampshire evidencing their ratification of the Amendment. Governor Plumer, clearly states that he included copies of those documents with his transmittal letter to the New Hampshire Senate and House of Representatives.
The publication of the Constitution for the United States with the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia on March 12, 1819 clearly indicates that the Amendment was properly ratified by Virginia. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification soothed took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.
There is no Constitutional requirement that any notification be sent to the Secretary of State, or to any other individual, that they had ratified Article XIII. The Constitution only requires that 3/4 of the States ratify so that an Amendment will be added to the Constitution. If 3/4 of the States ratify, the Amendment is passed. No provisions are stated concerning any announcement.
Printing the Constitution with the new Article XIII, by the Virginia Legislature. is prima facie evidence of ratification. The real Article XIII is now, and has been since 1812, the official Law of the Land and a valid part of the Constitution for the united States of America.
Article XIII, the Titles of Nobility Amendment, is in fact, abundantly proven, recorded and published, demonstrates clearly, beyond any hope of a doubt, that Foreign Crown Temple B.A.R., Middle Temple, Inns of the Court, Agents of CITY OF LONDON, the Vatican, are foreign with a Title of Nobility. They took the oath to serve the Crown. Their oath that accompanies the grant of such Title requires strict allegiance to the Codes of the B.A.R. An Attorner's first obligation is not to his client, but to the foreign corporate Court. They are absolutely forbidden from holding any office of trust.
Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign State.
Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).
That 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 - Federal Debt Collection Procedure
The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund.
That in 1950 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under definition. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.
We are protected from them - Article XI
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State."
NO law passed at any State, STATE OF... or United States Legislature is valid as of 1812. Ultimately, the actions of the B.A.R. Brokers for the Crown, including but not limited to B.A.R. Agent Abraham Lincoln, Esquire, ruined our Republic, causing the Southern States to walk out of the defunct Congress in 1861, Sine Die, without a day. Since that moment, Congress has never reconvened.
The Constitution used by the defacto Crown-Vatican-Swiss Bank's UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION 4 CORPORATION is as fraudulent as the corporation itself, which contains no Article XIII, and this pirate Coup D'etat on the Whore of Babylon, the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA, is crawling with Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorners, and the Council on Foreign Relations.
During 2013, State Representative Stella Tremblay was the Prime Sponsor for New Hampshire House Bill HB 638, written by David Johnson, to bring Article XIII-TONA back into publication. The Bill was unlawfully tabled. Now the proof and evidence are stronger than ever, and conclusive. The Law still stands.
Starting with the first Constitution of 1787-89 these have been three 70 year bankruptcies, now the fourth is bankruptcy/liquidation.
BAR Member Affidavit – All BAR members are foreign agents of the Crown, Corporation of London
http://scannedretina.com/
SUPREME COURT MAJORITY OPINION
AMERICAS COURTS BUSTED !
FOUND USING JURISDICTION FRAUD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Trowbridge, Jr. et al
Assigned to: Judge Michael H. Schneider
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin
Cause: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:14-cv-00138-MHS-KFG
CASREF,MHS2
Petitioner is a Joint Tenant in the Sovereignty (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471 (1793)).
"DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL, WITH PREJUDICE, OF THIS ALLEGED CASE FOR
LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY THAT GIVES THE COURT THE
CAP A CITY TO TAKE JURISDICTION AND ENTER JUDGMENTS, ORDERS,
AND DECREES IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES ARISING FROM A CIVIL
OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING REGARDING A DEBT."
“When one intends the facts to which the law attaches consequences, he must abide the consequences whether
intended or not. One can not elect to make his home in one place in point of interest and attachment and for
the general purposes of life, and in another, where he in fact has no residence, for the purpose of
taxation. . . .” Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939).
When any United States District Judge in any civil action issues an order commanding the plaintiff or
defendant to do anything, is incontrovertible evidence that (1) the judge is a legislative-branch officer
exercising personal jurisdiction over the litigants and prosecuting the case sua sponte, and (2) the court
is an Article IV legislative court of general jurisdiction—with authority only in “Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States” (Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2)), such as the District of Columbia.
More Here - https://
As a result of the above:
This is how all the posted commercial [COURT] signs 'should' read either outside or inside the so called "COURT" buildings:
WARNING: "This not a judicial court of law.
You are entering a foreign venue and foreign jurisdiction.
This is not a de jure American or an Article III constitutional court of law.
It is a commercial venue which operates in admiralty, in equity.
The office of 'JUDGE' is VACANT.
You are entering an Article I territorial, private administrative tribunal which comes out of one of the "territories" of the UNITED STATES federal corporation. Our Corporate Charter comes out of the US Virgin Islands".
"This private administrative tribunal is a for-profit, foreign corporation and is a registered trader on Dun & Bradstreet with a D-U-N-S and a D/B/A. There is no court "Mission Statement", Articles of Incorporation or any 'original wet-ink signatures' on any Oaths of office for anyone, anywhere within this building.
The building is not set up to do business with the Secretary of State".
"ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK AND AT YOUR OWN PERIL"
On behalf of the Crown - Vatican management
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/13th%20Amendment.pdf
