1675 lines
91 KiB
Plaintext
1675 lines
91 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
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-----
|
||
|
|
||
|
|