lexmagnum

[lexmagnum]

Many people are involved in diligent research concerning the use of all capital letters for proper names, e.g., JOHN PAUL JONES as a substitute for John Paul Jones in all court documents, driver's licenses, bank accounts, birth certificates, etc.. Is the use of all capital letters to designate a name some special English grammar rule or style? Is it a contemporary American style of English? Is the use of this form of capitalization recognized by educational authorities? Is this an official judicial or U.S. government rule and/or style of grammar? Why do attorneys, court clerks, prosecutors judges, insurance companies, banks, credit card companies, utility companies, etc. always use all capital letters when writing a proper name?

What English grammar experts say

One of the foremost authorities on American English grammar, style, composition, and rules is The Chicago Manual of Style. The latest (14th) Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, is internationally known and respected as a major contribution to maintaining and improving the standards of written or printed text. Since we can find no reference in their manual concerning the use of all capitalized letters with a proper name or any other usage, we wrote to the editors and asked this question:

"Is it acceptable, or is there any rule of English grammar, to allow a proper name to be written in all capital letters? For example, if my name was John Paul Jones, can it be written as JOHN PAUL JONES? Is there any rule covering this?"

The Editorial Staff of the University of Chicago answered:

"Writing names in all caps is not conventional; it is not Chicago style to put anything in all caps. For instance, even if 'GONE WITH THE WIND' appears on the title page all in caps, we would properly render it 'Gone with the Wind' in a bibliography. The only reason we can think of to do so is if you are quoting some material where it is important to the narrative to preserve the casing of the letters.

“We're not sure in what context you would like your proper name to appear in all caps, but it is likely to be seen as a bit odd."

Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences. If, for instance, one attempts to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State of a State, if the exact title of the corporation — down to every jot and tittle — is not exactly the same each and every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State will refuse to file the papers. This is because each time the name of the corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation identifies an entirely different legal person.

It is therefore an eminently valid, and possibly crucial, question as to why governments, governmental courts, and agencies purporting to exist (in some undefined, unproved manner) within the jurisdiction of “this state” insist on always capitalizing every letter in a proper name.

Mary Newton Bruder, Ph.D., also known as The Grammar Lady, who established the Grammar Hotline in the late 1980's for the "Coalition of Adult Literacy," was asked the following question:

"Why do federal and state government agencies and departments, judicial and administrative courts, insurance companies, etc., spell a person's proper name in all capital letters? For example, if my name is John Paul Jones, is it proper at any time to write my name as JOHN PAUL JONES?"

Dr. Bruder's reply was short and to the point: "It must be some kind of internal style. There is no grammar rule about it."

It seemed that these particular grammatical experts had no idea why proper names were written in all caps, so we began to assemble an extensive collection of reference books authored by various publishers, governments, and legal authorities to find the answer.

What English grammar reference books say

Manual on Usage & Style

One of the reference books obtained was the "Manual on Usage & Style," Eighth Edition, ISBN I-878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. Section D, CAPITALIZATION, paragraph D: 1:1 states:

"Always capitalize proper nouns... [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce)."

Paragraph D: 3:2 of Section D states:

"Capitalize People, State, and any other terms used to refer to the government as a litigant (e.g., the People's case, the State's argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant Manson)."

Either no attorney, judge, or law clerk in Texas has ever read the recognized law style manual that purports to pertain to them, or the act is a deliberate violation of the rules for undisclosed reasons. In either ignorance (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”) or violation (one violating the law he enforces on others is acting under title of nobility and abrogating the principle of equality under the law) of law, they continue to write "Plaintiff,” "Defendant," "THE STATE OF TEXAS" and proper names of parties in all capital letters on every court document.

The Elements of Style

Another well-recognized reference book is "The Elements of Style," Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn & Bacon in 1999. Within this renowned English grammar and style reference book, is found only one reference to capitalization, located within the Glossary at "proper noun," page 94, where it states:

"The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized."

There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.

The American Heritage Book of English Usage

The American Heritage Book of English Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, published in 1996, at Chapter 9, E-Mail, Conventions and Quirks, Informality, states:

"To give a message special emphasis, an E-mailer may write entirely in capital letters, a device E-mailers refer to as screaming. Some of these visual conventions have emerged as away of getting around the constraints on data transmission that now limit many networks".

Here is a reference source, within contemporary — modern — English, that states it is of an informal manner to write every word of — specifically — an electronic message, a.k.a. e-mail, in capital letters. They say it's "screaming" to do so. By standard definition, we presume that is the same as shouting or yelling. Are all judges, as well as their court clerks and attorneys, shouting at us when they corrupt our proper names in this manner? (If so, what happened to the decorum of a court if everyone is yelling?) Is the insurance company screaming at us for paying the increased premium on our Policy? This is doubtful as to any standard generalization, even though specific individual instances may indicate this to be true. It is safe to conclude, however, that it would also be informal to write a proper name in the same way.

Does this also imply that those in the legal profession are writing our Christian names informally on court documents? Are not attorneys and the courts supposed to be specific, formally writing all legal documents to the "letter of the law?" If the law is at once both precise and not precise, what is its significance, credibility, and force and effect?

New Oxford Dictionary of English

"The New Oxford Dictionary of English" is published by the Oxford University Press. Besides being considered the foremost authority on the British English language, this dictionary is also designed to reflect the way language is used today through example sentences and phrases. We submit the following definitions from the 1998 edition:

Proper noun (also proper name). Noun. A name used for an individual person, place, ororganization, spelled with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam.

Name. Noun 1 A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known,addressed, or referred to: my name is Parsons, John Parsons. Kalkwasser is the German name for limewater. Verb 2 Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man has been named as John Mackintosh. Phrases. 3 In the name of. Bearing or using the name of aspecified person or organization: a driving license in the name of William Sanders.

From the "Newbury House Dictionary of American English," published by Monroe Allen Publishers, Inc., (1999):

name n. I [C] a word by which a person, place, or thing is known: Her name is Diane Daniel.

We can find absolutely no example in any recognized reference book that specifies or allows the use of all capitalized names, proper or common. There is no doubt that a proper name, to be grammatically correct, must be written with only the first letter capitalized, with the remainder of the word in a name spelled with lower case letters.

US Government Style Manual

Is the spelling and usage of a proper name defined officially by US Government? Yes. The United States Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.

Chapter 3, "Capitalization," at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names:

"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."

At Chapter 17, "Courtwork, the rules of capitalization," as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated:

"17.1. Courtwork differs in style from other work only as set forth in this section; otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding sections will be followed."

After reading §17 in entirety, I found no other references that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization.

At § 17.9, this same official US Government manual states:

"In the titles of cases the first letter of all principal words are capitalized, but not such terms as defendant and appellee."

This wholly agrees with Texas Law Review's Manual on "Usage & Style" as referenced above.

Examples shown in § 17.12 are also consistent with the aforementioned §17.9 specification: that is, all proper names are to be spelled with capital first letters; the balance of each spelled with lower case letters.

Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (NASA) has publish one of the most concise US Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication SP‑7084, "Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization." A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors, was compiled and written by the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At Chapter 4, "Capitalization," they state in 4.1 "Introduction:"

"First we should define terms used when discussing capitalization:

• All caps means that every letter in an expression is capital, LIKE THIS.

• Caps & lc means that the principal words of an expression are capitalized.

• Caps and small caps refer to a particular font of type containing small

capital letters instead of lowercase letters.

Elements in a document such as headings, titles, and captions may be capitalized in either sentence style or headline style:

• Sentence style calls for capitalization of the first letter, and proper nouns of course.

• Headline style calls for capitalization of all principal words (also called caps & lc).

Modern publishers tend toward a down style of capitalization, that is, toward use of fewer capitals, rather than an up style."

Here we see that in headlines, titles, captions, and in sentences, there is no authorized usage of all caps. At 4.4.1. "Capitalization With Acronyms," we find the first authoritative use for all caps:

"Acronyms are always formed with capital letters. Acronyms are often coined for a particular program or study and therefore require definition. The letters of the acronym are not capitalized in the definition unless the acronym stands for a proper name:

Wrong - The best electronic publishing systems combine What You See Is What

You Get (WYSIWYG) features...

Correct - The best electronic publishing systems combine what you see is what

you get (WYSIWYG) features...

But Langley is involved with the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program.”

This cites, by example, that using all caps is allowable in an acronym. "Acronyms" are words formed from the initial letters of successive parts of a term. They never contain periods and are often not standard, so that definition is required. Could this apply to lawful proper Christian names? If that were true, then JOHN SMITH would have to follow a definition of some sort, which it does not. For example, only if JOHN SMITH were defined as 'John Orley Holistic Nutrition of the Smith Medical Institute To Holistics (JOHN SMITH)' would this apply.

The most significant section appears at 4.5., "Administrative Names":

"Official designations of political divisions and of other organized bodies are capitalized:

• Names of political divisions;

• Canada, New York State;

• United States Northwest Territories;

• Virgin Islands, Ontario Province;

• Names of governmental units, US Government Executive Department, US Congress, US Army;

• US Navy.”

According to this official US Government publication, the States are never to be spelled in all caps such as “NEW YORK STATE.” The proper English grammar — and legal — style is “New York State.” This agrees, once again, with Texas Law.

Review's Manual on Usage & Style.

The Use of a Legal Fiction

The Real Life Dictionary of the Law

The authors of "The Real Life Dictionary of the Law," Gerald and Kathleen Hill, are accomplished scholars and writers. Gerald Hill is an experienced attorney, judge, and law instructor. Here is how the term legal fiction is described:

"Legal fiction. n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency orto achieve justice. There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.'

Oran's Dictionary of the Law

From Oran's "Dictionary of the Law," published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of "Fiction" is found:

"A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent ‘John Doe’ off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain."

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

"Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law" 1996 states:

"legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no fractions — Fields V. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658 (1991)."

This is the reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The US and State Governments are deliberately using a legal fiction to "address" the lawful, real, flesh-and-blood man or woman. We say this is deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps. They are deliberately not following their own recognized authorities.

In the same respect, by identifying their own government entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is also intended to be a legal fiction. As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this memorandum, the use of all caps for writing a proper name is an "internal style" for what is apparently a pre-determined usage and, at this point, unknown jurisdiction.

The main key to a legal fiction is assumption as noted in each definition above.

Conclusion: There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of all caps when writing a proper name. To do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed jurisdiction by unknown people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary presumption not based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the deceit.

Assumption of a Legal Fiction

An important issue concerning this entire matter is whether or not a proper name, perverted into an all caps assemblage of letters, can be substituted for a lawful Christian name or any proper name, such as the State of Florida. Is the assertion of all-capital-letter names "legal?" If so, from where does this practice originate and what enforces it?

A legal fiction may be employed when the name of a “person” is not known, and therefore using the fictitious name “John Doe” as a tentative, or interim artifice to surmount the absence of true knowledge until the true name is known. Upon discovering the identity of the fictitious name, the true name replaces it.

In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption of purported fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It is an acceptance with no proof. Simply, to assume is to pretend. Oran's "Dictionary of the Law" says that the word “assume” means:

1. To take up or take responsibility for; to receive; to undertake. See "assumption."

2. To pretend.

3. To accept without proof.

These same basic definitions are used by nearly all of the modern law dictionaries. It should be noted that there is a difference between the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the first. Pretending and accepting without proof are of the same understanding and meaning. However, to take responsibility for and receive, or assumption, does not have the same meaning. Oran's defines “assumption” as:

"Formally transforming someone else's debt into your own debt. Compare with guaranty. The assumption of a mortgage usually involves taking over the seller's 'mortgage debt' when buying a property (often a house)."

Now, what happens if all the meanings for the word "assume" are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meaning of assume would be: The pretended acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt.

Therefore, if we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.

Use of the legal fiction “JOHN P JONES” in place of the proper name “John Paul Jones” implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, unless the assumption is proven wrong it is considered valid.

An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. (“An unrebutted affidavit, claim, or charge stands as the truth in commerce.”) This is in accord with the Uniform Commercial Code, valid in every State and made a part of the Statutes of each State. A name written in all caps — resembling a proper name but grammatically not a proper name — is being held as a debtor for an assumed debt. Did the parties to the Complaint incur that debt? If so, how and when?

Where is the contract of indebtedness that was signed and the proof of default thereon? What happens if the proper name, i.e. “John Paul Jones,” answers for or assumes the fabricated name, i.e. “JOHN P JONES?” The two become one and the same. This is the crux for the use of the all caps names by the US Government and the States. It is the way that they can bring someone into the "de facto" venue and jurisdiction that they have created. By implication of definition, this also is for the purpose of some manner of assumed debt.

Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.

The Legalities of All-Capital-Letters Names

We could go on for hundreds of pages citing the legal basis behind the creation and use of all-capital-letters names. In a nutshell, fabricated legal persons such as “STATE OF TEXAS” can be used to fabricate additional legal persons. "Fictions" arise from the law, not the law from fictions. Bastard legal persons originate from any judicial/governmental actor that whishes to create them, regardless of whether he/she/it is empowered by law to do so. However, a law can never originate from a fictional foundation that doesn't exist.

The generic and original US Constitution was validated by treaty between individual nation states (all of which are artificial, corporate entities since they exist in abstract idea and construct). Contained within it is the required due process of law for all the participating nation states of that treaty. Representatives of the people in each nation state agreed upon and signed it. The federal government is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines of Constitutional due process. Any purported law that does not originate from Constitutional due process is a fictional law without validity. Thus, the true test of any American law is its basis of due process according to the organic US Constitution. Was it created according to the lawful process or created outside of lawful process?

Executive Orders and Directives

For years many have researched the lawful basis for creating all-caps juristic persons and have concluded that there is no such foundation according to valid laws and due process. But what about those purported "laws" that are not valid and have not originated from constitutional due process? There's a very simple answer to the creation of such purported laws that are really not laws at all: "Executive Orders" and "Directives." They are "color of law" without being valid laws of due process. These "Executive Orders" and "Directives" have the appearance of law and look as if they are laws, but according to due process, they are not laws. Rather, they are "laws" based on fictional beginnings and are the inherently defective basis for additional fictional "laws" and other legal fictions. They are "regulated" and "promulgated" by Administrative Code, rules and procedures, not due process. Currently, Executive Orders are enforced through the charade known as the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. Each State has also adopted the same fatally flawed administrative "laws."

Lincoln Establishes Executive Orders

Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or "without day." This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which, according to Robert's Rules of Order, dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there are no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum of the States.

Lincoln's second Executive Order of April 1861 called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority, or lawful due process, of the Constitution. Solely in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the US Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, "Congress" has not met based on lawful due process. The current "Congress" is a legal fiction based on nothing more meritorious than “Yeah, so what are you going to do about it?” Having a monopoly on the currency, “law,” and what passes for “government,” and most of the world’s firepower, the motto of the Powers That Be is: “We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got.”

Legal-fiction "laws," such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were instituted by Lincoln soon thereafter and became the basis for the current "laws" in the US. Every purported "Act" in effect today is "de facto," based on colorable fictitious entities created arbitrarily, out of nothing, without verification, lawful foundation, or lawful due process. All of such “laws” are not law, but rules of rulership by force/conquest, originating from and existing in military, martial law jurisdiction. Military, martial law jurisdiction

= jurisdiction of war

= win/lose interactions consisting of eating or being eaten, living or dying

= food chain

= law of necessity

= suspension of all law other than complete freedom to act in any manner to eat,

kill, or destroy or avoid being eaten, killed, or destroyed

= no law

= lawlessness

= complete absence of all lawful basis to create any valid law.

[lexmagnum]

The 'Strawman', also known as the Legal Person or Natural Person is the idea that a Fictitious Legal Entity, called a PERSON, exists for purposes of Law and Commerce.

This PERSON is similar to a Company or Corporation in that it exists as a construct of the imagination - it has no real body, and no soul to save, but for legal purposes, carries similar rights and attributes to that of a Human Man or Woman.

These rights include Ownership of Property, Lobbying the Government, Voting, and other activities related to money. The PERSON allows us to function with Limited Liability (read: Less Responsibility)

Our primary Legal Person, or "ID Card" consists of Birth Date, Eye color, Hair colour, Height, Weight, and now Fingerprints and Retina-scans, as if that's all we are. Nowhere on an ID Card are your Soul, or your Personality, or your Hopes, Dreams or Capacity to Love ever mentioned...

The emotional insecurities we have about our Bodies are magnified & exploited through constant propaganda and advertising, while our media hammers away at our psyche, "reminding" us that we are only Bodies, that bodies can only be sexy or ugly, and that Bodies and their Parts must be regarded as Possessions or Objects to be Owned.

In addition, by Registering (signing over to the state) your Biological Property (your body and the bodies of your children), creating a Birth Certificate (a Financial Security Instrument representing proof of parental consent in signing over the child) you are thus Consenting to the State's Ownership of You and Your Children.

The State then creates a child's very first Legal PERSON, with the parental signing of the Birth Certificate, which is given a "commercial value". If you have an older-style Birth Certificate, look on the Reverse side of it, to see 3 points of interest.

1) A 6-10 digit Number that you have never used in your life.

2) The words "Revenue Receipt" on the left side of this number.

3) The words "For Treasury Purposes Only" on the right side of the number.

Incidentally, before the 1900's, people USED to write the evidence of a birth in their Family Bible.

This first Legal Person attached to you, is known as a "NATIONAL CITIZEN" which later becomes synonymous with being a "Government Employee", when you SUBMIT (give in) an APPLICATION (to beg) for REGISTRATION (to sign over your rights) to become a SINner (by signing up for the Fraud called Social Insurance or Social Security).

You then receive your Employee ID # (also known as a SIN #) which creates another Person called a "TAXPAYER". This means you consent to the Income Tax Act, and now makes you liable for the Income Tax, in exchange for the "Benefits" of being a Government Employee.

The Strawman/Legal Person is thus the Evidence of your Signature (an oath) and Consent to Obey a set of Acts or Statutes, usually located on paper contract, or in a card form with your signature.

For example. You sign for a "Drivers License" to create a Legal Person called a "DRIVER", and have consented to follow the Traffic Safety/Motor Vehicle Acts of your state or province.

You sign up for a "Bank Account" to create a Legal Person called an "ACCOUNT HOLDER", usually providing your SIN # as part of your "Identification" which consents to allowing access to your bank account by court order to pay your Income Taxes by force!

You sign up for "Voter Registration" to create Legal Person called a "VOTER", which gets to vote for new Employee's and Presidents/Prime Ministers for the Corporation your PERSON resides in, and thus consent to the actions of your representative and their party, even if it means going to war against an innocent foreign country, or proroguing their own Parliament illegally!

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of different PERSONS you can be holding, but none of them are YOU.

PERSONS must RESIDE within another Legal Entity, they cannot "Live" anywhere - that is why you are asked if you are a Resident of CANADA or the UNITED STATES. Authorities are not asking you, the Living Man or Woman if you Live in the Country, the are asking if your Legal Person RESIDES (has the right to do business/work) within their Corporation.

We have to know what words mean when people claiming authority try to use Legal words to control us. Legal dictionaries are different than regular dictionaries, because Legal words carry Weight in Law, and are often defined completely differently within various Acts, Statutes and Legal dictionaries. It is literally another language, which is why they call it Legalese.

SOLUTIONS

Only by realizing and discerning WHO we really are : Powerful spiritual beings with unlimited creative potential created by God, can we break the first invisible chain keeping us from freedom.

"You can declare your Rights and stand upon them as a Sovereign Man or Woman by filing "Notices of Understanding and Intent" and "Claims of Right", example of both available on the Web. You must tailor your own Notices and Claims to your own situation. It is not a simple cookie-cutter process.

Standing upon your Sovereignty in court and winning is FACTUAL, but you must not fall for their NAME GAME, where they try to get you to accept your LEGAL NAME, which puts you in their jurisdiction. Doing that, in the eyes of the court, turns you from a Living Human with Human Rights, into a Soulless Corporate Entity with No Rights whatsoever.

The best solution to win against the crooked and corrupt courts is to never go to court and play their fixed game at all. If someone tries to use a Court Order against you, make sure it is SIGNED by a JUDGE or it is INVALID. Most Court Order's aren't actually signed, and officials use unsigned Court Order's as a confidence trick to gain your consent!

There is no silver bullet. There is no lazy way to learn about your rights. You must Research and do your homework to REALLY learn what you are doing. Ignorantly walking into court is like playing carelessly with a loaded handgun."

You are not a PERSON. You are a Living Soul of Flesh and Blood. A PERSON has Privileges that can be Revoked while a Living Human has Rights that are Inalienable!

Knowing THAT, is the first step to stopping the War Against Consciousness.

Under martial law, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

JOHN J. DOE......your name in all capital letters....What does it mean? Law about Nom De Guerre ( War Name ) is in the Public Laws of the Seventy Third Congress Of The United States ... 1933...........

...“The gold-fringed flag only stands inside military courts that sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians.”

The U.S. Constitution is a “Let’s Pretend” document without the Rule of Law.

President Dwight David Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10834 on August 21, 1959. It is printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, and says: “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides.”

Every nation in the world accepts The Law of the Flag. Basically, it designates the rights under which a ship owner who sends a vessel into a foreign port functions and provides notice to those who enter into contracts with the ship master that he will use the Law of the Flag he flies to regulate contracts. The Law of the Flag regulates the laws under which contracts entered into will be governed. (See Ruhstrat v. People.)

In other words, Admiralty Law says that when a ship flies a Spanish flag, if you sign a contract with the Captain of that ship, any agreements or contracts the Captain signs will fall under Spanish law unless otherwise specified.

Further, there is a doctrine called “four cornering” a flag. According to usatherepublic.com, “By the doctrine of ‘four cornering’ the flag establishes the law of the country that it represents. For example, the embassies of foreign countries, in Washington D.C., are ‘four cornered’ by walls or fencing, creating an ‘enclave.’ Within the boundaries of the ‘enclave’ of the foreign embassy, the flag of that foreign country establishes the jurisdiction and law of that foreign country, which will be enforced by the Law of the Flag and international treaty. If you enter an embassy, you will be subject to the laws of that country, just as if you board a ship flying a foreign flag, you will be subject to the laws of that flag, enforceable by the ‘master of the ship’ (Captain).”

[lexmagnum]

Cases for the determination of the custody of infants are not within the criminal laws, but are civil actions however the question may be presented, whether by bill in chancery, petition to a court, or petition for writ of habeas corpus. The primary control and custody of the infant is with the government, and delegated to the natural or legal guardians so long as they are fit and suitable persons for the purpose and it is to the best interests of the child so to remain in such custody. McDaniel v. Youngblood, 77 So. 674, 201 Ala. 260; Ex parte Roberts, 85 So. 871, 17 Ala. App. 538; Wellesley v. Duke of Beaufort, 2 Russ. 1.

Criminal cases require an injured party, civil action does not. A civil action is to enforce contracts. Think about the contracts that might be in play here. Note the term “person” which should itself notify you that we’re not dealing with real life human beings.

[lexmagnum]

Structure of the Birth Certificate

Did the State Pledge Your Body to a Bank?

Right: Some birth and marriage certificates are now "warehouse receipts," printed on banknote paper, which may mark you and yours as 'chattel' property of the banks that our government borrows from every day.

A certificate is a "paper establishing an ownership claim." - Barron's Dictionary of Banking Terms. Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.

Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called "warehouse receipts." The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:

-the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored...(residence)

-the date of issue of the receipt.....("Date issued")

-the consecutive number of the receipt...(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)

-a description of the goods or of the packages containing them...(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)

-the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent...(municipal clerk or state registrar's signature)

Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as "warehouse receipts" under the Uniform Commercial Code. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:

warehouse receipt. "...A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security."

Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks. The "Full faith and Credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt. That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is.

Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head" basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.

Additional Birth Certificate Research

Federal Children

by Joyce Rosenwald

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."

Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.

In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:

I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........

[lexmagnum]

First, the MOST important piece of information people should know is that, PRIOR the to the 14th Amendment of 1868, there was such NO such entity as a “U.S. CITIZEN”. Any person if asked about his citizenship would either say “American” (to foreigners) OR give the name of the state in which lived. This fact is accurately demonstrated in the film “GETTYSBURG” in which a Confederate general explains to a British officer/observer that “My country is Virginia”.

In the United States, the federal district courts have jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime actions. Under President Lincoln’s Trading with the Enemy Act of 1861, which was revised 1918, under International Law, all parties to a cause must appear by nom de guerre(war name), because an “alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own name”.

Meaning, if you claim that you are a citizen of the United States, you are considered to be a corporate slave. When Lincoln was assassinated, no one thought to put an end to this declaration of martial law. The nation can be directed by what is called Admiralty Law or martial law, by simply a command of the President or the authority of the land or his agents. The Admiralty Law can provide statutes, which are called statutory laws, while the country is under Admiralty or martial law. Admiralty law or maritime law is the distinct body of law governing navigation and shipping. This includes: commerce, insurance, and recreation. Piracy (ship hijacking) is also an aspect of admiralty.

For example, an American, born and raised in Massachusetts; NOT the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts” or the “State of Massachusetts” which for-profit corporations. And a man or woman living in a state of the Union (but NOT a “State”, which a “legal fiction” as a corporation created later) can be a citizen of his state, but NOT a citizen of the United States (or the converse), as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions. I do NOT and will NOT ever identify ever myself as a “citizen of the U.S.” (or any variation thereof). I identify myself as an “American”. The reason can be found in the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which for the FIRST TIME ever defined a “citizen of the United States: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

First, a “person” is NOT a man or woman, but rather a legal fiction. Second, a “State” in the NOT the same entity as as state of the Union, but rather a sub-corporation of the United States Corporation (also created in 1868 in Edinburgh, Scotland). However, a careful reading of this first sentence shows that, in order to be ” a CITIZEN of the United States”, TWO conditions must be met. The first condition may seem fairly simple: being born or naturalized in the U.S. – until you read the various definitions (below) of the U.S. recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Were you born in Washington, D.C., Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands? Or were you born in one of the various states? The second condition is that is that you must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]”. Unless BOTH these conditions are met, you are NOT a citizen of the United States. And since Washington, D.C., the Territories and insular possessions are under the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of the Congress, the people living in those areas are NOT protected by the Constitution. Only the PEOPLE living in the various states are protected by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights – as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled hundreds of times. So what do “citizens of the United States” receive in exchange for waiving their rights? The answer is found is the second sentence if Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “No State [as opposed to a state] shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Consequently, by waiving ALL of their inherent, natural rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, “citizens of the United States” fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, become subject to ALL of its acts (statutes; and the regulations that spring therefrom); and possess only PRIVILEGES granted by Congress, such as “due process” and “equal protection of the laws”. However, any PRIVILEGE granted by Congress can just as easily be taken away. Personally, I would rather possess my inherent, natural RIGHTS as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights than waive ALL those right to a Congress which then grant me PRIVILEGES as it sees fit, unrestrained by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Further, I am NOT bound by any acts (statutes) passed by Congress since Congress has NO jurisdiction over the PEOPLE of any state, UNLESS those people, as individual men and women, CONSENT to that particular statute OR enters into a CONTRACT with the United States which binds them to that statute. In short, to the PEOPLE in the various states [NOT States, which are sub-corporations of the United States Corporation] and acts (statutes) passed by Congress are merely “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”, which the people are free to accept [give their CONSENT] or reject.

[lexmagnum]

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraor- dinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may : seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication ; regulate the operation of private enterprise ; restrict travel ; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

With the melting of the cold war— the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina — there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.

The Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency was created 1 to examine the consequences of terminating the de- clared states of national emergency that now prevail; to recommend what steps the Congress should take to ensure that the termination can be accomplished without adverse effect upon the necessary tasks of governing; and, also, to recommend ways in which the United States can meet future emergency situations with speed and effectiveness but without relinquishment of congressional oversight and control.

In accordance with this mandate, the Special Committee — in con- junction with the Executive branch, expert constitutional authorities, as well as former high officials of this Government — is now engaged

1 S. Res. 9, 93d Cong., 1st Seas.

The rest of the Senate Report can be found here.

[lexmagnum]

The Original Thirteenth Amendment

(Original)

Amendment XIII

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

Ratified March 12, 1819

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

As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————

Quote from The Missing 13th Amendment

The Missing 13th Amendment

"TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

So began a seven-year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.

In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.

Thank you Patriots.

[lexmagnum]

The original union of the states is not dead if we don’t want it to be. The corporate United States needs us to contract with it to have power. Once we discover all the ways we contract with the government corporation we will free ourselves from its Maritime/Admiralty jurisdiction and get back to the law of the land. First and foremost we must understand how we get ownership of our land back. Under the current system land can NOT be fully owned by a citizen. Why? You didn’t pay for it. Federal Reserve notes aren’t money. The corporate government allows you to discharge the debt but you never PAY the debt. For this benefit the government owns superior title and you pay property taxes. This also gives the government eminent domain. Gold and silver specie is lawful money. Land grants? Allodial titles? Must get the land back first.

[lexmagnum]

The United States as founded is over. After the southern states walked out and dissolved their compact, the President under executive authority reconvenes Congress. Not all states are present. The President is now in control of the legislative branch. This begins a Presidential dictatorship that effectively changes the relationship of the federal government to the states. The top down model is being implemented for the first time since British control pre Revolution. The international banking interests, who are funding both sides of the conflict, have succeeded in destroying our Constitutional Republic. These bankers will make sure this top down approach exists in the reconstructed government. The original United States will exist in name only so The People will not see their country is gone.

[lexmagnum]

Today is the day the original United States ceases to exist. Southern states who had helped created the federal government by their constitutional compact have now rescinded their consent and removed their congressional representatives. The union has dissolved in a purist and lawful sense. The contract is broken! These southern states would go on to form a Confederate government with representatives. There will be two separate governments operating in what we call the United States today. One will conquer the other. This is the stage that is being setup. Rothschild banking interests are funding both sides of the conflict.

[lexmagnum]

King George failed to defeat George Washington and the Revolution. We fought the British again to a draw in the war or 1812. Then the British banking cartel run by the Rothschild family decided to fund both sides of our Civil War and Reconstructed the country in the form of a corporation they own and control. The recapture of America was complete. Not with military conquest, but banking.

[lexmagnum]

This was a military take over. The government and structure that was being setup was a top down structure. Remember, the People created the states, and the states created the constitution. Now some of these states are militarily conquered. Will these states form a new government? The union put their own military men in place in southern governments to ensure the government structure in place was to the Union’s liking. This top down approach is going to continue into present day America. Completely opposite to our original Constitution for the United States. This Act of 1871 is the first of many subtle moves these bankers, who was taken control of the prized United States, would take against The People. It was escalate so fast that in 1933 Congress declares its own 14th Amendment citizens (gave slaves citizenship, and many others by this point also) enemies of the State. They’ve been taking our wealth ever since through taxation and inflation. All things our organic and original Constitution protected us from. Not after 1871. Our only hope is people learning the truth.

[lexmagnum]

This is what they were able to do when they made everybody 14th Amendment Citizens. Since it is now not God that gives you these rights but man. This detail is not to be overlooked. This was one of the first steps the international bankers took to slowly chip away at our freedoms. It has become much worse in modern days because people refuse to learn about this deception and theft. (9 of 40)

[lexmagnum]

This is the most obvious (when you see it) yet most hidden aspect of this deception. Everything in law must be specific. If your name is John James Doe then you should know JOHN JAMES DOE is not the same in a courtroom. One is the flesh and blood you and the other is a fiction in commerce created to represent you - then they have you represent it in court. This corporate or commercial overlay is everywhere. California Republic has the overlay State of California. Look at all your correspondence with banks, utilities or governments. How is your name written?

[lexmagnum]

When the Constitution “for” the United States was changed to the Constitution “of” the United States the document effectively becomes “bylaws” that the corporate US can choose to follow if they choose, or amend where necessary. This is why the 2nd Amendment does not stop governments from infringing on this right. That small word change is huge. Much the same was how in law you can be “at law” and “in law”. That small word change drastically changes the meaning and effect.

[lexmagnum]

This time period really needs to be understood by more Americans. This was a sleight of hand the international bankers were doing in Reconstructing the country. In the Original organic constitutional republic the power was with the people and governments were formed from the ground up. Ever since the military occupation of the southern states the governments are organized from the top down. Each one incorporating into the other until you get to the parent company called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I’m sure you may have some that say the colonies are back home where they should be. Is the sovereign in this case the Queen? The Constitution for the United States can be reestablished. The corporate government discarded and power returned to the people. But we need to understand how we got here.

[lexmagnum]

This will become the foundation for the United States as we know it today. No longer is the organic Constitution to the states in effect. A separate constitution is setup with few minor changes but those changes have the force and effect in law vastly different than the original. This act is done under Maritime/Admiralty jurisdiction which is the law of the sea. The original constitution is the law of the land. If you find yourself in an Administrative Court where the judge is the jury, you are in Maritime/Admiralty jurisdiction. This is why if you try to bring up the law of the land (the Constitution) in these courts the judge will tell you it doesn’t apply. It doesn’t. The constitution is the the of the Land. Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction is the law of the SEA. Merchant Law. Thanks to our birth certificate, SSN, licenses, etc we are commerce - or Maritime/Admiralty law entities. Commercial law is Merchant Law. It is a corporate overlay to the Original. States also do the same thing. You have the California Republic which is the land and you have the State of California which is the corporate overlay. If you are considered a citizen of these states you are basically an employee to their corporation. This is why you’ll find “For Official Use Only” on your items from the state. This goes all the way back to this moment in our history. When we went from being Sovereigns to corporate plantation 13th Amendment citizens. Remember, the federal government only has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and it’s terroritories. So how did the states become a “territory”? The corporate overlay which is what everything operates under. The federal government is the parent company. Who owns the United States Corporation? Someone has to.