----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: i understand
I understand now. I was not aware of the Titles of Nobility Amendment (the original 13th) in which supposedly has never been officially rattified. a good link is here: [link to en.wikipedia.org
Thank you for putting up with my long letters.
Why is Paul playing around with this? What is his reason if obviously he is aware of it and claims to live by the constitution?
Is it because it was not rattified by all states required that he doesn't consider it to be constitutional? Amendments must be approved before they can be passed.
Is it set in stone? I mean, is it too late for Paul to recognize this and make note of it to his supporters? This is crazy. I'm definitely curious why he would do this knowing of this "hidden" 13th amendment. Many possibilities come off of this.
Any thoughts are appreciated. Again, thank you for your time.
FROM: Patrick H. Bellringer
DATE: Oct. 20, 2007
Again, thank you for your questions. You are quite wrong in saying the original thirteen Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, called the Titles of Nobility Amendment, was never ratified. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a good source for correct information about this amendment. For your edification I am including three sources at the end of this letter of more accurate information concerning the original Thirteenth Amendment.
This amendment was lawfully ratified by thirteen of the then seventeen existing states, the last being Virginia on March 12, 1819. It is interesting that the War of 1812 was fought at least partially due to this Constitutional Amendment. By restricting the British foreign agent lawyers from holding public office in the United States of America, Britain would lose control of America. History records that the British Army burned both the White House and the Library of Congress in 1814, destroying the government records of the past thirty-eight years, including the original Thirteenth Amendment.
You also asked about Ron Paul's position regarding this amendment. I believe that everyone holding a congressional seat in our Corporate U.S. Congress today is compromised. One does not hold such a position without bowing to the demands of the Secret Agenda of the Secret Government. Ron Paul is allowed certain leeway into the "gray area" in his out-spokenness, but he is careful not to step over the line. He is considered harmless and having no power by the present Congress, so they let him spout off for now.
With NESARA and a sweeping away of the present administration and Congress, the Constitution of the Republic will be re-established, including the original Thirteen Amendment. Will Ron Paul be allowed to participate in the new Government of the Republic? Will he give up his title of nobility? There are many titles of Nobility, such as King, (Sire), Queen(Madam), Knight (Sir), squire, esquire, doctor, reverend, etc. Paul holds the title of doctor. Has his past proven him to be untrustworthy to the people? I do not know.
My friend, Truth is seeping out all over, and the Darkside is frantic. Watch carefully and act in wisdom, as this "play" proceeds to its very end.
In Love and Light,
Patrick H. Bellringer
1. Title Of Nobility Or Honour
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) prohibited any "titles of nobility."
In the original organic Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9 (1788) prohibited any "title of nobility."
Therefore, in 1789 an additional "title of nobility" amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America was proposed, and, again, in 1810. It was finally ratified in 1819. This was the true and positive Thirteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States of America.
Clearly the Founding Fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honours" that anyone receiving them would lose their citizenship, as was clearly stated in the ratified 13th Amendment, to wit:
"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 whatsoever, 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)
Since this was written in the original Articles of Confederation, the original Constitution, and again in an Amendment to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers must have meant more than just a petty post-revolution stab at the British monarchy.
Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires." As lances, shields and physical violence gave way to more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier than the sword (and far more profitable), and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold the titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used even today by lawyers).
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys, but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor." There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" - a "title of nobility."
"Esquire" was the principal title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principal purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB, CIA, FBI, BATF, and IRS.
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution for the United States of America sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank Charter). Therefore, a "title of nobility" Amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789 and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor) may be more significant. The archaic definition of "honor" (as used in the 13th Amendment) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another." A contemporary examination of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans (who have become ex-patriots) is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.
By prohibiting "honours" the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant to some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment is to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone EVEN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.
While "titles of nobility" are no longer readily recognized in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens would be enjoying a separate privilege or "honor" and would, therefore, forfeit his right to vote or hold public office (such as the doctrine of "judicial immunity.") Without their current "honor" of immunity, judges would be unable to abuse constitutionally guaranteed rights with impunity.
Government would be forced to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law and liability as the rest of the Nation. Can you imagine? A government truly "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. A government accountable to the people, a government which could not systematically exploit it's own people, and steal their livelihood through "breach of contract" quasi-crimes for which the right to trial by one's peers has been unlawfully and arbitrarily removed.
There were seventeen states when the 13th Amendment was proposed in 1810. This would require 13 states to support the Amendment for it to be ratified. The states that ratified the Amendment are:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1911
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812
Virginia, March 10, 1819
This Amendment was published in many of the States official publications of the Constitution for the United States of America, up through and including the year 1867, when it mysteriously disappeared from almost every state's publications of the Constitution for the United States of America. It appeared, in 1867 Colorado Territory edition, on the same page as the currently listed 13th Amendment freeing the slaves, and the current 13th Amendment was listed as the 14th Amendment in that edition.
Since it was ratified, and is POSITIVE LAW, then it must stand that all lawyers are foreigners, having expatriated themselves by taking a position of honor or title of nobility, in violation of their oath of office, and in contradistinction to the intent and meaning of the 13th Amendment.
The original Constitutions of several states thunderingly forbid lawyers from holding any office in any branch of government, and some went as far as to demand that any lawyer representing a person accused of a crime must swear before the court that they did so for free, as to charge for the defense of a person was reprehensible beyond words. How far we have come. Now, it seems, you are innocent until you run out of funds, and your attorney drops you like a hot potato.
There is ample evidence which proves that lawyers had a great deal to do with the removal and loss of the true 13th Amendment, so that they could remain in the positions of "Nobility" and "Honor" which they hold, to our detriment.
To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which all people 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 the 13th Amendment that the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquire" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like district attorney and judge) that ONLY lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles and honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of citizens. Where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office.
Since the Amendment was never lawfully nullified, IT IS STILL IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AND IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
In George Washington's farewell address, he warned of:
"...change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument 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, including freedom of commerce against monopolies. The "legal profession" has become the singly largest monopoly in the United States, written into legislation by lawyers, lobbied by lawyers, passed by lawyers in the Congress and Senate, enforced by lawyers who have become chiefs of police and sheriffs, and litigated and upheld by lawyers, and judges who are lawyers. Since all lawyers are officers of the judicial branch of government, then it is a blatant conflict of interest for any lawyer to become a legislator or be in the executive branch of government. However, the vast majority of our legislature, both state and United States is now lawyers.
A classic example of the power of lawyers was witnessed in Waco, Texas in 1993, when the top lawyer of the United States, the Attorney General, ordered the slaughter of 86 innocent people, mostly women and children, "for the good of the children."
The authority to create monopolies was judge-made by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al, in the early 1800's; Judges and lawyers granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People "Un-Constitutional," waited until their decisions were grandfathered, then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the Bar Associations. What happened to the "This Constitution... is the Supreme Law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding?" Thomas Jefferson foresaw this very thing when he stated:
"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 forgotten, 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 heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."
Since all members of the American Bar Association, which was formed in Washington, D.C., become citizens of Washington, D.C., which is neither a state nor a territory within the meaning of the laws, and therefore must register in any state they choose to do business in as a resident alien, foreign agent or agency.
It is interesting to note that most states contain laws which require all professions and businesses to obtain a business license to do business in the state, EXCEPT LAWYERS. Doctors, Dentists, Car Dealers, etc., all must get a license from the state. NO lawyer ever gets a business license. They get a certificate to practice law, issued from their private fraternal organization known as the bar association, and it is signed by the clerk of the Supreme Court of the State (probably a lawyer). When did the judicial branch of government obtain power to issue licenses?
THEREFORE, based upon the above, POSITIVE LAW, the prosecuting attorney is a foreign, resident alien, having expatriated himself from the United States, and has no lawful standing before a court.
FURTHERMORE, the judge, a lawyer, having expatriated himself by becoming a lawyer, has further expatriated himself by sitting in a position of honour (Note we are expected to address the judge as "your honor,") and has no authority to sit in judgment of this or any other case, being a resident alien and having proved his loyalty is not "for the people." He has claimed the judicial (lawyer made) doctrine of immunity from lawsuits, he has accepted the position of honor and the title of honor and of nobility voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally, with intent to set himself above the laws and the Constitution for the United States of America.
WHEREFORE, there is no person who may act as prosecution in ANY case, and no judge to try ANY case.
why is paul doing this if he obviously knows about the amendment because he's "the champion of the constitution."??
we also need more info in regards to him getting his title of DR of medicine from the queen.
any info on this, please post.
someone on the first page said paul has addressed the 13th amendment issue in the past - i have not seen this - can anyone help locate this?