Supreme Law Library : Esquires

From: Subject: Supreme Law Library : Esquires Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:12:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.supremelaw.org/library/esquires.html X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Supreme Law Library : Esquires

Editor's note:

A fully linked version of this file
can be found at Internet URL:

   http://ww=
w.supremelaw.org/authors/trumane/esquires.htm


The following version of this file
is being maintained for redundancy.

Esquires

by

John E. Trumane

As the story goes, there is a painting somewhere in the vast = hallways of=20 the Smithsonian museum which shows British soldiers boarding a sailing = ship,=20 muskets in hand. The ship is in an American port, and the soldiers are = returning=20 home after the War of 1812.

There is a problem with this picture which may not be immediately = apparent to the casual viewer. Our history books tell us that the = British lost=20 that war. History should also tell us that the winners in a war usually = (but not=20 always) take the guns away from the other side. So, why were these = British=20 soldiers boarding their warship, guns in hand?

The answer to that question was provided to me by a common law = judge in=20 the California Republic. He had recently presided over a jury trial in = which=20 "titles of nobility" were the issue. The jury was presented with = evidence and=20 arguments that the "real" 13th Amendment did not ban slavery after the = Civil=20 War. That amendment was really the 14th Amendment.

The "real" 13th Amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the = Union=20 states before the War of 1812. It placed into the U.S. Constitution a = specific=20 ban against titles of nobility, and defined a penalty for those who = accepted=20 such titles. That penalty was a loss of citizenship and a loss of = eligibility=20 for public office.

My friend, the common law judge, explained to me that the jury = had=20 reached a unanimous verdict that the ban on titles of nobility had, = indeed, been=20 duly ratified as a lawful amendment to the Constitution for the United = States of=20 America. By banning titles of nobility and defining the penalty for = using them,=20 the original 13th Amendment was specifically intended to keep bar = members out of=20 public offices throughout America.

You may recall that the qualifications for serving in the White = House,=20 the Senate, and the House of Representatives all have one thing in = common: the=20 would-be official must be a "Citizen of the United States." Since the = 14th=20 (15th?) amendment did not appear until 1868, the term "United States" in = these=20 provisions means "States United," and "Citizen of the United States" = means=20 "Citizen of one of the States United."

The U.S. Constitution thus contains a specific prohibition = against titles=20 of nobility, and a specific penalty for their use, i.e., the loss = of=20 citizenship and disability from holding public office. The loss of = citizenship=20 means that a Person who was born or naturalized a Citizen would lose = that status=20 and thereby become an "alien" with respect to the United States of = America.=20 Since the qualifications for serving in federal elective offices all = require=20 citizenship, an "alien" is, by definition, disqualified from eligibility = for=20 these offices (President, Senator, and Representative).

In my conversation with the common law judge from California, we = next=20 considered if it was possible, under the original 13th Amendment, to = restore=20 citizenship by renouncing or rescinding a title of nobility. A close = examination=20 of the amendment's language did not reveal any such provision. In = matters of=20 statutory construction (determining the real meaning of statutes), there = is a=20 principle that the specific mention of one thing is the specific = exclusion of=20 all things that are not mentioned. In Latin, expressio unius est = exclusio=20 alterius. In other words, what was omitted was intended to be = omitted.

The original 13th Amendment does not contain any provisions for = restoring=20 citizenship by renouncing or rescinding a title of nobility. Evidently, = if the=20 framers of that amendment had wanted citizenship to be restored to those = who=20 renounced their titles (e.g. Esquire), then the amendment would = have=20 contained language to make that possible. The absence of such language = can be=20 used to prove, under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio=20 alterius, that it is not possible to restore one's citizenship after = accepting a title of nobility.

Now, the original 13th Amendment raises some very interesting = questions=20 of law, or Law, as the case may be. If a law school graduate should join = the Bar=20 in the state of his domicile, he would join the elite company of = "Esquires." In=20 the United States of America, this is the title commonly appended after = the name=20 of an attorney (see Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition). If we = are=20 correct in our construction of the original 13th Amendment, then it is = correct=20 to say that "Once an Esquire, always an Esquire."

If our up-and-coming Esquire should develop a successful = practice, it=20 could (and often does) happen that s/he might consider running for = federal=20 office, let's say the House of Representatives. Would s/he be eligible = for that=20 office? The Answer is NO, because the title of Esquire makes it = impossible for=20 that person ever to be eligible for the offices of President, Senator, = or=20 Representative. As a resident alien, that person is definitely NOT = eligible for=20 election to those offices, nor is that person eligible for = naturalization. So,=20 there is no chance that such a person could ever hold such an office, = under the=20 supreme Law of the Land.

Let's take this argument one step further. Assume, for the = moment, that=20 John Q. Esquire does get elected to the House of Representatives, by = some quirk=20 of circumstances (or intentional cover-up). Would Mr. Esquire be a = lawful=20 occupant of that office? Answer: NO. Would Mr. Esquire be capable of = exercising=20 the powers and privileges of that office? Answer: NO. Would Mr. Esquire = be=20 qualified to vote on the matters which came before that august body? = Answer: NO.=20 If Mr. Esquire did attempt to cast a vote on any of the matters which = came=20 before the House of Representatives, his vote would be null and void = ab=20 initio (from the outset). In other words, his vote would not be a = vote at=20 all, would it?

How many Esquires does it take to nullify an act of Congress? = One? Two?=20 Fifty-one percent? How many Esquires are presently seated in Congress? = Is it=20 greater than fifty-one percent? Is it greater than a quorum? Or does it = really=20 take only one Esquire to spoil the whole barrel of apples? Maybe we = should=20 reconvene that California common law jury and put this question = to them=20 as well, because we now appear to have a really big problem on our = hands.

If the Senate and House of Representatives ever consisted of = members who=20 were disqualified from serving there by reason of their titles of = nobility, then=20 every single act of those bodies was completely null and void from the=20 beginning. As an Illinois State Court once ruled, "it never became a = law=20 and was as much a nullity as if it had been the act or declaration of an = unauthorized assemblage of individuals." (Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill. = 160) A=20 House or Senate consisting of Esquires for members is an unauthorized = assemblage=20 of individuals, and ALL their legislation is completely null and = void.

Now ask yourself this question: Since the War of 1812, the = approximate=20 time at which the original 13th Amendment surely became Law, how many = sessions=20 of the House or Senate were conducted by Members who had previously = accepted=20 titles of nobility? If your answer is one hundred percent, then you are = probably=20 right.

The shocking fact is this: Every session of the House and Senate = since=20 1812 has consisted of members who were attorneys with the title of = Esquire=20 conveniently appended to the end of their names. This means that every = session=20 of the House and Senate since 1812 has attempted to pass legislation = which was=20 null and void from its inception. Do you have any favorite laws which = come to=20 mind?

How about the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917? There is a = magnificent=20 collection of research by Dr. Eugene Schroder which shows how our = vaulted=20 Congress amended this Act in 1933 in order to define all Americans as = enemies of=20 the United States government. Were these acts of Congress valid, if its = members=20 were Esquires at the time of its passage? Answer: NO.

How about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? This Act of Congress = created=20 our vaulted Federal Reserve system, and the debt money system to which = we are=20 all shackled for life (it seems). Was this act of Congress valid, if its = members=20 were Esquires at the time of its passage? Answer: NO.

How about the 16th amendment proposal? This Act of Congress sent = the 16th=20 Amendment out to the states for ratification in 1911. Another = magnificent=20 collection of research by Bill Benson and Red Beckman shows how the 48 = states=20 completely botched the ratification of that proposal. Now ask yourself = the=20 obvious question: Was Congress authorized to issue that proposal in the = first=20 instance, if its members were Esquires at the time of its passage? = Answer:=20 NO.

How about the 17th Amendment proposal? This Act of Congress sent = the 17th=20 Amendment out to the states for ratification at the same time as the = 16th=20 Amendment proposal. It purported to convert the election of U.S. = Senators to a=20 popular vote. Under the "old" procedure, Senators were elected by the = state=20 legislatures (resulting in much lower campaign costs). Was the Congress=20 authorized to issue that proposal in the first instance, if its members = were=20 Esquires at the time of its passage? Answer: NO.

If the 17th Amendment was never properly ratified, then we surely = have=20 not had a lawfully convened U.S. Senate at least since 1917. This, then, = means=20 that all the treaties which were allegedly approved by the U.S. Senate = since=20 then are also null and void. What about GATT? NAFTA? the Genocide = Treaty? the=20 United Nations? Round and round we go; where it stops, nobody knows? On = the=20 contrary, we stop in 1812, the year of our second war with England. We = have not=20 had a lawfully convened Congress at least since the year 1812.

Now, what about those British soldiers who were boarding their = warship,=20 guns in hand, at the end of that war? Is it possible that they were not = really=20 the vanquished, but the victors? Didn't they just finish burning the = Library of=20 Congress? Wasn't that where evidence of the original 13th Amendment had = been=20 kept, under the watchful eyes of our government record custodians who = fled for=20 their lives?

What those soldiers didn't know was that the original 13th = Amendment had=20 "leaked" out to other states, whose record custodians did not suffer the = loss of=20 their libraries. When their official versions of the U.S. Constitution = show a=20 13th amendment which bans titles of nobility, and those very same = versions do=20 NOT show any ban against slavery (which didn't pass until after the = Civil War),=20 you begin to suspect that something very strange is going on here.

There has not been a single act of Congress since 1812 which has = been=20 properly enacted into law. Not a single one! So, you can throw out your = Internal=20 Revenue Code, and along with it all of your 50 United States Codes, and = your=20 Federal Reserve Act, and your Trading with the Enemy Act, and your = treaties, and=20 your federal regulations, and your resolutions and your Joint = Interdepartmental=20 delegations of authority, because they had no authority under the real=20 Constitution for the United States of America. NONE!

Attorneys beware.

# # #

Back to=20 Library