Hi. I was fascinated to read your piece on the “forgotten” Thirteenth Amendment of 1810 (http://lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtml).
I found an interesting PDF on the ABA website, at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf - where a Canadian (subject of the Crown..) lawyer asks for an interpretation of what “Esquire” means. The general consensus was that when one studies law and earns a doctorate degree, they become a “Juris Doctor”, and they may append “J.D.” to their name… but holding a J.D. degree does not (of itself) confer a license to practice law. Consequently, most respondents view “Esquire” as an honorific that expresses one’s membership in a Bar Association and their resulting license to practice law.
One respondent quoted Black’s 6th to claim “Esquire” as a “title of dignity” (NOT a “title of nobility”..) under English peerage, and also (separately) as a title commonly appended to the name of an attorney in the USA.
Interestingly, one respondent said that when a lawyer writes on behalf of another person, the use of “Esquire” serves notice to the recipient that the interested party is represented by counsel, and that the recipient must now direct their correspondence through the attorney instead of directly with the represented party. This is a frightening power – to be able to write to “B” about “C”s issues, AND (implicitly) INSTRUCT “B” TO HAVE NO DIRECT CONTACT WITH “C” – this can become the power of any attorney to insert themselves into practically any relationship between any other parties, with ONLY The ATTORNEY’s WORD that the interference is authorized – it would fall to “C” to DISCOVER the interference and then ACT to dispute it.
Also, there is a website for the International Bar Association… which traces that association’s history back (ONLY) to its founding in 1947 in New York City, claiming to be “the global voice of the legal profession” and organized to promote the goals of the United Nations. Their timeline claims a founding in NYC and in the late ‘60s, a gradual move to London, England (and away from the UN world HQ – why??).
The ABA traces its history back to 1878, its Constitution and Bylaws contain no reference to any “charter” from any other entity (for example, Sir Walter Raleigh had a Charter from Queen Elizabeth (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/bef ... 5-1584.php)...
The United Nations was formed – and its authority granted – by a Charter, in the form of a treaty signed by 51 original member nations.
Your article on the 1810 Thirteenth Amendment describes the IBA as “chartered” (as in, ‘granted the authority to certify lawyers’..) by the King of England – though the present IBA makes no reference to any such grant of authority.
My point is that the ABA does not cite any source for any authority or power, it is not “empowered” by the IBA, or the Bar Council of England, or any cited legislation of Congress or the several States… both the ABA and the IBA Constitutions read like the formation of a social club or a trade union. This has relevance to your argument, in that IF the ABA had been chartered by the Bar Council or the IBA, AND IF either of those was chartered by the English Crown… AND IF the bylaws of the ABA included a specification that the title “Esquire” in the USA is conferred exclusively upon its members who have been licensed to practice law… AND IF that exclusion was recognized in an actual law somewhere… THEN, it could be said that “Esquire” is clearly a title of nobility conferred, ultimately, from the English Crown.
OR… to look at it from the other direction…. Imagine that the Queen of England declared tomorrow, that all members of British Nobility – everyone holding a title within that system under her Crown – is eligible to claim an annual monetary stipend from her office in a specified amount. Would American lawyers, claiming the title “Esquire”, be recognized as eligible to receive that stipend?
I’m not trying to discredit your argument. I can’t speak to what “Esquire” might have meant in 1810, or why “titles of nobility” were considered so dangerous that they were prohibited in the original US Constitution and then penalized when Virginia ratified (yes it did) the 1810 Thirteenth… I’m actually trying to say that the problem seems worse now, because the Bar Associations are acting without charter, without any grant of authority (or obligation to respect any higher authority) – the Bar Associations have essentially manufactured their own authority out of thin air with their own pens, very much like how the Federal Reserve manufactures paper money by fiat.
What I’m saying is that the Bar Associations have divorced themselves from any dependency on government authority (such as that granted by the People to the Federal and State governments in their various Constitutions), and have placed self-serving provisions into the laws of this Nation which effectively make OUR governments dependent upon THEM to staff offices, and to write, interpret and argue laws. Which is exactly your point, and which is the scenario that the 1810 Thirteenth was written and ratified to try to prevent.
My concern is that if that ratification were recognized today – if Virginia sent a belated notice of ratification, citing the widespread publication (between 1820 and 1870, and including its own legislative publication..) of the ratified 1810 Thirteenth…. and if the USSC declared that only states which are established when an Amendment is proposed are considered in the ratification of that Amendment, and that the 1810 Thirteenth was ratified in 1819 by Virginia and should now appear in official publications as the 28th Amendment – the Esquires would simply claim no connection between their professional designation and any English titles of nobility.
This would leave the question of “honors” – but the self-serving lawyers would argue that the prohibition is against [things] granted by a foreign power, so a DOMESTIC law granting an immunity from prosecution, or a law license as a prerequisite to serving as a judge, are not grants of “honors” from a foreign power and thus not prohibited.
I think it would be an interesting (but ultimately futile) exercise to see what would happen if Virginia sent notice (again) that it ratified the 1810 Thirteenth in 1819. I say “futile” because the USSC is filled with lawyers, “Esquires”, who would definitely interpret “ratification” in a way that served their personal interests (STARTING with “keep this seat on the USSC bench..).
I think a more practical solution might be to reconsider the “Titles of Nobility” Amendment in modern terms, to replace “foreign power” with a definition that would include corrupt organizations (both foreign and domestic) operating with or without government charter, and specifically including religious organizations and trade organizations if they act or declare intent to act in ways prohibited by the RICO statutes. This would have to be sold as an attempt to fight radical Islam by strengthening RICO, to deny citizenship and public office to members of corrupt organizations in order to undermine the spread of radical Islam into the US.
The key would have to be a “guilt by association” thing – which is sketchy – but if one attends a mosque where 5 other members have been found to be terrorists, then anyone could petition A JURY to disqualify the one on the basis of their association with the other 5. At which point, we will have established a precedent where “a few bad apples spoil the bunch”, and it becomes a question of proving that a few lawyers are bad apples that spoil the ABA bunch, that the ABA (and, hell, the Fed too….) are corrupt organizations whose members are denied citizenship and public office by virtue of their membership.
I am currently searching the Federalist Papers for references to "Titles of Nobility", and I have already found this quote from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84:
This link brings up the search result:"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pu ... gsc.page=1
As I've said before, the lawyers (including those on the bench as judges) will interpret the prohibition of titles of nobility as an effort to prevent foreign influences within government. I think the real purpose was closer to the intent of the "Equal Protection Clause" - to prevent ANY KIND of caste system, where government officials (including lawyers as "officers of the court") would have any privileges above those held by common people. That goal has clearly failed, and must be corrected.
Anyway.. thanks for all that you do…