The Missing 13th Amendment

Comments about your favorite candidate, the newest PROPOSED law, and the FEMA camp near your hometown should go here.
Post Reply
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

The Missing 13th Amendment

Post by editor » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:36 pm

I recently received an email from a reader which I am posting here with his permission. I invited him to post it here himself, but he's evidently too shy.

=======
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:
"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."
This link brings up the search result:

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…

--Anonymous Reader
====
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: The Missing 13th Amendment

Post by notmartha » Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:34 pm

From Webster's 1828:
B'AR, noun [If these words are the Eng.bar, the sense is a shoot, that which shoots, passes or is driven.]
4. The railing that incloses the place which counsel occupy in courts of justice. Hence the phrase, at the bar of the court, signifies in open court. Hence also licensed lawyers are called barristers; and hence the whole body of lawyers licensed in a court, are customarily called the bar A trial at bar in England, is a trial in the courts of Westminster, opposed to a trial at Nisi Prius, in the circuits.

5. Figuratively, any tribunal; as the bar of public opinion. Thus the final trial of men is called the bar of God.

12. In law, a peremptory exception sufficient to destroy the plaintiff's action. It is divided into a bar to common intendment, and bar special; bar temporary and bar perpetual. bar to common intendment is an ordinary or general bar which disables the declaration of the plaintiff. A special bar is more than ordinary, as a fine, release, or justification. A temporary bar is that which is good for a time, but may afterwards cease. A perpetual bar overthrows the action of the plaintiff forever.
ESQUI'RE, noun [Latin scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. Indeed the title, in addressing letters, is bestowed on any person at pleasure, and contains no definite description. It is merely an expression or respect.
NOBIL'ITY, noun

1. Dignity of mind; greatness; grandeur; that elevation of soul which comprehends bravery, generosity, magnamimity, intrepidity, and contempt of every thing that dishonors character.

Though she hated Amphialus, yet the nobility of her courage prevailed over it.

They thought it great their sovereign to control, and named their pride, nobility of soul.

2. Antiquity of family; descent from noble ancestors; distinction by blood, usually joined with riches.

When I took up Boccace unawares, I fell on the same argument of preferring virtue to nobility of blood and titles, in the story of Sigismunda.

3. The qualities which constitute distinction of rank in civil society, according to the customs or laws of the country; that eminence or dignity which a man derives from birth or title conferred, and which places him in an order above common men. In Great Britain, nobility is extended to five ranks, those of duke, marquis, earl, viscount and baron.

4. The persons collectively who enjoy rank above commoners; the peerage; as the English nobility; French, German, Russian nobility


From Bouvier's 1856:
BAR, practice. A place in a court where the counsellors and advocates stand to make their addresses to the court and jury; it is so called because formerly it was closed with a bar. Figuratively the counsellors and attorneys at law are called the bar of Philadelphia, the New York bar.
2. A place in a court having criminal jurisdiction, to which prisoners are called to plead to the indictment, is also called, the bar. Vide Merl. Repert. mot Barreau, and Dupin, Profession d'Avocat, tom. i. p. 451, for some eloquent advice to gentlemen of the bar.
ESQUIRE. A title applied by courtesy to officers of almost every description, to members of the bar, and others. No one is entitled to it by law, and, therefore, it confers, no distinction in law.
2. In England, it is a title next above that of a gentleman, and below a knight. Camden reckons up four kinds of esquires, particularly regarded by the heralds: 1. The eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons, in perpetual succession. 2. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons in like perpetual succession. 3. Esquires created by the king's letters patent, or other investiture, and their eldest sons. 4. Esquires by virtue of their office, as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown.
NOBILITY. An order of men in several countries to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people.
2. The constitution of the United States provides that no state shall " grant any title of nobility; and no person can become a citizen of' the United States until he has renounced all titles of nobility." The Federalist, No. 84; 2 Story, Laws U. S. 851. 3. There is not in the constitution any general prohibition against any citizen whomsoever, whether in public or private life, accepting any foreign title of nobility. An amendment of the constitution in this respect has been recommended by congress, but it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitution. Rawle on the Const. 120; Story, Const. §1346.
From Black's 2nd (1910):
ESQUIRE
In English law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight.Also a title of oflice given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of thepeace, and others. 1 Bl. Comm. 406; 3 Steph. Comm. 15, note; Tomlins. On the use ofthis term in American law, particularly as applied to justices of the peace and otherinferior judicial officers, see Call v. Foresman, 5 Watts (I>a.) 331; Christian v. AshleyCounty, 24 Ark. 151; Com. v. Vance, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 37.
NOBILITY
In English law. A division of the people, comprehending dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. These had anciently duties annexed to their respective honors. They are created either by writ, i. c., by royal summons to attend tlie house of peers, or by letters patent, i. c
BAR
1. A partition or railing running across a court-room, intended to separate the general public from the space occupied by the judges, counsel, jury, and others concerned in the trial of a cause. In the English courts it is the partition behind which all outer-bar risters and every member of the public must stand. Solicitors, being officers of the court, are admitted within it; as are also queen’s counsel, barristers with patents of precedence, and serjeants, in virtue of their ranks. Parties who appear in person also are placed within the bar on the floor of the court.
2. The term also designates a particular part of the court-room; for example, the place where prisoners stand at their trial, whence the expression “prisoner at the bar.”
3. It further denotes the presence, actual or constructive, of the court. Thus, a trial at bar is one had before the full court, distinguished from a trial had before a single judge at nisi prius. So the “case at bar” is the case now before the court and under its consideration ; the case being tried or argued.
4. In the practice of legislative bodies, the bar is the outer boundary of the house, and therefore all persons, not being members, who wish to address the house, or are summoned to it appear at the bar for that purpose.
5. In another sense, the whole body of attorneys and counselors, or the members of the legal profession, collectively, are figuratively called the “bar,” from the place which they usually occupy in court. They are thus distinguished from the “bench,” which term denotes the whole body of judges.
6. In the law of contracts, “bar” means an Impediment, an obstacle, or preventive barrier. Thus, relationship within the prohibited degrees is a bar to marriage. In this sense also we speak of the “bar of the statute of limitations.”
7. It further means that which defeats, annuls, cuts off, or puts an end to. Thus, a provision “in bar of dower” is one which has the effect of defeating or cutting off the dower-rights which the wife would otherwise become entitled to in the particular land.
8. In pleading, it denoted a special plea, constituting a sufficient answer to an action at law; and so called because it barred, i. e., prevented, the plaintiff from further prosecuting it with effect, and, if established by proof, defeated and destroyed the action altogether. Now called a special “plea in bar.”

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
the organisation whose members are attorneys at law from the various states of the US.
Post Reply