Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Abuni_versem7 > My Blog |
|
The USA is still under the crown...original 13th Amendment ? There was a Title of Nobilities and Honor-Amendment (TONA), in the USA, drafted in 1810, which was re-earthed by research expert David Dodge and a police investigator Tom Dunn in 1983, who were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine USA. This issue sparked debate over whether or not it had been ratified, as historical records and/or the means of publishing such seemed to be affected by the War of 1812, and/or the ongoing addition of new states in the interim(s) through the US Civil War (1865+). Washington DC itself, the Capital had been burned in 1814 along with important documents for sure. Note: What came to be the supposed final 13th Amendment was the prohibition of slavery, which would have become the 14th Amendment instead. The text of the original 13th Amendment reads as follows: "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." WOW!!!.The implications are not easily seen here, unless one considers a few soild facts. First, it is common for attorneys' names to be appended the rank of "Esquire" (Esq) by the International Bar Association (IBA) This may seem a benign term of identification, until one also considers the word "Honor" for judges, coupled with the fact that special privilege accompanies such that only lawyers are allowed to become judges, where non-lawyers are not. Also, both lawyers and judges are allowed immunity to lawsuits as applied to court precedings and liability. So now the title is backed up by the acting privileges of a true special class, thus verifying the title of nobility or honor. In British peerage, the title of Esquire is the shield bearer for the Squire or Knight. It is obvious that the founding fathers of the US at that time were looking after the best interests of the people in terms of corruption or subversion, which any semblence of a monarchy would inherently facilitate. But now the question remains as to whether or not the Amendment was ratified into law. After much debate and denial by those in the legal system, the Revised Virginia Code published in 1819 shows the ratified Amendment in situ. Virginia was the 13th state needed to ratify. Owe it to the likes of one Joseph Story, Massachusetts Judge and Vice President of the American Academy of Languages and Belle Latrelles, to omit mention of Titles of Nobility in the 1828 publication titled "Public and General Statutes passed by Congress 1789-1827", done under his watch. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, lawyer and eventually 6th US President, very well knew better as well, for being the one responsible for notifying the people of his country's laws. This will be a deliberate repression of truth by those who would be affected by the law.  Again, the implications are enormous here for a country living on the LIE since 1819 !!!. At the very least, the USA is still a monarchy along with Great Britain, unless this [unrecognized] law is upheld of course. But wait, the ensuing 14th Amendment says, "... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Does this mean an original 13th Amendment would no longer be valid as to stripping lawyers and judges of their stuff, or was this truly done for basic inalienable rights of freed slaves?  Oh well, maybe it was just old slave habits were truly hard to relenquish even by the victors. Yet all ironic if the first 13th Amendment stands, us commoners are still living in servitude to a higher "court".  And then there is this Trump thing versus the "Emoluments Clause" and gifts. What is that about? pffft. Ahh yes, Article 1 of the Bill Of rights covers that too, and also forbids titles of nobility. But does not specify the punishment?  Below is 1819 Virginia publication of ratification (in full page-bottom) which would have been omitted in Joseph Store's 1828 general publication.   |
|||
|
"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is - The Fed has usurped the government!!" -Louis Thomas McFadden
| ||
|
Well, ALL lawyers and judges would NOT be allowed to practice/serve unless their titles "Esquire" and "Honorable" were removed, along with their special immunities. Otherwise, such titles are associated with the monarchy style of govt, and would forfeit their rights as US citizens. This also means that ALL criminals in the system since 1819 were illegally proscuted.  Notice that doctors are liable for malpractice suits where lawyers and judges are not. A doctor is allowed the advanatages given only as it relates to his qualifying education. Lawyers therefore, go above and beyond education into special status and class via immunity to lawsuits, even if only while "on the clock" as it were.This likely does not mean much to countries like England, who find it hard pressed NOT to have a [notional] King/Queen as it were. But when a country declares itself a "Republic" and then has a law repressed outright by the actions of a few, subterfuge and downright treason is realized without a doubt.
|
×
×