Apparently persuaded by Dodge's various arguments and proofs that the "missing" 13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the bureaucracy's procedural requirements for ratification:
"Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of states certificates of ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (emphasis added)
This is an extraordinary admission!
Mr. Hartgrove, whether or not knowingly, implicitly concedes that the 13th Amendment was Ratified by Virginia, and therefore, accordingly, satisfied the Constitution's Ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove insists that the Ratification was nevertheless justly denied (?) because the Secretary of State at that time (who just happens to have been later President John Quincy Adams, a lawyer, specifically an Esquire, and originally a Federalist, or Royalist, or Monarchist, who believed in the power of the central government over all, and in the courts and lawyers or barristers {of which he himself was one}, over the rights of the people, and whose actual trustability, honesty, and integrity is now called strongly into question) was not (?) properly (?) notified with a "certificate of ratification" (a document easily gotten rid of by a corrupt secretary of state, or an assistant thereto, and very easily gotten rid of in such a tumult as a Civil War would create).
In other words, the government's last, best argument that the 13th Amendment was not Ratified, boils down to this: Though the Amendment satisfied Constitutional requirements for Ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single, "official paper" is allegedly "missing" in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people of this nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost (?) a single "certificate of ratification."
This final excuse by Mr. Hartgrove insults every American's political rights, and the protection afforded, or that would be afforded them, but Mr. Hartgrove nevertheless, offers a glimmer of hope. "If the National Archives received a ëcertificate of ratificationí of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform Congress and await further developments." Mr. Hartgrove should have added "or the legal equivalent thereto" after his word "ratification." In other words, the issue of whether this 13th Amendment was ratified and "is or is not" a legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity -- the ratification issue is still alive.
THE TRUTH ABOUT VIRGINIA'S RATIFICATION. WHY NO CERTIFICATE OF RATIFICATION?
STOP LOOKING FOR IT. THERE ISN'T ONE. The reason that no one can find the "missing" Certificate of Ratification is because no such Certificate exists. That is what I said; no Certificate exists! In fact, it never did, and for a very good reason, not because Virginia did not actually ratify the Amendment, because they did, but rather because at the time that Virginia was to ratify the Amendment, a particular thing existed that caused the Legislative Fathers of Virginia to greatly distrust, and rightfully so, the accepted ratification method currently in use, or commonly practiced, at that particular time, the method of a state issuing a Certificate of Ratification to the Federal Government, to be ultimately recorded and kept on file by the Secretary of State.
WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM THAT VIRGINIA HAD ABOUT RATIFYING THE AMENDMENT IN THE USUAL WAY?
A definite problem existed at the time that Virginia's turn came around to ratify or not ratify the 13th Amendment. Here's how it all came about.
John Quincy Adams, son of former President and Federalist (or Royalist) John Adams, after graduating Harvard College in 1787, entered into the study or reading of law in the office of the distinguished jurist (judge), Theophilus Parsons, in Newburyport, Mass. In the early days of the United States, any person so deciding unto themselves that they had the skills and understanding necessary to do so, could declare themselves a lawyer, and enter into practice with no real formality or approval from anyone in particular. A good example of this would be Abraham Lincoln himself, who had a very limited education as far as "book learning" was concerned, yet, even though he failed in the "practice" of law as a business profession, he was nevertheless reputed to have been one (an attorney), without even being formally educated in law as was John Quincy Adams.
During the days of the proposal of this famous Amendment, though some of America's greatest patriots existed at that time, the great men of Virginia were also aware of the fact that some of these seemingly great men were, in reality, two faced traitors, more skilled at "innocent deception" than in praying long winded prayers in opening session in Congress and in performing other acts of purported patriotic merit, who would just as quickly sell their American patriotic brethren out for personal gain, as not. Conspiracies had long before already been discovered to surface, evil and malicious conspiracies that purported to destroy the United States government by reducing it to bankrupt status, ultimately to sap up the new found freedom of the American people, such as it was even back then, and return the American people back to a monarchy, where they belonged!
Virginia's founding fathers, men of some great renown and wisdom, knew that it would be a fatal mistake to under estimate the enemy, for even though the use of ammunition had stopped, the war against good and evil still raged on. Sending a Certificate of Ratification to the government of the United States would be no problem for Virginia any more than it would be for any other state. But that was not the real issue here; the issue was one of trust, deception and corruption.
No bar association existed on American soil in the early 1800's which had its original residence here, however the notorious International Bar Association had, as a matter of fact, its legal tentacles here, with its main body being back in London, England, being there under the sovereign authority of King George III. And this was, after all, the very reason for the Amendment to begin with, because barristers, or attorneys at bar, were ripping the security of our country apart.
Being admitted to practice was the act of a bar association, and in 1790, John Quincy Adams was admitted to practice. Since there were no other bar associations in the country at the time except for the International Bar Association, under King George III of England, it could only be to that Bar that he was admitted, and to have been admitted, he would have had to taken upon himself the title of Esquire, the title that a barrister or attorney was given by the royalty of England, a position of nobility just below knight and just above that of gentleman. Furthermore, it has now been learned that the word BAR stands for, and means, BRITISH ACCREDITATION REGISTRY!!! This further establishes the evil conspiracy of the acts by England and the World Bankers thereof (the Rothchilds, etc.) to entrench Bar associations (even if supposedly only as American Bar Associations) in this country in an effort to continue the corrupt practices of world control by the Money Masters, or World Bankers, who have used attorneys or lawyers or barristers ever since such occupations were first recognized in the world historically. And to be admitted to any BAR is automatically a establishment of a title of nobility under the concepts of nobility as was held up before the English people from the times of ancient English days and years gone by.
John Quincy Adams himself, then, was a nobleman, as a member of England's (not America's) BRITISH ACCREDITATION REGISTRY, by having been granted title thereto as an Esquire, a nobleman, under King George III, of England, and this is the very thing that the true 13th Amendment was proposed to stop. But John Quincy Adams was not to content to just maintain himself in law; he had a thirst for higher positions of power and grandeur; he had his eye on the presidency of the United States, like his father before him. A traitor, a subject to the crown of England, in sheep's clothing. This man should never have been allowed to become a President.
Virginians' knew of a certainty that if they ratified the Amendment in the usual way, its future would be subject to eventual fraud and cover up, as it eventually was, even with the best of efforts to prevent that very same thing from happening. After all, a Certificate of Ratification was only a piece of paper, and a piece of paper could be "lost" too easily, couldn't it?. And if "lost" at the right time and in the right manner, who would be to say that it "ever existed?" No, a different course of action ratifying the Amendment was the only way to really do it, because Virginians really cared fervently for their country and the freedom that they had obtained from it; they weren't about to go back to being under King George III, or his descendents, by hook or crook, or under any other such monarch, if they could help it.
The Constitution made no restriction or requirement on how they had to show Ratification, only that it had to be done. Since the act of Ratification is an official act of law of a state, any official publishing of an act would be the official declaration of the passage or the establishment of such an act. Making the Ratification of the proposed 13th Amendment a part of a larger body of law, would protect it from the ravages of corrupt politicians in power who were more skilled at polished deceit and lies than they were at long winded prayers in beginning sessions in Congress.
By protecting their Ratification in the Act of a body of law, the good men of Virginia, would insure that their efforts would not be stifled by the mere whims of wicked men, that it would be around for generations, despite what might be done to "cover things" up to the contrary. Of course, one must admit that the cover up has been pretty effective, and was pretty well orchestrated, but then again, they didn't have the advantages of television and radio in those days, to swiftly expose this kind of fraud and cover up the way that Watergate was handled, on a grandiose scale, so as to leave and indelible impression on the people's mind as to the idea that something dreadfully wrong had take place.
So, such was Act No. 280 passed by the Virginia legislature (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro-film), proposed on March 10, 1819 to be printed in a special edition of the Virginia Civil Code, March 12, 1819, an act of ratification that ultimately would not have the potential to be just covered up or whisked away without a trace.
In the face of all of the mounds of hard evidence establishing the lawful existence of this true Thirteenth Amendment over the believed existing one (the true Fourteenth Amendment), Mr. Hartgrove still proposes that the only remaining argument against the 13th Amendment's ratification is that there appears to be an alleged (by him) procedural error in his records involving the absence of a "certificate of ratification."
The Constitution, not the law passed by Congress (no matter how well intentioned it may have been) was, and is, SUPREME, therefore the requirements of the Constitution outweighed and nullified that of the Congressionally passed, but unenforceable law.
Mr. Hartgrove, or his successors and constituents, needs to be questioned as to quo warranto, or "by what authority" that he has, under the Constitution, to hold the nation and its sovereign people, hostage as to their rights, his claim to this alleged power and authority, notwithstanding.
Mr. Dodge countered Hartgrove's procedural argument by citing some of the Ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the Journal of the House of Representatives, 11th Congress, 2nd Session, on page 241, a "letter" (not a "certificate of ratification") from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio's ratification was submitted not to the Secretary of State, but rather to the House of Representatives, where it "was read and ordered to lie on the table." Likewise, "The Kentucky Ratification was also returned to the House, while Maryland's earlier Ratification is not listed as having been returned to Congress (at all)." (emphasis added)
The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not required to notify the Secretary of State of their Ratification decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a "certificate of ratification" with the Secretary of State. If so, by what Law, in the face of these clear findings of fact and conclusions of law, was Virginia to be treated differently than any other state? The fact is, Virginia had the same rights as every other state in the Union, and its Ratification process, however unique, had just as much right to be recognize as any other state's right.
And, another thing. Since when does the submission of an official statement to an individual's boss, an individual whose job it may be to perform (by recognition or otherwise) a specific duty, not become binding on the employee if it ordinarily would be? Who worked for who? Was James Monroe the President of the United States at this time, or was it John Quincy Adams? I believe it was James Monroe. Therefore, Mr. J. Q. Adams, as only the Secretary of State, worked for, and was subject to, the authority of President James Monroe. Another way to look at the whole thing is like this. A legal notice (evidence of ratification) sent to or served upon the big boss (President) of a company (country) is binding upon the entire company (country), automatically. A simple, direct, factual point of law! Therefore, any notice of any decision, by whatever form it may have been derived, served upon (or sent to) the employer, President James Monroe, was equally and forthwith binding upon the Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, as well, along with the rest of the United States, or either of them! Period.
This act of certified (or bonded) service, became, was, and is, Binding upon the rest of the country also, the entire United States, regardless of whether or not some officials want to think so. In addition to the foregoing, as another point of law, a legal notice is considered to have been served (allowing for a reasonably sufficient amount of time for delivery) at the time that the said article of notice has been - with such carrier - deposited, with all necessary postage or other delivery fee prepaid thereon. Therefore John Quincy Adams did not have the barest shred of authority or power to refute, deny or avoid the notice. Nor did Congress. Nor does Congress today. None.
And it is absolutely inconceivable and unacceptable to believe that Adams' boss, President Monroe, did not convey to, or inform him, the fact that he had received a copy of Virginia's re-published Civil Code, containing the "missing" 13th Amendment therein. And it is equally unthinkable that the two other specific parties who were sent copies of this particular publication, namely Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of John Q. Adams political enemies, having received such information, would not have immediately mounted an assault against the hated Federalist platform of monarchy and royalism embraced by attorney (or barrister) or Esquire J.Q. Adams and his cronies, and that such a monumental occurrence would just have passed them by as though it meant nothing. They, at the very least, would have made sure that Mr. Adams was aware of what was published and what it meant. And such an occurrence would have been the very kind of end result that would have caused the various states to launch forward into the ordering of copies of the Constitution with the new, ratified Amendment in it, a fact that would NOT have occurred at all if it had not been truly ratified, particularly by Connecticut, who voted against it to begin with!
Again, despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the "missing," but now found, Amendment was (and is, according to the future will of the people) Constitutionally ratified and shall not be denied because of some supposed procedural error ((?)).
We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and we do NOT have to know where and how it was hatched to know that it is, in fact, a duck. There is more than just a little proof that the 13th Amendment was at one time considered to be a part of the Constitution, by virtually everybody at large, not just a select few.
What else could explain the fact that it was not until after the Civil War that attorney bar associations, not just the International Bar Association headquartered in England, began to spring up everywhere?
WE HAVE A THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH READS:
"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."
The True 13th Amendment did in fact pass in 1819, and the Amendment that we now regard as the "thirteenth amendment" is actually the 14th Amendment, just as it was in the case of the Colorado version of the Constitution, in 1867 which showed it exactly that way, and our current "fourteenth amendment" is actually the 15th Amendment, and so forth and so on (so far as we know).
All of these things now considered, it becomes quite clear that the introduction of the power of attorneys or lawyers at bar, or barristers, to be manipulated and controlled by the Money Masters, the World Bankers, the so called World Elite Dominion, or WED, was married to the political systems of this country, once the True 13th Amendment was successfully suppressed and covered up. But great enough sums of money can do many powerful and fantastic things that the People would not ordinarily believe could be accomplished by anyone otherwise, and in corrupt application of law, much money is at stake. And so it was with the beginning (or re-beginning) of the Bar associations here in the United States, beginning with the American Bar Association, started in Ohio (in a little town now a suburb of Cleveland), supposedly started to shut out foreign attorneys, as immigrants, who were making their way into the United States and in that little town in Ohio at the time, followed thereafter by all of the other bar associations.
But the question arises, why did they, these Ohio attorneys, choose to call themselves a "Bar" association of all organizational names that could have been chosen? Since the existence of the International Bar had historically been all but erased from within the "legal borders" of the United States, what prompted those particular attorneys to latch upon that particular word as the definitive word to describe their particular organization? Coincidence? Hardly. Coincidences of this magnitude rarely if ever happen. And then there is the issue that European foreigners, particularly European attorneys, would likely already know about the existence of the infamous and feared International Bar Association from England, and would realize that if it was in fact the "officially recognized legal entity" here in America, there would be little if any chance of them (the new attorneys in town) beating that old European monster, the IBA, itself, even if only as a matter of an alleged indirect link thereto. Perhaps a link of this type with "Mother England" again just might provide the locals and others willing to join them certain advantages. . . . .
No, there was obviously something much more sinister at work here, more ominous, more "monsterish" in its nature. A rekindling of an old spirit or cause perhaps. After all, a monster of any type, even a "legal one," as everybody knows, is a powerful creature to be feared and respected, even if it takes crushing the hapless and innocent beneath its feet in order to get its own way. But it must not appear as the old monster revived. It must be covered up, made to look deceptively innocent, Americanized, good old boy-ish if you will. In other words, the true name of the American Bar Association, extended completely out, would be, and is: the American-British Accreditation Registry Association, which has kept the United States tied to mother England in all of its foreign affairs and other dealings, and to the Money Masters, or WED, from that day to this. And what is it that which is said; "ignorance is no excuse." The fact that law school graduates, as attorneys, thereafter join various BAR associations all over the United States today, unknowingly, unwittingly, as to the allegiance that they owe to the World Bankers (even though done in ignorance), many of whom (World Bankers) are still headquartered largely in London, England, and which as a matter of Law, are under the crown heads of England and the rest of Europe, establishes that all of such BAR members, as Esquires, are in fact in allegiance to a foreign prince or power.
Consequently, when these things are proven in a court of True Law, one in which an impartial jury (not peers), neither biased or prejudiced, has been impaneled to serve the People directly, under direct authority and direction, word for word, of the Constitution, not by the word substitution games of Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, and it is subsequently established that all Esquires of any British Accreditation Registry in fact ultimately owe their allegiance to a foreign prince or power, then all attorneys or lawyers who do not immediately renounce their membership therein will immediately cease to be Citizens of the United States, and except they shall expediently obtain special permission to stay IN this country by an applicable governmental organization NOT ultimately established by or under the authority and/or influence of Esquires, if any, they will become, forthwith, subject to deportation, as ALIENS, non citizens, from the borders of the United States of America into such other country, if any, as will have them.
Do not take this as a joke, for there are many of those "ordinary Americans" who would gladly escort all such resisting bar attorneys to the borders in a heartbeat, just to get rid of them, so badly are they, bar attorneys, now hated in so many different circles, and places, in our society.
We wonder what country, if any, will be willing to take therein all of the bar attorneys who will become subject to deportation (except they immediately renounce their membership in their respective BAR associations) as non-citizens, considering what the reputation of such lawyers have become as a matter of centuries of underhanded skullduggery, lying (they are lieyers after all), back-stabbings, conspiracies, thievings, and even manslaughters and murders caused by them, all under the pretext that they alone should be able to determine the proper implementation of law, under the pretext of "practice," practice being a principle of a thing that is not good enough to present to the public first, without first (secretly) executing the thing outside of the public's view. It is highly doubtful that any country with a sane government will be willing to take on the sudden refuse of our society, hundreds of thousands to millions of lawyers who are suddenly no longer Citizens of the United States.
There are some who believe that lawyers in general are okay to have around in a society, but all of the Founding Fathers did not agree with that viewpoint. In fact, as a matter of historical knowledge, I believe it was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania prior to the days of the Founding of the Constitution itself, or in the "Colonial Days," there was a law on the books of the City that made it illegal to "be an attorney," such was their hatred and distrust therein for attorneys. This is the real reason that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution uses the word "Counsel," instead of "Lawyer," "Attorney," or even "Barrister," notwithstanding that they knew of the existence of those words in that day and age; the Founding Father(s) of the Sixth Amendment were, in a very subtle sort of way, trying to nullify the terrible power that attorneys had had over the People for centuries, by making any Citizen inclined to give Assistance of Counsel, equal to all attorneys, lawyers, etc., in any Case involving criminal proceedings, thereby removing from the system of monopoly by attorneys, lawyers and the like. Bear in mind that in the phrase "Assistance of Counsel" contained in the Sixth Amendment, nothing is indicated as to whether this Assistance is to be paid for or unpaid, therefore it could be "unpaid," a principle upon which no attorney in business operates on, and furthermore, Assistance can be rendered in both of two primary forms: advice given AND representation of the person charged, for no one can deny the fact that some people are inadequate when it comes to speaking out for themselves, but other interested Citizens, not attorneys, lawyers and the like, may have that ability and can therefore speak for them, or represent them accordingly, and thereby provide for them "Assistance" within the meaning of the word in the Constitution, Sixth Amendment.
The effort to stop the rampant and unchecked raging of "bar" attorneys or lawyers in our society was given all motivation to propose and pass the True Thirteenth Amendment when it was discovered that King George III, under the aegis of the Bank of England, was still trying to control the United States, through "Bar" Attorneys or Lawyers who were allegedly our very "own Citizens," because they (our own "Citizens") obviously lacked the moral fiber as a whole to protect the true interests of the People of the United States themselves. And those continued efforts to control the People of the United States by the Bank of England is still alive and well today, through its successful establishment of the American-British Accreditation Registry Association, and all derivatives therefrom, keeping in mind that it would have been impossible after the Civil War, even with the successful suppression of the True Thirteenth Amendment, for it to have reestablished the International Bar Association, headquartered in London, England, inasmuch at this act would have been too obvious, and would have likely caused some to have good cause to remember the True Thirteenth Amendment immediately, and made an issue of it, so obvious would it have become as to "what was really going on," and the aforesaid Amendment would NOT have "missing" too long, or long enough (which they hoped would be forever) under such a blatant and outright obvious condition or act. So instead, they thought that if they simply made it "American," then everything would be okay, and that those gullible Americans would buy it, and they certainly did, sorry to say, until now.
To expect any attorney or lawyer of any BAR association, in light of this information, to be expected to either prosecute or hold for the missing (but now found) True Thirteenth Amendment, might be asking for too much; it would ordinarily constitute a conflict of interest for them to do so, and any attorney or lawyer who did so while maintaining membership in any BAR association whatsoever would be regarded as extremely suspect. Maybe there are some Bar attorneys out there somwhere that can prove us wrong on this point. This is one of the difficulties surrounding the (true) Thirteenth Amendment, not that its rightful existence and authority hasn't been more than adequately proven, but rather that those who have seized the control of the courts and the legislatures and executive positions, are mainly (bar) attorneys, and are feared, having clearly become regarded as being a "Noble Class" of Citizens, a condition which was forbidden by the Constitution itself before the (true) Thirteenth Amendment ever became an issue for proposal. Only special juries made up of non-attorneys, not being members of any BAR association, can justly determine the truthfulness of the Case fairly, and render the appropriate verdict accordingly.