41 votes

Wow! New Hampshire Bill Would Recognize Original 13th Amendment

A bill in the New Hampshire legislature to officially recognize the Original 13th Amendment.

The bill also cites the Organic Act of 1871 as a fraud on the Constitution.

This could wake up a few people.

Interesting stuff.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Interesting article ...

... on the subject.

Did you know that Congress voted in favor of the 13th in an almost unanimous vote (combined, 121-4)?

Did you know that it was a direct result of a threat by Mayer Rothschild over the refusal of Congress to renew the National Bank charter?

This article, if it is all true, sheds light on this amendment. Basically, "esquire" was a title given to members of the International Bar Association, which was controlled by the King of England and the bankers -- back in the day.


Virginia did not ratify it,

Virginia did not ratify it, it was rejected by the SEnate. therfore it did not get ratified. Some texts published it in error.

I think you are wrong ...

... and there is a lot of evidence out there to support the opposite of your position.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

And furthermore ...

... it seems that Virginia was the FIRST state to publish the Constitution with the 13th included. Why would they do that if they had not ratified it?


It would be strange that

It would be strange that somehow an entire country forgot about an amendment.

I see ...

... you have no evidence to support your claim.

That's what I thought.

I was just saying, "it would

I was just saying, "it would be strange". No connection to any disagreement we had. I was entertaining the possibility. I would like to see more evidence for this.


I understand the outrage of the last passage being removed, but ESQ is a title not bestowed by a foreign power, isn't it?

Aren't all lawyers in the US granted JD via Bar?

In 1810 ...

... one could be a "lawyer" by studying law books and calling himself a "lawyer."

But "esquire" was a title given to a member of the International Bar Association, which was controlled by the King of England.

Then, like today, a lawyer can only represent someone in court if he is a member of the Bar. Today, that might not (?) be associated with England, but it was back then.

Besides that, an "attorney" (esquire, not necessarily "lawyer") is an officer of the court, which means their allegiance is to the court, not to you.

Whatever the situation was back then, today an "attorney" is a member of a privileged society which claims to have a monopoly on the business of law, which in itself is objectionable to many.

As mentioned below, "JD" is a title similar to "MD" denoting educational status at the doctorate level, not membership within a legal society which claims a monopoly on a particular industry. "Esquire," at least back then, was a title given to members of this society (controlled by a foreign power, at least back then).


Juris Doctor ( JD ) is the American designation for graduate law degrees, being notational replacement for the English Doctor of Jurisprudence. JD is not a court designation. Many people take JDs with no intention of practicing before any court. JDs need not join the American Bar Association and practicing JDs are not required to be members. They can all take the appellation Esq. by custom, simply because they have. There is no particular status acquired or designated in America.

Esquire ( Esq ) is an informal British appellation ( from a French custom ) with wide usage as a general show of respect. At highest, by anyone holding an Office of Trust under the Crown, including Justice of the Peace, Barristers as distinguished from Solicitors ( Esquires by Office) and Army ranks above Captain. Been used in a lot of ways over a lot of centuries. Benjamin Franklin was addressed as Esq. for his scientific contributions long before his Honorary Scottish Doctorate of Law.

The whole BAR/ESQ red herring thing seems to have really taken off in the late 1990's. Shawn Talbot Rice was big on spreading this. ( highly suspected as a confidential informant and Fed operative because people around him went down while he didn't ) Rice was recently imprisoned for money laundering and related shenanigans.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

i'm also confused

i thought they did this years ago

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Here's where I get confused

Jefferson was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1767. Where does that leave him in reference to the 13th Amendment? I don't think he ever stuck ESQ at the end of his name on personal correspondence, but he may have done so on legal documentation.

This site gives an excellent history lesson in plain American (my English isn't that good). I think the part of the amendment that is relevent in today's world is this:
"...the need for the Thirteenth Amendment is even greater today as we enter a new millennium, with the United States interfering in the affairs of the nations of Europe and Asia. With China and other nations buying voting blocks with illegal donations, i.e. "emoluments", "grafts" and "bribes", to the campaign funds and personal pockets of presidents, senators and congressmen, and others of our elected and appointed servants. With lobbying groups and multi-national corporations, which might properly be termed "foreign powers", doing the same. With the duplicity evinced in the unprincipled, unethical and immoral conduct of a number of our elected representatives, who have subverted the Constitution at every step, who would destroy the Sovereignty of the United States of America. With the repudiation of the good sense of the policy of non-interference given by President Munroe in the Monroe Doctrine.

The real importance of the Thirteenth Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment to our American Republic, soon to enter upon a new millennium, lies in its origins. Its original purposes were: a) to protect the State and Federal election processes from bribery, graft and political chicanery, and b) to shield the federal government itself from both espionage and the domestic intrigues of foreign agents-provocateur, by placing a severe penalty on citizens so engaged."

from: http://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

In 1767, Virginia was part of Great Britain ...

... so that has nothing to do with the original 13th Amendment.

The original thirteenth amendment

was already recognized when it was originally published ...

NH Commitee votes full video


For your viewing pleasure the commitee vote. Interesting reactions all around and I'm glad that a few reps decided to investigate further.

"Liberty is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is a syncope." -Henry Ward Beecher

I thought the Act of 1871 was a lie

I can't believe this is real. We scream for our constitutional rights, and the politicians laugh at us because we in fact have no constitution. WTF we are slaves.

Just so everyone is clear on what this means...

it means that NO ATTORNEY can serve in PUBLIC OFFICE.

Yeah, we're clear on that!

Imagine things operating on the INTENT of laws instead of legal loopholes that totally distort the intent; and, in the process, set precedents that can make a law - or country's Constitution - virtually inconsequential.

But assuming we'd start to honor the Thirteenth Amendment, lawyers would just stop using the title "Esquire." And the profession would simply develop another qualifying association - or just RE-NAME the one they have now: the B.A.R (British Accreditation Registry) Association.

I'm actually more interested in the Thirteenth Amendment applying to those in government holding dual citizenship (emolument = any way that a citizen receives benefits, i.e., from a foreign power); also American businesses that profit directly from foreign governments - my points/questions below: http://www.dailypaul.com/279915/wow-new-hampshire-legislatur...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir


Shared on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

"Military Laws of the United States," by Trueman Cross. 1825.

WHERE DID THE 13th AMENDMENT GO? ... Here it is!

"Military Laws of the United States," by Trueman Cross. Published in 1825 by Edward de Krafft of Washington. Many books and official government documents printed between about 1820 to 1860 contain the original 13th amendment. It was never repealed, so where did it go?

On December 6, 1865, the present 13th amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment deals with slavery. But it should have been the 14th amendment. Instead, history was re-written, and the original 13th amendment was removed from the public record.

The original 13th amendment fortified a provision already in the constitution--the prohibition against American citizens holding titles and honors. The constitution prohibits it, but the thirteenth amendment designated a penalty: Loss of citizenship.

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten
different states and territories over 4 decades from 1822 to 1860.

In 1812, the votes of 13 states were needed to ratify an amendment. The federal government admits the Titles of Nobility Amendment was ratified by 12:

1. Maryland (December 25, 1810)
2. Kentucky (January 31, 1811)
3. Ohio (January 31, 1811)
4. Delaware (February 2, 1811)
5. Pennsylvania (February 6, 1811)
6. New Jersey (February 13, 1811)
7. Vermont (October 24, 1811)
8. Tennessee (November 21, 1811)
9. Georgia (November 22, 1811)
10. North Carolina (December 23, 1811)
11. Massachusetts (February 27, 1812)
12. New Hampshire (December 9, 1812)

But the amendment was also ratified by Virginia (state # 13): Virginia ratified the amendment on February 7, 1812. The state's official records were burned when the British set fire to Washington and Richmond during the War of 1812, but numerous other records prove the amendment was ratified. Nevertheless, the federal government insists the amendment never became law.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

National Treasure 3: In Liberty...

The Original 13th Amendment (working title)


"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath

Nice! It's pleasing to see the missing amendment

in quaint typeset there in that archived book compiled and published by the United States War Department. As to Virginia's records on the matter... it's a shame how big fires can destroy important government documents, isn't it?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

i would assume they would

i would assume they would then become an outlaw. As they should be

United States Constitution (History)


Thank you for posting!

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath

Article XIII

Article XIII

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, 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.

Woah...this is actually legislation...

". The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, otherwise known as the Act of 1871, created a corporation in the District of Columbia called the United States of America. The act revoked prior legislation relative to the district’s municipal charter and, most egregiously, led to adoption of a fraudulent constitution in which the original Thirteenth Amendment was omitted. "

Yeah, so, I've heard all kinds of rumors about "The United States" being a corporation, being a citizen of the United States basically puts you under their umbrella. But, to actually see this in legislation...um, pretty revealing.

Vindication is so very sweet...



(Don't let the down-votes sway your opinion)

I'm confused re the missing 13th Amendment

The original (missing but never repealed) "Thirteenth Amendment" that is reflected in the House bill would appear to be the "Emoluments Clause." This forbids accepting titles of nobility or any other perks from foreign nations - or else you lose your United States citizenship and are ineligible for office. I immediately thought of those in government positions (at the federal level or otherwise) who have held, or currently do hold, dual citizenship; also (for one) the CEO of General Motors profiting from the joint ventures with Chinese corp's owned by the Communist Chinese government. But those don't appear to be reasons this issue has been raised by the State of New Hampshire. (Apparently, it's previously been raised by others.)

According to this you-tube clip on the subject, it concerns attorneys and judges. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRPyYlGA4LI

I'm confused because - while the 13th Amendment *should* be included in the Constitution if it was ratified and never repealed - what difference would it make in actual practice? It seems to me that the Emolument Clause is basically already incorporated elsewhere in the Constitution: ARTCLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8. See essay on the Emoluments Clause http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

I don't get it.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

this is where it gets interesting

you have to know WHICH Constitution you're talking about...

the Constitution for the United States of America - 1787



For one, President Obama

For one, President Obama would be immediately impeached for accepting knighthood from the Queef of England while holding office. I thought he was knighted.

It would prevent people like lawyers (title of esquire) from holding office. You know all judges now are lawyers? Yeah, that's not how it used to be. Lawyers were rightly despised and judges were ordinary people who were elected because they grasped the constitution and right from wrong. Just by disallowing lawyers from being judges would mean no grey laws and absolute freedom.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.