31 votes

Original 13th Amendment Barring Attorneys From Public Office is On The Legislative Agenda in New Hampshire(TEXT of BILL)

http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB638

See my previous post regarding this VERY SERIOUS problem in America:
http://www.dailypaul.com/269892/our-justice-system-has-been-...

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen

AN ACT recognizing the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Preamble and Statement of Intent. The general court hereby finds that:

I. In 1810, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibited titles of nobility and which later became known as the original Thirteenth Amendment, was introduced, passed both houses of Congress, and was sent to the states for ratification. On December 9, 1812, shortly after ratification by Virginia, New Hampshire became the thirteenth state to ratify the amendment. The amendment was therefore ratified by the requisite number of states and became Article XIII of the United States Constitution.

II. During the War Between the States, otherwise known as the Civil War, the country was under martial law, and all executive orders made by President Lincoln were, in effect, law. After the war, laws made during that period were to be abated; yet, vestiges of martial law remained and presidents continued to write executive orders.

III. 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.

IV. Today, what appears to the public as the United States Constitution is not the complete document, as it was never lawfully amended to remove the Thirteenth Amendment. Instead, the document presented as the United States Constitution is merely a mission statement for the corporation unlawfully established in the Act of 1871.

V. The purpose of this act is to recognize that the original Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits titles of nobility, is properly included in the United States Constitution and is the law of the land. The act is also intended to end the infiltration of the Bar Association and the judicial branch into the executive and legislative branches of government and the unlawful usurpation of the people’s right, guaranteed by the New Hampshire constitution, to elect county attorneys who are not members of the bar. This unlawful usurpation gives the judicial branch control over all government and the people in the grand juries. As long as the original Thirteenth Amendment is concealed from the people, there shall never be justice or a legitimate constitutional form of government.

2 New Chapter; Thirteenth Amendment. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 1-A the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 1-B

ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

1-B:1 Original Thirteenth Amendment. The following shall be recognized as the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

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.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Then you'll like this site.

http://www.35thavenuebaptist.org/the-original-13th-amendment...

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

i am curious

they did this a while ago, did they not?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2003/HCR0010.html

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

If at first you don't succeed

maybe this time will be the charm. Please keep this topic front and center.

evening bump

.

Thank you.

Humble Request

Please provide Front Page coverage for this information.

They're have been countless Law patriots (Real Americans) who've dedicated their lives to this research dreaming of the day that such information would be given the light of day to recover our country from the sticky hands of the selfish international bankers.

When the People realize the terms and conditions of their citizenship surely they will opt to be recognized as Nationals instead.

Therefore, I humbly request that this forum thread be added to the front page.

Thank you,
FMOL

I reserve the right to govern myself.

Thank you.

That's the third request. Trying to keep this bumped until one of the mods see it.

Well, cuz i live in Belfast Maine

I could just not resist posting this article:

www.lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtml

Ron Paul is My President

Great page

This one is good to regarding driving vs traveling:
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

Samuel P Chase :

You got it MaxK. Thanks for bringing this into focus.

This cretin's creations deserve it's own thread.

All the Best - Heir of Freedom

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

To Mods:

Can we get this front paged? This is critically important to the future of our country.

ditto bump

ditto bump

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Ty Max!

Samuel P Chase is where to look for more information

It affects more than lawyers.

Anyone that is a privileged class could be affected. It might end the legal monopoly.

This amendment used to be published in State law books until it disappeared around the civil war, specifically when Samuel P Chase was Supreme Court Chief Justice. Before that, this amendment was published several times by Samuel P Chase in the 1830s when he was in Cincinnati as part of the official laws of the State of Ohio, since he was the publisher.

Samuel P Chase has a long and interesting history. He was called the King of the Carpet Baggers, and was in charge of sending people into the south to seize land and property as Secretary of the Treasure. He was also in charge of creating the greenbacks fiat money than putting his own picture on $1 bills, and when he became Supreme Court Chief Justice, he ruled against it! He was also so successful at financial ripoffs, chase manhatten is named after him. He ruled over the General Robert Lee case, and made some unusual court rulings there as well, worth reading.

He was also responsible for the 14th amendment citizen legal theory - which actually does exist and is not part of a "conspiracy theory" - read for yourself they came up with the idea then.

I suspect it is for this specific reason that the original 13th amendment, which could be viewed as conflicting with that theory, disappeared. Note, all the above is my own research and is as far as I have gone, but Samuel P Chase has to be researched if you want to understand this missing amendment.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Pointing out a man like Chase

ending up being Chief Justice with all of this fraud surrounding him gives a tiny glimpse of an important point about the Supreme Court and case law in general. We cannot allow the Supreme Court to have final say in our interpretations of law. The Supreme Court is just as corruptible as any other entity. From my studies of Law I find that one must disregard case law as valid that is not in strict logical congruency with all applicable law.

Any interpretation of law from a court or otherwise must be viewed for its integrity in upholding all protections and reason of law. Chase's slimy positioning into institutionalizing crime demonstrates how history and courts can be corrupted and thus means their interpretations are not end all be all gospel of what is correct law but more of a barometer of the lawfulness of the State and the People. If we ever accept the notion that all court interpretations are Common Law and applicable to shaping law then this would require People throughout history to acknowledge court rulings under dictatorial regimes and corrupt courts as applicable law.

The ebb and flow of tyranny throughout civilizations of the past and pinpoint instances like Chase demonstrate that Law is not just about courts having the final say; it is about what is the path that breaks no law to enforce law. I believe this should be the guiding principle when studying law to find out what is real law vs color of law.

Great Nugget MaxK. Thanks!

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Thanks for the bump :)

And thank you for posting

And thank you for posting this.

Blimp

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

FYI - I started researching

FYI - I started researching this after one of the initial articles on it appeared in the Anti-Shyster.

Note: just going to wikipedia, which of course is missing all the good information, I get:

"In 1830 Chase moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, where he quickly gained a position of prominence at the bar. He published an annotated edition of the laws of Ohio which was long considered a standard."

And that standard says that there is a missing 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. Hard to miss being that it was a standard and published in front of the law book published by Samuel P Chase, future Supreme Court Justice, over several different editions.

This is an authentic cover-up. It doesn't just affect lawyers, it affects dual citizens, the entire foreign lobby, all bribe takers, and the entire notion of a 14th amendment citizenship.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

King of the Carpetbaggers

King of the Carpetbaggers, and Shyster, puts his own picture on $1 bills while fleecing America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_$1_1862_Legal_Tender.jpg

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

.

I await the day when ALL are

I await the day when ALL are barred from "holding office."

"Holding office." Psh. How apropos. The term itself calls to mind a hostage situation.

Sadly, of course, we are the hostages.

We are only the hostages

because we pay them our attention however. Once we stop doing that we're a lot closer to freedom.

Yeay Yeay Yeay

nobody said all lawyers are bad, just not eligible to hold office.

Please learn more on this topic it is quite important.

This is bad.... We can't be

This is bad.... We can't be collectivists and assume all lawyers are bad.

Thomas Jefferson, Justin Amash, Tom Davis, Ted Cruz, etc are/ were all lawyers. There are tons of liberty minded lawyers out there.

No

But we can assume all Attorneys are bad - it's just safer that way.

Knowingly or not - they have taken an oath to the City of London BANKSTERS and are agents of the Crown Corporation.

As far as Ted Cruz goes you should probably check this link:
http://www.dailypaul.com/279097/is-senator-ted-cruzs-wife-is...

Attorneys are not lawyers.

Lawyers study law.

Attorneys study legalese trickery on how to steal your stuff.

You have no clue what your

You have no clue what your talking about.

I know many attorneys who are champions of liberty. One of them is named Justin Amash.

It's the SYSTEM NEO

that SYSTEM is our enemy.

Don't make this personal. I'm talking about a chosen occupation. Not a race or religion. Most of them know not what they do. The aren't taught Law in law school - the are taught procedure. Do this over and over until you get it down smooth and business keeps moving along. Fleece the sheep as fast as possible. It's a game. Prosecutor says 10... your Attorney says 2. You say "but my rights were violated" - your attorney says "there's no way 'we' (as if he cares about you) can win this case... I can possibly get him to plea bargain you to 6 months and 3 years probation...

"but my rights were violated."

Attorneys only defend your constitutional rights in the movies or in a few select high profile cases just to keep everyone from figuring out the game is rigged.

Money from the people -> Attorneys -> Lobbyists -> Legislation -> More rights are perceived to go poof while our education system continues to go down the drain. Dumber people are more profitable for Attorneys.

The SPLC attack on sovereign men and women is about MONEY. We don't TRUST their Attorneys (SPLC is a group of Attorneys) and prefer to stand on our own two feet and study the law in our own matters because we believe we have the most to lose and therefore the most incentive to win the case.

Champions of Liberty?

Anyone who thinks that codes/statutes applies to the People has no idea how Law works. I challenge anyone, including attorneys out there to demonstrate fallacies in the impeccable logic Lysander Spooner laid out in his book "No Treason". Mr. Spooner's logic is 100% correct and I have found no one who can counter Mr. Spooner's logic. The reason it cannot be countered is because Mr. Spooner knew what real law is.

Real Law does not require anyone to break the law to enforce the law. Applying code/statutes to the People ALWAYS requires someone to break the law to enforce the law, which violates the whole principle of law.

I am still looking for anyone who is willing to debate the Logic of Lysander Spooner's conclusions. It seems that no one will take a stance counter to the "No Treason" position because they have no counter logic. Basing a belief of liberty on the conclusion that we must constantly engage in political battle by passing codes to secure our rights is insane.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Spooner Missed One Point :

The Constitution is a Contract. Agreed.

"Basing a belief of liberty on the conclusion that we must constantly engage in political battle by passing codes to secure our rights is insane." Agreed.

A Trust Contract. Point missed. Specifically for "Ourselves and our Posterity".

"Rights" are Personal Property. Not some abstract concept, a plaything of legislation.

www.the-legacy.info/Inheritable%20Property.html

Personally un-endorsed study overview.

THE PURE CONTRACT TRUST IN A NUTSHELL

The Pure Contract Trust is a particular kind of trust. It is based on the U.S. Constitution, Common Law, and extensive case law, including many Supreme Court decisions.

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/pct04.shtml

Study from a business point of view. Abstract only openly available, provided below.

Trust, Contract and Relationship Development

Rosalinde Klein Woolthuis. Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Bas Hillebrand. University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Bart Nooteboom.Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate on the relation between trust and control in the management of inter-organizational relations. More specifically, we focus on the question how trust and formal contract are related. While there have been studies on whether trust and contract are substitutes or complements, they offer little insight into the dynamic interaction between the two. They fail to answer, first, whether contract precedes trust or follows it, in other words, what causal relationship exists between the concepts; second, how and why trust and contract can substitute or complement each other; and third, how the various combinations of trust and contract affect a relationship’s development and outcome. In search of answers, we conducted longitudinal case studies to reveal the relationship between trust, contract and relationship outcome in complex inter-firm relationships. We find trust and contract to be both complements and substitutes and find that a close study of a contract’s content offers alternative insight into the presence and use of contracts in inter-firm relationships.

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

Mr. Spooner

did inherently address this issue regardless of whether the actual word trust was used in this reference. If you believe that Mr. Spooner's was ONLY saying that the Contract was applicable to the men who signed it this is not the whole story. Mr. Spooner laid out the mechanics of how the exercise of this contract would be realized under Law. He explained how the contract would first have to be voluntarily accepted and understood by posterity which comes from Common Law elements of a valid contract.

He then explained IF this contract was accepted as valid by posterity then the mechanics of the lawful execution of the contract services would require that those acting in service to the contract would have to be a representative agent working on the behalf of the man or woman who invoked the services. This comes from the Common Law right to face your accuser. The Constitutional agent would only be operating as an agent for an accuser who was the one accepting liability for the accusation against the accused. I like to often describe this concept as the liability hot potato. Nobody wants the liability but it must be passed around to invoke any limited liability service activities. A limited liability entity can only be limited in liability of their actions IF those actions are on behalf of those who do accept liability for the requested actions AND if those actions are constrained to the regulated bounds of the capacity which the agent is operating.

The Contract Trust is mostly irrelevant here. Yes, as a trust it can be passed onto posterity but NO ENTITY CAN FORCE ANOTHER ENTITY INTO CONTRACT! One can offer the contract to posterity but posterity still has to have all elements of valid contract for it be a contract regardless of what type of contract is.

I think many balk at Mr. Spooner's logic because of the provocation of thought that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to everyone. This is only part of the story with what Spooner was saying. The mechanics he demonstrated of how the contract could be passed onto posterity and then how the resulting realization of lawful activities stemming from that contract would be carried out by the agents acting on behalf of the Trustee, is by far the most important lesson of his work. Don't get hung up on the fact the contract has no bearing on one who has no understanding or acceptance of the contract the more important point IMHO is the mechanics of how lawful operation of the contract would actually be carried out. Once we realize this we can realize that we can contract with any representative agent we want because the only point of the representative agent is to carry out service of subpoenas for attendance to a Common Law venue for dispute resolution/Justice or for defense of life, liberty and property when needed. Even the accused answering to a subpoena is voluntary but not appearing to answer before a Jury resulted in Jury declaring that the individual was an outlaw- one who voluntarily stepped out of the protections of Law. This outlaw status was dangerous for anyone who chose such a path to not answer to a Jury because it would destroy the outlaws reputation and in some cases if they were really bad a posse would just go hunt them down and kill them. These individuals would step out of the protections of law and hence had zero access to lawful protections so killing an outlaw was no interest to lawful affairs because the outlaw voluntarily made their own decision.

So in my understanding of Law whether the contract is a trust or not is COMPLETELY irrelevant here. Also I think calling rights "Personal Property" is dangerous at this point. This is property related to the legal person. If we don't own the person then we don't own it's property. You should read everything you can in Codes and Statutes regarding Personal property and Real property. Here in CA and everywhere else in the US personal property is defined in code as evidences of debt among other things related to this.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...