Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories

Does The “Real” 13th Amendment Eliminate the Courts?

Shortlnk to this blog:
Updated 11 Jul 2019

I am a private individual, a retired businessman, and I am not an attorney. Just an educated and interested party who doesn’t want to see people  losing their money, property or freedom due to misinformation. I provide links to full court decisions and the actual laws involved so you can read for yourself. 

TL;DR: [if you don’t want to read the details here’s what it says]
The claim is a ‘lost’ amendment to the constitution makes anyone who accepts a title from a foreign power loses citizenship; therefore anyone who becomes a lawyer loses their citizenship and becomes ineligible to hold any official office by reason of having the ‘title’ of Esquire; and therefore no judge may sit in any court and the courts are all illegal.

(1) the amendment was never ratified; and
(2) if it had been it would not have done so since “Esquire” is not a “title of nobility and honor”;
(3) There is no actual ‘granting’ of the appellation Esquire by any law; it is merely tradition;
(4) it is surely not being granted by a foreign power.

There is a an outstanding and detailed review of this (the footnotes are longer than this entire article) at:
The “Missing Thirteenth Amendment”: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility”

If you are just starting out, you may want to look at my introductory document which summarizes the sovereign citizen movement and links to many of its favorite theories.

Many of the theories tend to involve a wide range of interlocking — and down right weird — ideas. They don’t really stand up to logical analysis, but they do tend to interlock to support each other. So where to start with any one of them is difficult because any one will eventually rely on some other, rather equally loony idea …and then the problem is compounded because there is no single “authority” you can look to to see the”official story” …

In other blogs I used a site called the American Patriot Network, but for this blog I used to a site where this topic is covered –– Barefoot’s World.
I am sure there are many; and many many many different explanations for each contention, and many sites that promote this spurious legend, but let us go with just this one for now.

The claim:

There is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that disqualifies
every lawyer in the country from being a citizen,
and thereby from serving as a judge.

It should not come as a surprise that sovereign citizens do not like lawyers and judges. Not a bit as judges make rulings and enforce the laws the sovereigns so sincerely do not accept. So there has arisen a complex mythology for depriving them of their ‘status’ and more importantly their legitimate power.

And many claim that the Constitution you know is actually not the real one, which was supplanted or repealed or something by Congress in 1861 or 1871 or 1913 or 1933 depending on their theories… that’s a different question and they don’t necessarily separate those thoughts.

(See The US is a Corporation…or an Elephant. for more on that point.)

I will simply say at least for this theory they ignore the question of whether this is the same Constitution adopted in 1789.

Some proponents have suggested that this Amendment implies or authorizes the murder or arrest of police and public officials. 

Yes really.

And one person was sentenced to death in part because he relied on it.

Yes. Really.

There’s a great article whose footnotes are longer than this entire analysis:
The “Missing Thirteenth Amendment”: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility

Meet “The Thirteenthers”

These are Barefoot World’s site’s claims:

Amendment Article XIII

“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 Real Thirteenth Amendment, shown above, was ratified March 12, 1819 with the vote of the Virginia General Assembly to publish the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia with this article of amendment included in the Constitution of the United States, and thus it became an integral part of the Constitution for the United States of America”

But if the Amendment Has Been Ratified … So What?

Below I will offer detailed analysis to the claims that this Amendment was ratified and will show you that the courts and government say it never was; I will show clearly that it was not ratified.

But rather than start with a detailed and complicated rebuttal, let’s start by assuming it was ratified, and examine its effect.

The claim is it means all members of the bar lose their citizenship and no court has a judge because the title Esquire makes them non-citizens and ineligible to hold office.

Problem 1
Esquire is Not a Title of Honor or Nobility.

Under the Constitution when a term is not defined, English Law of the era is used to determine meaning, as that was the framework for law in the Colonies at the time of Independence, the law practiced by the Founders.

Under English Law a title of “nobility or honor” may only be conferred by the Monarch. No Monarch, no title.  Esquire would not qualify as a title of nobility or honor even for an English lawyer in England. It is  not awarded by the Monarch.

In feudal times a Squire, the shortened form of  “Esquire” was the teenaged assistant to a Knight who bore his armor and shield and traces to the Latin ‘scutarius” or “shield bearer.” Being a squire was seen as a step toward becoming a Knight, as a Knight in training.

Knights were made by the monarch but squires were made by Knights. 

Problem 2
It does not come from a foreign power

  • There is a claim among some sovereigns that  US Lawyers work for the Queen or so some of these folks contend. They don’t. It is palpable nonsense. No evidence can be produced of this nonsense idea.
    And no the US is not a British Colony.
    (But if it was the Queen would not be a foreign power would she?)
  • The BAR association (Bar Association) is not an international association to which every lawyer belongs as they claim; though there is an International Bar Association headquartered in London, founded in 1947. That is a voluntary association to which most do not belong; the American Bar Association is likewise voluntary.More about the “BAR” in the court decisions section below.
  • The Bar Association to which lawyers must belong is a State association, whose legal status is given either by a specific law in each state; or by the rules of the State’s Supreme Court or court system. The Queen has no role anywhere in that.
  • Even if it were conferred by the Bar Association (or for that matter by state or federal law) that surely is not “from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power.”

Problem 3
The title “Esquire” does not actually come from
anywhere and it does not legally exist.

  • ‘Esquire” is not often used these days by attorneys, but at the most it is a title applied by attorneys to themselves.
  • No one in the United States is entitled to it by law, and it confers, no distinction in law. It does not legally exist.
  • You will not find any law that confers the title in any of the 50 States or seven Territories. It is therefore not a “title of nobility or honor;” it is not a title at all. Legally it does not exist.

Problem 4:
A prohibited title never could be awarded by a
State or the Federal Government.

  • If somehow Esquire were a title of honor or nobility issued by a state under state law, the state law would be unconstitutional per Art 1 Sec 10.
  • The same is true of Congress under Art 1 Sec 9.
  • So such a title would not exist legally, the person would not be able to receive the title, could not hold the title and would not lose citizenship for a title not received when conveyed by an unconstitutional law.
  • Only a foreign nation can convey such a title and none does to lawyers in the U.S.

So, lawyers are safe even had the amendment been adopted. It has no effect or relevance to them.

In Fact It Was Never Ratified

“amendments, … shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states”

Constitution Article V

The Barefoot site claims the Amendment became effective March 12, 1819 being ratified by 13 states, the last of them Virginia.

Problem 5: Not Enough States Ratified

In 1819 there were 22 states, and 17 states would be required to reach 3/4 of the States. The number of states required increases as the total number of states increases. It must be ratified by 3/4 of the existing states at the time it is adopted, not at the time it is proposed. (Otherwise an amendment introduced in the early days could be ratified with the consent of less than 25% of states.)

The proponents have mistaken the constitutional requirement using 2/3 instead of 3/4.  13 is not 17. 

So even by the terms of the argument, the amendment is not ratified. And as will be noted below Virginia did not actually ratify.

Problem 6  Publication is not Ratification.

At American Patriot Friends Network (APFN) there is a table showing the “states” that ratified the amendment according to them, and when they published the amendment. In and of itself that is not evidence of ratification but even if it were the argument leaks mightily.

“The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility 13th Amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the following years:

Colorado 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967[sic], 1868
Virginia 1819 (ratification by 13th State)
Wyoming 1869, 1876

Simply publishing a copy of the amendment, or the Constitution including the amendment, or even a statement that the amendment was ratified is not an act of ratification.

The Constitution provides only two methods of ratification

… ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof…

The Supreme Court ruled:

“Article V … is a grant of authority by the people to Congress… Congress functions as the delegated agent of the people in choosing the … method of ratifying proposed amendments to the Constitution. ”
United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931)

But in fact just because a document is printed that does not mean it is sufficient, legal, or binding. A legislature must hold a specific vote and transmit it to the proper authorities in the National Capitol to ratify an amendment.

Ratification, says the Supreme Court, is not legislation in the ordinary sense.

The ratification of a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution by the legislature of a state is not an act of legislation in the proper sense of the word; it is but the expression of the assent of the state to the proposed amendment.
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920)

But even for an ordinary law mere publication would not be valid. The legistlature must vote. If challenged in court for example, the state in prosecuting you for violating a law may be required to provide an official copy of the act as signed by the governor and heads of the legislative branch.

It usually isn’t done because attorneys know that it will be proven easily and they have to have a good-faith reason to believe what is printed in the law books is not correct. Usually the published law books are sufficient but when the question is raised the original documents must be available for inspection. 

 Indeed publication of the amendment in a pamphlet or copy of the Constitution has no legal effect whatever. Consider Virginia. By publishing it they surely believe it was ratified by sufficient states, but by publishing it they are not saying there was an act of ratification By Virginia.

There is no record of any such act, nor is publishing it the same as saying “we ratified this” it is at most “this was ratified by enough states.”

If that table is accurate all it shows is that a lot of people thought this amendment was adopted over the years. And the amendment isn’t shown any longer because the research showed it had not been adopted. We are better at documenting these things today.

There is a process a state must follow in ratifying an amendment, set out in law, and the documents’ custodian these days is the Archivist of the United States (in earlier days it was the Secretary of State) who declares when an amendment has been ratified.

Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.
1 USC 106b

The Archivist has not published a certification that this amendment has been adopted. Because it has not. And it turns out even that doesn’t matter even if it were to be accepted.

Here is the full list showing “ratification by publication” from the AFPN article:

The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility 13th Amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the following years:

Colorado ——- 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967, 1868
Connecticut — 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Dakota ———- 1862, 1863, 1867
Florida ———- 1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia ——— 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois ———— 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana ———– 1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa ————— 1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas ———– 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky ——– 1822
Louisiana ——– 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine ————- 1825, 1831
Massachusetts -1823
Michigan ——– 1827, 1833
Mississippi —— 1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri ———- 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska ——— 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina – 1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories — 1833
Ohio ————— 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania — 1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island —- 1822
Virginia ———- 1819 (ratification by 13th State)
Wyoming ——– 1869, 1876

Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications.
[Note: no explanation for the * on Missouri is offered]

Problem 7:
The List Even if Accepted Doesn’t
Provide Enough States to have Ratified

If this is evidence of “ratification by publication” they are suggesting states can ratify before they actually become states; or even if they never become states; even if they don’t exist as states.
Which if anything shows you that publication is not ratification.

    • “Northwest Territories” is not a state, it was a territory that became all or part of 6 different states;
    • Nor is “Dakota” (which became two states);

The following states could not have ‘ratified’ per the table and its dates:

    • Colorado became a state in 1876 but they claim  1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967[sic], 1868, yet never after statehood.
    • Michigan was not a state until 1837 but they show 1827 and 1833
    • Wyoming was not a state until 1890. They show 1869 and 1876.
    • Iowa was not a state until 1846. The last date shown is 184

These states are shown with some dates before statehood:

    • Kansas became a state in 1861. They show 1855 as the first date.
    • Nebraska was admitted 1867. Of nine dates shown only one is at or after 1867.

Again if the 13th ratification was indeed Virginia in 1819, then it is not ratified, as there were 22 states, requiring 17 ratifications not the 13 shown.  

The table at most documents 18 ratifications once non-states and pre-admitted states are left off and again accepting publication which is not proper.

18 ratifications would be sufficient only if there were 24 or fewer states, so would have to be reached by 1821 when Missouri was admitted, but the list only gets you to 16 states in 1821, you need 18.

A year earlier you needed 17 but had 15.

In 1869 it would have required 28 states; which it has never been reached.

Problem  8:
The List is Wrong, Virginia did  not ratify
before or after 1814

Even the Governor of Virginia was unsure; in a letter to the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates on January 25, 1814, James Barbour wrote that:

I have received a letter from the Secretary of State, [James Monroe] requesting to be advised whether the Legislature of Virginia had agreed to, or rejected an amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, which had for its object the prevention of any citizen accepting any title of nobility, present, pension, or office, from any foreign prince or power. Upon reference to the archives of this Department, no official document can be found which justifies a reply affirmatively or negatively. I submit to the Legislature the propriety of adopting some mode by which the difficulty may be obviated.  (Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia 145 (Richmond, Samuel Pleasants, 1813 [1814] {Jol A. Silversmith (April 1999), “The “Missing Thirteenth Amendment”: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility”, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 8: 577} )

There was never a document found, and Virginia has no record of taking a vote before or after this letter was sent. But if there is “no official document” there is simply no ratification. You cannot assume a ratification happened and an amendment has been passed. You have to have proof.

Indeed it appears in 1817 Congress itself printed a copy of the Constitution with the Amendment shown; but Congress cannot ratify nor promulgate an unratified amendment; it was simply a mistake.

Finally if all the ‘ratifications’, 24 the table says even the two that never were states and 4 that weren’t yet states are counted as of the last date in table, 1876, there were 37 states thus 28 states must ratify.  Indeed in counting Wyoming in 1876 as a first time, it doesn’t achieve the required number.

Now there are 50 states requiring 38 states to ratify any amendment.

The Courts Have Ruled On This

Problem 9:
You probably won’t be surprised to hear that
the Courts have already considered and rejected these arguments.

“The Plaintiff has made the following allegations: 1) Defendant Schwartz is “in violation of the United States Constitution for using the [t]itle of . . . [e]squire”….None of the above allegations state a legally recognized cause of action.”
Wright v. Leasecomm Corp., 817 F.Supp. 106, 108 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

Campion, a tax protester raised it in his defenses against a charge of tax evasion. The court replied that it would

“…correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…In his Complaint, Plaintiff includes a certified copy of the Thirteenth Amendment from the Colorado State Archives which was published in 1861. As included in that compilation, the Thirteenth Amendment would strip an individual of United States citizenship if they accept any title of nobility or honor. However, this is not the Thirteenth Amendment. The correct Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery. Although some people claim that state publication of the erroneous Thirteenth Amendment makes it valid, Article V of the Constitution does not so provide.
Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005),

What about the BAR??

A Federal appellate court took note of documents produced by the defendant, a convicted murderer who submitted documents in support of his appeal claiming that it rendered his conviction invalid:

“These documents allege in great detail a complex conspiracy by an illegal monopoly, the American Bar Association, which resulted in a take-over of the judicial systems of this country, both federal and state, by the ABA and its related entities, including the Alabama State Bar Association and Alabama’s Unified Court System. It is then alleged that the ABA-controlled system is illegal and in violation of what is referred to as the “missing Thirteenth Amendment,” to the United States Constitution, which stated that any person who accepts a title of nobility forfeits his United States citizenship and which Amendment was ratified but subsequently hidden or excised from the law.”

“Since lawyers and judges accept the titles “Esquire”/”The Honorable,” it is argued, they are not citizens and are barred from holding office… “The documents then explain that these are reasons that Sibley and his wife refused appointed counsel on appeal and refused to pursue matters any further in the court system and that only Congress can give them relief.”

Sibley v. Culliver, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff’d 377 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2004)

What happened?

The Sibley court dismissed the appeal, concluding in part that the defendant was simply not seeking relief through the courts since his contention, if accepted, meant that they could not hear his appeal, and obviously if the Sibley’s are correct then literally they should be asking Congress to set aside the verdict.

So this case shows that using these theories the man and his wife deprived themselves of representation in court; and on appeal; and he did not ever appeal a death sentence. 

These bogus theories can cost lives!

=                     More Blogs by Philipem 1000                =

Sovereign Citizens and Fellow Travelers

Sovereign Citizens and the Jurisdictional Gambit:
You Can’t Touch Me!
Sovereigns inaccurately cite Court Cases,
in their effort to show the courts
have no jurisdiction.

=                                  The Law                                     =
Sources Of Law and Authority

Are Statutes Laws?  What About Regulations ?

Strawman Theory and CAPITAL Letters

A collection of court cases
  quoted regularly in response to sovereign citizen
ideas and challenges to the driver license laws.

7 thoughts on “Does The “Real” 13th Amendment Eliminate the Courts?”

  1. Checkmate,

    A “person” or “individual” is a US citizen.

    Every “citizen of the United States” is now “legally” established as an “enemy” via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, amending Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.

    Under “Definitions” at 16 U.S.C. §2432 (8), “Person” means:
    (8) Person
    The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, association, and any other entity SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the >United StatesUnited States< is located in the District of Columbia.

    [bunch of nonsense snipped, one example will show how much reliance to put on this insane guy’s allegations…see my reply below. The rest of this is his words.]

    Only by lies, recondite legislation and subterfuge was this ever to be and it is now exposed and shown treason against the People.

    Watch the wall of fraud now crack, then crumble, then fall. It's over…

    1. When I get a chance I’ll do the research needed to dismiss this garbage, but I can start with I bet anything that the definitions you provided are either an utter misquote, out of context, or are LIMITED TO a particular law in 16 USC. A person is a human being OR an association, corporation, etc… …Further demolition when I have time to research, I’m having fun this weekend instead.

      But since you make this claim you won’t have any problem linking me to the specific agreement, right?

      “A general partnership agreement, hereinafter “General Partnership,” exists between the California Republic (1849), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (1879), with STATE OF CALIFORNIA acting as governmental controller.”
      So do that, link me the “General Partnership Agreement.”

      UPDATE NOTE: I did exactly one bit of research, you’ll see below, Indeed the definition used is “For the purposes of this chapter” and everything else he said was complete nonsense.

      1. “filed with the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, August 11, 2016, and amended August 16, 2016.” So what you are saying is some idiot who believes for example that the United States is a business corporation made up a complaint using all the principles I’ve shown in my blogs are absolute bullshit and paid good money to file a case.

        Well whooopeee…anyone can file a fucking case. And btw it will be demolished because Supreme Court justices and all judges in any federal or state court are absolutely immune to lawsuit for anything they do as part of their office. Even if the judge is a dastardly evil guy who conflicted himself and stole your money and your wife, it he did it from the bench he cannot be sued by anyone. He can be removed from office. He can be charged with a crime and tried for it. HE absolutely CANNOT be sued.

        But if we let people sue judges for how they perform their duties there will never be an end to it; everyone who loses a case will sue the judge for every mistake or infraction or imaginary grievance. Which BTW is what this case is about precisely. Loser thinks he can sue because he lost his case.

        So there is an absolute bar to it. If it was done in the course of his judgely office he won’t be sueable. If he pulls out a 45 and shoots the lawyers, that’s not a judge’s official activities so no, you can sue for wrongful death. But any ruling, order, writ, judgement of any kind whatsoever has absolute immunity from suit. This case fails before it starts. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

        And it goes into further lunacy arguing that Federal District Courts don’t exist and the US is corporation and that it will result in further fraud to remove it to Federal Court which is exactly what will happen IF it isn’t dismissed outright. Good luck with that, Sponge Bob is all behind you. I can hardly wait to read the court’s resounding judgment that upholds all your fantasies.

      Sec. 2432 – Definitions
      §2432. Definitions
      ====> For purposes of this chapter— <====
      (8) Person
      The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, association, and any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

      EXACTLY as I said you would do, you took the definition limited to one law and applied it globally. And added to it…where is the part that says the US is part of the District of Columbia you whacko? But even so it would not apply beyond the provisions of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention…

      I said I would do the research needed to demolish your post and that’s all that is needed to show you have no sanity or consistency or accuracy.

      However I always like to cite my sources so your “trading with the enemy act” that made all citizens enemies, is of course no such thing, here, it’s short enough to let people just read it; I’ll point out that it does not even have the word “citizens” in it:

      Not even gonna bother with the rest of that nonsense. Going to just delete everything else in your response (which is on the wrong blog). You are insane.

      1. A “person” or “individual” is a US citizen.

        [Response: a person or individual is a human being who may or may not be a citizen. Black’s first definition of the word is ‘human being’]

        Every “citizen of the United States” is now “legally” established as an “enemy” via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, amending Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.

        [That is a fake title, that is actually referring to the law that allowed FDR to shut the banks temporarily (“bank holiday”) and does not amend the Trading with the Enemy Act. The word citizen does not even appear and this does not make anyone an enemy.]

        Under “Definitions” at 16 U.S.C. §2432 (8), “Person” means:
        (8) Person
        The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, association, and any other entity SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States is located in the District of Columbia.*

        * This little ditty is written into every corporate State’s body of commercial code.

        [Reply: No it is not, and you cannot cite even one state law which says that. And you gave a fake definition, here is the correct definition:

        (8) Person The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, association, and any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

        The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646 –

        “A citizen [person or individual] of the United States is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.”

        [I don’t have access but any member of Congress can put anything in the CR they want to. It has no legal meaning unless it is in a law. The 14th Amendment has been certified as having been ratified. It is daily enforced in the courts.]

        Simply calling me names is cop out. If you’ll notice that man has the fraudulent federal government on the ropes.

        [You are fucking insane. That is a statement of fact. Your comments are illogical, you never actually read your own sources. You cannot actually comprehend the words on the page anyway. You draw enormous leaps of illogic from point to point, and I am tired of debunking your endless imaginary legal points, all of which you cut and paste from some crackpot site.]

        Here it is in their words:

        Chief Judge (U.S. District Court of Michigan):
        "A mere statement of this fact may not seem very significant;
        corporations, [The Federal United States], after all, are not supposed to exercise the governmental powers with which the Bill of Rights was concerned.
        But this has been radically changed by the emergence of the public-private state. Today private institutions, [The Federal United States], do exercise governmental power; more, indeed, than government itself … .We have two governments in America, then-one under the Constitution, [Continental United States], and a much greater one not under the Constitution, [The Federal United States] .
        In short, the inapplicability of our Bill of Rights is one of the crucial facts of American life today." MILOSZEWSKI v. SEARS ROEBUCK, 346 F.Supp. 119 (1972)(2).

        [No link of course. So I have to go debunk this like I have debunk all your crap before. This is your LAST post on my blogs. OK here goes.

        That is in a FOOTNOTE not the decision but a reference. It is not the words of the Judge as you claim, it is a quotation from “C. Reich, The Greening of America, 127-28 (Bantam ed. 1971).”.

        Let me give the WHOLE quote:,+346+F.Supp.+119+%281972%29%282%29.&hl=en&as_sdt=806&as_vis=1

        “The first point that must be made is that despite the vast growth of corporate power the courts, except in the area of racial discrimination, have failed to hold that corporations are subject to the Bill of Rights. A mere statement of this fact may not seem very significant; corporations, after all, are not supposed to exercise the governmental powers with which the Bill of Rights was concerned. But this has been radically changed by the emergence of the public-private state. Today private institutions do exercise governmental power; more, indeed, than `government’ itself….We have two governments in America, then — one under the Constitution and a much greater one not under the Constitution…. In short, the inapplicability of our Bill of Rights is one of the crucial facts of American life today.”

        …It correctly points out that the bill of rights does not apply to private corporation actions but only to governmental actions. It offers an opinionated statement that corporations are acting as a government. It does not say “the Federal Government” is a corporation. It implies corporations may act as if they were the government and push people around because they can, basically.

        In this case, Sears seized the guys’ TV and the judge found it was unreasonable and because Sears used the Sheriff to seize it, that was in fact a governmental violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, which is the exact opposite of your contention.]

        GOODBYE SIR.

      2. “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” — J. Edgar Hoover

        CA Commercial Code 9307(h)

        (h) The United States is located >IN< the District of Columbia.

        Written into every corporate State's body of commercial code!

        [REPLY: Really you cannot even understand an entire paragraph. It is about determining, when there is a commercial dispute, the PLACE OF BUSINESS of a party to that dispute. And it gives a series of rules. And one of them is if the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a debtor (party) to a dispute, it’s PLACE OF BUSINESS for THAT purpose is the District of Columbia.

        (a) In this section, “place of business” means a place where a debtor conducts its affairs…..
        (k) This section applies only for purposes of this chapter.

        You idiot.

        Any further comments will be deleted.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.