Non-Existant Amendments To The Constitution For The United States of America

Non-Existent Amendments
to the
Constitution for The United States of America
Copyright © 2020
Gordon Warren Epperly
Nonprofit use permitted, all other rights reserved.

Non-Existent Amendments
to the
Constitution for The United States of America
Over the years, the Constitution for our newly formed government of The United States
of America has been transformed with Amendments, some of which are questionable in
their adoption and ratification.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of
the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention
for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, 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, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year one thousand
eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent,
shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” [Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article V
The questionable Amendments are:
 Thirteenth Amendment
 Fourteenth Amendment
 Fifteenth Amendment
 Sixteenth Amendment
 Seventeenth Amendment
Page 1 of 68
Thirteenth Amendment
Introduction
The Thirteenth (13th) Amendment to the Constitution for The United States of America
is one (1) of three (3) Amendments that were purportedly ratified by the Legislatures
of three-fourths (¾th) of the states /1 and made a part of the Constitution during
the aftermath of the conclusion of the American Civil War on April 9, 1865.
The Thirteenth (13th) Amendment was proposed on January 31, 1865 and
purportedly ratified on December 6, 1865. If it wasn’t for the U.S. Congress of
the northern states declaring that several southern states had no lawful governments
leaving those states without authority to participate in the “Debates” on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment and the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment, there would be
no objection to the ratification of the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment.
Statement of Facts
If it was not for the history of the Fourteenth (14th) and Fifteenth (15th) Amendments
showing the southern (‘Rebel’) states as having no lawful governments of a state and
showing that those Amendments to have been ratified by “Military Districts” of
the U.S. Congress under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867-68, /2 there would be
no objections to the ratification of the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment. But as stated within
Comment: The “Statutes at Large” as cited throughout this “Document” may be located and downloaded
from the “U.S. Government” website of “https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm”.
1/ Ratified by twenty-seven (27) of the thirty-six (36) states, including those that had been in rebellion.
2/ “Military Reconstruction Acts,” (March 2, 1867, “14 Stat. 428-430, c.153”; March 23, 1867, “15 Stat. 2-5,
c. 6”; July 19, 1867, “15 Stat. 14-16, c. 30”; and March 11, 1868, “15 Stat. 41, c. 25”).
Page 2 of 68
the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867-68, there were no lawful votes as cast by
the southern states for the ratification of the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment for those states
had no lawful governments of a state (so says the northern states sitting as
the U.S. Congress). As a matter of law of Article V of the Constitution
for The United States of America (supra.), there is a preponderance of evidence showing
the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment failed ratification as the U.S. Congress allowed those
who were not Legislators of a state to cast votes of ratification and then accepting
those votes as legitimate votes as cast by the states of the Union.
Conclusion
For the procedural defects as identified within the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867-68,
the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment is not an Amendment to the Constitution
for The United States of America and as such, it needs to be purged from all Constitutions
of the states, and the Constitution for The United States of America. It needs to
be purged from all Law Books of the states, and it needs to be purged from
the Statutes at Large. It needs to be purged from all Court Records, and it needs to
be purged from all Text Books.
The precedence found to purge fraudulent Amendments to the Constitution

for The United States of America is with the purging of the “Title of Nobility Amendment”
(known as the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment as ratified on May 1, 1810).
The original Thirteenth (13th) Amendment was “purged” from the History Books and from
the Constitution for The United States of America upon the allegation that it was
not ratified. You may view the history of the “Title of Nobility Amendment” on the “Internet”
at: “https://tinyurl.com/yyqbtmvo.”
Page 3 of 68
Fourteenth Amendment
Introduction
If the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment didn’t exist, would “Women,” “Africans,” or any others
whom are not “White Caucasian Males,” have “Political Rights” to hold “Public Offices
of Trust” of The United States of America? For the most part, the answer is “NO.”
In regard to the African; this question was answered by the U.S. Supreme Court within
the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How, 404, 15 L.Ed. 69 /3 wherein the Court declared
(with reasoning of law) that an African is not a “Citizen” of the United States (natural born
or otherwise). As unpopular as this case may be, it is as valid today as the day
it was written.
We also see that “Section Two” of the present day Fourteenth (14th) Amendment
declares that only “Male citizens” may cast votes. Bradwell v. State of Illinois,
83 U.S. 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow
reading of the “Privileges” or “Immunities Clause” of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment,
and determined that the “right to practice a profession” was not among these “Privileges.”
This case is also notable for being an early 14th Amendment challenge
to sex discrimination in the United States. In this case, the United States Supreme Court
held that the State of Illinois constitutionally denied “law licenses” to “women” because
the right to “practice law” was not one of the “privileges” and “immunities” guaranteed by
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment. The Illinois-Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.
It took three (3) “Amendments” to the “Constitution” for The United States of America to
grant “Woman” and “Africans” a limited privilege of “Suffrage” to cast “votes.”
3/ see “https://tinyurl.com/yym9xo3d”
Page 4 of 68
Please keep in mind that the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment,
the Nineteenth (19th) Amendment, and the Twenty-Fourth (24th) Amendment
addresses only those who are “citizens” as created by the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment.
Without the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, those three (3) Constitutional Amendments
(“17th,” “19th,” and “24th”) would be “null and void” for there would be no “citizens”
in existence to “convey” the “Political Rights” to “vote” (or to hold “Public Offices of Trust”).
Statement of Facts
The following states of the Union have gone on record to declare that
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment has not been “proposed” nor “ratified” as mandated
by Article V of the Constitution for The United States of America. The “Resolutions” of
the following named states of the Union is an “Official (Judicial) Notice”
upon all Agencies and Branches of the Governments (Federal & states) that
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment is not an “Amendment” to the Constitution
for The United States of America.
Question: “Who has the qualifications to state otherwise”?
Here are the facts that proclaims the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to be existing
in “fraud” and is an “usurpation of powers” of the states and of the people as reserved
under Article X of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for The United States of America:
1. No Amendment may violate International Law as that Law applies to “citizens”

of Nations. No authority may be found within International Law that authorizes
a Nation to invade another for the purpose of “confiscating” its “people”
(e.g. Africans) via “force of arms” for the purpose of “compelling” those “people” to
be its “citizens” without their “consent”; and
Page 5 of 68
2. The proposed “Amendment” was not presented to the President
of The United States of America for his “Approbation.”
The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia,
3 U.S. 378 is merely “dicta” /4 opinions of the Justices. The Justices of
the U.S. Supreme Court have no authority of the Constitution to “alter”
or “amend” the “wording” of any Clause of the U.S. Constitution with
their “personal views,” or “personal opinions.” In declaring that Joint Resolutions
proposing “Constitutional Amendments” do not have to be presented
to the President for his “Approbation” is not binding and was made without
authority of the people or of the states sitting in a Convention.
The wording of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 makes it clear

that “All Resolutions” shall be presented to the President. /5 If this was not so,
the “Delegates” of the Constitutional Convention would have expressly included
this assertion of Justices of the Supreme Court as an “exception” within
the Constitutional Clause of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3
as it was done with the question of “Adjournment”:
“Every …. resolution … to which the concurrence of the Senate and House

of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question
of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States;
and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him …”
[Emphasis added].
3. A Joint Resolution proposing a Constitutional Amendment may contain no more

than one subject matter as was not done with the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment:
4/ Dicta - “Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case
before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore
are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.”
5/ With the use of the phrase “Every … resolution,” which appears within “Article I, Clause 3, Section 7”
of the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” said “Clause 3” includes “Joint Resolutions”
proposing “Constitutional Amendments.”
Page 6 of 68
“We think amendments to the constitution …. shall be submitted separately,
must be construed to mean amendments which have different objects
and purposes in view. In order to constitute more than one amendment,
the propositions submitted must relate to more than one subject, and have
at least two distinct and separate purposes not dependent upon or connected
with each other . . . .” [Emphasis added].
State v. Timme, /6 54 Wis. 318, 11 N.W. 785, 790
See also the below supporting Cases:
a. Kerby v. Luhrs, /7 36 P.2d 549 (Ariz. 1934);

b. State v. Cooney, /8 70 Mont. 355, 225 P. 1007;
c. State v. Wetz, /9 40 N.D. 299, 168 N.W. 835, 5 A.L.R. 731;
d. Jones v. McClaughry, /10 169 Iowa. 281, 151 N.W. 210;
e. Gottstein v. Lister, /11 88 Wash. 462, 153 P. 595,
Ann. Cas. 1917D 1008;
f. State v. Alderson, /12 49 Mont. 387, 142 P. 210, Ann. Cas. 1916B 39;
g. State v. Jones, /13 106 Miss. 522, 64 So. 241;
h. People v. Prevost, /14 55 Colo. 199, 134 P. 129, 133;
i. Hammond v. Clark, /15 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 77;
6/ URL not located
7/ “https://tinyurl.com/yyrvjwcm”
8/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6tqtyot”
9/ URL not located
10/ URL not located
11/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3rcrtqk”
12/ URL not located
13/ URL not located
14/ URL not located

15/ URL not located
Page 7 of 68
j. Lobaugh v. Cook, /16 127 Iowa 181, 102 N.W. 1121, 1123;
k. People v. Sours, /17 31 Colo. 369, 74 P. 167, 102 Am. St. Rep. 34;
l. Gabbert v. Chicago, /18 R.I. P. Ry. Co., 171 Mo. 84, 70 S.W. 891;
m. State v. Herried, /19 10 S.D. 109, 72 N.W. 93;
n. Winget v. Holm, /20 187 Minn. 78, 244 N.W. 331, 335;
o. McBee v. Brady, /21 15 Idaho 761, 100 P. 97;
p. State v. Powell, /22 77 Miss. 543, 27 So. 927, 931, 48 L.R.A. 652;
q. Mathews v. Turner, /23 212 Iowa 424, 236 N.W. 412, 415.
Many of them merely quote the language of State v. Timme, (supra,) or refer
to it approvingly, but there are a number which go into the question more fully
and elucidate and explain what is meant by propositions which relate to more
than one subject and have at least two distinct and separate purposes
not dependent upon or connected with each other.
The U.S. Congress submitted to the Legislature of the states the following matters
to be voted upon as if they were one subject of an Amendment to the Constitution:
a. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject

to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside.”
16/ URL not located

17/ URL not located
18/ URL not located
19/ URL not located

20/ URL not located
21/ URL not located
22/ URL not located

23/ URL not located
Page 8 of 68
Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1
b. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
c. “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law,”
d. “Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.”
e. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according

to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons
in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”
f. “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors
for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives
in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members
of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation
in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of Representation therein shall
be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall
bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age
in such state.”
Page 9 of 68
g. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector

of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken
an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,
or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer
of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid
or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds
of each House, remove such disability.”
h. “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services
in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither
the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation
incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any
claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts,
obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
4. The [defacto] U.S. Congress may not compel any state to rescind
its negative ratification vote as cast on a proposed Constitutional Amendment
as was done with the negative votes of the southern states as cast on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment; and
5. The [defacto] U.S. Congress has no authority to compel any state to surrender
its statehood status and be expelled from the Congress as was done with
the southern states [to obtain a forced fraudulent vote of ratification on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment]. What the southern states was not able
Page 10 of 68
to accomplish with a Civil War, the Congress of the northern states was able to do
in obtaining a forced ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. All the states
entered into a Confederation of the Union of November 15, 1778, and thereafter,
with the understanding that the Union shall be perpetual (see wording of Preamble
and Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation as adopted on March 1, 1781); and
6. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to substitute

the votes of rejection, as cast by the Legislatures of the southern states, with
the votes of ratification (as cast by Legislators of Military Districts); and
7. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to authorize non-citizens

[e.g. Africans] of Military Districts to cast votes of ratification on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment; and
8. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to authorize any Legislature of
a state to reverse its vote of rejection as cast upon
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment (see Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 488-50
(1939)); and
9. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to issue

forth “Orders” upon an Officer of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government
to proclaim the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to have been ratified
via “Proclamation”; and
10. The Federal Courts have proclaimed that the question of ratification
of Constitutional Amendments is a “Political Question” to the Courts for there is
a “textually demonstrable commitment to another branch.” The leading
Supreme Court case in the area of the “Political Question” doctrine
is Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). /24
24/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3nqk2cq”
Page 11 of 68
In the Baker opinion, the Court outlined “six (6) characteristics” [p]rominent on
the surface of any case held to involve a “Political Question,” which include:
a. a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to

a coordinate political department; or
b. a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving

it; or
c. the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of

a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; or
d. the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without

expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches
of government; or
e. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision

already made; or
f. the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements

by various departments on one question.
Please take notice that the case of Baker v. Carr (1962) is repugnant to
the case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798) wherein
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it had jurisdictional authority to determine
questions involving the proposal and ratification of Constitutional Amendments.
The first factor — a textually demonstrable commitment to another branch —

is the classical view that the Court must decide all cases and issues before it
unless, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, the Constitution, itself,
has committed the “determination of the issue to another branch of government”
[or to the states of the Union.].
Page 12 of 68
In regard to Constitutional Amendments, only the states (in and through
their Legislators) have been granted the “committed determination of the issue”
by the U.S. Constitution to alter, amend, (and by a Constitutional Convention),
adopt Constitutions; not the U.S. Congress. [see wording of Article V of
the Constitution for The United States of America (supra.)].
The members of the U.S. Congress have been delegated only one power and duty
in amending our nation’s Constitution. That power is with the U.S. Congress
in proposing Constitutional Amendments and the duty is for the U.S. Congress
to set forth the procedure for ratification of those proposed Amendments.
The procedure to be used is that the Amendment shall be ratified either
by the Legislatures of three fourths (¾th) of the several states, or in the alternative,
by Conventions in three fourths (¾th) thereof. Nowhere may it be found within
the Constitution for The United States of America that the members of
the U.S. Congress have been given authority to determine the qualifications
of the states and the legitimacy of the votes of those states as may have been
casted for “Rejection” or casted for “Ratification.”
As it is the original “thirteen (13) states” of 1781 /25 that have “reserved”
their “powers” to “alter” or make “changes” to the Constitution for The United States
of America as expressed under Article X of the Bill of Rights and under Article V of
the Constitution for The United States of America; it is the “states” of the “Union”
that have the “reserved authority” to the “committed determination of the issue” to
review and rule upon the legitimacy of “ratification” of Constitutional Amendments.
The “Legislatures” of the states have spoken and they have declared that
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment was never “proposed” nor “ratified”
in accordance with “Article V” of the Constitution for The United States of America:
25/ Year 1781 is the year that the original “thirteen (13) states” created the government
of “The United States of America.” (see “Article I” of the “Articles of Confederation”).
Page 13 of 68
A. The Louisiana Legislature by H. Con. Res. 208 of June 13, 1967:
“A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of

the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to interpose
the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution
of said amendment in this State; to memorialize the Congress
of the United States to Repeal its Joint Resolution of July 28, 1868,
declaring that said amendment had been ratified; and to provide for
the distribution of certified copies of this resolution. [Emphasis added]
“Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the requirements
of the United States Constitution because eleven states of the Union were
deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate in violation of Article V,
when eleven southern states, including Louisiana, were excluded
from deliberation and decision in the adoption of the Joint Resolution
proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolution was not presented
to the President of the United States in order that the same should
take effect, as required by Article I, Section 7; the proposed Amendment
was not ratified by three fourths of the states, but to the contrary,
fifteen states of the then thirty seven states of the Union rejected
the proposed 14th Amendment between the dates of its submission
to the states by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866,
and March 24, 1868, thereby nullifying said Resolution and making
it impossible for ratification by the constitutionally required three fourths
of such states; said southern which were denied their equal suffrage
in the Senate had been recognized by proclamations of the President
of the United States to have duly constituted governments with all
the powers which belong to free states of the Union, and the Legislatures
of seven of said southern states had ratified the 13th Amendment which
would have failed of ratification but for the ratification of said seven
southern states; and, [Emphasis added],
“Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew

their existing governments, removed their lawfully constituted legislatures
by military force and replaced them with rump legislatures which carried
out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment; and,
[Emphasis added].
Page 14 of 68
“Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State
in his first proclamation, of July 20, 1868, expressed doubt as to whether
three fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th Amendment,
Congress nevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28, 1868, unlawfully
declaring that three fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment
and directed the Secretary of State to so proclaim, said Joint Resolution
of Congress and the resulting proclamation of the Secretary of State
included the purported ratifications of the military enforced rump legislatures
of ten southern states whose lawful legislatures had previously rejected
the said 14th Amendment, and also included purported ratifications
by the legislatures of the States of Ohio, and New Jersey although they
had withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously,
all of which proves absolutely that said 14th Amendment was not adopted
in accordance with the mandatory constitutional requirements set forth
in Article V of the Constitution and therefore the Constitution strikes
with nullity the purported 14th Amendment. [Emphasis added].
“Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana,

the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring:
1) “That the Legislature go on record as exposing

the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment, and interposes
the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution
of said 14th Amendment against the State of Louisiana
and its people; [Emphasis added].
2) “That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the invalid

14th Amendment by the Federal Courts to impose further unlawful
edicts and hardships on its people; [Emphasis added].
3) “That the Congress of the United States be memorialized

by this Legislature to Repeal its unlawful Joint Resolution
of July 28, 1868, declaring that three fourths of the states
had ratified the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
[Emphasis added].
4) “That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union

be memorialized to give serious study and consideration to take
Page 15 of 68
similar action against the validity of the 14th Amendment and
to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States which
strikes said 14th Amendment with nullity;
5) “That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with a copy

of the treatise on “The Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment”
by Judge L. H. Perez, be forwarded to the Governors
and Secretaries of State of each state in the Union,
and to the Secretaries of the United States Senate
and House of Congress, and to the Louisiana
Congressional Delegation, a copy hereof to be published
in the Congressional Record.”
(see “https://tinyurl.com/z3akrxp”)
B. The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868:
1. “The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent
of the three fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid,
the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent
is undeniable ... [Emphasis added]
2. “That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment

to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses
of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose
of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to,
and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty Representatives
from eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were
no such states in the Union; but, finding that two thirds
of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent
to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out
the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate,
and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession
of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation
of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing
this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage
Page 16 of 68
in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds
of the said houses. …. [Emphasis added]
3. “Be and the same is hereby rescinded, and the consent on behalf
of the state of New Jersey to ratify the proposed
Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the constitution of
the United States, is hereby withdrawn.” [Emphasis added]
(see “https://tinyurl.com/y2cs4grn”)
C. The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866:
1. “Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has

elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State.
They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on
the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not
conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first Article of
the Constitution, but because their right of Representation was denied
by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights
than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded;
and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to
the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among
the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol,
of Representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of
the Representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional
Congress, when the Representation of each State forms an integral part
of the whole. [Emphases added].
2. “This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that

power in the Constitution which authorizes two thirds of the Congress
to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish
that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress,
to act upon the question, ‘Shall these amendments be proposed?'
Every other excluded State had the same right. [Emphases added].
3. “The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.

Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress,
they would never have been proposed to the States. Two thirds of
Page 17 of 68
the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States
voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at
the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect,
integrity, and patriotism of eleven co-equal States.'' [Emphasis added].
(see “https://tinyurl.com/y3r7ebgj”)
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/y2um6o3p”)
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/829ffah”)
D. The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866:
1. “Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new
and more startling demands may or may not be required by
the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully
and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of Representation
is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act,
not even that of rebellion, can deprive them.” [Emphasis added].
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/y68kr7aj”)
E. The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866:
“Eleven of the Southern states, including South Carolina, are deprived

of their Representation in Congress. Although their Senators
and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented
themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have,
in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have
been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on
the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional
functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the
qualification of these selected by the States and people to Represent us.
Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern states were
prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently
Page 18 of 68
ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under
the Constitution and laws.
“Hence this amendment has not been proposed by `two thirds

of both Houses' of a legally constituted Congress, and is not,
Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification.''
[Emphasis added].
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/y68kr7aj”)
F. The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution

of December 6, 1866:
“The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall

consist of a House of Representative, composed of members apportioned
among the respective States in the ratio of their population and of a Senate,
composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which
concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that ‘no State, without
its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.'
The contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by
a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven
seceding States were deprived of Representation both in the Senate
and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators
and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under
the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on
the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been
allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed
to command the required two thirds majority.” [Emphasis added].
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/y5b2dhxh”)
G. The “Resolution of the Legislature of Oregon to withdraw its assent

to the proposed fourteenth Constitutional Amendment.”
“JOINT RESOLUTIONS rescinding resolution passed September 19, 1866,

relative to amending the Constitution of the United States,
Page 19 of 68
and withdrawing the assent of the State of Oregon to
the proposed 14th Constitutional Amendment. [Emphasis added].
“. . . . .
“And whereas the newly constituted and newly established bodies, avowing
themselves to be, and acting as the legislatures respectively of the States
of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama,
and Georgia, were created by a military despotism against the will of
the legal voters of the said States, under the reconstruction acts (so called)
of Congress, which are usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary,
and void; and consequently the acts of such bodies cannot legally ratify
the said proposed Constitutional Amendment for the States which
they pretend to Represent, nor affect the rights of the other States
of the Union; …. [Emphasis added].
“And whereas on the 6th day of October, 1866, the House

of Representatives of this State adopted a resolution declaring that
the action of that body in ratifying the said proposed
Constitutional Amendment did not express the will of the said house
as it then stood, after being purged of its illegal members: Therefore,
[Emphasis added].
“Be it resolved by the legislature assembly of the State of Oregon,

That the above recited resolution adopted by the legislature assembly
on the 19th day of September, 1866, by fraud, be, and the same
is hereby rescinded, and the ratification on behalf of the State of Oregon
of the above recited proposed amendment to the Constitution
of the United States is hereby withdrawn and refused. …”
[Emphases added].
(see “https://tinyurl.com/y6mf6tdl”).
Further “Declarations” to the “Illegitimacy” of the “proposal” and “rejection”

of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment may be found within the “House”
and “Senate Journals” of the “states” that cast “votes of rejection” on
the “Amendment”:
Page 20 of 68
1) Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866.
[House Journal 1866, Pgs. 578-584 /26--Senate Journal 1866, Pg. 471 /27].
2) Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866.

[House Journal 1866, Pg. 68 /28--Senate Journal 1866, Pg. 72 /29].
3) Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866.

4) Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866.

5) Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866.

[House Journal 1866-67, Pg. 183 /34--Senate Journal 1866-67,
Pg. 138 /35].
6) North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866.

26/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxesducx”
27/ “https://tinyurl.com/y2zxn5bl”
28/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3r7ebgj”
29/ “https://tinyurl.com/y2um6o3p”
30/ “https://tinyurl.com/y68kr7aj”
31/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3qod8kz”
32/ “https://tinyurl.com/y35tgl6w”
33/ “https://tinyurl.com/yy9etuys”
34/ “https://tinyurl.com/y692xtjx”
35/ “https://tinyurl.com/y56dgf2n”
36/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5anu6j4”
37/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5b2dhxh”
Page 21 of 68
7) Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867.
[House Journal 1866-67, Pg. 108 /38--Senate Journal 1866-67,
Pg. 101 /39].
8) Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867.

[McPherson, Reconstruction, Pg. 194 /40-- Annual Encyclopedia,
Pg. 452 /41].
[see also Joint Resolution No. 4, House Journal 1867, P. 9 /42].
9) Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867.

10)South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866.

[House Journal 1866, Pg. 284 45--Senate Journal 1866, Pg. 230 /46].
11) Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867.

38/ “https://tinyurl.com/yymcsajk”
39/ “https://tinyurl.com/y2v7hy8e”
40/ URL not located
41/ URL not located

42/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6nxf6ge”
43/ “https://tinyurl.com/y4c2vlse”
44/ “https://tinyurl.com/y2bqfsff”
45/ “https://tinyurl.com/y23xqcx5”
46/ “https://tinyurl.com/y52pu3js”
47/ “https://tinyurl.com/y4pggb53”
48/ “https://tinyurl.com/y47zw4kr”
Page 22 of 68
12) Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867.
13) Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867.

14) New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868.
[Minutes of the Assembly 1868, Pg. 743 /53
[see also Minutes of the Assembly, Pgs. 1225-1231 /54

--Senate Journal 1868, Pg. 356 /55].
15) Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868.

[House Journal 1868, Pgs. 44-50 /56--Senate Journal 1868,
Pgs. 22-38 /57].
You may view the true “Photocopies” of the above “House” and “Senate Journals”
on the “Internet” at: “https://tinyurl.com/7tt52hv”.
11. President Abraham Lincoln issued forth an “Executive Order,” known

as the “Emancipation Proclamation” of September 22, 1862, granting Africans
49/ “https://tinyurl.com/y34lx3yg”
50/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxp9l3pt”
51/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3kbj2wp”
52/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3jpbfbs”
53/ URL not located

54/ “https://tinyurl.com/yyxpqv9k”
55/ “https://tinyurl.com/y4rpujrc”
56/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5jer3jp”
57/ “https://tinyurl.com/yyd4lczb”
Page 23 of 68
temporary freedom if they participated in the Civil War as “Agents”
of the Union Military. The intention of the President to grant Africans the status
of “citizenship” and “freedom” was cut short by his “assassination” at the hands of
the “Jesuits” of the “Catholic Church.”
President Lincoln attempted to perpetuate his “Emancipation Proclamation”

by proposing the “Involuntary Servitude Amendment,” (known today
as the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment) giving the Africans the status of “freedom.”
This status of “freedom” was cut short when the U.S. Congress,
and several states of the Union, made Africans the “Servants” to a new “Master.”
Their new “Master” is identified within the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment as being
the U.S. Congress (whose members are forcing Africans to be “citizens” of
the “United States” with the U.S. Congress being the enforcer of the Amendment).
(see “U.S. Const., 14th Amend., Section 1” & “Section 5”).
It was the “Plan” of President Lincoln to offer the Africans a choice at

the conclusion of the Civil War to either become “Citizens” of the United States,
or in the alternative, be transported back to their Homeland (e.g. Africa) at
the expense of the United States. Of course this did not happen.
With the “assassination” of President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth, {with the aid
of Samuel Arnold, George Atzerodt, David Herold, Michael O'Laughlen,
Lewis Powell (also known as Lewis Paine), John Surratt, and Mary Surratt, [all of
whom were “Catholic Jesuits” or “Jesuit” sympathizers]}, the states
(and the people) were compelled by “Force of Arms” of the “Military” to adopt
the Fourteenth the Fifteenth (15th) Amendments as Amendments to
the Constitution for The United States of America.
Page 24 of 68
Do you not understand the views of the Africans of today! They look back
to the Civil War and see that at no time were their “Ancestors” ever under
the jurisdiction of the United States. They also know that no Nation may (lawfully)
compel any of their slave “Ancestors” and their “Descendants” to become “citizens”
of its Nation against their will. (see “Expatriate Acts” of 1868 & of 1871 as found
on the “Internet” at “https://tinyurl.com/y2vf4vq3”).
They view themselves as “Descendants” of their slave “Ancestors”

(which relationship to their “Ancestors” does not bring them under the authority of
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the Constitution for The United States
of America) and as such, they are not “citizens” of our Nation. They view
themselves as having no obligation of “Allegiance” to observe the “laws” of
our Nation.
As their slave “Ancestors” were never given the opportunity to make

a “freedom of choice” to be returned back to their Homeland, they believe that they
have a need to involve themselves in “Riots” and “Civil Disorder” for the purpose
of destroying a Nation that they believe keeps them in the status
of “Involuntary Servitude” to a Nation that is not of their own.
The solution is to execute the “Plan” of former President Abraham Lincoln and set
a number of days for every African to come forward and make a choice
of accepting a “Pledge of Allegiance” (as given to “Candidates” for “Naturalization”
of “Citizenship”) and become “Citizens” of our “Nation” of The United States
of America, or in the alternative, be returned back to the Homeland of
their “Ancestors.” Any African who does not accept this offer, or anyone
who obstructs this offer, shall be “incarcerated” for being a “domestic enemy” to
our “Constitution” for The United States of America.
Page 25 of 68
12. Philander C. Knox never held an Office of the United States for he was never
appointed into Office by a lawful President of The United States
of America. (infra. /58). Philander C. Knox had no lawful authority
to issue forth Proclamations, including Proclamations of Ratifications
of Constitutional Amendments. (infra.). There is no lawful (“dejure”)
“Proclamation of Ratification” for the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment leaving
the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to be “null and void” Ab Initio.
13. During the years of 1866-67, the Congress of the northern (‘Yankee’) states
proclaimed (with their enactments of laws) that the southern (‘Rebel’) states had
no lawful Republican form of Governments, and as such, their Representatives
were denied their seats in the House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress.
These Representatives of the southern states were not allowed to participate
in the “Debates” nor cast “votes” upon the “Joint Resolution” proposing
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment.
To make matters worse; while those states were under Congressional

mandated “Martial Law” of “Military Districts,” the Congress of the northern states
declared that those southern states (with unlawful governments)
were to be “required” to cast “Votes of Ratification” on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment (and the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment)
“as a condition” of being reinstated into the Union with their status of “statehood”
and being represented in the U.S. Congress:
58/ See “Statement of Facts” as found within the section addressing the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment.”
Page 26 of 68
1) THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153 /59
2) FORTIETH CONGRESS, Session I, Chapter 30 /60
3) FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II. Ch. 69 /61
4) FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 70 /62
5) FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II. Ch. 10 /63
6) FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 19 /64
7) FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 39 /65
8) U.S. Senate Resolution of December 5, 1866 /66
9) U.S. Congress, Joint Resolution No. 58 /67
(“A ‘Joint Resolution’ excluding from the ‘Electoral College’ votes

of ‘States’ lately in ‘Rebellion,’ which shall have not been reorganized”).
[Emphasis added].
This “Joint Resolution No. 58” is the “Document of Proof” that

the southern states were stripped of their status of “statehood.”
59/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxgvbfea”
60/ “https://tinyurl.com/y4zfbvc6”
61/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxj2wmkh”
62/ “https://tinyurl.com/y67anulx”
63/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6h842vc”
64/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5t9vsuc”
65/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6ecq4nr”
66/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5vtatur”
67/ “https://tinyurl.com/yy9zssvt”
Page 27 of 68
14. The question arises:
“If those southern (‘Rebel’) states had no lawful governments,
as proclaimed by the Congress of the northern (‘Yankee’) states, why did
the northern states (sitting in Congress) allow the southern states
to cast votes of ratification (and then accepting their votes as being cast
by legitimate governments of a state) upon the “Involuntary Servitude
Amendment” (known today as the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment)
to the Constitution for The United States of America”? /68
This “vote of ratification” on the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment took place at

the time when the Congress of the northern (‘Rebel’) states gave
its approval to the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox’s issuance
of “Proclamations of Ratifications” for the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment /69
and the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment. /70 But as Philander C. Knox was never
appointed into the “Office” of Secretary of State by a legitimate President
of The United States of America (infra. /71), there is no legitimate (“dejure”)
“Proclamation(s) of Ratifications” for the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment leaving
the Amendment to be “null and void” Ab Inito.
For the detailed history of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, you may view the “Treatise”
on the “Internet” at: “https://tinyurl.com/hvrz86x”.
To view a large resource of “Documents” on the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, you may
view those “Documents” on the “Internet” at: “https://tinyurl.com/6wbsoul”.
68/ “https://tinyurl.com/jdnhng6”
69/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3zj2f9v” and “https://tinyurl.com/y6nyq6hm”
70/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxjy75qm”
71/ See “Statement of Facts” found within the section addressing the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment.”
Page 28 of 68
Every “Judge” and “Justice” of our “Federal Courts” and every “member” of
the U.S. Congress that continues to use the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment in
their “Court Opinions” and “Statutes at Large” after being noticed by the “states” of
the “Union” that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth (15th) Amendments are “null and void”
Ab Initio for “want of ratification,” they are no longer acting in the “official capacity” of
an “Officer” of The United States of America. They have lowered themselves down to
the status of being “usurpers” and they should be prosecuted as such.
Conclusion
Please take notice that each and every state of the south had created a “Constitution” for
their state as required for “admission” into the Union. Every one of those states did create
a “Republican Form of Government” as per requirement of Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1
of the Constitution for The United States of America. These states of the south did
operate under their own “Constitutions” before, during, and with one state,
after the Civil War. This raises the question:
“Why did the Congress of the northern states declare that a number
of southern states had “no lawful governments” while another was allowed to
keep its original Constitution and government?
Answer: The southern state that was allowed to keep its Constitution
and government was the “State of Tennessee,” a state which cast
its “vote of ratification” on the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment; while those states
that cast their “votes of rejection” were placed under “Martial Law” and declared
to have “unlawful governments.”
“The U.S. Congress of the year 1868 has taken the position that it has been
empowered to not only propose Constitutional Amendments, but it also has
been empowered to compel ratification of those Constitutional Amendments.”
Page 29 of 68
The issue is not the repeal of an Amendment, for the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment
[and other Amendments (infra.)] is not an Amendment to the Constitution
for The United States of America. The issue is the “purging” of
all non-existent Amendments, (such as the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment) from
the Constitutions of the states and of The United States of America. The “purging”
of non-existent Constitutional Amendments from all Court Opinions,
from all Statutes at Large, from all Law Books of the states, and from all Text Books.
You can only “repeal” legitimate Amendments (such as was done with
the Eighteenth (18th) Amendment with the use of the Twenty-First (21st) Amendment).
You cannot perform “impossibilities” by repealing something that does not exist,
such as fraudulent Constitutional Amendments.
Fifteenth Amendment
Introduction
What is stated in the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment applies to

the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment. The southern states were “expelled” from
the U.S. Congress with their Representatives not being allowed to “debate”
Page 30 of 68
or cast “votes” on the “Joint Resolution” of February 26, 1869 proposing
the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment.
Statement of Facts
1. The following state of the Union has gone on record to declare

the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment to not been “proposed” nor “ratified” as mandated
by Article V of the Constitution for The United States of America.
State of Oregon
“Whereas the State of Oregon was, on the 14th day of February, A.D. 1859,
admitted into the Federal Union vested with the right to declare
what persons should be entitled to vote within her boundaries;
and until she, by her voluntary act, surrenders that right, the Congress of
the United States has no authority to interfere with the conditions
of suffrage within the boundaries of the State of Oregon; and whereas
the Congress of the United States, by means of an arbitrary majority
of votes acquired by the power of the bayonet, has sought to force upon
the several States the so-called Fifteenth (15th) Amendment to
the Federal Constitution, in direct violation of the terms under which
the State of Oregon was admitted into the sisterhood of States: Therefore,
“Be it resolved by the senate, (the house concurring,) that the so-called
Fifteenth (15th) Amendment is an infringement upon the popular rights,
and a direct falsification of the pledges made to the State of Oregon by
the Federal Government.
Page 31 of 68
“Resolved, That the said Fifteenth (15th) Amendment be, and the same
is hereby, rejected. …” [Emphasis added].
FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, 3d Session,

(“Miscellaneous Document No. 56”) /72
2. We must not overlook the fact that that Philander C. Knox (infra. /73) held
no lawful “Office” of the government of The United States of America for there
was no-one that had the “Office Qualifications” to appoint Philander C. Knox
into the “Office” of “U.S. Secretary of State.” At the time that
the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment was purportedly ratified, there was no-one
in “Office” that had authority to issue forth “Proclamations of Ratification”
(including Philander C. Knox) leaving the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment without
authority to be an “Amendment” to the Constitution for The United States
of America.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment is not an “Amendment” to
the Constitution for The United States of America. The Fifteenth (15th) Amendment is
to be “purged” from all “Constitutions,” all “Statutes at Large,” from all “Court Rulings,”
from all “Law Books” of the “states,” and from all other “Publications.”
72/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5yv8puc”.
Page 32 of 68
Sixteenth Amendment
Introduction
Like many “Constitutional Amendments” which were submitted to the “Legislatures” of

the states of the Union for ratification, the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment was not uniform
in its writings. These “defects” were exposed and presented to the “members” of
the U.S. Congress and to the Federal Courts with both of those branches
of “Government” proclaiming that the “questions of ratification” were “Political Questions”
which could (would) not be addressed. /74
You may view those “defects” within a “Federal Court Document” entitled:
“DEFENDANT’S ‘THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS’ BRIEF” as presented
in the “U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District”
as “Number 04C 7403” in a case entitled: “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff vs.
WILLIAM J. BENSON, Defendant.” This “Legal Brief” may be viewed as
a “PDF Document” on the “Internet” at “https://tinyurl.com/y5yg5g9k”.
The “U.S. Congress” had previously introduced an “Income Tax” during the “Civil War”
of 1861-65, but this “Tax” had been “repealed” in 1872. In 1894, the U.S. Congress
passed the “Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act,” /75 which lowered “Tariff Rates” and made up
for some of the lost revenue by introducing “Taxes” on “Income,” “Corporate Profits,”
“Gifts,” and “Inheritances.” Chief Justice Melville Fuller's majority opinion
in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company /76 held that a “Federal Tax” on “Income”
74/ See website: 16th AMENDMENT NEVER RATIFIED (“https://tinyurl.com/y3o7yvug”).
75/ The “Revenue Act” or “Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act” of 1894 (“ch. 349, §73,” “28 Stat. 509-570,”
August 27, 1894).
76/ Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895),
affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
Page 33 of 68
derived from “property” was “unconstitutional” when it was not apportioned among
the states according to representation in the United States House of Representatives. /77
Justice Fuller also held that “Federal Taxation” on “Interest” earned
on certain “State Bonds” violated the doctrine of “Intergovernmental Tax Immunity.”
With the purported “ratification” of Sixteenth (16th) Amendment, the case of Pollock was
mooted.
Statement of Facts
There is a major problem with the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment which has never
been addressed – the Amendment was never “approved” by “ratification” of the “people”
sitting in “Convention” of the “states.”
The purported Sixteenth (16th) Amendment is a “fraud” for it is being used to move
the “property” of the “people” into the hands of the Papacy of the Catholic Church
(“Vatican City State”) /78 via a “Private Bank” known as the “Federal Reserve Bank.” /79
The “Board of Governors” for the “Federal Reserve Bank” (and the “political elite”
of “Washington, D.C.”) have presented us with a view that the “Federal Reserve Bank”
is an “internal agency” of the “government” of The United States of America
which is totally false:
“Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of

a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally
77/ See U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 9, Cl. 4: “No capitation or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion
to the censes or enumeration hereinafter directed to be taken.”
78/ See “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve” (PDF Document “https://tinyurl.com/y3otnqlz”).
79/ See Kennedy C. Scott, vs. Federal Reserve Bank - No. 04-2357 - (2005)
(PDF Document “https://tinyurl.com/y4mt5y3g”) and Lewis v. United States,
680 F.2d 1239 - (1982) (PDF Document “https://tinyurl.com/y5svvmsv”).
Page 34 of 68
controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each
bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily
regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither
as “wholly owned” government corporations nor as “mixed ownership” corporations;
federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks
are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .” [Emphasis added].
Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
1. The Constitution for The United States of America at Article V provides for
the “procedure” to be used to “alter” or “amend” that Constitution. This Article V
states in part:
“…. 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,
or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or
the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ….”
[Emphasis added].
2. Now the question arises: “Why did the Founding Fathers provide that
the ratification of Constitution Amendments may be done by Conventions”?
There are instances in which a “Politician” has no authority (“Jurisdiction”) over

the “people,” one of those instances is the “taking” and using “property” of
the “people” without their “consent”:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
Page 35 of 68
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
[Emphasis added]
Article Four of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution

“…. nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation.” [Emphasis added].
Article Five of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution

3. The “money” of the “people” is just one of those instances, for “money” (in the
hands of the “people”) is “private property.” No “Legislator” of any of the states of
the Union has ever been granted the “powers” to levy a “tax” upon the “people”
without authority of a Constitution as ratified in “Convention” of the “people”
of their “state,” so it is with the “members” of the “U.S. Congress.”
It is true that the Constitution for The United States of America was ratified by
the “people” sitting in “Convention” of the “states” (see “U.S. Constitution,
Article VII”):
“Done in convention by unanimous consent of the states present

the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand
seven hundred and eighty-seven and of the Independence of
The United States of America the twelfth. …; and …” [Emphasis added].
It is also true that the Constitution for The United States of America has provisions
to provide for the “taxation” of the “people” and it does set forth the “procedures”
for levying that “tax”:
Page 36 of 68
“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion
to the census or enumeration hereinafter directed to be taken.”
[Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
“No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.”
[Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 5
As it took a “Constitutional Convention” to approve the “Clauses” of “Taxation” of

the “Constitution” for The United States of America (authorizing the taking
of “property” of the “people” for “public use”), the same is true when it comes to
the “altering” or “amending” of the “mode of collection” of those “taxes”
as set forth by the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment. As the “Clauses” of “Taxation”
of the “Constitution” for The United States of America required the “approval” of
the “people” setting in “Constitutional Conventions” of the “states,” so it is with
a “Constitutional Amendment” to “alter” or “amend” those “Clauses” of “Taxation.”
4. As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to the Constitution “was never” submitted to

a “Convention” of the “states” for “ratification,” it exist in “fraud” and is required to
be “purged” from all “Constitutions,” from all “Law Books,” from
all “Court Records,” and from all “Text Books.”
5. As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to the Constitution for The United States
of America does not have a “lawful” (“dejure”) existence, the “Internal Revenue
Code” (as codified in “Statutes at Large” and “Title 26, United States Code”)
has problems as many of its “Sections” are “repugnant” to U.S. Constitution,
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4. The “taxes” on “Income” are being “assessed” as
Page 37 of 68
a “direct tax” derived from “property” without being “apportioned” to the “census”
or without “enumeration” as ruled upon by Chief Justice Melville Fuller
in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (supra.).
The offending “Sections” of the “Statutes at Large” and within “Title 26,
United States Code” needs to be “purged.”
Conclusion
Without the “consent” of the “people” sitting in “Conventions” of the “states,”

there were no “members” of the U.S. Congress that had authority
to propose “Constitutional Amendments” to “alter” the scheme of “taxation” as set forth
by the “Constitution” for The United States of America. The “U.S. Congress” had
no authority to declare the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment (an “Amendment”
which “confiscates” the “money” {“property”} of the “people” in the name of “taxes”) was
to be “ratified” by “Legislatures” of the “states” without consent of the “people,” nor were
there any “Member” of the “Legislatures” of the “states” of the “Union” that had authority
of the “people” to cast “votes of ratification” on “money confiscation schemes”
with “Constitutional Amendments,” such as with the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment.
As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment “was not” ratified by the “people” sitting
in “Conventions” of the “states” as mandated by Article V of the Constitution
for The United States of America, it is not an “Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.
The Sixteenth (16th) Amendment needs to be “purged” from all “Text Books,”
from all “Rulings” of the “Courts,” from the “Statutes at Large,” from all “Law Books”
of the “states,” from all “Constitutions” of the “states,” and from the “Constitution”
of “The United States of America.”
Page 38 of 68
Again, we must not overlook the fact that that Philander C. Knox (infra. /80) held
no lawful “Office” of the government of The United States of America for there was no-one
that had the “Office Qualifications” to appoint Philander C. Knox into the “Office”
of “U.S. Secretary of State.” At the time when the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment was
purportedly “ratified,” there was no-one in “Office” (including Philander C. Knox)
that had “authority” to issue forth “Proclamations of Ratification” leaving
the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment without authority to be an “Amendment” to
the “Constitution” for The United States of America.
Seventeenth Amendment
Introduction
The “Americans” did not directly vote for “Senators” for the first 125 years of
the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated
that “Senators” would be elected by “state Legislators.” /81 The first “proposal” to amend
the Constitution to elect “Senators” by “popular vote” was introduced in the U.S. House
of Representatives in 1826, but the idea did not gain considerable support until
the late “19th Century” when several problems related to Senate elections had
become evident. Several “state Legislatures” deadlocked over the election of “Senators”
which led to Senate vacancies lasting months, and even years. In other cases,
“political machines” gained control over “state Legislatures,” and the “Senators” elected
with their support, were dismissed as “Puppets.” In addition, the Senate was seen as
a “millionaire's club” serving powerful “private interests.” The rise of the “People's Party,”
81/ see U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1.
Page 39 of 68
commonly referred to as the “Populist Party,” added “motivation” for making the Senate
more directly accountable to the “people.”
During the 1890s, the House of Representatives passed several “Resolutions” proposing
a “Constitutional Amendment” for the direct election of “Senators.” Each time, however,
the Senate refused to even take a vote. When it seemed unlikely that
both Houses of Congress would pass “legislation” proposing an “Amendment”
for direct election, many states changed strategies. Article V of the U.S. Constitution
states that Congress must call a “Convention” for proposing Amendments
when two-thirds (⅔rd) of the state Legislatures apply for one. Although the method had
never previously been used, many states began sending Congress “Applications”
for “Conventions.” As the number of “Applications” neared the two-thirds (⅔rd) bar,
Congress finally acted.
Statement of Facts
1. Philander C. Knox, play acting as “Secretary of State,” introduced

the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment” into “Congress.”
Comment: It is noted that Philander C. Knox held no lawful “Office” of

the government of The United States of America for William Howard Taft
was not a U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
“natural born Citizen” of the “United States,” qualifying him for the “Office”
of President of The United States of America.
As William Howard Taft was born within a “Territory” (“Ohio”), /82 which
did not have the status of being a state of The United States of America,
he most likely did not have the status of being a “Citizen” of
82/ Born in “Cincinnati, Ohio” in the year of 1857.
Page 40 of 68
the “United States,” /83 not to mention not having the required status of
being a “natural born Citizen” for want of the existence of
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment /84 (a required status of “citizenship” for
the “Office” of “President” of The United States of America.).
As “William Howard Taft” never had the “Office Qualifications” for
the “Office” of “President” for The United States of America,
[President] “Taft” never had any authority to appoint anyone into
a “Cabinet Office” of the “Executive Branch” of government,
including “Philander C. Knox” being appointed into the “Cabinet Office”
of “U.S. Secretary of State.”
The proof to be found that “Ohio” was not a state of the Union during
the years that “Knox” served his term as “U.S. Secretary of State,”
(which was from March 4, 1905 to March 4, 1911) is found in the fact that
the Eighty-Third (83rd) Congress found the need to enact “Public Law 204,
83rd Congress, 1st Session” /85 to admit “Ohio” into the “Union” as a “state.”
But even then we see that “Section 2” of that “Public Law 204” (identified as
a “Joint Resolution”) has a problem for we find:
“This Joint Resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803.

Approved August 7, 1953.”
83/ Without an enactment of law made under authority of a Constitutional Amendment (as was done for
the “Inhabitants” of the “Territories” of “Alaska” and of “Hawaii” {see “June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III,
ch. 1, § 304,” “66 Stat. 237”}) (“https://tinyurl.com/y4ynmzmm”), those who were born within “Territories”
or “Possession” of the “United States” did not automatically obtain “citizenship” of the “United States.”
They were classified as “Nationals” (see “54 Stat. 1137, Section 101”)
(“https://tinyurl.com/y4ynmzmm”).
84/ The Fourteenth (14th) Amendment was purportedly propose on June 13, 1866 and purportedly ratified
on July 9, 1868. The “Justices” of the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (“https://tinyurl.com/ptnayru”) cited the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to support its
“natural born Citizen” status ruling of [President] “Barack Obama Jr..” That Amendment does not apply
to “William Howard Taft” as the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment did not exist during the “Taft” tenure
as “President” of The United States of America.
85/ See “67 Stat. 407” – “Public Law 204 @ Chapter 337” (see “https://tinyurl.com/y4ynmzmm”).
Page 41 of 68
There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes
the retroactive admission of states into the Union with what may
be classified as an “Ex Post Facto Law”: /86
“Ex post facto is most typically {having exceptions} used to refer to a

criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby
criminalizing {legalizing} conduct that was legal {unlawful} when
originally performed. There are two (2) “Clauses” in
the “United States Constitution” prohibit “ex post facto laws”
[Emphasis added]:
“Art. 1, § 9”
“This prohibits “Congress” from passing any laws which apply

ex post facto. [Emphasis added].
“Art. 1 § 10”
“This prohibits the “states” from passing any laws which apply
ex post facto.” [Emphasis added].
Legal Information Institute (LII)
Furthermore, no U.S. Congress of today has any authority to speak for

a past U.S. Congress leaving “Public Law 204, 83rd Congress, 1st Session”
without “any effect” Ab Initio.
The effective date of “March 1, 1803” is also “null and void” for “Ohio” was
not admitted into the Union by the “Seventh (7th) Session” of
the U.S. Congress [in session from March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1803]
leaving the “date of admission” of “Ohio” into the “Union” to
be “without effect” Ab Initio.
86/ “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be past.” U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec 9, Cl. 3.
[Emphasis added].
Page 42 of 68
Another problem surfaces under this “Public Law 204.” The “members” of
the U.S. Congress used a “Resolution” to make a “Law” when the intent of
the “Founding Fathers” was for only “Bills” to become “Law.” The use
of “Resolutions” were to be used for expressing an “opinion,” or to “censure”
some “person” or “action,” but were never to become “Law.”
It appears that even unto today, “Ohio” exist only as a “Territory”

of The United States of America for there is no legitimate “Statute at Large”
to be found that admits the “Territory of Ohio” into the “Union” as a “state.”
2. In the year of 1911, the “House of Representatives” passed

“House Joint Resolution 39” proposing a “Constitutional Amendment”
for “direct election” of “Senators.” However, it included a “race rider” meant
to bar “Federal intervention” in cases of “racial discrimination” among “voters”:
“The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be
as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.”
A substitute “amendment” by “Senator Joseph L. Bristow” (R-KS) removed

the “race rider.” The amended “Joint Resolution” was adopted by
the “U.S. Senate” on a “close vote” in May of 1911. Over a year later,
the “U.S. House” accepted the change, and the proposed
“Constitutional Amendment” was sent to the states for “ratification.”
On April 8, 1913, three-quarters (¾ths) of the states had “ratified”
the proposed “Amendment” and it was officially included as
the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment.” This “Amendment” had the net effect
of destroying the “sovereignty” of government of the “states.”
Page 43 of 68
The Seventeenth (17th) Amendment was not “proposed” nor “ratified” as
mandated by U.S. Constitution, Article V:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem

it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, … and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in
the Senate.” [Emphasis added].
For there to be a legitimate “Joint Resolution” proposing

the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment” (an “Amendment” to provide for a “Senator”
by “popular vote” of the “people” instead of being “appointed” by the Legislatures
of the several states of the Union), there must be an “unanimous vote” to be cast
by every “member” of the “U.S. House of Representatives” and of
the “U.S. Senate” on that “Joint Resolution.” This did not happen.
Many “Legislatures” of the states were “out of session” during the time
the “ratification process” as set forth by the U.S. Congress took place, thus they
have been deprived of their “suffrage” in the U.S. House of Congress and
of their “equal suffrage” in the U.S. Senate.
Here is the “Roll Call Vote” of June 12, 1911 on “House Joint Resolution 39”
by “members” of the U.S. Senate as provided by “Records” of the “U.S. Senate,
National Archives and Records Administration”: (“https://tinyurl.com/yyyg5pa7”)
Bacon - Nay Bailey - Yea Bankhead - Nay Borah - Yea

Bourne - Yea Bradley – n/a Brandegee - Nay Briggs - Yea
Bristow - Yea Brown - Yea Bryan - Yea Burnham - Nay
Burton - Yea Chamberlain - Yea Chilton - Yea Clapp - Yea
Clark, Wyo - Yea Clark, Ark - Yea Crane - Nay Crawford - Yea
Culberson - Yea Cullom - Yea Cummins - Yea Curtis - Yea
Davis - Yea Dillingham - Nay Dixon - Yea Du Pont - Yea
Fletcher - Nay Foster - Nay Frye – n/a Gallinger - Nay
Page 44 of 68
Gamble - Yea Gore - Yea Gronna - Yea Guggenheim - Yea
Heyburn - Nay Hitchcock - Yea Johnson - Yea Johnston - Nay
Jones - Yea Kenyon - Yea Kern - Yea La Follette - Yea
Lea - Yea Lippitt - Nay Lodge - Nay Lorimer - Nay
McCumber - Yea McLean - Yea Martin - Yea Martine - Yea
Myers - Yea Nelson - Yea Newlands - Yea Nixon - Yea
O’Gorman - Yea Oliver - Nay Overman – n/a Owen – n/a
Page - Nay Paynter - Yea Penrose - Nay Percy - Nay
Perkins - Yea Poindexter - Yea Pomerene - Yea Rayner - Yea
Reed - Yea Richardson - Nay Root - Nay Shively - Yea
Simmons - Yea Smith, Md - Yea Smith, Mich - Yea Smith, S. C. - Yea
Smoot - Nay Stephenson - Yea Stone - Yea Sutherland - Yea
Swanson - Yea Taylor - Yea Terrell - Yea Thornton - Yea
Tillman – n/a Townsend - Yea Warren - Yea Watson - Yea
Wetmore - Nay Williams - Nay Works - Yea ===========
Because of the “non-participation” of several states in the casting

of “votes of approbation” on the “adoption” of the “Joint Resolution”
(“H.J. Res. 39”) (proposing the wording of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment),
those nine (9) states have been deprived of their “rights” of “equal suffrage”
in the “U.S. Senate.” The same is true of those states (“Delaware” and “Utah”)
which their “Senators” formally “objected” to the “Joint Resolution” by casting
a “negative vote” on the “Resolution.”
Conclusion
The “U.S. Secretary of State” announced, in the year of 1913,

that the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment had been ratified by the Legislatures
of thirty-six (36) of the forty-eight (48) states of the Union. The U.S. Constitution,
Page 45 of 68
Article V (supra.) says all 100% of the states must be in agreement to any change
in their voice in the U.S. Senate, not three-quarters (¾th) as he announced.
With the purported adoption of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment, we see
that thirty-six (36) states have forced a change on the other states in their equal
voting power in the U.S. Senate.
All Constitutional Amendments adopted thereafter are “null and void” for want of
a legitimate (“dejure”) U.S. Congress to propose those “Amendments.” Most notable is
the Nineteenth (19th) Amendment in granting “Women” the “rights to vote” which
the Federal Courts have proclaimed to be the authority for granting “Women”
the “Political Powers” to hold “Public Offices” of the government of The United States
of America. It should be noted that the only location to be found within
the U.S. Constitution where the word “Suffrage” appears, is Article V.
The word “Suffrage” does not appear in the Fifteenth nor the Nineteenth Amendments,
but only the words: “to vote,” and notwithstanding the “dictum” /87 opinions of “Judges,”
there are no terms to be found within those Amendments that grants “Women”
and “Africans” the “Political Powers” to hold “Public Offices” of The United States
of America.
With the purported ratification of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to the Constitution
for The United States of America, there are no longer any lawful (“dejure”) “Senators”
in “Office” that have lawful “authority” to participate in the creation of any “Tribunals” which
where inferior to the “Supreme Court” as authorized by U.S. Constitution, Article I,
Section 8, Clause 9 or to confirm any “Judge” / “Justice” into “Office” as required
by U.S. Constitution, Article II, Clause 2, Section 2 leaving the “people” of our “Nation”
without any means of obtaining a “Redress of Grievances” or a “Resolution of Disputes”
87/ Dictum - n. Latin for "remark", a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not
required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it.
While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent
(previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis
for judgment. The standard counter argument is: "it is only dictum (or dicta)."
Page 46 of 68
between the states. All “Rulings” of the “U.S. Supreme Court,” and its “inferior Courts,”
by “Judicial Officers” (that were [purportedly] confirmed into “Office” after
the date of April 8, 1913, the date of the purported “ratification” of
the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment), are all “null and void” as a matter of law.
With the purported “ratification” of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to the Constitution
for The United States of America, there were no longer any lawful (“dejure”) “Senators”
in “Office” that had lawful “authority” to propose “Amendments” to the Constitution
for The United States of America. All “Joint Resolutions” proposing
“Constitutional Amendments” (which were “Debated” by Senators of
the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment) are all “null and void” for not being “accepted” by
a lawful (“dejure”) “U.S. Senate” leaving all “Constitutional Amendments” existing after
the purported “ratification” of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to be “null and void” as
a matter of law.
Conclusion
The Seventeenth (17th) Amendment, (and all “Constitutional Amendments” existing

thereafter), need to be purged from the Constitution for The United States of America,
purged from all “Law Books,” purged from all “Court Documents,” and purged from
all “Text Books.”
All “members” of the present day “Senate” of The United States of America shall
be “expelled” from “Office” for want of “Office Qualifications.” They shall be replaced
with appointed “Senators” of the “Legislators” of the states as mandated
by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1.
Page 47 of 68
Miscellaneous
Oaths of Office
There are two (2) known groups of “people” whom occupies several seats
in both “Houses” of “Congress” for The United States of America that have “refused” to
accept an “Oath of Office” as required by “U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Section 1,
Clause 3”:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, …. shall be bound by oath

or affirmation, to support this Constitution ….” [Emphasis added].
These two (2) groups are referred to as “Jesuits” /88 of the “Catholic Church,” /89
and as “Jews.” /90 As evidence by the following “Oaths,” (which they have submitted
themselves to), none of the “members” of these two (2) groups have
the “Office Qualifications” /91 to hold any “Office of Trust” of the government
of The United States of America:
88/ “https://tinyurl.com/lt62u8e”
89/ “https://tinyurl.com/d9rt2c4”
90/ “https://tinyurl.com/dyslaux”
91/ This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of

the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and
of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
[Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Sections, 2 & 3
Page 48 of 68
a. The Jewish Oath of Kol Nidre
All “Jews” have an obligation to observe the yearly “Yom Kippur” /92 wherein
the “Jews” cites twice (for a total of three (3) iterations), the below
Jewish “Kol Nidre”: /93
“All vows, and prohibitions, and oaths, and consecrations, and konams
and konasi and synonymous terms, that we may vow, or swear,
or consecrate, or prohibit upon ourselves, from the previous Day
of Atonement until this Day of Atonement and from this Day of Atonement
until the [next] Day of Atonement that will come for our benefit. Regarding
all of them, we repudiate them. All of them are undone, abandoned,
cancelled, null and void, not in force, and not in effect. Our vows are no
longer vows, and our prohibitions are no longer prohibitions, and our oaths
are no longer oaths.” [Emphasis added].
The Jewish Kol Nidre /ˈkɔːl nɪˈdreɪ/

(also known as Kol Nidrey or Kol Nidrei)
For a listing of “Jews” holding “Public Offices,” search the “Internet” for:
1. “Jews” in the “U.S. Congress”; /94 and
2. “Jews” as “Federal Judges.” /95
Comment: Unless shown otherwise, all “Jews” (who hold “Public Offices of Trust”
of the governments of the states and of The United States of America)
have “renounced” their “Oaths of Office” (implied or otherwise) to support
the “Constitutions” of “The United States of America” and of the several states of
92/ “https://tinyurl.com/mja63dh”
93/ “https://tinyurl.com/9b9nwrm”
94/ “https://tinyurl.com/y45t38p7”
95/ “https://tinyurl.com/y66hec4l”
Page 49 of 68
the “Union,” and when “Jews” renounce their “Oaths of Office,” they renounce
the “Public Office of Trust” of which they occupy. All “Jews” who occupy seats in
the U.S. Congress and of the Federal Courts shall be “expelled” from “Office” as
a matter of law of the “Constitution” for The United States of America.
b. The Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction
The following is the “Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction” given to high

ranking “Jesuits” only. This “Oath” is taken from the book “Subterranean Rome”
by Carlos Didier, translated from the “French,” and published in “New York” in the year
of 1843.
“When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted

into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others
present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side
stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are
the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross
above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words
IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just
to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers.
Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels.
The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand
and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him
a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart,
the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:
“Superior:
“My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among
Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your
own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be
a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be
a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining
their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with
all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even
Page 50 of 68
to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled
to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier
of the Pope. [Emphases added].
“You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred
between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them
to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create
revolutions and Civil Wars in countries that were independent and prosperous,
cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace.
To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit,
who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which
you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end,
in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies
the means. [Emphasis added].
“You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics,
facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself
into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class
and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer,
among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures,
and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men,
for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death. [Emphasis added].
“You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte,

and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been
invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola
in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument
and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who
has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic;
for without the shedding of blood no man can be saved. Therefore, to fit yourself
for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition
to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope,
repeat after me --- [Emphasis added].
Page 51 of 68
The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits
“I, _ now, in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary,
the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist,
the holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul and all the saints and sacred hosts
of heaven, and to you, my ghostly father, the Superior General of the Society
of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in the Pontificate of Paul the Third,
and continued to the present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God,
and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that his holiness the Pope
is Christ's Vice-regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic
or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by virtue of the keys
of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ,
he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths
and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation and that they
may safely be destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will
defend this doctrine of his Holiness' right and custom against all usurpers
of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran
of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the now pretended
authority and churches of England and Scotland, and branches of the same
now established in Ireland and on the Continent of America and elsewhere;
and all adherents in regard that they be usurped and heretical, opposing
the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now renounce and disown
any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants
or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates, or officers.
[Emphasis added].
“I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland,
of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals
to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.
“I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any
of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland,
Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland, or America,
or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost
to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy
all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise. [Emphasis added].
Page 52 of 68
“I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with,
to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church's
interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time,
as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word,
writing, or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed,
given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any
of this sacred covenant. [Emphasis added].
“I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own,
or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver
(perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that
I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.
[Emphasis added].
“That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen
regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles
of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts
of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will
be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me. [Emphasis added].
“I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make
and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics,
Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate
them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age,
sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive
these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women
and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever
their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly
use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or
the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person
or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private,
as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior
of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus. [Emphasis added].
“In confirmation of which, I hereby dedicate my life, my soul and all

my corporal powers, and with this dagger which I now receive, I will subscribe
my name written in my own blood, in testimony thereof; and should I prove false
or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the Militia
Page 53 of 68
of the Pope cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear to ear, my belly
opened and sulphur burned therein, with all the punishment that can be inflicted
upon me on earth and my soul be tortured by demons in an eternal hell forever!
“All of which, I, _, do swear by the Blessed Trinity and blessed Sacraments,

which I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolable;
and do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness
the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with
my name written and with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood
and sealed in the face of this holy covenant.
(He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point
of his dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.)
“Superior:
“You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary
to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging
to this rank.
“In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make
the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would;
then one cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer
crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of
the right hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of
the left hand points to the center of the palm of the right; the first then with
his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with
the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart;
the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other,
and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first.
The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges.
The other answers Impious. (The meaning of which has already
been explained.) The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in
a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and
on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of
a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following
questions and answers:
Page 54 of 68
“Question — From whither do you come?
“Answer — The Holy faith.
“Question — Whom do you serve?
“Answer — The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church
Universal throughout the world.
“Question — Who commands you?
“Answer — The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of

the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.
“Question — Who received you?
“Answer — A venerable man in white hair.
“Question — How?
“Answer — With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners
of the Pope and of our sacred order.
“Question — Did you take an oath?
“Answer — I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers,

and to spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without
any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things
without hesitation of murmuring. [Emphasis added].
“Question — Will you do that?
“Answer — I will.
“Question — How do you travel?
“Answer — In the bark of Peter the fisherman.
“Question — Whither do you travel?
“Answer — To the four quarters of the globe.
“Question — For what purpose?
Page 55 of 68
“Answer — To obey the orders of my general and Superiors and execute the will
of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.
“Question — Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands
in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus
and his Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.”
[Emphasis added].
Comment: All “Catholics” (who hold “Public Offices of Trust” of the governments of
the states and of The United States of America) have renounced
their “Oaths of Office” (implied or otherwise) to support the Constitutions
of The United States of America and of the several states of the Union. As they
have renounced all “Oaths of Office,” they have renounced the “Public Office
of Trust” of which they occupy.
The “people,” in and through their “Constitutional Conventions,” did adopt and ratify
the Constitution for The United States of America wherein they did declare
in Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 that each “House” shall be sole “Judge” of
the “qualifications” of its “Members”:
“Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications
of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum
to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may
be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner,
and under such penalties as each House may provide.” [Emphasis added]
This “Clause 1” of the “U.S. Constitution” is not an authorization for the members of
the “U.S. Congress” to seat a “Nominee” for either “House” absent
the required “qualifications” as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, but to the contrary;
it is a “mandate” for both “Houses” of “Congress” to “investigate,” “verify,”
and “record” each “Members” constitutional “qualifications”:
Page 56 of 68
a. Member candidate has attain the age twenty-five (25) years for
the House of Congress; /96 and
b. Member candidate has been seven (7) years a Citizen of the United States
for the House of Congress; /97 and
c. Member candidate was not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state

in which he shall be chosen for the House of Congress or for
the U.S. Senate; /98 and
d. Member candidate has attain the age thirty (30) years for the U.S. Senate; /99
and
e. Member candidate has been nine (9) years a Citizen of the United States for
the U.S. Senate; /100 and
f. Member candidate has taken an “Oath or Affirmation” to support

the Constitution for The United States of America. /101
All “Catholics” (whom occupies seats in the “U.S. Congress” and of the “Federal Courts”)
shall be “expelled” from “Office” for renouncing their “Office of Trust” when they
renounced their “Oath of Office.”
96/ U.S. Const., Art I, Section 2, Clause 2

98/ U.S. Const., Art I, Section 2, Clause 2 and U.S. Const., Art I, Section 3, Clause 3

101/ U.S. Const., Art VI, Section 1, Clause 2
Page 57 of 68
For a listing of “Catholics” holding “Public Offices,” search the “Internet” for:
3. “Catholics” in the “U.S. Congress”; /102 and
4. “Catholics” as “Federal Judges.” /103
Within the “Catholic Church,” /104 the rights (“duties”) of the “Catholic Laity,” /105 in regards
to the “Church,” are found in the “Code of Canon Law.” /106 A new “Code of Canon Law”
was promulgated in 1983 to incorporate teachings from the “Second Vatican Council.” /107
In particular, “Canons 224-231” /108 of the “1983 Code” outlining the general and specific
“canonical rights” of “lay persons” in the “Catholic Church.”
Under the “Code of Canon Law,” the “Catholic laity Allegiance” is with the “Papacy”
of “Vatican City State,” not with the “people” of “The United States of America.”
(see “Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium § 12” /109).
Furthermore, as the “Jesuits” are of a “Secret Society” as organized by

the foreign “Nation” of “Vatican City State” - and as there are no means by which
to identify those who are “Jesuits” from those who are “lay persons” of
the “Catholic Church,” a presumption must exist that all “Catholics” are “Jesuits”
or “Jesuit Sympathizers” and they need to be treated as such.
102/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6dtej2t” see also “https://tinyurl.com/y4x3awal” and “https://tinyurl.com/y5xpov3o.”

103/ “https://tinyurl.com/uul7axk” see also “PDF Document” “https://tinyurl.com/y3z5ufjm.”
104/ “https://tinyurl.com/d9rt2c4”
105/ “https://tinyurl.com/y67nvya2”
106/ “https://tinyurl.com/3o2py”
107/ “https://tinyurl.com/d3otdtw”
108/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6t6v9fg”
109/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxnppx9u”
Page 58 of 68
Be advised that all the assassinated “Presidents” of “The United States of America,”
from “Abraham Lincoln” to “John F. Kennedy” appears to have been “Assassinated”
by “Jesuits” of the “Catholic Church.” The common theme for all those “Assassinations”
is the control of the issuance of “Money” for the nation of The United States of America.
Those “Assassinations” began with the issuance of “Green Backs” by “Abraham Lincoln”
to the issuance of “United States Notes” by “John F. Kennedy.”
Corporations
The “Chief Justice Marshall” ruled In the infamous case of “Marbury v. Madison,
17 U.S. 316” (1819), /110 that the government of The United States of America was
granted authority by the U.S. Constitution to issue forth “Charters of Incorporations.”
With respect to be given, “Chief Justice Marshall” does error.
This case of “Marbury v. Madison” was brought to the “Court” challenging the authority
for the “U.S. Congress” to create a “National Bank” through the use
of “Charters of Incorporation.” This case also ruled upon the “immunity” of
the government of The United States of America to have its “Instrumentalities,” such as
its “National Banks,” from being subjected to the “taxation powers” of a state.
In this lengthy “Ruling” of the “Court,” “Chief Justice Marshall” goes to great lengths
to apply the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of
the Constitution for The United States of America as the authority for the creation
of “Corporations,” but failed to apply the “Reports” of the August 18th, 1787
“Constitutional Convention” and of the September 14th, 1787
110/ “https://tinyurl.com/y7p62sbo”
Page 59 of 68
“Constitutional Convention.” These “Reports” of the “Constitutional Convention”
document the “Proposal” of “Delegate Madison” to include the “Power” to grant
“Charters of Incorporation” for the “General Legislature” into the proposed “Constitution”
for “The United States of America”:
“August 18, 1787 Convention /111
“MR. MADISON submitted in order to be referred to the Committee

of detail the following powers as proper to be added to those of
the General Legislature. [Emphasis added].
“……………….
“To grant charters of incorporation in cases where the public good may
require them, and the authority of a single State may be incompetent.
[Emphasis added].
“……………….”
____________________________________
“September 14th, 1787 Convention /112
“DOC FRANKLIN moved to add after the words post roads Art I, Sect., 8.
a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary.
[Emphasis added].
“MR. WILSON 2nd the motion. [Emphasis added].
111/ As quoted from pg. 563 of “U.S. House Document 398” of the “69th Congress, 1st Session” entitled:
“DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNION OF THE AMERICAN STATES”
as published in the year of 1927. (See “H.C. Res. 23” of May 10, 1926 and “H.C. Res. 400”
of July 7, 1965).
112/ As quoted from pgs. 724-725 of “U.S. House Document 398” of the “69th Congress, 1st Session” entitled:
“DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNION OF THE AMERICAN STATES”
as published in the year of 1927. (See “H.C. Res. 23” of May 10, 1926 and “H.C. Res. 400”
of July 7, 1965).
Page 60 of 68
“MR, SHERMAN objected …..
“MR. WILSON. Instead of an expense …..
“MR. MADISON suggested an enlargement of the motion into a power

to grant charters of incorporations where the interest of the U.S.
might require & the legislative provisions of individual States may
be incompetent. …. [Emphasis added].
“MR. RANDOLPH 2nd the proposition.
“MR. KING thought the power unnecessary. [Emphasis added].
“MR. WILSON. It is necessary to prevent a State from obstructing

the general welfare.
“MR. KING. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it.
In Philad & New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a Bank,
which has been a subject of contention in these Cities. In other places
it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.
“MR. WILSON. Mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals, …. .

as to Banks, he did not think with MR. King that the power in that point
of view would excite the prejudices & parties apprehended.
As to mercantile monopolies, they are already included in the power
to regulate trade.
“Col. MASON was for limiting the power in the single case of Canals.
He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were
by any means already implied by the Constitution as supposed
by MR. Wilson. [Emphasis added].
“The motion as modified as to admit a distinct question specifying & limited

to the case of canals, [Emphasis added].
Page 61 of 68
N.H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N.J. no. PA. ay. Del. no. Md. no.
VA. ay. N.C. no. S.C. no. Geo. ay.
“The other part fell of course, as including the power [to grant charters
of incorporations] rejected.” [Emphasis added].
“Chief Justice Marshall” (supra.) made the following statement:
“The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end

of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which
are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of
the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may
be exercised by that Government.
“If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by
the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure,
not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question
of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.”
He then expounds upon the “justification” of his statement.
As we see from the “Record” of the “Constitutional Convention” of 1787, the “Delegation”
of the states of the “Union” sitting in a “Constitutional Convention” has defined
the creation of “Charters of Corporations” to be an exercise of a “Sovereign Power”
that every state possessed. We also see that “George Mason IV,” (sitting as
a “Convention Delegate” for the “State of Virginia”) suggested that
this “Sovereign Power” of the states should be delegated to the government
of The United States of America in the form of a “Clause” to “Article I, Section 8” of
the proposed “Constitution.”
The fact that this “Sovereign Power” to create “Charters of Corporations” does not appear
in the present day “U.S. Constitution” is a fact that cannot be viewed to be an “oversight,”
(as suggested by “Chief Justice Marshall”). The “Founding Fathers” (sitting in
Page 62 of 68
a “Constitutional Convention”) were “deliberate” in their “raising,” “debating,” and
the “casting” of “votes of rejection” upon “Delegate Madison’s” “proposal” to include
the “Sovereign Power” to create “Charters of Incorporation” into their
proposed “Constitution” leaving this “Sovereign Power” out of reach of
the “U.S. Congress” to use as a “Law” that shall be “Necessary and Proper”
(for carrying into execution of the foregoing powers) as stated in “Article I, Section 8”
of the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.”
As the authority to create “Charters of Incorporation” was identified to be

a “Sovereign Power” by “Delegates” of the states of the “Union” (sitting in
a “Constitutional Convention”), those “Delegates” were speaking for the governments
of their states on the authority of their states. It is the “states” of the “Union” that
have “declared” that the creation of “Charters of Corporation” is an exercise
of “Sovereign Powers” which is to be “reserved” exclusively to their “states.”
The government of The United States of America had no “Powers” of its own at the time
of its founding. All “Powers” exercised were delegated to The United States of America
when those states were sitting in the “Confederation of States” of 1778 and in
the “Constitutional Convention” of 1787. For the government of The United States
of America to exercise the “Sovereign Power” to create “Charters of Incorporation,”
the “U.S. Congress” is “required” to obtained authority to do so from the states
via a “Constitutional Amendment.” [See “Article X” of the “Bill of Rights” to
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America”]:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
[Emphasis added].
Be advised that any “Power” taken under consideration during the creation of
a “Constitution” by a “Constitutional Convention” and being expressly “rejected” by
the “Delegates” of the states sitting in that “Convention,” is a statement that
Page 63 of 68
the “Delegates” of the “Convention” have “reserved” to the states the “Sovereign Power”
to create “Charters of Incorporation” and has “prohibited” its use by the government
of The United States of America.
All “Charters of Incorporation,” (as created by the “Congress” for The United States
of America), were created without a grant of authority by any of the original
“thirteen (13) states” sitting in “Convention” leaving all those “Charters of Incorporation”
to be “null and void” Ab Initio.
There is no lawful (“Charter of Incorporated”) “Federal Reserve Bank” and there is no

lawful (“Charter of Incorporated”) “Internal Revenue Service.” There is no lawful
(“Charter of Incorporated”) “U.S. Postal Service” nor is there any other
lawful “Congressional” created (“Charters of Incorporation”) “Quasi Government
Agencies.” The list of unlawful “Charters of Incorporation” just goes on and on, just as
feared by the “Delegates” of the states sitting in the “Constitutional Convention” of 1787.
Page 64 of 68
Conclusion
This “Document” was written with the view of “Originalism.”
“Originalism,” in all its various forms, is predicated on a specific view of what

the “Constitution” is; a view articulated by “Chief Justice John Marshall” in the case
of “Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)”:
“[T]he Constitution organizes the government, and assigns to different

departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain
limits not to be transcended by those departments. The government of
the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature
are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten,
the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to
what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may,
at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?”
“Originalism” assumes that “Marbury” (supra.) is correct: the “Constitution” is

the operating “Charter” granted to government by the people, as per the “Preamble” /113
to the “United States Constitution,” and its written nature introduces a certain
discipline into its interpretation. “Originalism” further assumes that the need for such
a “Written Charter” was derived from the perception (on the part of the “Framers”)
of the abuses of power under the (unwritten) “British Constitution,” under which
the “Constitution” was essentially whatever “Parliament” decided it should be. In writing
out a “Constitution” which explicitly granted the government certain authorities,
(and withheld from it others), and in which power was balanced between
113/ The “Preamble” to the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” is a “Preamble” which no longer
appears within most government publications of the “Constitution”:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote for the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and or posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for The United States of America.”
Page 65 of 68
multiple “Agencies” (the “Presidency,” two (2) Chambers of “Congress” and
the “Supreme Court” at the national level, and “state governments” of
the “United States” with similar branches), the intention of the “Framers” was
to restrain government - “Originalists” argue, and the value of such a “Document”
is “nullified” if that “Document's” meaning is not fixed. As one “Author” stated:
“If the Constitution can mean anything, then the Constitution is reduced
to meaninglessness.”
“That certain words may have developed different meanings over time is inadmissible
as an argument for construing the “Constitution.” For this particular procedure
would amount, not to reinterpretation, but to misinterpretation. To be sure, in the course
of time, as is often the case with language, the meaning of words or terms is changed;
but, even so, the meaning of the “Constitution” does not change “pari passu.” /114
“The meaning of constitutional provisions is changeless; . . . only their application . . .

is extensible. /115 What the “Constitution” meant once adopted it still means for
the purpose of interpretation, /116 notwithstanding the swings in public opinion at home,
114/ See N. Chipman, “Principles of Government: a Treatise on Free Institutions” (1833), at “254”.
115/ See Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 451 (1934)
(Sutherland, J., dissenting).
116/ See Smiley v. Holm, 280 U.S. 353, 365 (1932). Accord, South Carolina v. United States,
190 U.S. 437, 448 –49 (1905).
Page 66 of 68
and abroad, /117 changes in the ebb and flow of economic events, /118 or shifts
in public policy. /119
Fair Use Notice Legal Disclaimer
The information contained in this “Document” is provided on an “as is” basis with
no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness and without
warranties of any kind whatsoever, express or implied.
This “Document” may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is available in an effort
to explain issues relevant to the “Amendments” to the “Constitution”
for “The United States of America” and other references or to illustrate the use
and benefits of an educational tool. The material of this “Document” is distributed without
profit for research and educational purposes. Only small portions of the original work are
being used and those, to best of knowledge, could not be used easily to duplicate
the original work.
117/ See Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 383, 426 (1857).
118/ See West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
(Sutherland, J., dissenting).
119/ See Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 306 (1930). “For ’[p]olicy and humanity’ dangerous
guides in the discussion of legal proposition. He follows them far is apt to bring back the means
of error and delusion.” Edwards v. Kearny, 96 U.S. 595, 604 (1878).
Page 67 of 68
This should constitute a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material referenced
and provided for by in “17 U.S. Code § 107” (“Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair use”). /120
Gordon Warren Epperly

P.O. Box 34358
Juneau, Alaska 99803
120/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Page 68 of 68

Non-Existant Amendments To The Constitution For The United States of America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non-Existant Amendments To The Constitution For The United States of America

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non-Existant Amendments To The Constitution For The United States of America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non-Existent Amendments

Nonprofit use permitted, all other rights reserved.

U.S. Constitution, Article V

The questionable Amendments are:

The precedence found to purge fraudulent Amendments to the Constitution

Question: “Who has the qualifications to state otherwise”?

1. No Amendment may violate International Law as that Law applies to “citizens”

The wording of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 makes it clear

“Every …. resolution … to which the concurrence of the Senate and House

3. A Joint Resolution proposing a Constitutional Amendment may contain no more

State v. Timme, /6 54 Wis. 318, 11 N.W. 785, 790

See also the below supporting Cases:

a. Kerby v. Luhrs, /7 36 P.2d 549 (Ariz. 1934);

6/ URL not located

9/ URL not located

10/ URL not located

13/ URL not located

14/ URL not located

a. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject

16/ URL not located

18/ URL not located

19/ URL not located

21/ URL not located

22/ URL not located

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1

e. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 2

g. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 3

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 4

6. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to substitute

7. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to authorize non-citizens

9. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to issue

a. a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to

b. a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving

c. the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of

d. the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without

e. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision

f. the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements

The first factor — a textually demonstrable commitment to another branch —

“A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of

“Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

“Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew

“Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana,

1) “That the Legislature go on record as exposing

2) “That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the invalid

3) “That the Congress of the United States be memorialized

4) “That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union

5) “That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with a copy

B. The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868:

2. “That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment

C. The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866:

1. “Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has

2. “This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that

3. “The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.

D. The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866: