-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
from:
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html
Click Here: <A HREF="http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html">The Real
Titles of Nobility Amendment FAQ</A>
The Real Titles of Nobility Amendment FAQ
Exposing extremist lies about the "Missing Thirteenth Amendment."
By Jol Silversmith
N.B., I have not revised this FAQ for some time, instead devoting my efforts
to writing a law review article that will explore the facts about the
"missing thrirteenth amendment" in greater detail, as well as more fully
expose the lies extremists tell about it. At some point in the future,
however, I do intend to integrate the additional information I have assembled
into this document...
v. 0.91 - 06/19/97
[Features/information intended to be included in v. 1.0 are in brackets.]
0) Table of Contents
1) What is this "Missing Thirteenth Amendment" I've heard about on the 'net?
2) Was there actually a Thirteenth Amendment that did not become part of the
Constitution?
3) Why was it proposed?
4) What became of the proposed amendment?
5) Why do a handful of extremists claim that it became part of the
Constitution?
a) Confusion about whether amendments had become part of the Constitution
b) Publication of an amendment as part of the Constitution by states is not
ratification
c) Ratification by Virginia would not have made the amendment part of the
Constitution
6) Would the amendment, as part of the Constitution, effect the eligibility
of lawyers to serve in government offices?
a) Domestic titles
b) Foreign titles
7) Who put forward this ludicrous theory?
8) Bibliography
1) What is this "Missing Thirteenth Amendment" I've heard about on the 'net?
Nothing you should be concerned about. It's one of the most ludicrous ideas
extremists have ever put forward, probably hoping that no one would actually
research the subject and expose their lies. But to understand what follows,
you should probably take a look for yourself at David Dodge's essay The
Missing Thirteenth Amendment. Another source for this document is via the
so-called Rule of Law Committee. Other sites may be out there; check via a
search engine such as Yahoo.
[Add Yahoo form search.]
2) Was there actually a Thirteenth Amendment that did not become part of the
Constitution?
Yes. In January 1810, Republican (the ancestors of the modern Democrats)
Senator Philip Reed introduced an amendment that, after twice being
considered by a committee, was approved by the Senate by a vote of 19 to 5 on
April 26, 1810. The House then on May 1, 1810 approved the amendment by a
vote of 87 to 3. (See Conklin at 123) As approved, the text was as follows:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain
any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress
accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind
whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall
cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding
any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
3) Why was it proposed?
No debates about the proposal survive, so it is a matter of some dispute. The
conventions that approved the Constitution in Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, and Rhode Island had advocated strengthening the Constitutional
requirement that any person holding office under the United States government
obtain the consent of Congress before accepting any present or title from a
foreign power. The First Congress considered similar proposals during the
discussion of the amendments that would become the Bill of Rights, but did
not submit any of them to the states. (See Ames at 186)
One theory is that the amendment was a reaction to the involvement of
Napoleon's nephew, Jerome Bonaparte, in American public life a few years
earlier. Nathaniel Macon (a Republican from North Carolina) noted that "he
considered the vote on this question as deciding whether or not we were to
have members of the Legion of Honor in this country." The Federalists thus
may have introduced the proposal in an attempt to embarrass francophile
Republicans, or alternatively supported the proposal in order to avoid
embarrassment about their own associations with the British aristocracy. (See
Ames at 187, Earle at 37) Another theory is that the amendment reflected the g
eneral animosity to foreigners evident before the War of 1812. (See Ames at
188, Conklin at 124)
There is not a shread of evidence to support the extremist theory that the
amendment was part of an international banking/legal conspiracy, as claimed
by extremists.
4) What became of the proposed amendment?
Twelve states ratified the amendment, not enough to make it part of the
Constitution under Article V of the Constitution, which requires ratification
of "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."
According to President James Monroe's Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams,
in reports dated February 3, 1818 and February 27, 1818, the following
actions transpired:
Ratifications:
Maryland December 25, 1810
Kentucky January 31, 1811
Ohio January 31, 1811
Delaware February 2, 1811
Pennsylvania February 6, 1811
New Jersey February 13, 1811
Vermont October 24, 1811
Tennessee November 21, 1811
Georgia December 31, 1811
North Carolina December 23, 1811
Massachusetts February 27, 1812
New Hampshire December 9, 1812
Rejections:
Connecticut May 13, 1813
New York March 12, 1812
Rhode Island September 15, 1814
No Action:
South Carolina
No Reply:
Virginia
(See CIS at 478, Conklin at 125) A secondary source further claims that the fe
deral government recorded that no action was taken upon the amendment by
Louisiana. (See Virginia Commission at 65)
Because the amendment was not submitted to the states with a time limitation,
it could still could be made part of the Constitution, if it were to attract
twenty-six additional ratifications. The prospects hardly seem likely, but
much the same was once said about the now-27th amendment, which is generally
credited to have been rescued from obscurity by Gregory Watson.
[Add information on Louisiana.]
5) Why do a handful of extremists claim that it became part of the
Constitution?
Because they think that, as part of the Constitution, the amendment would
prohibit lawyers from holding public office. They're wrong (see below).
Their argument is based upon the "discovery" that Virginia ratified the
amendment because it was included as part of the Constitution in a book of
state laws published as of March 12, 1819, as well as that various other
state and federal publications over the following fifty or so years included
the amendment as part of the Constitution. This claim is specious for several
reasons.
a) Confusion about whether amendments had become part of the Constitution
In the late 18th and 19th century there was frequent confusion about whether
amendments had become part of the Constitution. "At that time no legal
procedure existed to control the communication of action by States to the
Federal Government.... Uncertainty as to the status of this proposal
continued for eight years." The problems presented by this amendment led to a
law enacted on April 20, 1818, specifying a process for ascertaining
ratifications, today codified as 1 U.S.C. sec 106b. (See Virginia Commission
at 65-66)
Indeed, this amendment was not the only one of its era about which there was
ratification confusion. The Eleventh Amendment became effective on February
7, 1795, but was not officially acknowledged as being in effect until January
8, 1798. (See Virginia Commission) There are further examples of confusion,
such as about the two amendments submitted with the Bill of Rights that were
not ratified (at that time). (See Kammen)
In 1895 - less than thirty years after extremists claims that the amendment
was suppressed - Herman V. Ames (a historian, not a lawyer, by the way)
presented the history of The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States During the First Century of Its History to the American
Historical Association. The Association published the essay in 1896, and it
was also published as a Congressional Document in 1897.
Ames notes that many editions of the Constitution and school histories
erroneously included the amendment. Thus the misconception that the amendment
had become part of the Constitution was perpetuated. The fact that
publication does not serve as proof that the amendment was ratified is
vividly demonstrated by its inclusion as the Fifteenth Amendment in Emma
Willard's History of the United States, published in New York in 1829; the
twelve amendments sent out by the First Congress are all given as if
ratified. (See Ames at 189)
Earle argues that the amendment's appearance in "Laws of the United States of
America, From the 4th of March, 1789, to the 4th of March, 1815," prepared
for the Congress, was already an anachronism. (See Earle at 37) The editor,
John B. Colvin, noted in prefatory remarks contained in the first volume that
he was unsure of the status of the amendment:
There has been some difficulty in ascertaining whether the amendment
proposed, which is stated as the thirteenth ... has, or has not, been adopted
by a sufficient number of the state legislatures to authorize its insertion
as part of the constitution? The secretary of state very readily lent every
suitable aid to produce full information on the question; but the evidence to
be found in the office of that department is still defective. It has been
considered best, however, to publish the proposed amendment in its proper
place, as if it had been adopted, with this explanation, to prevent
misconception.
(See Conklin at 122)
The inclusion of the amendment in copies of the Constitution prepared for the
15th Congress led Weldon Nathaniel Edwards of North Carolina to propose a
resolution on December 31, 1817 to ask President Monroe to provide the House
with information as to which states had ratified. The resolution was approved
without opposition. (See Annals at 530)
This led Monroe's Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, to inquire of each
of the states about the status of the amendment. Monroe's final reply on
February 27, 1818 included the above list of state ratifications and
rejections, indicating that the amendment had not been ratified. (See CIS)
Contemporary Constitutional scholars noted that the amendment had not been
ratified. William Rawle wrote that it "has been adopted by some of the
states; but not yet by a sufficient number." (See Rawle at 120) Joseph Story
wrote that "it has not received the ratification of the constitutional number
of states to make it obligatory, probably from a growing sense, that it is
wholly unnecessary." (See Story at sec. 1346)
[Of which party was Edwards a member?]
b) Publication of an amendment as part of the Constitution by states is not
ratification
The publication of an amendment as part of the Constitution at best indicates
that the publishers who compiled the book (not necessarily the state
legislature) thought that it was part of the Constitution, and at worst that
sloppy editors were at work. Many publishers, especially non-government
publishers, were quite slipshod in confirming the text and passage of
amendments. (See Kammen) Colvin's erroneous inclusion of the amendment was oft
en copied, because a comprehensive new edition of United States statutes was
not issued until 1845. (See Conklin at 125)
For example, when territories were organized, Congress passed an Organic Act
that established the government for the territory. The form of government was
fairly uniform and based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. In most cases,
Congress gave territories a full set of statutes based on those of a neighbor
- thus likely repeating any errors in its text.
Errors frequently do occur in government publications; Ames's work, for
example, fails to note the one ratification the 27th Amendment received in
the 19th century, and it incorrectly states that the Titles of Nobility
Amendment came within one ratification of becoming part of the Constitution
(see below at 188). Congress determined that the publication of the amendment
in 1817 was based on an erroneous belief that South Carolina had ratified the
amendment. (See CIS)
On August 1, 1849, C. Robinson and J. M. Patton, who were preparing a new
edition of the code of Virginia for publication, wrote to William B. Preston,
Secretary of the Navy (for reasons that are not immediately clear, although
Preston was from Virginia), and noted that although the Titles of Nobility
Amendment was included in the Revised Code of 1819, "[w]e are satisfied that
this amendment was never adopted, though it is difficult to account for the
fact that it should have been put into the Code of 1819 as an amendment which
had been adopted." Preston relayed their letter to the State Department. John
M. Clayton, Secretary of State, responded that no copy of the amendment,
claiming to be part of the Constitution, had been deposited with the
Department; the amendment did not appear in a copy of the Constitution
printed under the direction of the Department of State in 1820. (See National
Archives)
Not to mention, for every time that the amendment was published, there were
many occasions on which it was notpublished (even according to the
information put forward by extremists, 17 states that joined the Union prior
to 1867, including half of the states that ratified the amendment, did not
publish it even once). Extremists also concede that many states that
published the amendment later acknowledged that it had been published in
error; no evidence is offered, of course, as to how international bankers
conspired to publish these false retractions.
Further, the publication of an amendment as part of the Constitution in a
compilation of state law cannot serve as a ratification. The Supreme Court
has ruled that "the power to ratify a proposed amendment to the federal
Constitution has its source in the federal Constitution." Hawke v. Smith, 253
U.S. 221, 230 (1920). As a result, the states must follow the procedures set
up by the federal government and the Constitution (amendments must be
ratified by convention or the legislature, as Congress may specify, and by no
other method). Hawke clearly establishes that the ratification of an
amendment cannot be accomplished through an ordinary act of legislation
(subject to addditional conditions such as veto by a governor) because the
ratification power is derived from the Constitution and not the people of a
state.
In addition, the extremists who claim that the amendment was ratified are
often the same extremists who claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was not
ratified, because of minor differences in spelling and punctuation in state
ratifications. Conveniently, they ignore the fact that there at least seven
slightly different versions of the amendment among the state ratifications on
file at the National Archives. (See National Archives)
c) Ratification by Virginia would not have made the amendment part of the
Constitution
Even if Virginia ratified the amendment at any time during the ratification
process, the amendment did not become part of the Constitution, because the
amendment was never just one state away from this threshold. If Virginia
ratified in 1819, as extremists claim, the ratification came far too late to
matter.
When the amendment was submitted to the states in 1810, 13 ratifications were
required; Louisiana was admitted to the Union on April 30, 1812, raising the
required number of ratifications to 14. Prior to that date the amendment had
received only 11 ratifications
New Hampshire ratified on December 9, 1812, raising the total number of
ratifications to 12 out of the needed 14. But Indiana was admitted on
December 11, 1816, raising the required number of ratifications to 15.
Mississippi's admission on December 10, 1817, did not change the threshold,
but Illinois's admission on December 3, 1818 raised the threshold to 16.
The extremist claim that these later states are not relevant, because an
amendment only needs the support of three-fourths of the states in existence
when it was submitted to the states. History reveals this claim to be
specious - and this fact was known at the time the amendment was under
consideration.
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states on September 25, 1789,
only 11 states were operating under the Constitution, so each amendment
required 9 ratifications to become part of the Constitution. But North
Carolina ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island on
May 29, 1790, raising the number of states required to 10, and Vermont joined
the Union on March 4, 1791, raising the number of states required to 11. (See
Wagman at 41) The official notice of ratification was not issued by Secretary
of State Thomas Jefferson until after notices of ratification had been
received from 11 states. (See Schwartz at 1202-03)
If the admission of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont had not changed
the amendment equation, the original First Amendment (dealing with the
apportionment of the House of Representatives) would be part of the
Constitution, because ten states ratified it. Similarly, the 27th Amendment
would not have required 38 ratifications to become part of the Constitution,
but have become part of the Constitution when, in 1983, it received its ninth
ratification.
In fact, if the admission of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont had
not changed the amendment equation, the Bill of Rights did not become part of
the Constitution until 1939, because only 8 of the 11 states that ratified it
in the 19th century were operating under the Constitution when the Bill of
Rights was submitted to the states (to celebarte the 150th anniversary of the
drafting of the Bill of Rights, Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts
ratified the first ten amendments in 1939).
In addition, the extremist claim that Constitutional requirements were
different in the early 19th century because new states were frequently
admitted to the Union is based on incorrect factual premises, as well as
being without any theoretical support. After the admission of Kentucky on
June 1, 1792, only four news states were admitted in the following 25 years
(Tennessee, 1796; Ohio, 1803; Louisiana, 1812; Indiana, 1816); the late 18th
and early 19th century was actually, statewise, a slow period of growth for
the Union.
6) Would the amendment, as part of the Constitution, effect the eligibility
of lawyers to serve in government offices?
No. This in particular is one of the most ludicrous claims ever put forward
by extremists.
a) Domestic titles
First, lawyers cannot be considered to hold titles of nobility by virtue of
being lawyers because Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution
contain provisions that clearly prohibit the states and the federal
government from granting titles:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person
holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent
of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any
kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.
No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make
anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill
of attainder, ex postfacto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts,
or grant any title of nobility.
For example, judges in the U.S. are typically addressed as "Your Honor," but
this is a matter of custom, not nobility.
The following court cases provide just a sampling of the ridiculous claims
put forward (oddly, mostly filed and lost by tax protesters):
U.S. v. Smith, 1991 WL 326647 (Civ. A. No. 91-A-292-S, M.D.Ala. 1991) - "Taxpa
yer" is not a title of nobility.
U.S. v. Riley, 1991 WL 192115 (Civ. A. No. 89-1403-T, D.Kan. 1991) - "Magistra
te" is not a title of nobility.
U.S. v. Singer, 1990 WL 161258 (No. 85-00283-01, E.D.Pa. 1990) - A "person"
as defined in the tax code is not a title of nobility.
Woodson v. Davis, 887 F.2d 1082 (4th Cir. 1989) - "Officer of the Court" is no
t a title of nobility.
Hilgeford v. People's Bank, 113 F.R.D. 161 (N.D.Ind. 1986) - Being a lawyer
is not a title of nobility.
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F.Supp. 50 (E.D.Wis. 1985) - Employment by the I.R.S.
is not a title of nobility.
Frederick v. Clark, 587 F.Supp. 789 (W.D.Wis. 1984) - Being a lawyer is not a
title of nobility.
White v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1981 WL 11137 (No. 1183-80, U.S.
Tax Ct. 1981) - Having a degree is not a title of nobility.
The only case cited by extremists to support their claim is the opinion of
Judge Saffold in Horst v. Moses, an Alabama case from 1872 (48 Ala. 129). Firs
t, the opinions in this case were delivered seriatim (individually by each
judge), so a single judge's opinion is of no precedential value. Second, the
opinion refers to the definition of "title of nobility" in the state, not
federal constitution, so it hasdubious relevance and no precedential value.
Third, the opinion has never been cited since, except in one law review
article in 1984, so its propositions can be safely dismissed as aberrations.
(See Delgado) Fourth, the subject matter of the case is whether a group of
individuals might be authorized by the state to conduct a lottery even while
a criminal statute prohibiting lotteries remained in place for all other
individuals. It was in this context only that Saffold wrote that "[t]o confer
a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges
are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily
hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed
to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order.... [The purpose
of the prohibition on titles of nobility in the state constitution] is to
preserve the equality of citizens in respect to their public and private
rights." (Id. at 142)
Lawyers are licensed to practice law state bar associations under the control
of the state Supreme Court and legislature. This type of regulation falls
under the police powers of the states; all professions such as lawyers,
doctors, barbers, as well as cosmetologists can be regulated by state
authorities. By extremist "logic," doctors, barbers, etc. therefore would be
subject to exclusion from office under the amendment.
b) Foreign titles
The next claim put forward by extremists is that because American lawyers are
referred to as "esquire" by the British Bar, an irrevocable title of nobility
has been conferred upon them. Another lie.
"Title of nobility" has a specific legal meaning that cannot be ignored;
although Nolan's Black's Law Dictionary is not a perfect reference source, its
definition is serviceable:
Nobility. In English law, a division of the people, comprehending dukes,
marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. These had anciently duties annexed
to their respective honors. They are created either by writ, i.e., by royal
summons to attend the house of peers, or by letters patent, i.e., by royal
grant of any dignity and degree of peerage; and they enjoy many privileges,
exclusive of their senatorial capacity.
Similar is a "title of honor":
Honor. In old English law, a seigniory of several manors held under one baron
or lord paramount. Also those dignities or privileges, degrees of nobility,
knighthood, and other titles, which flow from the crown as the fountain of
honor.
"Esquire" has two definitions, one noble, one not:
Esquire. In English law, a title of dignity next above gentleman, and below
knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers
at law, justices of the peace, and others. In United States, title commonly
appended after name of attorney; e.g. John J. Jones, Esquire.
(See Nolan)
Therefore, in addition to noting that the American usage of "Esquire" does
not depend on English sources, Black's clearly states that as used for
lawyers it is a "title of office" that does not flow from the Crown - it is
not inheritable, confers no special privileges, etc.
Further, the Disclaimer of Peerages Act 1963 allows British titles to be
disclaimed (although there is a limited time in which to do so), a notable
example being Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home, who left the House of Lords
to sit in the Commons. (See Whitaker's at 141) So even if the British Bar was
understood to confer titles of nobility on American lawyers, American lawyers
could simply refuse to accept them.
Extremists also make claims about the International Bar Association. The IBA,
a federation of national bar associations and individual members, was founded
in 1947. It does not confer titles; membership is voluntary; etc.
[Does the British Bar actually refer to U.S. lawyers as "esquire"?]
7) So who came up with this ludicrous theory?
Dodge is no mere archival researcher. He is a full-fledged extremist. This
piece was first published in August 1991 in Alfred Adask's AntiShyster, a
violently anti-lawyer publication - not exactly an impartial, respected
source.
For more on Dodge, ponder these excerpts:
Mueller, Phil, "Southern Utah Traffic Stop Escalates Into Constitutional
Battle," The Salt Lake Tribune, July 23, 1995:
David Castle is spending 30 days in jail rather than compromise his
fundamentalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
The month in the San Juan County Jail was handed down to the Albuquerque
precious-metals dealer last week by a 7th District judge, the result of
Castle's persistence in raising constitutional questions about Utah's traffic
laws during his jury trial on a weapons charge and various traffic charges.
Castle has been representing himself with the help of David Dodge, a fellow
constitutionalist from Miami who says he offers "personal assistance" to
people around the country who challenge the system on constitutional grounds.
Thursday, Dodge filed a motion that Anderson recuse himself from the case,
claiming the judge's order to have the pair singled out every time they enter
the courtroom, "is evidence of prejudice" against the two.
He claims Castle has a valid argument and is prepared to carry it to the U.S.
Supreme Court if necessary.
Castle said in an earlier interview that he considers driving a private
vehicle a "natural right."
France, Mike, "Homegrown Scholars Treat Framers' Work as a Bible to Gird
Anti-Government View," The National Law Journal, June 26, 1995:
[C]onstitutionalist writings almost never refer to mainstream legal thinkers,
and the movement's leaders [display] little familiarity with contemporary
constitutional debate.
"What they are doing is pulling together things that have some academic
respectability and distorting them and then mixing them with some silly,
ludicrous things," says Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor of constitutional law
at the University of Southern California.
Building on the core principles of the pecking order, the Organic
Constitution and natural man, constitutionalists have erected a wide variety
of esoteric theories. For example, one popular belief is that there is a
"missing" 13th Amendment which was validated by the states in the 1810s, but
which was suppressed by a conspiracy of bankers and lawyers. The effect of
this amendment-which was actually proposed by Congress in 1810 but never
officially ratified- would have allegedly been to prevent lawyers from
serving in government.
Extensive scholarship sometimes supports these theories. For example, a 137-
page book on "The Missing 13th Amendment" has been published by Alfred Adask,
the editor of AntiShyster, a Dallas, Texas, magazine critical of the legal
profession. The volume includes photocopies of state legislative records and
19th century versions of the Constitution that reprint the "missing"
amendment.
In spite of all of Mr. Adask's evidence, academic support for the theory is
slim. "I've never heard anyone reputable talking about that theory," says Mr.
Chemerinsky.
One of the nation's most well-known conservative constitutional scholars, who
requested anonymity out of fear of that his theories might be confused with
the constitutionalists, derides their thinking as "constitutional astrology."
"The level of real political alienation which drives them is scary," says
this scholar.
Then consider these excerpts about Alfred Adask's AntiShyster:
Steve Blow, "Primal scream now the voice of public's rage," The Dallas
Morning News, April 19, 1996:
Mr. Adask was deeply embittered by a trip through divorce court. And he
directed his rage toward reform of the legal system.
[Some of the] ads are chilling in their paranoia. "Government Control thru
Our Food Supply? Some say it's coming," warns an ad for a survivalist food
dealer.
"Go ahead, demonize them. Ridicule them. Put them under surveillance. Drive
them deeper into isolation and paranoia. And see what you have by the year
2000," he said. "You'll see missiles flying in your back yard."
Thomas Edwards, "Texan dissenters create own courts," San Antonio
Express-News, March 3, 1996:
One reason why common law courts seem to be growing slowly in popularity may
be linked to a belief that "the existing legal system doesn't serve" the
public - only attorneys, said Alfred Adask, the editor and publisher of the
Dallas-based AntiShyster magazine.
The magazine is a forum for constitutionalists who want to put the law back
into the hands of the common man and is crammed with articles on obscure
rulings and laws.
It also contains a standing $10,000 offer for any five attorneys to prove in
a debate they are both honorable human beings and proud to be members of the
state Bar Association.
France, Mike, "The Right-Wing Hates the Bar as well as the Federal
Government," The National Law Journal, May 8, 1995:
Packed with articles about the Uniform Commercial Code and the Constitution,
AntiShyster magazine is a little like a law review-though certainly not one
for lawyers. It features cartoons of robed barristers beating Lady Justice
with hammers, and it's laced with ads for survivalist stores and ammunition
outlets. The Dallas-based bimonthly is dedicated to the proposition that "our
legal system is a con-game, a hustle, a scam, a criminal activity that
depends on the public's confidence (ignorance and blind trust)."
And who reads AntiShyster? Publisher Alfred Adask, who calls lawyers "punks,
weaklings, con artists and losers," says that more than half of his estimated
45,000 readers are members of the so-called patriot movement, the right-wing
fringe that allegedly spawned suspected Oklahoma City bomber Timothy J.
McVeigh. Many also belong to local citizen militias.
Late last March, says Mr. Keene, several members of the Texas Common Law
Militia attended Preparedness Expo '95, a three-day seminar in the Dallas
Convention Center on topics such as self-defense, self- reliant living and
food and water storage. One attraction: a lecture by Mark Koernke, a
right-wing radio personality and one-time leader of the Michigan Militia who
has been linked to Mr. McVeigh. Another featured speaker was Bo Gritz, who
ran as the vice-presidential candidate on the Populist Party ticket headed by
David Duke and who has been linked to the Ku Klux Klan.
Joining Mr. Koernke and Mr. Gritz was Mr. Adask, publisher of AntiShyster.
And the groups that have been active in the civil litigation reform movement
are careful to distance themselves from the far right.
Americans For Legal Reform, a vocal Melville, N.Y., protest group that wants
to put limits on the ability of lawyers to run for office, also takes pains
to separate itself from AntiShyster. "Al [Adask] has gone off on a couple of
tangents that we don't particularly agree with," says publicity director
Harvey Kash.
But while Mr. Adask may seem extreme to HALT or Americans For Legal Reform,
his views are mild compared with those of some of his readers, says Rick
Schramm, of Right Way l.a.w., a Uniontown, Ohio, club that offers seminars on
Bible-based pro se legal advocacy. Mr. Schramm, who says that his school
condemns racism, says that several teachers in the self-help legal movement
are white supremacists.
"Some of these guys say that the only people who have any rights in court are
white, Christian men," says Mr. Schramm.
These are the people that Mr. Adask says lawyers should really worry about.
Although he is opposed to violence, Mr. Adask has revealed in his own pages
that he "gave serious consideration to murdering the judge and the lawyer
that represented my ex-wife in our divorce," but rejected the idea. He warns
that others may not be so reasonable.
Alfred Adask, "Daddy, Why Doesn't the Vice President Like You?,"
Anti-Shyster, January 1992, at 12-13:
Our entire judicial system has become an extortion racket designed to enrich
lawyers at the expense of productive members of society. Almost every
licensed, practicing lawyer is a beneficiary and co-conspirator in that
extortion racket....
Lawyers are 'political racketeers,' 'economic cannibals,' and 'social
parasites' who 'help... destroy America for a buck.' Lawyers are: 98% bad
people, lousy Americans, ethical cowards, professional sociopaths who are
almost certainly the primary cause of the social and economic decline of this
nation.
8) Bibliography
"Amendment proposed to the Constitution in relation to titles of nobility,
&c.," 15th Cong., CIS No: ASP038 Misc. 446
Ames, Herman V., "The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States During the First Century of Its History," H. Doc. 353, 54th Cong,
Sess. 2 (1897).
Annals of Congress, 15th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 530.
Conklin, Curt E., The Case of the Phantom Thirteenth Amendment: A Historical
and Bibliographical Nightmare," Law Library Journal, Winter 1996, p. 121-127.
Delgado, Richard, "Inequality 'From the Top': Applying an Ancient Prohibition
to an Emerging Problem of Distributive Justice," UCLA Law Rveiew, October
1984, p. 100-134. Earle, W. H., "The Phantom Amendment and the Duchess of
Baltimore," American History Illustrated, November 1987, p. 33-39.
Kammen, Michael. A Machine That Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in Americ
an Culture, New York: Knopf, 1986.
National Archives, "Unratified Amendments, 1810 and 1924." Series RG-11.
Washington, DC.
Nolan, Joseph R., and Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th
ed., St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1990.
Rawle, William, A View of the Constitution, Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin,
1829, p. 120.
Schwartz, Roots of Bill of Rights
Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Constitution, Boston: Charles C. Little and
James Brown, 1833, sec. 1346.
Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, The Constitution of the
United States of America, With a Summary of the Actions by the States in
Ratification of the Provisions Thereof, To Which is Appended, for its
Historical Interest, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America,
1961.
Wagman, Robert J., The First Amendment Book, New York: World Almanac, 1991,
p. 41.
Whitaker's Almanac, 128th ed., London: J. Whitaker, 1996, p. 141.
[Add exact page citations here and throughout FAQ.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This web site is maintained by Jol Silversmith. Please email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with comments, etc.
* Any opinions are my own, and should not be construed as legal advice, etc.
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
All My Relations.
Omnia Bona Bonis,
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
