:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold a Free Conference Call every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Thirteenth Amendment

The forum is for discussing the myths found on the Team Law website's Patriot Mythology page.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Christopher
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Friday July 22nd, 2005 7:52 pm MDT

Thirteenth Amendment

Postby Christopher » Friday July 22nd, 2005 8:29 pm MDT

Greetings.

On the Team Law website in various places a thirteenth amendment is made mention of.

One section states:

"...Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution the (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national Constitution's 13th Article of Amendment and the national Constitution's 13th, 14th and 15th Articles of Amendment are respectively numbered 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments in their constitution."

This intrigued me to look into the matter further based on an article I had read some time ago.

The purpose of my writing Team Law is to inquire of Team Law's position in regard to what exactly Team Law considers the thirteenth amendment issue (mentioned in various places on the Team Law website) to be and then to better understand the basis of that position.

Until I am better able to understand Team Law's position on this matter I would like to submit the crux of the aforementioned article below:

The sources cited below were taken from an article that was published in the Spring of 1999 in Volume 8, Issue 2 of the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal entitled: "The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility."

The author, Jol A. Silversmith, cites numerous sources that appear to make it quite clear that the thirteenth amendment (also known as the Titles of Nobility Amendment) was never properly ratified and was therefore included erroneously in many official and unofficial publications and documents.

The author cites, among others, as evidence, the 1815 edition of the United States Statutes at Large (the "Bioren edition") in which the editor, John B. Colvin, made the following prefatory remarks regarding the thirteenth amendment's inclusion in the earlier edition:

"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."

(1 Laws of the United States of America, supra note 54, at ix, 1815.)*

The author also cites the 1848 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, which states that the thirteenth amendment "has been recommended by Congress, but has not been ratified by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitution."

(2 John Bouvier, Law Dictionary 211-12 (Philadelphia, T. & J.W. Johnson, 3rd ed., 1848).)*

Although aspect(s) of the author's argument(s) may be/are flawed and regardless of his bias, it seems that the numerous sources cited, over 200, a good deal of which are from well before the 1871-1878 era, agree that the thirteenth amendment was never properly ratified and therefore could not be "missing" as it did not belong where it was originally "found" anyway.

I have not reviewed the * documents personally and am in the process of doing so.

If Team Law can shed light on this matter, it certainly would be greatly appreciated.

I look forward to supporting all that Team Law has accomplished!

Thanks, Christopher.

P.S. Thank you for providing an open forum for discussion!
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Albert Einstein

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Thirteenth Amendment

Postby Admin » Monday July 25th, 2005 3:44 am MDT

:h: Christopher,
You ask an interesting question:
Christopher wrote:What is Team Law's position in regard to … the thirteenth amendment issue?
Team Law’s position is: the record speaks for itself. After a thorough review of the actual physical records it is obvious that the Amendment was in fact ratified, without question. The information you showed in your inquiry was all third party opinion, which has no bearing on the facts and is not even admissible as evidence in any court. All of the records we reviewed were actual records of original documents, and they proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the amendment was properly ratified on, or before, December 7th, 1818; when Virginia provided the final ratification needed to adopt the new amendment into the nation’s Constitution. In our WARN newsletter Vol. 1 Issue 2 we featured an article regarding the nation’s 13th Amendment. That article looks at all of the popular pro and con arguments regarding the amendment and because that review is available to all WARN subscribers we will not go into that review in detail here. We will however add the following excerpt from that issue:
In WARN Vol. 1 Issue 2, The 13th Amendment, Team Law wrote: By the end of 1814, only 12 states had ratified. On December 31st, 1817, the House of Representatives dispatched a letter to the President of the United States, stating:
The United States, House of Representatives wrote:“Resolved, that the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before the House of Representatives, information of the number of states, which have ratified the thirteenth article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, proposed at the second Session of the eleventh Congress.”
In response:
President James Monroe wrote:To the house of representatives
“Pursuant to a resolution of the house of representatives of the 31st of decr. last requesting information of the number of states which had ratified the 13th article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, I transmit to the house a detailed report from the secretary of state, which contains all the information that has been received upon that subject. No time will be lost in communicating to the house the answers of the governors of the states South Carolina and Virginia, to the inquiries stated by the secretary of state to have been recently addressed to them, when they are received at that department. Washington february 4, 1818”. (All spelling, abbreviations, capitalization and punctuation in this and in the following documents are reproduced here exactly as they were in the original documents)
Then the Secretary of State obeyed the President’s request with the following notification:
At, Report Book, Vol. 3, pages 14, 15 the Secretary of State wrote:“The President of the United States Department of State 3r february
“The secretary of state, to whom was referred a resolution of the house of representatives of the 31st of december last requesting information of the number of states which have ratified the thirteenth article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, proposed at the second session of the eleventh congress, has the honor respectfully to report to the president, that it appears, by authentic documents, on file in the office of the department of state that the said article was ratified —
“By
1. Maryland, on Dec. 25th, 1810.
2. Kentucky, on Jan. 31st, 1811.
3. Ohio, on Jan. 31st, 1811.
4. Delaware, on Feb. 2nd, 1811.
5. Pennsylvania, on Feb. 6th, 1811.
6. New Jersey, on Feb. 13th, 1811.
7. Vermont, on Oct. 24th, 1811.
8. Tennessee, on Nov. 21st, 1811.
9. Georgia, on Dec. 13th, 1811.
10. N. Carolina, on Dec. 23rd, 1811.
11. Massachusetts, Feb. 27th, 1812.
12. New Hampshire, Dec. 10th 1812.
“That it further appears, by authentic documents, also on file, that the said article was rejected — By
13. New York, on March 12th, 1812.
14. Rhode Island on Sept. 15th 1814.
“That 15. It was submitted to the legislature of the state of Connecticut at May session, 1811; but that, as late as the 22nd of April, 1813, according to a letter of that date from governor Smith, no final decision had taken place thereon: that in pursuance of the resolution of the house of representatives in conformity to which this report is made, the secretary of state addressed a letter to governor of Connecticut, and enclosed to him, at the same time, a copy of the proposed amendment to the constitution, requesting information as to any final decision in relation to it, and that the answer to said letter, under date of the 22nd ultimo was accompanied by a copy of resolutions of the general assembly of that commonwealth, declaring that the amendment was not ratified.
“That 16. On the 29th of november, 1811. a report was made by committee of the senate of South Carolina, recommending the adoption of the senate of South Carolina, recommending the adoption of the amendatory article, which report was agreed to, and ordered to be sent to the house of representatives, in which house a report was also made on the subject on the 7th of december, 1813. recommending the rejection of the said article, but which report does not appear to have been definitively acted upon by that house: That the secretary of state addressed to the governor of South Carolina a letter, with a copy of the amendment, of a like tenor to that which he addressed to the governor of Connecticut, to which he has not hitherto received any answer.
“And that 17. A similar letter accompanied also by a copy of the amendment was written by the secretary of state to the governor of Virginia, from whom, up to this period, no answer has been received, at the department of state, on the subject.
All which is respectfully submitted”

From the national archives, we have certified copies of letters sent from the Secretary of State to the governors of Connecticut, South Carolina and Virginia, on or before February 3rd, 1818. The letters informed the respective governors that the President was concerned over being postponed from being able to report to Congress whether the amendment was ratified or denied because the governors had not reported the outcome of the ratification process. The letters requested information as to any final decision in relation to the XIIIth Amendment.
The amendment was presented to the Connecticut legislature in their May session of 1811. However, if Connecticut had either ratified or rejected the amendment, the Secretary of State would not have sent the letter to Connecticut’s governor. Later it appears that Connecticut chose not to ratify.
Records indicate that the South Carolina Senate committee recommended ratification, their Senate agreed and ordered ratification to be sent to their House of Representatives, in which a report recommending rejection was made on December 7th, 1813. However, if South Carolina either ratified or rejected the amendment, prior to the Secretary of State’s letter it would not have been sent to South Carolina’s governor.
Then on February 27th, 1818, President, James Monroe. sent a letter to the House of Representatives confirming that South Carolina declined to ratify.
The only state remaining undecided was Virginia and if Virginia ratified, the XIIIth Amendment would become Law.
On March 21st, 1818, the Virginia State Department’s journal reveals,
“Upon a return from the Executive of Virginia for which as application has been made by this Department, it will be known with precision what is the fate of the proposed (13th) amendment, and no time will be lost in communicating it to you.” (to the House of Representatives)
“The President has just sent a message to Congress by which you will perceive that the views of the Senate of Harrisburg (Virginia) have not escaped the attention of this Government, in the matter referred to. The message will probably be printed with the proceedings of Congress and appear in the public prints, in a few days.”

Remember this letter was written on, March 21st, 1818.
Then, on December 7th, 1818, Virginia, knowing that they were the one remaining key to ratification, celebrated ratification by publishing their, ACTS PASSED AT A GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; wherein they, ordered a printing [over 4,000 copies] of “The constitution of the United States, and the amendments thereto.” Virginia’s Assembly reviewed the publication and ruled it to be accurately and correctly printed.
Virginia continued to celebrate by sending copies of the publication to: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, the attorney general, and to each United States court judges in Virginia.
The XIIIth Article of Amendment was now Law.
Following Virginia’s ratification most States and territories printed the amendment as ratified with their respective State Laws and statutes. From that time through the Civil War it is apparent by the publications still available that the amendment was ratified and acted upon for at least 50 years.
The only question that remains after all historical evidences are reviewed is the question regarding the Secretary’s entry of the ratification into the record. That record is not evident. Some would say that because the Secretary apparently did not enter Virginia’s ratification in the record as is required of the Secretary, by law, then the Amendment is not ratified. More accurately, if the Secretary did not obey the law and enter the ratification, that error is merely a clerical error that needs to be corrected. The fact that Virginia did ratify is clear and that is that. We therefore recognize the amendment as law because the records, without question, show that it is.

Any third party or after the fact opinion is without merit when considered against the facts.

Further, the quotes you showed are such third party quotes, all of which also present illogical conclusions, for example:
John B. Colvin wrote: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."
Think about it, if the publication was made "to prevent misconception", would it not make sense not to publish if there was a question of ratification? The first two of the twelve bills in the Bill of Rights, were passed by Congress, but were not ratified and they were not published. A relatively short time ago, Corp. U.S. entered the 27th amendment when it got its final ratifying state vote. The Amendment was passed with the Bill of rights and had remained from then until its recent ratification to be published as an amendment. If Colvin’s logic holds then any proposed amendment to the Constitution should be published “to prevent misconception”. Such logic obviously speaks to the contrary, if there is a question then you do not publish. In the case of the 13th Amendment, its ratification is unquestionable.

We realize you were not sharing your own opinion; rather you were presenting what you have already found on the subject from published attorneys. The amendment’s ratification is not in their best interest and can easily be seen as a challenge against any such persons being able to serve in office without a direct congressional appointment; therefore it is no surprise that parties from that profession would not want that amendment in place. Again the best source for proof of any matter is to go to the source, not to third party opinions.

We hope this information is helpful to you. :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Saturday March 18th, 2006 4:13 pm MST, edited 1 time in total.
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Geibes
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 116
Joined: Friday July 8th, 2005 12:34 pm MDT

Postby Geibes » Monday July 25th, 2005 7:45 am MDT

So then how many ammendments does the constitution of the original jurisdiction United States have and how are they numbered?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Monday July 25th, 2005 3:35 pm MDT

:h: geibes

The Constitution of the United States of America has 16 Articles of amendment. They are numbered exactly like Corp. U.S.’ United States Constitution except for the nations 13th Article is not included in Corp. U.S.’ and the nation’s 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are numbered 13th, 14th and 15th, in Corp. U.S.’ United States Constitution.

We hope this information is helpful to you. :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Christopher
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Friday July 22nd, 2005 7:52 pm MDT

Postby Christopher » Monday July 25th, 2005 11:13 pm MDT

Greetings.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my previous query.

I realized later that evening that the only alternate position in relation to the facts as they are is opposition. I misphrased the question.

Entirely my fault.

Is Team Law aware of any court action(s) predicated on the fact that the thirteenth amendment was ratified and if so what was the substance/outcome of said action(s)?

Also, can Team Law describe the specific details of who is harmed, why they are harmed and how they are harmed by the existence of the thirteenth amendment?


Thanks, Christopher.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.

Albert Einstein

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Tuesday July 26th, 2005 12:39 am MDT

:h: Christopher:

We are aware of no court actions predicated on the fact that the thirteenth amendment was ratified. Further, we cannot imagine why any would be. There was no contest to its ratification. Its ratification was legal and lawful. Its ratification secured the Constitutional Republic nature of our government.

The simple fact remains, the amendment is not missing and therefore there is no cause for any court action. The 13th Article of Amendment was honored (published and accepted) throughout the country right up through the Civil War, when it became apparent to the North that they were going to have to do some things that were not allowed in the Constitution both in the conquered southern states and in their intended western expansion—that something would require that powers of governance needed to be compelled over the people as it is done in Monarchies. To accomplish such they would need a private corporate nature to operate from, through which they could privately contract with the people (and others), so they formed Corp. U.S. The fact that Corp. U.S. was created in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, was legal and lawful. The fact that they adopted their own constitution for that private corporation was also legal and lawful. If they did not want to adopt the nation’s Constitution as the Corp. U.S. constitution, that was their business and again it was perfectly legal and lawful. All of this results in no cause of action; therefore, any action raised to contest such would of its own nature be frivolous.

Constitutional amendments do not and cannot lawfully harm anyone, they control government. We are aware of no harm created by limiting government with the nations 13th Article of Amendment. The amendment only has power to limit and control privileges granted by government; therefore, limiting such privileges cannot be defined as harming anyone.

We hope this information is helpful to you. :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Friday July 29th, 2005 9:54 pm MDT, edited 3 times in total.
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Geibes
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 116
Joined: Friday July 8th, 2005 12:34 pm MDT

Postby Geibes » Tuesday July 26th, 2005 11:04 am MDT

So again pardon my ignorance (although I suppose I'm in the same boat as 95% of "citizens of the states United" - hope I got the right term - with the exception that I've taken the time to turn off the TV and get off my butt and investigate it) but do I have the articles of Amendment correct when I say (using Avalon project's titles):

XII: Manner of Choosing the President and Vice President
XIII: No Titles of Nobility (my title, not Avalon's)
XIV: Slavery abolished
XV: Citizen's rights not to be abridged
XVI: Race no bar to voting rights

and that's it for the original jurisdiction or nation Constitution.

As an aside, so then the income tax amendment XVI was for the corp US and as long as you're not a member (employee?) of corp US then you wouldn't have to pay income taxes, right? I realize you advocate better ways of handling corp US (operate in their system but not of it - I think I read that you use IRS form 1041 but I can't find where I read that again) and from what I gather, becoming a beneficiary will open up more avenues of education. :ro

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Tuesday July 26th, 2005 3:26 pm MDT

:h: geibes:

Though we do not necessarily agree with the Avalon project's titles, it seems like you have them listed correctly for the nation’s Constitution of the United States of America.
geibes wrote:As an aside, so then the income tax amendment XVI was for the Corp. U.S. and as long as you're not a member (employee?) of Corp. U.S. then you wouldn't have to pay income taxes, right?
You are correct that the Corp. U.S. 16th Amendment has no application in original jurisdiction; however, that amendment was simply a space filler and did not change anything, as the Supreme Court’s reviews of its effect have repeatedly shown.

Further, whether or not that amendment had any effect, taxes are bound to individual taxpayers liability to pay them, regardless of original jurisdiction government and its laws. We know no membership relation with Corp. U.S. If by your reference to a “member” you mean employee of Corp. U.S., that is not the only cause for tax liability so we would have to disagree. If you owe taxes and you don’t pay them you may suffer the consequences of United States Government enforcement of such obligations. As we said tax liability is a broader issue than just whether a person is a Corp. U.S. employee. Each situation is different and therefore each situation requires the parties involved with it to know the nature of their agreement. A good place to start to understand how to review such a liability would likely be our Open Forum topic: Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole
geibes wrote: I realize you advocate better ways of handling Corp. U.S. (operate in their system but not of it - I think I read that you use IRS form 1041 but I can't find where I read that again) and from what I gather, becoming a beneficiary will open up more avenues of education.
We advocate no cause other than: the importance of discovering who you are; which takes you right to the next and most important thing, prayer; with that, it is always wise to obey, honor and sustain the law, none of which can be done if you do not know the law; therefore, we must learn the law from the source (God’s law first, then man’s); which brings us to the necessity of learning history or you will not likely understand the law; then comes honorable application of the law as you live, building up your stewardship; that is to say follow the law.

These admonitions are exactly why Team Law does not do your work for you rather it helps you educate yourself. We also believe this is the cornerstone of our success and the very thing that will cause us to win our nation back. Instead of us knowing how to do everything and doing your work for you we help the people build a nation of people that can do it themselves.

As to the requirement of living in the world but not of it, that is biblical.

As to using any particular form for filing tax returns with IRS. The Office of Management and Budget (hereinafter “OMB”) is the Corp. U.S. agency that has the authority over authorizing what forms are used for what purposes. So far as we are aware, the IRS Form 1041 you mention is the form the OMB authorized for taxpayers that are trusts or estates. To follow the admonition of following the law, one would first have to discover how the law applies to their situation and then act accordingly. In the case of tax liability, the individual taxpayer would have to determine what their tax liability was (if any) and then properly take care of it. If you owed taxed following the law would require you to pay them if you did not following the law would forbid any tax collector from compelling you to pay that which you did not owe. Learning how to use the law to legally and lawfully support your situation would simply be the wisest course of action you could possibly take. It is not our job to show you what the elements of your situation are, it is our job to help our beneficiaries educate themselves such that they can do such things on their own.

Being a Team Law beneficiary definitely opens up or broadens one’s avenues of education.
We hope this information is helpful to you. :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Dubhghlas
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Friday January 20th, 2006 8:27 pm MST

Postby Dubhghlas » Sunday January 29th, 2006 7:07 pm MST

I have a question concerning this 13th amendment as well.

The titles of nobility amendment was proposed in 1810 when 17 states were in the union.

By 1819 it became apparent that 13 states had ratified this amendment, but by 1819 there were 24 states in the union.

Wouldn't this increase the amount of states needed to ratify this amendment to make it law?

Or, does the amount of states needed to ratify depend on the amount that were present when the amendment was proposed?

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Postby Citizensoldier » Monday February 6th, 2006 6:57 am MST

Team Law has provided an excellent review of the 13th amendment in their audiotape titled, The 13th Amendment. I have found the indepth reviews contained on the various audiotapes available from Team Law to be indispensible in not only understanding the subject matter presented, but also the historical facts supporting those subjects.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Thirteenth Amendment

Postby Admin » Saturday March 18th, 2006 4:06 pm MST

:h: Dubhghlas:
That’s a good question and the answer varies depending on who you ask or the time period when you ask the question. The Constitution neither raises the question nor does it identify an answer, because the founding fathers never considered anyone would understand it any differently than exactly as the rule for ratification was written. Everyone simply accepted ratification of an amendment was offered to the States when Congress Passed the amendment. The territories were forbidden from participation in the ratification process so even if they became States while ratification was taking place they had no vote because they were already forbidden from the process when the Amendment was passed. There was never a question on this matter until Corp. U.S. dropped the 13th amendment from the constitution they adopted. So if you asked that question up until 1871, the original jurisdiction answer would have been, “Only States offered the opportunity to ratify an amendment when it is passed can ratify.” And, if you were to ask the question after 1917 you would likely get the answer, “Once an amendment is passed by Congress, it remains on the books open for state ratification at any time it receives sufficient ratifying votes from the total of states at the time of the final ratifying vote.”

That original jurisdiction answer to your question should be obvious by the President of the United States of America’s response to Congress (shown above in our first response to this topic). Congress asked the President for a full report of the results of the ratification process to date, so they could give the states that had not voted so far a push. The President’s report (which Congress accepted as the full report) did not include the new States and a review of the newly added States’ legislative records shows the amendment was never even presented to any of their legislative bodies for ratification. Congress did not contact those new States at all regarding the matter even though they were pushing the States for their answers so the matter could be settled once and for all. Therefore the meaning of the rule was obvious to: the founding fathers, Congress, the old States, the new States, the people and the courts. Because, they all accepted the ratification of the 13th Amendment at that time and no one even questioned its publication as part of the Constitution of the United States of America for the next over 50 years.

However, when you ask that question of current Corp. U.S. Congressmen they respond with their example of their 27th amendment; which was actually the unratified first amendment as it was proposed with the Bill of Rights Congress passed. The original jurisdiction States never ratified it so it was discarded from the Bill of Rights. Around 1992, Corp. U.S.’ Congress gave themselves yet another raise; to combat the fuss their constituents accordingly made Congress resurrected the discarded amendment and put it before the Corp. States for ratification. When they received the additional votes needed they killed two birds with one stone: They quieted the fuss from their constituents and proved their new interpretation of the ratification rule, thus creating another smoke screen over the off the record (unpublished) logical progression (excuse) Congress used to answer the questions they were more and more receiving about the so called, “missing 13th amendment”.

No such question ever had need to be raised until Corp. U.S. was formed with its adopted version of the original Constitution, lacking the then well recognized original 13th amendment.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Patriot Mythology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest