JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE; THE PURPORTED 14th AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER LAWFULLY ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE/QUESTION
How can a court/hearing officer take an oath to support the Constitution, then use a jurisdiction known as the 14th Amendment? When no lawyer/attorney can successfully defend Article 1 Sec. 3, 7 and Article 4 Sec. 3, Article 5, and Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution and at the same moment contend that the 14th Amendment was legally passed because if he/she does so contend, he/she must repeal the provisions of Article 1 section 3 U.S. Constitution a “Constitutional Congress”, Section 7 “submitted to the President for his approval “Article 4 Sec. 3 ” No state shall be formed” and Article 5 in reference to the ratification of Amendments to the Federal Constitution” ” and ” equal suffrage in Senate” and the Supremacy Clause Article 6 paragraph 2 “Supreme Law of the Land” in order to say the said 14th Amendment is LAWFUL pursuant to his/her OATH to support the Federal Constitution.
EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
“I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the [14th] amendment was properly approved and adopted.” (See attached State v. Phillips, 540 P. 2d 936, 941, Supreme Court of Utah, Sept. 15, (1975)).
https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1975/13816-0.html
The 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. Congress knows this. Every member of Congress received a copy Congressional research service report in 2000 and an updated version every year until 2012. Order Code 98-611 GOV prepared for members and committees of Congress. Page 5 of this report which is CRS-2, top paragraph, makes clear that FAKE Executive Order 6 did not have the signature of the President only the Secretary of State. So, it’s not even a real Executive Order. Ordered the 14th Amendment ratified. (NOTE the US State Department at first put a different incorrect report after the fact in the pdf online under this order code until I called and pointed it out. So they took it off their website altogether.)(But here it is on a dot Edu web site. )
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5247/m1/1/high_res_d/98-611gov_2003Feb10.pdf
(Booked as Fake Presidential proclamation # 11 at 15 Statue at Large page 706) http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=739
The second paragraph of the appendix 15 Stat. @707 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=740 of Presidential proclamation 11 the Secretary of State makes clear He’s not legally obligated to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of state legislatures, or as to the power of any state legislature to recall a prevision act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution.
NOTE: This question of law has yet to be decided (UNTIL NOW).
Then the Secretary goes on to say in the third paragraph of said appendix saying the 14th Amendment was said “Ratified by newly constituted established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures respectively of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana. South Carolina, and Alabama”.
The joint resolution proposed the 14th Amendment was not submitted by the two houses for the approval of the President, in violation of Article 1 sec. 7, Secretary of State, as detailed in the accompanying report, are to be considered as purely ministerial, and in no sense, whatever committing the Executive to an approval or a recommendation of the amendment to the state legislatures or to the people.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=058/llsj058.db&recNum=562&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_IXZI::%230580563&linkText=1
Exhibit (D) 113 Cong. Rec. Volume 113, Part 12 (June 13, 1967) THE 14TH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION? House Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress to declare the 14th amendment illegal. Also, include in the RECORD an informative and well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th Amendment – the play toy of our secessionist judges – which has been prepared by Judge Leander H. Perez, of Louisiana. The material referred to as follows; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1967-pt12/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1967-pt12-2-1.pdf Pages 15641-15646 Congressional Record. Page 15646 center of the page makes clear judges take an oath to support the Constitution which stricks with null the 14th Amendment.
EXHIBIT (E) 61st Congress 2nd Session. The validity of fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution: Argument of Hon. T. U. Sisson of Mississippi on behalf of H. J. res. 165, before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on March 21, 1910, found the 14th and 15th Amendments were not adopted in accordance with the United States Constitution.
https://lccn.loc.gov/10035501
EXHIBIT (F) Congressional Record Page 4404, 1909 Makes clear the 14th Amendment was said ratified by de facto legislatures https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1909-pt4-v44/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1909-pt4-v44-21-1.pdf “While the sole function of Congress with respect to amendments is to propose to the States such amendments as two-thirds of both Houses see fit, ‘to be ratified or rejected, either by state legislatures or conventions, yet Congress in this instance did not permit all the States too so act upon this proposed amendment. What is known as the “reconstruction acts” were in operation in 10 States, though President Johnson had held them unconstitutional, while a hurried Act of Congress intercepted and prevented a consideration by the Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of these acts. Under these acts existing state governments were abolished and new governments, created by a convention of delegates made up largely of negroes, were substituted. Under this regime, if a state government was about to reject the proposed amendment it was promptly deposed and one of those new governments at once installed, whose action would insure immediate ratification. This course seems to have been at direct variance with the constitutional provision, which directs that only “legislatures” or “conventions” in the States are given authority to ratify or reject amendments proposed by Congress. Congress can only direct as to whether a State shall act on an amendment by its legislature or a convention, and with this, the power of Congress terminates. Lincoln’s great Secretary of State, William H. Seward, was an exceedingly able lawyer; he had remained in this official position under Pi: President Johnson’s administration. The act of Congress of 1818 made it the official duty of the Secretary of State to certify whether an amendment has become a part of the Constitution by being duly ratified by the States. Secretary Seward issued two proclamations with reference to the ratification of this amendment, instead of the usual one. When he issued the first proclamation, his legal knowledge and sense of justice did not permit him to recite therein that this amendment had been duly ratified by three-fourths of the States, but, instead, this proclamation declared that the amendment had been ratified’ by the legislatures of certain States-naming them-and that in six States it had been ratified “by newly constituted and established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures, respectively. “In other words, they were ratified by de facto legislatures”.
Texas house Journals 1866 page 577-584 The 14th Amendment is Unlawful also see page 581 “Military Government”. https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/Housejournals/11/10131866_574.pdf
Page 577, State of Texas: “The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article V., providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from Congress proposing the amendment. The Constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation. in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity”.
SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
To create a different “citizen” “subject to” a different “jurisdiction” “a national Debt” “take away guaranteed State Rights” “Change the way the Senate is Chosen” and a “different” form of government. And replaced it with the one the Constitution originally created using several Unconstitutional Acts POINTS: 1- 15 below demonstrate outright TREASON, and MISPRISION of TREASON for duty-bound officials to do nothing when made aware.
POINT 1. The strongest argument against the validity of the 14th Amendment is it violates the “Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution Article 6 Paragraph 2, which states: “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 original Article 4 Section 2, state-citizen was not a corporation. Bank of Augusta v. Earle 38 U.S. (13 Pet) 510, 10 L. Ed. 274 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=38&invol=519
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Page 591 (in part). It became part of the Organic law July 28, 1868. It created or at least recognized for the first time a citizen of the United States as distinct from that of the State(ARTICLE 4 SEC.2 US CONSTITUTION ORIGINAL STATE CITIZEN).
In 1862, Congress redefined the meaning of the word PERSON to include the definition CORPORATION, AMONG OTHER THINGS. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012%2Fllsl012.db&recNum=490
In 1868 the 14th Amendment made all “PERSONS”, “CITIZENS” of the “UNITED STATES”, and “subject to” the “JURISDICTION” thereof.
This is why the US Supreme Court says a “person” is a “corporation” within the meaning of the equal protection due process provision of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.” Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Ward Ala. 470 U.S. 869, 105 S.Ct. 1676 at 1683, 84 L.Ed. 2d. 751. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=470&invol=869
The Organic U.S. Constitutional Republic doesn’t have any Article 4 Section 2 Citizens to have a BODY POLITIC to support our Organic Constitutional Republic form of Government due to the American People(without knowledge /or consent) have been made Reconstruction 14th Amendment Citizens instead.
JAMES MADISON’S AND THOMAS JEFFERSON’S KENTUCKY VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OF 1798
POINT 2. The said 14th Amendment violates James Madison’s and Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Virginia Resolution of 1798 by Unlawfully given powers to a Federal Government that is only limited by law to the powers given to it outlined in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1-17 of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, violating our framer’s intent of the powers granted to the federal government. All of which the 14th Amendment did without being properly ratified pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Which this HEARING/COURT took an OATH to Support as SUPREME law of the land and anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL U.S. HOUSE SAID ADOPTED THE 14TH AMENDMENT
POINT 3. Ten former southern states after being sworn back into the Union and the President declaring peace Proclamation 153—Declaring the Insurrection in the Certain Southern States to at an End April 2, 1866.
For the 39th Congress without lawful authority declared 10 southern states total, claiming they did not have lawful governments and without lawful quoted authority reduced 10 lawful Southern States into military Districts because they failed to vote on and ratify the 14th Amendment. The new military District State Governments (in violation of Article 4 Section 3 U.S. Constitution and The Articles of Confederation Section 2) and remain as such until they voted on adopted and ratified the 14th Amendment. NOTE: MILITARY DISTRICTS IN LAW IS NOT STATE GOVERNMENTS PER U.S. CONSTITUTION. Once again showing the14th Amendment is notwithstanding pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.
THE 14TH AMENDMENT FAILED RATIFICATION BY THE STATES ORGANIC GOVERNMENTS
POINT 4. Arkansas State Representatives have bared witness to the fact the 14th Amendment was not adopted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution but in violation thereof. So, it protested the 14th Amendment as Unconstitutional by resolution Arkansas House Journal Page 285-288 @ 278 on December 17, 1866, saying QUOTE “The Constitution Authorizes that two-thirds of both houses to pass an Amendment”, and as 11 States were excluded, THE PROPOSED 14TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED BY THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES.
Predetermining the ineffectiveness of said resolution, as above, fifteen (15) States out of then thirty-seven (37) States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required three-fourths of such States, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following states:
Arkansas Senate Journal December 15th, 1866 pages 212-216 @215. Congress denied states like Arkansas from representation in voting on the 14th Amendment in violation of Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584; Senate Journal 1866, p. 471)
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 68; Senate Journal 1866, p. 72.)
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 76; Senate Journal 1866, p. 8)
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213; Senate Journal 1866, p. 183)
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 183; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 138)
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452)
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. (House Journal 1867, p. 60; Senate Journal 1867, p. 62)
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 101)
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452)
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 223; Senate Journal 1867, p. 176)
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 1141; Senate Journal 1867, p. 808)
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194)
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868 (House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50; Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.)
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. (Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743; Senate Journal 1868, p. 356)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS UNDER RECONSTRUCTION
POINT 5. The several “State Constitutional Conventions” that were organized under the “Military Districts ” of former said, “States” Per the “Reconstruction Act” of March 2, 1867, did not conform to the provisions of the United States Constitution. As evidenced by 15 Stat. 731 Ch. 70; the vote taken to hold a “Constitutional Convention” within the several southern States was adopted by a large majority. What the “Statute” did not reveal is that the majority votes of those States were of the “COLORED RACE” of the population. This fact is confirmed within May 13, 1868, Senate Executive Document No. 53 of the 40th Congress, 2d Session, that was issued in compliance with the “Resolution” of the Senate of December 5, 1867, by the General of the Army, Ulysses S. Grant. This “Document” consists of 12 pages and it may be found in the” CIS Serial Index” of 1867 as “S. ex. doc. 53 (40-2) 1317.”
These “Electors” and the “Members” elected to the several “State Constitutional Conventions,” were made up of the “COLORED RACE.” They did not have the “lawful status” of a citizen of a State or of a “citizen” of the United States nor did they have any Political Rights of “Suffrage” under any law of any State for want of an Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any “Acts of Law” coming from those State Conventions or any Legislatures that were convened under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867 are unconstitutional and must be declared so by proper authority, pursuant to Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LEGISLATURES WHO ADOPTED THE 14TH AMENDMENT
POINT 6. The following paragraph, which appears at Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867 (15 Stat. 14, Ch. 30), provides us with more Constitutional questions:
“That the commander of any district named in said act (14 Stat. 428, Ch. 158) shall have power, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=47, and http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=459 … to suspend or remove from office, or from the performance of official duties and the exercise of official powers, any officer or person holding or exercising, or professing to hold or exercise, any civil … office or duty in such district under any power, election, appointment or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under any so-called State or the government thereof, or any municipal or other division thereof, and upon such suspension or removal such commander. .. shall have the power to provide from time to time for the performance of the said duties of such officer or person so suspended or removed, BY THE DETAIL OF SOME COMPETENT OFFICER OR SOLDIER OF THE ARMY, OR BY THE APPOINTMENT OF SOME OTHER PERSON, to perform the same, and to fill vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, OR OTHERWISE.” [Emphasis added]
Several “State Constitutions” that were adopted under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867 provided that the members of the Legislatures of those southern States may/shall consist of “colored people of whatever race” and if the people of those States refused to elect and seat those “colored people of whatever race” into the Legislatures of their States; the Military Commanders of those Military Districts appointed the members of those Legislatures under the (purported) authority of Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867. Whereas the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE at the time the newly elected/appointed legislators were seated within their respective States and whereas those Legislators consisted of “Colored People of Whatever Race;” the State Legislatures of the southern States consisted of Members who had no “lawful status” of being “citizens” of any State or of the United States. Any “Acts” (including the “Resolutions” ratifying the 14th Amendment) that were passed by the “newly” created State Legislatures are unconstitutional. Said “Resolutions of Ratification” are without lawful force or effect for they were adopted outside the authority of the Constitution for the United States.
Several “Governors” of the southern States were removed from Civil Office by “Military Commanders” under the above-cited Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867, and were replaced with “Army Officials” or other military appointees. These Military Commanders or appointees declared that they had the authority to reject or approve “Resolutions” of the Legislatures of their “Military Districts” and they declared that they had the authority to submit “Resolutions of Ratification” to the U.S. Secretary of State declaring that the Legislatures of their “Military Districts” had ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. [Note: “Military Districts” are not “States” of the Union. “Military Districts” are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress while a State of the Union is a foreign corporation to the United States that exercises sovereign authority of its own. The two forms of government are different and they cannot co-exist. The U.S. Congress, in and through its Military Districts, has no authority to ratify Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.].
Several “State Constitutions” that were adopted under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867 provided that the members of the Legislatures of those southern States may/shall consist of “colored people of whatever race” and if the people of those States refused to elect and seat those “colored people of whatever race” into the Legislatures of their States; the Military Commanders of those Military Districts appointed the members of those Legislatures under the (purported) authority of Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867. Whereas the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE at the time the newly elected/appointed Legislators were seated within their respective States and whereas those Legislators consisted of “Colored People of Whatever Race;” the State Legislatures of the southern States consisted of Members who had no “lawful status” of being “citizens” of any State or of the United States. Any “Acts” (including the “Resolutions” ratifying the 14th Amendment) that were passed by the “newly” created State Legislatures are unconstitutional. Said “Resolutions of Ratification” are without lawful force or effect for they were adopted outside the authority of the Constitution for the United States. So, the 14th Amendment said ratification is in Violation of Article 1 Sec. 3, 7, Article 5, 6, 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation and Arkansas can’t be a lawful State pursuant to the U.S. Constitution Article 4 Sec. 3.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL U.S. SENATE 14TH AMENDMENT
POINT 7. The United States Constitution provides:
Article 1, Section 3: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State ***”
Article 5 provides: “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures as the State House and Senate Journals make clear in point 4 of this motion adopted by reference.
The ten States were organized into Military Districts under the unconstitutional “Reconstruction Acts,” their lawfully constituted Legislatures illegally were removed by “military force,” and they were replaced by rump, o-call Legislatures, seven of which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment, as follows:
Arkansas on April 6, 1868 (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53).
North Carolina on July 2, 1868 (House Journal 1868, 15; Senate Journal 1868, p. 15).
Florida on June 9, 1868 (House Journal 1868, p. 9; Senate Journal 1868, p. 8).
Louisiana on July 9, 1868 (Senate Journal 1868, p. 1).
South Carolina on July 9, 1868 (House Journal 1868, 50; Senate Journal 1868, p. 12).
Alabama on July 13, 1868 (Senate Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Session. p. 725).
Georgia on July 21, 1868 (House Journal 1868, p. 50).
Furthermore, governments of the States of Louisiana and Arkansas had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln on December 8, 1863. (Vol. I, pp. 288-306; Vol. II, pp. 1429-1448 – “The Federal and State Constitutions,” etc., compiled under Act of Congress on June 30, 1906, Francis Newton Thorpe, Washington Government Printing Office, 906.)
The government of Georgia had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 17, 1865. (Same, Thorpe, Vol. II, pp. 809-822.)
The government of Alabama had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 30, 1865. (Same, Thorpe, Vol. VI, pp. 3269-3281.)
The government of South Carolina had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 30, 1865. (Same, Thorpe, 1. VI, pp. 3269-3281.)
These three “Reconstruction Acts” (14 Statutes at Large, p. 428, etc.; 15 Statutes at Large, p. 14, etc.) under which the above State Legislatures were illegally removed and unlawful rump or puppet so-called Legislatures were substituted in a mock effort to ratify the 14th Amendment, were unconstitutional, null and void, ab initio and all acts done thereunder were also null and void, including the purported ratification of the 14th Amendment by said six (6) Southern puppet State Legislatures of Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.
Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress and all acts and things unlawfully done thereunder were in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which required the United States to guarantee every State in the Union a republican form of government. They violated Article I, Section 3, and Article 5 of the Constitution, which entitled every State in the Union to two Senators, because under provisions of these unlawful acts of Congress, ten (10) States were deprived of having two Senators, or equal suffrage in the Senate.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL 14TH AMENDMENT
POINT 8. President Andrew Johnson’s March 2, 1867, veto Address in which the President of the United States warned Congress “if you go ahead with Reconstruction you will make the law itself unlawful creating a de-facto government in America.” http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=064/llhj064.db&recNum=562&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID+%40lit%28hj0641%29%29%3ADe
The 14th Amendment is the de-facto jurisdiction the president warned Congress about.
CALIFORNIA’S VOTE WAS UNLAWFULLY CHANGED
POINT 9. On March 2nd California declined to adopt the 14th Amendment 1868 California Journal of the Assembly Page 601. On March 17th, 1868 California Journal of the Assembly Page 758 The California House declined to adopt the 14th Amendment at 15 Stat. 707 The Secretary of State William H. Seward stated Ohio and New Jersey legislatures passed resolutions withdrawing their consent for the said ratification of the 14th Amendment. Ohio and New Jersey were still counted as the Secretary points out in paragraph 6 15 Stat. 707. But California’s vote was changed without their consent or resolution. The 14th Amendment only was said ratified by ONE vote minus California the 14th Amendment failed anyway.
OHIO AND NEW JERSEY PASSED RESOLUTIONS WITHDRAWING CONSENT TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
POINT 10. Ohio and New Jersey legislatures passed resolutions withdrawing their consent for the said ratification of the 14th Amendment Due to it being UNCONSTITUTIONALLY said to have passed the Senate. Ohio and New Jersey were still counted as the Secretary points out in paragraph 6 15 Stat. 707. fifth paragraph http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=740
But California’s vote was changed without their consent or resolution. SEE State v. Phillips
540 P.2d 936 (1975) Utah Supreme Court https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1975/13816-0.html
The 14th Amendment only was said ratified by ONE vote minus New Jersey and Ohio the 14th Amendment fails said ratification.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATES VOTING FOR THE 14TH AMENDMENT
The said 14th Amendment was said to have passed by one vote. So, exposing several counted unconstitutional states who to clarify a LAWFUL vote count EXCLUDING THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS will clearly show no lawful Amendment exists pursuant to the U.S. Constitution known as the 14th Amendment.
POINT 11. West Virginia is not a state pursuant to the U.S. Constitution Article 4 Section 3 because they did not have permission from Virginia to form a state in 1863. Since Virginia did not leave the Union and the Constitution of the United States and all its law is still in full effect according to the U.S. Supreme Court Texas v. White (1869). Coupled by the additional Constitutional Violations such as Article 1 Section 3 the Senate did was not composed of any Senators from the Southern states who never left the Union, and ratification of said state should have lawfully waited for conflict to end. So, deduct the Unconstitutional counted vote of said State of West Virginia and the 14th Amendment failed ratification.
POINT 12. Nevada is not a lawful state pursuant to the U.S. Constitution because the Southern States never left the Union so said vote and ratification should have lawfully waited till the conflict ended so they could lawfully be included pursuant to Article 1 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which holds “the Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each State”. So, deduct the unconstitutional counted vote of the State of Nevada and the 14th Amendment failed ratification.
POINT 13. Nebraska is not a lawful State pursuant to the U.S. Constitution because the Southern States who never left the Union and had already voted to abolish slavery and had it not been for 7 of the Southern States voting to abolish slavery ratification would have failed. It passed by one vote Georgia was the deciding vote. So said ratification should have wait till such time as the Southern States could lawfully be a part of the vote pursuant to Article 1 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which holds “the Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each State” and Article 5 of The U.S. Constitution which provides “No State without its consent, SHALL be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate”. Without ANY lawful authority what so ever the 39 Congress did not include the Southern States in the said ratification process of said State of Nebraska in violation of Article 1 Section 3 and Article 5 of The US Constitution. So, deduct the Unconstitutional counted vote of said State of Nebraska and the 14th Amendment failed ratification.
POINT 14. The States Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama are not LAWFUL STATES pursuant to the U.S. Constitution Article 4 Section 3 which holds “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union, but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state is formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. ” Without any Lawful authority the 39 Congress declared these States not to have lawful Governments for not voting on and passing the 14th Amendment and replaced the said State governments without the consent of said States in violation of Article 4 Section 3 of The U.S. Constitution. No authority is given to Congress to remove lawful State Governments for freely voting their conscience pursuant to their oaths to support their State and Federal Constitutions. This was done after these same states lawfully voted to abolish slavery. And had it not been for 7 of the Southern States voting to abolish slavery ratification would have failed. It passed by one vote Georgia was the deciding vote. So, if these said States did not have lawful Governments for not voting a certain way would also be saying the 13th Amendment was not said ratified with lawful States several months prior? These State Governments were Unlawfully replaced and their lawful vote declining the 14th Amendment was Unlawfully changed to reflect said ratification in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
PROCLAMATION OF RATIFICATION OF SAID 14TH AMENDMENT
Point 15. In regard to the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, there appears to be no lawful Proclamation of Ratification on record. The U.S. Secretary of State, William H. Seward, had reservations that the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment had met the qualifications of ratification (see Proclamation of Ratification dated July 20th, 1868) and he expressly stated that he did not issue the Proclamation of Ratification of his free will. (see Proclamation of Ratification dated July 28th, 1868). U.S. Secretary of State, William H. Seward, made it clear within the Proclamation of Ratification of July 28th, 1868 that he issued the Proclamation under an “Order” of Congress. (see Concurrent Resolution dated July 21st, 1868). As the U.S. Secretary of State had not issued the Proclamation of Ratification of July 28th, 1868 by his independent judgment under the laws of the United States and as the U.S. Congress had not amended the Act of Congress of April 20th, 1818 to grant the Congress authority to declare the ratification of Constitutional Amendments, there are no lawful publications of Proclamation of Ratification for the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment.
The Resolution of Congress ordering the U.S. Secretary of State to issue a Proclamation of Ratification appears to also fail Constitutional legitimacy as it was never submitted to the U.S. President for his approbation as required by Article I, Section 6, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution nor does the U.S. Constitution authorize the U.S. Congress to execute the laws of the United States.
POINT 16 All-Southern States said repealed their State Organic Constitutions when they didi an Ordnance of Succession. All 11 Southern States were two or more State Constitutions into the future when the US Supreme Court said in Texas v. White The Ordnance of Succession was null and had no lawful effect what so ever https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep074/usrep074700/usrep074700.pdf
No one ever went back and correctly repealed the Southern State Constitutions prior to the Ordnance of Succession. Thus, making all Southern states De Facto.
POINT 17. The Reconstruction Acts created a temporary Government only for the named Rebel States in the first paragraph. Tennessee was not named because they went along with Reconstruction voluntarily. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=395
The bottom of the first paragraph makes clear “until the loyal Republic State Government can legally be reestablished”. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=459
Reconstruction has never been repealed and the reconstruction government has never stepped down. This means the other NOW 39 said States should have a different Government. Thus, making them de facto Governments also.
This is due to the required Treaty of Peace was never Signed to end the so-called Civil War per section 32 of General Orders 100. The Marshal law jurisdiction suspending the organic American Government until such a Treaty of Peace is signed. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp#sec2
No Treaty of Peace has ever been signed to end the so-called Civil War https://www.nps.gov/apco/faqs.htm
EXPLAINING MILITARY SUPERVISED COURTS AND BAR
1943 Army-Navy Manual of military Government and Civil affaire and Military supervised Courts and BAR. Page 16 “Courts https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/mil_gov-civil_affairs.pdf
1947 Army-Navy Manual of military Government and Civil affaire and Military supervised Courts and BAR. Page 20 “Courts https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/FM-27-5-1947.pdf
POINT 18. The named Southern States in Reconstruction was declared conquered former States conquered by the United States in order to form NEW State Governments. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=040%2Fllhb040.db&recNum=543&fbclid=IwAR2LBw7uOOFbre6CLijMm8aM_xfXh7xVLoiJMYOPWmOi3RFuvL8gIpHgoj0
The Southern States was never made Lawful States, they were only given representation “as states in Congress” only after being forced to adopt the 14th Amendment. FORCED DURESS ADOPTION of the 14th Amendment
North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, to reputation in congress Sec. (1) “That each of the named states shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress “when the legislatures of each state shall have duly ratified the amendment proposed by the 39th Congress known as article 14. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=741
Here is where “TEXAS” gave up the republic form of government guaranteed by Article 4 section 4 due to the 14th Amendment. An Act admitting Texas to Representation in Congress 41st Congress, Session 2, Chap. 39 March 30, 1870. Reads in part as follows. “Whereas the people of Texas have framed and adopted a constitution of the state government which is republican; and whereas the legislature of Texas elected under the said constitution has ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments to the constitution of the United States; and whereas the performance of these acts in good faith is a condition precedent to the representation of the state in Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016%2Fllsl016.db&recNum=115
An Act to admit the state of Arkansas to Representation in Congress. June 22, 1868 reads in pair section 1 ” Whereas the people of Arkansas, in pursuance of the provisions of an Act entitled “An Act for the more efficient government of the rebel states, passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto, have framed and adopted a constitution of state government, which is Republican, and the legislature of the said state has duly ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the 39th Congress known as article 14. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015%2Fllsl015.db&recNum=105
An Act to admit the State of Virginia to Representation in Congress section reads in Part. “Whereas the people of Virginia have framed and adopted a constitution of the state government which is republican; and whereas the Register of Virginia elected under the said constitution have ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and whereas the performance of these acts in good faith was a condition precedent to the representation of the state in Congress http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016%2Fllsl016.db&recNum=97
THE 14TH AMENDMENT MADE NO ONE EQUAL
Example After the said ratification of the 14th Amendment it took women another 50 years to gain a right to vote. Native Americans were slaughtered for decades. It took Black folks 96 years till the civil rights act of 1964 to be said to be equal and end segregation. It took the black folks to stand up for themselves and protest and make the courts interpret the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to mean equal rights. Now since the 14th Amendment, all laws courts, and government operate under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. That means for the first 96 years the 14th amendment was said ratified. It’s jurisdiction enforced racist laws. And now to teach in school this 14th Amendment made us equal? What a LIE.
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE
Said Defendant has a right to have his property returned and said UNCONSTITUTIONAL charge’s dismissed. AS WELL AS said hearing officer/court and “OFFICERS THEREOF” is duty-bound pursuant “CONSTITUTIONAL OATH” or be guilty of “MISPRISION OF TREASON” doing something about “UNCONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION KNOWN AS THE 14TH AMENDMENT”. NO said LAWFUL JURISDICTION is left to say said “THE STATE OF ARKANSAS” is lawful to be said “VICTIM”, “PRODUCTION” and have “CODES” and “TRIBUNALES”. The said situation was signed in the dark, as best as possible, “signed without prejudice pursuant to UCC 1-308” after the signature.
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE/MISPRISION OF TREASON
All the previously quoted law/authorities used in this motion so far echo the cries of the Constitutional violations from the era of time with the said adoption and ratification of the 14th Amendment (ALL adopted by reference and made a part hereof). Since that era of time here are some additional authorities:
1. The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress.
2. Dyett v. Turner 439 P2d 266 @ 267, 20 U2d 403 (1968) The Supreme Court for the State of Utah exposes the 14th Amendment as a fraud.
3. U.S. Representative T.U. Sisson of Mississippi gives testimony before the U.S. House-Senate Judiciary Committee that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were not adopted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The question of ratifications of Constitutional Amendments is a “Judicial Question” for the Federal Courts. In the hearing, a factual showing was made that the 14th and 15th Amendments were not Constitutionally adopted. The recommendation of the hearing was to forward a copy to the U.S. Attorney General who did NOTHING.
Nothing has been acknowledged nor acted upon to date by any subsequent U.S. Attorney General.
Thank you,
Sally Baptiste
—– Forwarded Message —–From: Sally Baptiste <sallylbaptiste@att.net>To: Sally Baptiste <sallylbaptiste@att.net>Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021, 9:00:03 PM ESTSubject: Monday’s Show – Dirty Uncle Sam – Corruption Exposed – Reconstruction Acts with Bruce Ray Riggs
American Statesman Blog Talk RadioMonday, January 18, 2021, 7:00 – 9:00 PM ETListen via 347-857-4364 Press 1 to Speak on the AirListen via Internet Link below. Post Questions and Comments in the Chat Room
Click “Follow” on the show page to receive information on upcoming shows.
Tune in for an important U.S.A. History Lesson on Martin Luther King Jr. Day – Tune In!
Download documents before the show and follow along. We need to study our history if we want to save our country.
Dirty Uncle Sam – Corruption Exposed – Reconstruction Acts with Bruce Ray Riggs
Dirty Uncle Sam – Corruption Exposed – Reconstruction Acts with Bruce Ray
Dirty Uncle Sam – Corruption Exposed – …
DirtyUncleSam.com Corruption Exposed! https://dirtyunclesam.com/
Bruce Ray shares historic facts they never taught you in school.
The Reconstruction Acts March 2, 1867 created a temporary Government only for the named Rebel States in the first paragraph and “until the loyal Republic State Government can legally be reestablished”. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=395 Reconstruction has never been repealed and the reconstruction government has never stepped down.This means the other NOW 39 said States should have a different Government. This is due to the required Treaty of Peace was never Signed to end the so-called Civil War per section 32 of General Orders 100. The Marshal law jurisdiction suspending the organic American Government until such a Treaty of Peace is signed. Avalon Project – General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code No Treaty of Peace has ever been signed to end the so-called Civil War Frequently Asked Questions – Appomattox Court House National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service) Texas v. White 74 US 700 Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
Avalon Project – General Orders No. 100…
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
Frequently Asked Questions – Appomattox…
EXPLAINING MILITARY SUPERVISED COURTS AND BAR
Thank you,
Sally BaptisteWww.cfabamerica.comWww.cfacs.comWww.calltoduty.org
