See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: The Missing 13th Amendment
Source:
Gospel Plow
URL Source: http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html
Published: Feb 23, 2007
Author: David Dodge/Alfred Adask
Post Date: 2007-02-23 11:44:51 by intotheabyss
Keywords: None
Views: 1545
Comments: 152
This article first appeared in the August, 1991 issue of the Antishyster. Reprinted by permission of Alfred Norman Adask, creator and proprietor of the AntiShyster News Magazine. For further information see http://www.antishyster.com or write to adask@gte.net. "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR" In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous. The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance. MEANING of the 13th Amendment The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads 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." At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today. HISTORICAL CONTEXT To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the American Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat,1 every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies. Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved. Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's counter- revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks. DON'T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System) The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England: "The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again... Take this great power away from them, or if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit." The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you're not being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.) The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions. When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks. Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist. Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometimes hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers "sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and our federal government's unbridled growth.) PAPER MONEY If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin. It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against a paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of the productive. "Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people." CONSPIRACIES A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the United States: According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1820, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government. Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That's subversion. The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) won out in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 - -- 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn't exist. However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United States Bank.) The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that European banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused to renew the bank's charter. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by European investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812. That's destruction. There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification was lost in the mail. There is no public record that this book exists." That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), "the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un- catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment. TITLES OF NOBILITY In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America. Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as "legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them "titles of nobility". Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires". As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers). INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA. Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government. HONOR The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may be more significant. According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot. By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens. If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).2 WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored) If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests" and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today, our government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated. Imagine! A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government ... of the people ... by the people ... for the people! Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world. Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the "title of nobility" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified. Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story. Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came? One vote. One state's vote. The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state's support. One vote. David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it. PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a "title of Nobility" (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn't passed, this was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment was proposed. Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529- 530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification: "If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810, there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification: Ratification of Original 13th Amendment Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810 Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811 Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811 Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811 Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811 New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811 Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811 Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811 Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811 North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811 Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812 New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812 Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war. Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified). On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial. However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro-film): "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..." This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of re- publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819. The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.) In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments. Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation's ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did. Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860. So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto something. You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which ordered it published eighteen times we've discovered (so far) consisted of ignorant politicians who don't know their amendments from their... ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that our forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to "look the other way." Maybe. But before you do, there's an awful lot of evidence to be explained. THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes: "In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73(or 74). It's not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia's ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it's not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed -- the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence. However, because the notes' authors reported no further references to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion -- assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment -- has persisted. However, despite Clayton's opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860) (end of report) Gospel Plow's Notes (GP note) The founders also found democracy a threat, as it amounts to nothing more, or less, than mob rule. The united States of America were established as independent republics. This is why the constitution in Article IV reads: Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislatures cannot be convened), against domestic violence. In a democracy, the people or their representatives may pass any law whatsoever that they deem necessary; thus inevitably the minority will be oppressed by the majority. In a republic, all law is subject to a higher standard, which Blackstone's Law Commentaries identifies as "God's Law", and any law that stands in conflict with this higher Law is null and void. A republic preserves the biblical concept that the government is a "minister" of God, upholding His righteous command to punish the evildoer and encourage good works. A democracy makes the majority "god", capable of determining good and evil by popular opinion. (GP note) The above interpretation may be correct. Gospel Plow, however, regards the "Order of Cincinnati" created after the war by officers of the Continental Army in order to bestow upon themselves hereditary titles of nobility to be the abomination that inspired the original 13th Amendment. See Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution (Boston: 1805; reprint, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), 615-22. Perhaps, as is usually the case, there were a number of factors that inspired the original 13th Amendment... and an array of forces opposing it's recognition as the law of the land.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-112) not displayed.
.
.
.
#113. To: intotheabyss, All (#0)
Original 13th Amendment
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Knighthood "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
FWIW, here's a snapshot of the revised VA code of 1819. The original 13th is down at the bottom...
"pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels – bring home for Emma"
Thanks,I've seen the pictures of the erroneous publishings in the links of others also up the thread. If you look at the chart in post #79, you'll see why it was never ratified. And that chart comes from someone who claims it was ratified. I guess he doesn't look very closely at his own material. Link to original page of the table: I'm missing something here, doesn't it have the 3/4 regardless? What's the Louisiana date significance? Granted, I can definitely see this from the standpoint of it being a mental circle jerk because whether or not it was/is true, it's irrelevant unless a quite significant portion of the population gets off their ass and does something about the current situation. I.e., it could be totally 100% true and if 90% of the population is "Oh, really? Ho Hum, [YAWN]", then it's essentially meaningless.
"pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels – bring home for Emma"
No, everytime it got close Congress added more states, requiring more states for ratification. The constitution says an amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, not just 3/4 of the states existing when the amendment is introduced. By the time Virginia ratified, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois were added as states. The creator of that table is adamant that the Amendment has been ratified yet he doesn't put down the date of Lousiana's ratification vote or Indiana's, or any other state after Virginia for that matter. It's pretty obvious why he doesn't, he knows that at no point was it ever ratified by 3/4 of the existing states. As of today, I think the Amendment is still 5 votes short.
If that!
Are you really that stupid that you can't make the connection that when a group of people who defend people based on law get to make the laws. Can we say severe "conflict of interest", boys and girls?
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
As the desperation to protect the income tax grows judges won't even allow citizens to challenge this criminal syndicate or even defend themselves by educating juries about it, and judges will jail whoever whenever to protect it. And all of you lawyers slither quietly away from the courthouse every time it happens, because you too are handmaidens to the conspirators. Well said!
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
I've never made that claim.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Boy, you must really worship money to feel that people are envious because they disagree with you. For money is just about the only thing that your field of work seems to garner.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Money has nothing to do with it. Like anybody in business, I started broke and am now not broke. I am not, by any stretch, rich. Becoming a lawyer is an acheivement. Whether you like it or not, it ain't easy, and the three years I spent in law school were just about the worst three years of my life. Nevertheless, I survived it, made the grade, passed the bar exam and became a licensed attorney. That is a difficult acheivement. I myself have acheivement envy, because I envy doctors, whose training is even more rigorous and difficult; I also envy aeronautical engineers, not because it's hard to become one, but because I admire math despite not having a gift for it, and I think analytic geometry and calculus are amazing tools with an innate beauty. I envy people who can master these arts. OTOH, I have neither use for nor envy of rich people. I find them to be generally quite pathetic and insecure. So far I've not heard one criticism of lawyers that doesn't amount to one form of acheivement envy or another; or an overgeneralization, or a meaningless Shakespeare quote. "the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers...." Is a classic statement of envy.
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
read bluedog's #59 on this thread. i don't think money worship applies in his case. the reality is defense attorneys, like bluedog, are needed.
That's what I have been told. Once we walk into their courts we are on the private property of a corporation outside the sovereign citizens jurisdiction and subject to their laws and not the constitution, but they have pretended to be constitutional to avoid waking up the masses.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Nonsense.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
Also, just like being 13 miles off the US shore (outside the sovereignty of the US) you are under maritime law, hence the yellow fringe on the flag and the judge's expanded powers to basically do as he pleases. Oh yea, tyranny has been here for quite a while. It just hasn't raised it's ugly head fully yet due to us being armed and the threat of revolution. But that fear is abating with the big brother grid (patriot acts, cameras on every corner, rfid tech. and on and on) they have been furiously installing.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
I must applaud you,very articulate argument.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Can we say severe "conflict of interest", boys and girls? Stupid I may be, but at least I know how to punctuate questions. A conflict of interest arises whenever someone must serve two masters whose interests are, or appear to be, in conflict. You are, I suppose, arguing that a legislator with a criminal practice has an incentive to create more criminal laws and penalties, somewhat like the character in The Fountainhead who confessed that the gummint doesn't want people to follow the laws, but to break them. The federal criminal laws (and the oppressive Federal budgets) have arisen as a result of the deliberate disregard of the Tenth Amendment and the fraudulent misconstruction of the commerce clause, all by the Supreme Court. Would you have lawyers prohibited from holding positions as justices of the Supreme Court?
That’s what bothers me, your tendency to use absolute statements. I would think "the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers...." derives from the suffering people have endured due to many of the laws and expenses ensued by your profession not only making the laws but also defending the laws. I for one am not a hater of all lawyers there some that are truly good people. Hell my best friend from high school became a corporate bankruptcy lawyer.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Okay, Mr. Happy. Let's get rid of all the lawyers. No judges, no prosecutors, no defense attorneys, no document drafters, no ambulance chasers, no insurance defense suits, no congressional staffers drafting laws. Then what do you get? You get government "by the people" unrestrained by those superfluous "laws" and "lawyers". So gigantus corporation decides to buy the lot next to your house, strip mine it, and dump a million gallons of toxic waste there. You sue them. You don't have a lawyer, but you can figure out that it's most likely some kind of crime to dump a bunch of toxic waste next door, right? You want a jury of your peers to decide the case. Gigantus corporation's defense is that they own the lot next door, and if you don't like the smell, tough shit. You can move your happy ass. At jury selection, Gigantus has paid off the whole panel and the judge, who is just a normal guy who "judges" on the weekends, and who can sure use that extra fifty thou they stuck in his pocket. He also doesn't see anything wrong with the reasoning advanced by Gigantus, that if you can mow your lawn, you ought to be able to strip mine it and dump toxic sludge there. Gigantus doesn't actually have a lawyer (you've killed them all) but a sharp looking fellow in a really nice suit shows up as their "spokesman". You don't have a spokesman, you haven't got money to bribe anyone, so you lose. You appeal. The appellate court is located in the State capital, and, coincidentally, so is the corporate hq of Gigantus. There aren't any lawyers on the appellate court, just people who have the luxury of extra time on their hands to serve; ie- rich people. You lose again. Now you got a nice lot you can't get rid of, nobody will buy it unless you get rid of the smell, which you can't because the source of the smell won't move, your kids have cancer, your wife is infertile, and you've noticed strange lumps on your thyroids. Good thing you got rid of the lawyers, though.
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
My area of training is mathematics and logic. Sorry your logic lacks enough to degrade into questioning ones spelling or grammar.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
"The first thing we do. let's kill all the lawyers." - Dick the Butcher in Henry VI Part II. How many times have you heard that infamous quotation? How does it feel to know that people view your chosen profession as a pestilence? The common usage of that quote rankles me and, as a lawyer-mediator, I feel that I am in a position to comment from a different place of understanding. But first, let's get that Shakespeare quotation back into its original context. The character Dick the Butcher was an insurgent and his point was that if you want to accomplish the takeover of a society, "first kill all the lawyers." Gives quite a different blush to the meaning, doesn't it, if The Bard was viewing lawyers as guardians of law and order, and even liberty, itself? Admittedly, there are many lawyers out there doing work that does not truly promote justice, and doing so in the name of the law, carrying out their assigned roles. BUT THE LAWYERS AND THE LAW ARE NOT THE PRIMARY PROBLEM. Our culture is one of fearing and avoiding conflict. We, as a society, want to hire the Lone Ranger to shoot a silver bullet and wipe out the conflict by wiping out the adversary. Too often, we would rather call the police to do something about our troublesome neighbor than walk across the street and talk with him about our problem with his barking dog, loud party, car that's blocking our driveway... And if we are contemplating divorce, whose idea was it that we need to hire the meanest shark in the ocean to deal with the person we once loved with all our heart? Until we, as a society, realize that difficulties between two people are best resolved by direct communication between the people involved, the lawyers will continue to say, "You just let me take care of that." We, as a society, will continue to hire the lawyers to "fix it for us" and we will continue to come away from the adversarial process (more often than not) with both sides feeling dissatisfied with the results. Likewise, we will continue to blame the lawyers for not fixing our problem, because we still don't understand that the resolution of most conflicts between people is a matter of relationship, and matters of relationship cannot be delegated to professional surrogates. As lawyers, how do we help our clients and society see things differently? The answer is, as some say, simple but not easy. What if we lawyers started talking with our clients about honoring conflict as a unique opportunity for personal growth and for creating more peace in the world, rather than seeing conflict as something to be avoided? Lawyers could explain that conflict is a natural part of life. Two plants compete for a few square inches of soil. We both want to sit in this chair. Two friends have very different political views. Two parents love each other - and they don't see eye-to-eye about money management or what's best for their children. Lawyers could explain that there is nothing wrong with conflict. What's important is how we deal with it. We can have the same old arguments again and again, with no resolution in sight and feel the pain as the distance grows between us. We can avoid the conflict, creating distance, separation, and no solution. Or we can honor conflict and learn how to resolve it skillfully, creating a renewed sense of connection between committed partners - or between parents who are going their separate ways, but will always be related as parents. Lawyers could introduce "radical notions" like going across the street and talking with the neighbor about the barking dog before calling the police. Could it be that LAWYERS, instead of being seen as the problem, could be the SOLUTION? Here's a mediator's take on the "kill all the lawyers" quote. It looks to me like Henry the Butcher, who was contemplating a takeover of the government, thought killing the lawyers would be a good first step. So it was not, as I supposed, a statement of envy (although I would posit that in its most common out of context usage it is); but neither is it a statement to the effect that "lawyers have inflicted suffering" and Shakespeare didn't like them...
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
I think that's "one's", not ones....
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
How many times have you heard that infamous quotation? How does it feel to know that people view your chosen profession as a pestilence? The common usage of that quote rankles me and, as a lawyer-mediator, I feel that I am in a position to comment from a different place of understanding. But first, let's get that Shakespeare quotation back into its original context. The character Dick the Butcher was an insurgent and his point was that if you want to accomplish the takeover of a society, "first kill all the lawyers." Gives quite a different blush to the meaning, doesn't it, if The Bard was viewing lawyers as guardians of law and order, and even liberty, itself? One of my favorite judges of all time used to give the same lecture, just after swearing a jury. It certainly brightened up my day.
I forgot one item of punctuation, myself: ;)
what about it, though? The modern Leviathan of the US Gummint was ushered in by the Supreme Court, which held out against those who tried to expand the commerce clause for a century and a half. Would you disqualify lawyers from sitting on the Supreme Court? How long do you think non-lawyers would have held out?
Thank you.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
I think you'll find that the numbers of lawyers and environmental pollution have increased together, and do not inversely correlate. Lawyers profit on both sides of the pollution issue. No matter how the public fares on issues like Love Canal or SUPERFUND sites, the lawyers on both teams are paid well. In an adversarial system of justice this is as it should be, or a "loser pays" system is certainly not better. In fact the recent assertion that lawyers should refuse to defend "terrorists" and the treatment of Lynne Stewart, the activist lawyer just convicted of helping her terrorist client, "blind sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman, is disgraceful. None of us want to see us reach a point where unpopular people or causes are unable to retain competent counsel. And, corporations respond to environmental activist lawyers like Robert Kennedy, jr. and his NGO RiverKeepers, with SLAPP suits. Besides CA and MD, what other states have passed anti SLAPP laws to prevent corporations from silencing activists with financially and emotionally draining lawsuits? I'd be interested to know if there is an org, "Lawyers With A Conscience" for instance who refuse to file SLAPP suits on behalf of greedy, vindictive corporate clients? For me the issue is the goddam income tax. No LAWYER wants to win and put half of his "fellows" and most accountants, tax preparers and receipt collectors/packrats out of work, and I understand that. But, taxes are a civil matter, and I resent the fact that I can actually hire competent counsel and beat a terrorism rap, but, the conflict of interest for lawyers defending against "tax crimes" is so obvious that none inspire my confidence. Just as NRA lawyers and lobbyists don't want to settle the 2nd amendment argument once and for all, I fear there are too many lawyers who get down on their knees each night and give thanks for the god-cursed income tax. For this reason there will always be lawyers who will gladly try to defend me and win on procedural errors on the IRS/DOJ's behalf (i.e. denial of due process, malicious prosecution, etc.,) but none who want to end tax tyranny once and for all. The lawyer who succeeds in having the present enforcement of the "1040" tax against private wage earners declared unconstitutional will join the ranks of Benedict Arnold and Robert Hansen, and others whose names are forever synonymous with shame. I suppose it would be a great "achievement" for some "over achieving individual", as long as she or he never intends to practice law again! It's safe to assume that this person will never have another favorable ruling from any judge nor will any appeals tribunal be likely to check the black balling of the person who put half of the lawyers out of work and brought all into disrepute.
why do you say nonsense? i think any time an individual goes up against the almighty government (particular federal) in one of their courtrooms, he is subject to their statutes and common law and the constitution is basically null and void. bush was correct when he referred to it as just a goddamned piece of paper. how many times have you heard of judges saying "don't bring up the constitution in my courtroom?" i've heard and read about this countless times. it's my contention that if the government has a stake in the outcome at all, an individual is not going to get a fair shake. the judges (and attorneys in most cases) are there to protect the system. imo, an individual can only get a fair and impartial arbiter when it's a private case.
Most attorneys I know are there to take advantage of the system, to aid their clients. This is one advantage of the adversary system of justice.
point, but as officers of the court, isn't their allegiance first and foremost to the court rather than to their client? i'm thinking more of state and federal attorneys, not private defense attorneys, etc. excuse my lack of knowledge on terminology. i'm just a lay person. ;)
Attorneys are bound by rules of ethics to zealously represent their clients within the bounds of the laws and rules of the court. Attorneys also want to successfully represent their clients, for purely selfish reasons. Thus does Adam Smith's Invisible Hand reach into the law industry. Attorneys also swear to uphold the constitutions and laws, state and federal. This obligation operates more as a restriction than as a goal for the individual practitioner, who is on a day-to-day basis not concerned with how his actions will affect "the system," but with how his clients and his bottom line will be affected. As a practical matter, since they are admitted to practice before the court, and the court has powers of disbarment and of contempt, attorneys are to some extent beholden to the court. However, the courts themselves are beholden to appellate courts, which report opinions in cases they decide. Most judges simply don't want to be embarrassed by reversal, and are anxious to climb the ladder to the appellate courts. So the treatment of lawyers and their clients by the courts is subject to public review, and this checks most trial courts from appearing arbitrary or capricious.
"Plead guilty and I'll try to get you off with 20 years!" Another successful defense! :)
Yes, that American attorneys are part of some secret department under the English monarchy: nonsense on a par with poison chemtrails. Attorneys are officers of the court in that they must respect the laws and procedures thereof but thier ultimate function therein is client advocacy. Certainly (but, then again, much depending on the facts and circumstances of each case), the odds are stacked against a litigant opposing a government entity in an American court. Duh. The US Constitution remains cited in many cases across this country. And, there are judges who have ruled against the government in many cases. The judicial branch is the least, IMHO, corrupt of the three. As bluedog inferred above, attorneys are American human beings, with families, mortgage payments, bills, illnesses, crazy family members, car trouble, kids, gardens, and all those other day to day occurances of life so forth and so on.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
If the defendant was facing death or life without parole, that may not be such a bad deal. The "try to" would need to be, however, removed from that statement.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
Lotsa guys on death row would take that deal. Wouldn't you? The implication of your post is that a lawyer who pleads his client out hasn't done anything for his client. That is usually not the case. The plea bargain usually arises because both parties recognize the value of the case to themselves and to each other. Often the plea bargain arises because of pressure placed upon the government. In a drug case, for example, even if a defendant is caught with the drugs, if a defense attorney files a motion to suppress (exclude from evidence) the hootch (Old French legal term), and supports it with a memorandum that gives the appearance of having a good chance of success, he may scare the gummint straight to the bargain his client can live with. The bargain arises because each side faces uncertainty as to the eventual results of the motion to suppress. The defense gives up his motion, and takes a plea, in return for a favorable disposition. What could be more American? Afterwards, the State usually explains to the cop why they gave away the farm: because the Cop broke the law when he seized the evidence! The better cops learn from their mistakes, and become less likely to infringe upon your liberties in any chance future encounter with you and yours. Thus, a byproduct of this in this sleazy plea-bargaining is that our constitutional rights are protected! Of course, there are lawyers who shouldn't be trusted to defend speeding ticket cases, and who get terrible deals for their clients. But jailbirds talk, and those lawyers usually don't last long. Of course, the same sort of bargaining goes on all the time in personal injury cases, civil lawsuits, administrative law proceedings, etc. Without bargaining, every case would end in a trial, instead of the 10% and less that do now, and even more resources would be consumed by the justice system, which would instantly need ten times as many judges, clerks, courtrooms, sheriffs, bailiffs, and bribes (just kidding).
You guys are funny!
Now those birds are evil. Judgmental, unforgiving, and heartless. Not really. Sometimes the persecutor is the defendant's best friend. Once a prosecutor dropped a case of mine, when he himself discovered that the officer was lying about a certain technicality. Had the persecutor not ferreted out the problem, and done something about it, I might never have known, so carefully had the problem been concealed, and my client might still be in jail today. Prosecutors are duty-bound to do justice. This is a higher standard of conduct than that to which defense counsel are subject. While a defense attorney need not and should not reveal inculpatory material to the persecutor (unlike the European inquisitorial system, where defense attorneys are required to do so), an American prosecutor must reveal exculpatory material to the defense. Of course, less experienced prosecutors sometimes fail to recognize the exculpatory value of the material, and police sometimes withheld such information from the prosecutors, but by and large, the rule is obeyed. Do prosecutors owe their allegiance to the court? Not any more than the private bar, although they tend to work closely with the judges, as a result of repeated contact and the general tendency of humanity to suck up to authority. They owe their allegiance to their paycheck and to their boss, who is frequently an elected official whose prosecutorial philosophy often has more to do with politics than with the constitution or the laws. Nonetheless, the elected prosecutor is loathe to dispense with the laws in any way that could attract unfavorable coverage. There exist incentives enough to reign in all but the craziest of prosecutors, like the ones in Washington State, covered by Paul Craig Roberts, who went on a child abuse witch hunt to rival Salem. The oppressive power possessed by prosecutors arises principally from the oppressive laws on the books. The drug war is, of course, a war on people, and prosecutors are soldiers on the front line. Yet most drug prosecutors learn to justify their existence by weeding out the "serious" cases from the less, and hammering only a chosen few. Most of them are good people, helping to administer, some of the most unjust laws ever written, because the consensus of the sheeple still regards drugs as worthy of a futile attempt at prohibition. Out of necessity, to avoid trials, drug prosecutors help to mitigate those unjust laws, by discriminating between defendants and letting most go with a minor penalties. One could argue that by mitigating the penalties, prosecutors help to sustain the system, because if they ever enforced the drug laws to the max across the board, the justice system would explode with trials, and even the sheeple would rise up in arms against the tweny and forty year and life sentences handed out to a fifth of the population!
Sorry, but I haven't time to respond, as I must away to another secret meeting of the IBA, where The Queen awaits!
#114. To: All, intotheabyss (#113)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm
#115. To: SmokinOPs, intotheabyss (#24)
#116. To: Axenolith, Itisa1mosttoolate (#115)
FWIW, here's a snapshot of the revised VA code of 1819. The original 13th is down at the bottom...
#117. To: SmokinOPs (#116)
#118. To: Axenolith, Itisa1mosttoolate, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, leveller, bluedogtxn, intotheabyss, christine (#117)
(Edited)
I'm missing something here, doesn't it have the 3/4 regardless?
#119. To: bluedogtxn (#109)
You get what you pay for.
#120. To: leveller, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#80)
C. An explanation as to how and why the removal of lawyers from public office would prevent the government from exploiting the people.
#121. To: HOUNDDAWG (#93)
#122. To: kiki (#95)
I think they would be surprised at the idea that they owe allegiance to the crown, any crown. they went to school, took a test, and have a job.
#123. To: bluedogtxn (#100)
Find a rational basis for your dislike other than acheivement envy
#124. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)
Ping
#125. To: intotheabyss (#123)
Boy, you must really worship money to feel that people are envious because they disagree with you.
#126. To: intotheabyss, bluedogtxn (#123)
Boy, you must really worship money
#127. To: christine (#48)
best we lie low and stay the hell out of them.
#128. To: intotheabyss (#127)
Once we walk into their courts we are on the private property of a corporation outside the sovereign citizens jurisdiction and subject to their laws and not the constitution,
#129. To: All, christine (#127)
#130. To: wbales (#128)
Nonsense.
#131. To: intotheabyss (#120)
Are you really that stupid that you can't make the connection that when a group of people who defend people based on law get to make the laws.
#132. To: bluedogtxn, christine (#125)
"the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers...." Is a classic statement of envy.
#133. To: intotheabyss (#123)
For money is just about the only thing that your field of work seems to garner.
#134. To: leveller (#131)
Stupid I may be, but at least I know how to punctuate questions.
#135. To: intotheabyss (#132)
First Kill All the Lawyers”
#136. To: intotheabyss (#134)
to degrade into questioning ones spelling
#137. To: bluedogtxn (#135)
"The first thing we do. let's kill all the lawyers." - Dick the Butcher in Henry VI Part II.
#138. To: intotheabyss (#134)
#139. To: intotheabyss (#134)
#140. To: intotheabyss (#130)
I must applaud you,very articulate argument.
#141. To: bluedogtxn (#133)
#142. To: wbales (#128)
#143. To: christine (#142)
the judges (and attorneys in most cases) are there to protect the system.
#144. To: leveller (#143)
(Edited)
#145. To: christine (#144)
as officers of the court, isn't their allegiance first and foremost to the court rather than to their client?
#146. To: leveller, christine (#145)
....Attorneys also want to successfully represent their clients, for purely selfish reasons.....
#147. To: christine, bluedogtxn (#142)
(Edited)
#148. To: HOUNDDAWG (#146)
"Plead guilty and I'll try to get you off with 20 years!"
#149. To: HOUNDDAWG (#146)
"Plead guilty and I'll try to get you off with 20 years!"
#150. To: leveller, wbales (#149)
#151. To: christine (#144)
state and federal attorneys, not private defense attorneys
#152. To: HOUNDDAWG (#150)
You guys are funny!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
