trucksterbud

My apologies to any / all who found the post I made on the missing 13th Amendment a bit much. Keep in mind I was attempting to convey all the information available at the time, and yes, even I agree it is a bit overloading and long. So here is the short version of it.

Before the establishment of the UNITED STATES INCORPORATED (established in Feb. of 1871 on behalf of the crown of England) there has been research done to establish the fact that somewhere, someone changed the "old" 13th Amendment to the Constitution (the organic original constitution) to a new one (the CORPORATE constitution)..

The original 13th Amendment - with records and research done available for your research in my other post - dating back to 1798.

The original 13th Amendment dealt with the fact that the founding fathers knew all too well what would happen if "LAWYERS - i.e. BARRISTERS, ESQUIRES " got their foot in the door of America and its political scene. Therefore, the original 13th Amendment dealt with the blocking of any lawyers, barristers, esquires, attorneys - persons with titles of nobility from the crown of England - from ever serving in ANY branch of government for any reason. And for good reason too.

What happened was after the Civil War, when the original United States was sold out to the Crown of England, this Amendment was replaced with the Amendment barring "involuntary servitude" (s***ery)... As the 13th Amendment is today paraded around as the crown jewel of the modern world.

Soooo, the present day 13th Amendment prohibits "Involuntary Servitude" does it...? Then how its it I'm forced to pay taxes to a ficititous foreign entity under the guise of - volunteering - ????

The research in the other post provides proof that the original 13th Amendment goes back as far as records in the original 13 colonies - 1798 - and was even recorded in the transcript of the original Constitution sent to Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska in 1857.... while they were still territories....

So, where does this leave us...?? It leaves us ens***ed to the Crown of England at the hands of our very own "Lawyers" who ARE indeed servants of the Crown (as proven by their TITLES OF NOBILITY ISSUED BY SAID CROWN OF ENGLAND. )

Ya, the original founding fathers knew all too well what would happen if we, the people - became ens***ed via "Barristers, Lawyers, Esquires" - to the Crown of England....

Carol Kelly

Very interesting as nd worthy

Carol Kelly

Very interesting and worthy of further research. Why is it we haven't been given this knowledge instead of Shakespeare's "First we'll k**l the lawyers"?

HistorianDude

1) There is no such thing as "UNITED STATES INCORPORATED."

2) The Organic Act of 1871 merely reorganized the municipality of Washington DC. It had no affect on the structure of our national government. The Crown of England was never involved.

3) An Amendment doesn't actually get a number until is ratified. The "Titles of Nobility Act" was never ratified, so it never became law. It was never the 13th Amendment.

4) Lawyers have always been part of the country. Many of our founding fathers were lawyers. The Titles of Nobility Act had nothing to do with them. "Esquire" is not a title of nobility.

5) US lawyers have nothing to do with the Crown of England.

trucksterbud

Perhaps you should do your research before posting and looking like an i***t. My responses in blue.



I know it must hurt to get your head pulled out of your ass, but hey, at least there's no charge for it. The Act of 1871 - I'm setting here reading it- Congress passed the ACT to provide for the government of the ten square mile area, under no constitutional authority whatsoever. Its in the research. They created an entirely separate form of government for the Distirct of Columbia. This is where it all stems from. Titles of Nobility, relationship with the Crown of England, the BAR Association - EVERYTHING..! Oh, ya, psssst - being a US Citizen (servant of the Crown of England)....

HistorianDude

Where? By whom?

References to nutburger websites, and the repetition of SovCit tropes that border on the insane change not a single one of my assertions.

Look... I know you believe all this crazy bulls**t. I simply have no idea why? There is no basis for any of it. Anybody can read the 1871 Organic act and see that it does exactly NONE of the things you claim it does. It never mentions a thing about Titles of Nobility. It says nothing about changing the government into a corporation, or the English Crown, or Bar associations. It has no affect on the meaning of US Citizenship. It produced no changes to the Constitution. "Bar" does not stand for anything, let alone "British Accredited Registry." There is not even such a thing as a "British Accredited Registry."

It had nothing to do with anything other than repealing the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and establishing a single territorial government for the whole District. And even that was repealed three years later.

All of the rest of your claims are a complete hallucination. And all you have to do to know that is to actually READ THE ACT!

You guys are flat out, no-holds-barred, balls to the wall crackpots.

trucksterbud

There is a lot of "interesting" research out there. About the Crown of England enslaving us all under the guise of being a US Citizen. The use of 'fictitous, debt ridden currency' to strip away the earning power of an entire society. The hidden ability of anyone reclaiming their birth certificate (basically filing a mechanics lein against your own birth certificate) to issue an unlimited amount of money - covered by the IRS.... (of course, there's the chance you'll have the "Paid Mercenaries" of the foreign corporation [FBI Agents} kick your door in at 2 a.m.)

Yes indeedy, so much more out there that the global criminal cabal really stops at nothing - to keep you dumb and your attention diverted.

HistorianDude

Yes there is. And all of it is unrefined crackpottery.

trucksterbud

And you accuse me of being a "CrackPot..!!" Thats good.. As a matter of fact I was - setting here reading it, as well as some case law associated with it: STOUTENBURGH v. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141 (1889) 129 U.S. 141 also the case law concerning the Constitutional Convention of Sept. 17, 1787 and ratified by the convention in each U.S. state in the name of "We The People".

The link if you're interested: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=141

Of course I know your kind, call me a crackpot or an i***t without researching anything. By the way, here is the link again:

http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm (just a hint- written by Lisa Guiliani - yes, Rudy Guiliani's neice, a lawyer, and VERY concerned with the way the country is going..)

Just one more note for ya, I've been around long enough to see 'conspiracy theory' turn to 'conspiracy fact' right before our eyes and people like you refuse to acknowledge the t***h.

But hey, you win.... I'm a crackpot. BTW, why did you even bother posting on my article...??

trucksterbud

And I suppose - according to you - that the states signing onto the UNITED STATES INC and pledging the assets and labors of the people of each respective state (this was the board of Governors meetings held between 1932 and 1938- the admin of FDR) where we all became "property" of the US Inc..??

I'm sure, unrefined crackpottery according to you (even though its on the books as fact, because I said it, it is crackpottery. ???) Are you just JMHO reincarnated. Sure sound like him....

HistorianDude

That never happened. It is a complete fiction.

So yes unrefined crackpottery.

HistorianDude

Great.

Now quote for me word for word where it mentions anything vaguely close to "United States Corporation, Inc."

Now quote for me word for word where it mentions anything about titles of nobility.

Now quote for me word for word where it mentions anything about lawyers.

Now quote for me word for word where it mentions anything about the "BAR."

Now quote for me word for word where it mentions anything about the Crown of England.

I'll wait.

HistorianDude

Oh... and for what it's worth? Lisa Giuliani is not related to Rudy Giuliani at all.

Her real name is Lisa Marie Taylor. She married a man named Cristopher David Guliani who is also no relation to Rudy.

Lisa and Cris had a son, who is now 20. Lisa already had two children from two other men. And shortly after 9/11, Lisa « met » Scott Makufka (a.k.a. Victor Thorn) on the Internet.

In the fall of 2001 she told Cris that she was going to visit a friend in Wisconsin and never came back. After a little checking, Cris found that she had gone to Pennsylvania and was living with Scott Makufka.

She abandoned Cris with three boys, aged 8, 11, and 13 and began her career of writing nutburger crackpottery like the pathetic piece of nonsense you keep linking me to.

trucksterbud

Oh, if you know so much about it, how did you miss the part of "constituted a body corporate, for municipal purposes. To provide for the day to day operations of said municipality." ??? (And then, of course, add nauseum and crackpottery, the signing on of the states from 1932 to 1938 as 'providing surety of the people and their assets to the pledge of the United States, Inc. A body CORPORATE providing for the day to day activities of Washington, D.C.. Ya, just more crackpottery from me I'm sure.) Dude, you just PROVED to me you have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about.

HistorianDude

That's good old fashioned, completely ordinary municipal incorporation, son. It has nothing to do with creating a commercial "corporation." Most municipalities are "incorporated," and none of them are corporations.

And it is only for Washington DC, not the United States of America.

For god's sake, do you also think that when people have their appendix removed, the doctor takes out the back end of a book?