Replies

To: Deepest End; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; ...

Over here, and the post above the one before mine.

10,179 posted on 09/07/2009 9:46:18 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)

To: Deepest End; rxsid; All

Whoa .. trying to digest what this means.

Help!

10,180 posted on 09/07/2009 9:47:07 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)

Thanks for the ping Starwise as always. Good info. :-)

10,181 posted on 09/07/2009 9:54:15 PM PDT by Red Steel

(1) Plaintiff of record is claiming the title of “Esquire”, which is a Title of Nobility prohibited by the original Thirteenth Amendment ratified circa 1819. Although the organic Constitution for the United States of America (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”) did prohibit Titles of Nobility, the Framers omitted any penalty(s) for exercising same. The latter Thirteenth Amendment cured that omission by imposing two (2) penalties for exercising any Title(s) of Nobility i.e. a loss of one’s citizenship and a bar from ever holding office anywhere in the United States of America (read 50 States of the Union).

this is irrelevant to the case itself. How many lawyers around the country use "Esquire" in their titles? Nonetheless an irrelevant point.

10,185 posted on 09/07/2009 10:07:48 PM PDT by Red Steel

My first clue that something was amiss was “private attorney general”...

10,200 posted on 09/08/2009 3:56:38 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794