TAKE AMERICA BACK(TAB)

Spokesperson Phil Merlettiwillowbee.traveler@hotmail.com

www. takeamericabackofmaine .vpweb.com Research & Comments Written by Phil Merletti

Edited by Wayne LeachDraft #10

100 YEARSof

LAW & (un)JUSTICE

PART TWO

The Executive Council / Governors Council,The Revisors Office, The 13 TH Amendment

& The Constitution of Maine

In keeping with my intent of creating information in a manner that the average person could understand, I now create part 2 in the series “100 Years of Law and (un)Justice”, I provide information which relates to or is based on the information in the booklet “100 Years of Law and Justice”.

After releasing the first report “100 Years of Law and (un)justice”, more questions than answers were created for the reader. The problem with exposing research is, we have researched this for so long, we forgot that the average reader is not as knowledgeable on this issue as we are. The other problem is, everyone is not on the same level of understanding and knowing the base for the information that we provide. As a result, I must go backwards into time and establish the facts that the average reader can use in order to go forward.

Most of the problems that we suffer as a free society from the U.S. and Maine Legislature is caused by ignorance, insensitivity, greed (money), power & control or any combination of the five reasons that I state. Identifying any of the fore-mentioned is only scratching the surface; it is the motivation that is the important issue. We all can be guilty on some level of having the last three issues as a driving influence, but when we act out and hurt another person, we have crossed the line. If a person or persons willfully conspire to hurt others or groups, it becomes horrible. When trusted agencies, corporations or countries cause this blatant corruption, this is evil.

What was covered in the first exposé of the 100 years of Law and Un)Justice was pure corruption and evil. The main players involved with this corruption and evil were those behind the scene pulling the strings of the puppets of Maine State BAR Association

1

Lawyers (this was clearly written and recorded in their own MSBA booklet). If you will remember I gave a little leeway to some of the lawyers that may have been fooled, used and misled by the MSBA. They essential were purposely guided as useful idiots that never realized how they were used. Behind the scene were global and local professionals who skillfully planned the corrupt court system that ignores our Constitutional Laws (Common Law).

I cannot help but to somewhat respect and venerate with awe for them; I have a bit of envy for them because their plan was so perfect and well designed that they have fooled the entire population of Maine (and the nation) for more than a century! Before I unravel and expose their obvious plan, please allow me to turn the clock back to explain how our laws began and then explain how the criminals deployed their multi-front plan.

But first you must know that slowly for decade after decade we have essentially lived under and inside a systematic and formulated operation of greed, power, crime and fraudulent activities that have chipped away at our freedoms and liberties. This was done with a coordinated effort of Bankers, Lawyers, Justices, Legislators, Governors and Presidents that have created willful fraudulent laws that are currently enforced by unsuspecting Sheriffs and a Police Force that do not realize they are enforcing unconstitutional laws. Unfortunately, just like the military, the law enforcement agencies have no other recourse than to follow what the legislators create against the U.S. & Maine Constitutions. This places the true believers and followers of the U.S. & Maine Constitution into a predicament. Do the law enforcement officers follow the fraudulent law or the Constitutions that they have sworn an Oath to.

HISTORY OF TRUE LAWS

A good government and its leaders and followers support the intent of a righteous court that supports and protects its people. Moses and Aaron were not government officials, but yet, they understood the need for consistent, logical guidance in the form of worthy, sound, moral and virtuous laws and tribunals that enforced ancient laws (The primitive forerunners of our early U.S. & State Courts).

Recorded in the ancient history of law is the “Code of Hammurabi”, it is written: “The first duty of government is to protect the powerless against the powerful”. Hammurabi, Moses, Aaron and even King Solomon knew that without logical, natural common sense laws to guide and maintain the population, tyranny, anarchy and slavery would soon follow and guarantee future lawlessness, controlled by the elite, the oligarchs and dictatorships. They also knew that all laws not only had to be just, but they had to be equal among the population (equal justice not social justice). They knew that once one group of people that had power over another with unrestricted power would soon follow and guarantee governmental tyranny.

After 5,000 years of evil or satanic rule, our founders tapped these honest ancient laws of GOD, common sense, and natural law. They established what I believe to be, written with

2

the help of GOD, the sacred writing of the Declaration Of independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The founding fathers understood the need for independence and separation from oppressive governments and dictatorial rule. The founding fathers being Englishman already knew the principles of the laws of the Magna Carta and how Common Law was supposed to be utilized in the court systems of King George.

I remind you that John Adams served once as a Lawyer under the British Law system defending the British Royal Troops that fired on the Massachusetts Colonialist, March 5 1770, called the “Boston Massacre”. And once again after the Revolution, before 1820, John Adams helped to author the Maine Constitution by incorporating the Declaration Of independence, the Articles of Confederation, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and Common Law. 20 years later, John Adams son John Quincy Adams served as a lawyer in New Haven Connecticut after the slaves killed crewmembers and took over the slave ship Amistad on July 2nd 1839. This time J. Q. Adams served as a lawyer for the accused slaves using the U.S. Constitution and Common Law.

During and after the revolution, John Adams willfully chose to transition from the courts of King George to the new Constitutional Law and Common Law. It was this knowledge that was incorporated at the Maine Constitutional Convention in 1819, which helped to establish the “Courts of Common Pleas in the State of Maine”.

Over the next 60 plus years, honest and loyal judges, lawyers and legislators provided for a court system for the people. But with all good intentions, comes the bad. Behind the scenes were citizens that were still loyal to the Crown of England and the elite that were connected to the European banking systems. It was these people who slowly and patiently infiltrated our legal system and governments. They knew that once the courts and the governments are corrupted, the people have no longer any true rights, but essentially government rights that are controlled and given and allowed only by the government.

To give a brief history, after decade and well over a hundred years of slowly planning, implementing and weakening the original intent of the Maine Constitution. They finally got a significant foothold in 1875, 1909 and 1976 which turned our Constitution to a mere “public law” and a Republic to a Democracy by creating more criminal, fraudulent and unconstitutional amendments to the Constitution of Maine. In 1929, a bill was created, which literally destroyed the Maine County Court Systems and instead combined all courts under one umbrella. In 1959-1966 Common Law was ignored when the 1959 “Law & Equity Act”, combined all other man made court laws. Then in 1973, they tried to destroy the Governors Executive Council and transfer the power into the hands of the Legislature (they were finally successful in 1976). Again in that same year, they ignored the Constitution of Maine once again and sat justices on the illegal courts without being commissioned; from that point on the justices were only certified without being “Learned in the Law”. It can be said that today, every Maine Court, every Justice, every Prosecutor, the Attorney General, every Lawyer has worked in fraud and every person brought to that court was tried without their “unalienable secured rights” that are protected by the

3

Constitution and Common Law. Over the years, they even fooled the Grand Jury, which is detached from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Today, the access to the Grand Jury must be done through the Attorney General, who no longer works under the Common Law.

You are probably wondering how did these judges and lawyers sneak their laws past the legislators and voters in plain sight without being caught? The plan was to infiltrate the Legislature with card carrying Maine State BAR Lawyers that were elected influenced the discussion for “reformation laws” and many of them served on the ‘Judicial Committee’ and the committee on ‘Criminal Justice and Public Safety’.

Another group of insider criminals that work within the legislative halls are called ‘Legislative Councilors’ and the ‘Revisors’. These Legislators and state employees are card-carrying MSBA Lawyers who work in the various legislative offices and the Office of the Revisor.

If I am going too quick for you and you are wondering how they were able to destroy the Constitution so easily? Lets start with the first Constitution of 1820 when the District of Maine became the Independent State of Maine. The Constitution was the instrument to facilitate the transfer of the “District of Maine” to the independent “State of Maine”. This transfer of jurisdiction was written into the Maine Constitution under Article X. Section 3 of Article X, reads:

“All laws now in force in this state and not repugnant to the Constitution, shall remain, and remain in force, until altered or repealed by the Legislature, or shall expire by their own limitation.”

Section 4 of Article X reads:“The Legislature, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,

may propose amendments to the Constitution; and when any amendment shall be so agreed upon, a resolution shall be passed and sent to the selectman of the several towns, and the assessor of the several plantations, empowering and directing them to notify the inhabitants of their respective towns and plantation, in the manner prescribed by law, at their next annual meeting in the month of September, to give in their votes on the questions, whether such amendments shall be made; and if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution.”

These two sections were created to allow the Maine Constitution to expand to elaborate or improve the Maine Constitution. The ability to reform or rectify the Constitution did not allow for any injudicious, incredulous or demeaning amendment that would weaken the Constitution. The intent of the founders was not to allow the creation of any type of negative amendment that would support an agenda or irrational ideology, but rather to enhance the Constitution. This is why the language in Section 3 was to be followed “and not repugnant to the Constitution”. The word repugnant is a strong word often used in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Repugnant means: offensive, abhorrent, detestable, disgusting, obscene and repulsive. The word repugnant was so

4

powerful that the founders used it again in Article IV, Part 3rd, Section 1: The Legislature,…, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State, not “repugnant” to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States. Repugnant means repugnant, it can not be word-smithed, flowered or ignored!

On Page ii of the 100 Years of Law & Justice, it is recorded: “75% of the U.S Senators, 65% of the U.S. House Members, and over 50% of the Maine Governors have been lawyers”. These figures were as of 1991, it did not specify what years there were more or less, but we can say that if these figures are true, the legislature “the Legislative Branch” and the Governor’s offices, “the Executive Branch”, were infiltrated by “officers of the court” the “Judicial Branch”, of the Government. This is unlawful, unconstitutional and treasonous because of the need to keep the influence of all branches separate to each other! Are these knowledgeable men/woman who are educated in administrated law that stupid and ignorant, and did/do they really know what they were and are doing. It is obvious!

How many more Lawyers infiltrated the U. S. & Maine Legislature and the Governors position since the booklet was written 1991? How many bills were enacted to remove our inalienable GOD given rights in the Maine Constitution and in our Maine Statutes? If I am right, every law that has been enacted, whether they are statutes or amendments to the Maine Constitution have been established fraudulently and unconstitutionally! If this is the case, how do we correct this fraud?

We know that there are no federal statutes, as they claim, that legitimizes their ability to perform in courts. The lawyers claim that in the year 1866 (July 13), Section 9, 14 th

statutes at large 124 makes their practice lawful. That statute when accessed is blank. How could this be? They have used that reference for years, but yet, it is not there! How has this gone this long without a challenge?

In Maine, the Lawyers that are accepted to the Maine State BAR Association receive a membership card to practice, they need not be licensed as other business have to be, but instead, they just need to pay their dues to insure membership to the Maine State BAR Association. Please see Page 60 in the 100 Years of Law & Justice, it is written: “All members of the bar, as a condition of their right to practice law in the State, were required to pay a reasonable fee.”

In Maine, the Common Law Court was ignored and replaced by enactment. In 1909, Maine transferred from a Republic to a Democracy by creating an amendment to the Maine Constitution. In 1929, the Maine county court systems were destroyed and transferred to a statewide system that combined all courts under one umbrella. In 1959-1966 Common Law was ignored by enacting the “1959 Law & Equity Act”, which combined all other man made court laws. In 1973, the last Judge was commissioned to serve on a Constitutional Court. Was the ability taken away from the people to access the Grand Jury by design? Why did they establish the law to allow the Attorney General to be voted by the Legislature instead of the people? Were all of these laws passed/enacted

5

by mistake or accident, or were the legislators not knowledgeable of their wrong doings? It is obviously clear that this was their plan and that these socialist laws were not established by coincidence.

The following information can be found in the Maine Constitution and in the law Library in the State Capital, (Resolves 1927, 1929, 31 33, 44, 47, 64, 73, 75 & 84 & 1973 Senate Bill 661/L.D. 2021).

In 1819 members from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts prepared to separate the District of Maine to a free and independent state of the United States by passing legislation entitled: “An act relating to the Separation of the district of Maine from Massachusetts proper, and forming the same into a separate and Independent State.” Founders from the original U.S. Constitution, members from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and inhabitants of the District of Maine met during a Constitutional Convention to form the Constitution of Maine.

Together, the founders of the Constitution of Maine had 28 years to witness the trials and tribulations of the U.S. Constitution and its 10 Amendments. They incorporated the essential parts of The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of the U.S. Constitution and the 10 Amendments and incorporated them into the Maine Constitution. They then expanded other areas to give the Maine people greater protections and securities “of and for” their unalienable, natural, GOD given rights.

Two important additions dealt with the citizen’s ability to confront and communicate with any department of government and the second dealt with the citizens giving the people the last word to accepting the Amendments to the Constitution of Maine:

#1. In the Constitution of Maine Article I, Section 15. It is written: “The people have a right at all times in an orderly and peaceable manner to consult upon the common good, to give instructions to their representatives, and to request, of either department of the Government by petition or remonstrance, redress of their wrongs and grievances.”The remonstrance was added to the Constitution of Maine, because the founders realized that under the U.S. Constitution, the only course of action was to petition the legislators for their wrongs. The Constitution of Maine gives the people to consult upon the common good, to give instructions to their representatives, and to request, of either department of the Government by remonstrance. The remonstrance processes is direct, it can be given by one person and the remonstrance can point out wrongs and violations and can demand return response and actions of any department to follow any or all Articles in the Constitution of Maine.

#2. In the Constitution of Maine Article X, Section 4. It is written: “The Legislature, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution; and when any amendment shall be so agreed upon, a resolution shall be passed and sent to the selectmen of the several towns and plantations, in the manner prescribed by law, at their next annual meetings in the month of September, to give in their votes on the question, whether such amendment

6

shall be made; and if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution.”

Note: Please read section on methods of proposing amendments

In the U.S. Constitution Article V is written: “The Congress, when ever two thirds of both Houses shall deem in necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be invalid on all Intents, and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

From 1791 to 1819, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution were created, the 11th, 12th

& 13th The 11th was ratified in 1795, the 12th amendment was ratified In 1804 and the original 13th amendment was ratified somewhere between 1812-1819 (we will discuss the real 13th amendment latter). The Maine founders were voyeurs and they knew that it was inevitable that the Constitution of Maine would also progress as time passed. They fabricated language that would allow a process that set a standard when a need arose to pass a resolution to amend the Constitution.

Before we continue, it is imperative that we understand that the United States and its free and independent states (nations within a union) were a totally new concept, not successful for over 5000 years. One might even call it an experiment and like any other experiment, there are successes and failures. What this experiment had in its favor was the founders of Maine still had GOD believing honest men to look to the ideals that created our nation and 28 years of experience to author a stronger Constitution.

James Madison, one of the founding fathers understood that the powers that make the government departments should not influence each other, therefor, there is a need for the departments to be diverse and separated so that not one sliver of the pie becomes larger than the other. Madison knew that putting power into anyone of the separate departments or infiltrating the separate departments with ideals that remove the democracy of the United States republic would be a slippery slope back to an oligarchy or dictatorship.

Madison knew that the government had to strictly follow a standard that held the government to the values and principles of morals, ethics and virtues. It would be the United States Constitution and the independent States Constitutions that would provide a level of quality that could be adhered to.

The greatest fear of the founders was that the United States Constitution and its independent States Constitutions could be systematically changed and negatively altered in the future until the Constitutions became useless.

7

Madison understood the power of words and he believed that this nation would be in peril if over the years the language could be changed to weaken the intent or to eventually ignore its mandates. Our founders knew from history that evil was like water, just waiting to spill over the bulwarks of a ship or dam; our nation and its independent States would sink back into tyranny if the people and its government leaders were not vigilant.

The founders of the State of Maine began with the information and guidance derived from the early 1800’s, during Jefferson’s Presidency. An issue that was brought before the Supreme Court and recorded as “Marbury versus Madison”. Chief Justice Marshall’s famous response relating to this issue, is written: “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”. Jefferson also said: “Where Powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy”. This set the stage for the future evolution for amendments of all Constitutions, state and Federal. A law or Constitutional Amendment could now be created or changed and altered as long as is it did not transform or deform the original theme or intent of Constitutional law.

Based on that Supreme Court finding, two constitutional articles were dedicated to insure the future protections and securities of the Maine Constitution and Maine Laws. It was the founders intent that if a need arose, any future endeavor to change the Maine Constitution and Maine law had to advance, increase and strengthen the original intent of freedom & Liberty. These changes had to be made within a small margin with resolves and bills that were not repugnant. As a result, two Articles were written and accepted into the Maine Constitution. It is important to note that the language of these important articles have not been altered to this day.

Article IV, Part Third, Section 1 is written that the Legislature: shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.

Article X Sections 3 is written that: All laws now in force in this state, and not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force, until altered or repealed by the Legislature, or shall expire by their own limitation.

What do these two Articles have to do with each other? First of all, The Constitution of Maine is the paramount law of the State of Maine, it is the supreme law of the land. No law can be created that can supersede it and all future laws must fit into the framework of the Maine & U.S Constitutions. Also, all resolves and resolutions to add or change the Constitution must also fit into the framework of the Maine and U. S. Constitution. The key word to any future alterations is the word repugnant.

According to the 1820 Constitution, Article IV Part Third, Section 1, it is obviously clear that the Legislature is totally responsible and accountable for establishing “all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State”. And the legislature is also totally responsible for establishing resolves/Constitutional amendments

8

for the public’s acceptance. It is obviously clear that every law or resolve fabricated by the legislature could not be repugnant or they would be in violation of the Constitution.

According to the 1820 Constitution, Article IV Part Third, Section 1, it is obviously clear that the Governor (Supreme Executive Power) is totally responsible and accountable for signing into law “all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State”. And according to the 1820 Constitution, Article V Part First, Section 12, the Governor is also totally responsible for enforcing all laws. It is obviously clear that every law (bill) fabricated by the legislature could not be repugnant or the Governor would be in violation of the Constitution for signing it into law or enforcing it!

The founders and authors of the original 1820 Constitution of Maine intended and expected that the Legislators (and the Governor), when they made future resolves and bills, would essentially scrutinize the objectives, the meaning and their significance. The two Articles (IV & X) were written to insure that any proposed enactment of a bill or resolve to amend the Constitution was for the defense and benefit of all of the Maine people and not repugnant to either Constitution.

It is important to understand that the founders believed that the legislators would approach their duties in an honest, responsible and accountable manner, without agendas or slanted political objectives. It was assumed that if a resolve or a bill was to be found and deemed repugnant to the Constitution of Maine and the United States, then the remaining legislators would not let it pass committee. As a fail-safe, it was expected and understood that the Governor could use his veto power on resolves and bills that were repugnant.

To this day the Judges, Lawyers, Governors and the legislature do not use nor do they understand the intent and relationship of these two articles. Because the word repugnant is not recognizable or used in today’s language, I will supply the definition; please find the dictionary definition of the word Repugnant: Offensive, abominable, appalling, awful, disgusting, distasteful, dreadful, evil, foul, fulsome, gross, hideous, horrendous, horrible, horrid, loathsome, nasty, nauseating, nauseous, noisome, noxious, obnoxious, obscene, odious, rancid, repellent (also repellant), repugnant, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, shocking, sickening, ugly, exceptionable, objectionable; brackish, disagreeable, dislikable, unpleasant; contemptible, despicable, detestable, hard, hateful; unhealthy, unsavory, unwholesome; execrable, lousy, miserable; atrocious, frightful, ghastly, grim, grisly, gruesome, heinous, horrendous, horrific, horrifying, lurid, macabre, monstrous, nightmarish, shocking, sick, sickish, sickly, terrible, unspeakable, vile; off-putting, undesirable, unwanted, unwelcome; barbarous, unchristian, uncivilized, ungodly, unholy; distressing, disturbing, upsetting.

Ignorance of the meaning of the word repugnant is by willful design. The plan to dismantle the Constitution of Maine, Maine’s Laws and the Court system began with misleading and distracting the honest Legislators and Governors from their real duties.

9

These lawyers also understood the human mind and the fact that most honest people trust their elected officials and the legal systems, so it was easy to mislead the people of Maine and distract and also mislead them on many levels.

We do not have a time machine, so we cannot eye witness events that took place in the past, so we have to look at what was recorded & preserved and hope that archived material is correct or partially scrubbed and replaced with false facts. We have no way of knowing what records were destroyed or altered to hide the truth. But we do know where we are today and where we should have been if “repugnant” bills and resolves were not allowed to pass into State and Constitutional Law.

There is one more important fact that I wish to point out. When the U. S. Constitution was amended, none of its language was deleted, thereby allowing the reader to see the exact changes made. This is not the case with the Maine Constitution. When a change was made in the Maine Constitution, there were no footnotes or any attention to the fact of the change of intent or addition or removal of language. Any lay person reading the past or current (2013) Constitution would be led to believe that the 2013 Constitution was in its original state from 1820. I personally believe that the difference between the process of amendments between the two Constitutions and the changes made was by design! I personally believe that it was this hidden agenda to hide the repugnant changes and amendments that took place. This method of hiding the amendments would essentially deceive the future researchers so they would not have the ability to really know of the changes unless they were able to scrutinize and compare the 1820 Constitution with the 2013 Constitution.

10

Governors Council/Executive Council

The 1820 Constitution of Maine had many original and several new fail-safes incorporated into its order of performance. One of these fail-safes was to grant the executive with a body of advisors who were non-partisan and were insulated from outside influence. The President of the United States did not have a mandated independent counsel to help guide and provide suggestions that could be drawn from. However, the Maine Constitution, Article V, Part Second, the Governor had a seven member team that was called the “Executive Council” or “Governors Council”

Article V – Part Second. COUNCIL. Section 1. Is written: “There shall be a Council, to consist of seven persons, citizens of the United states, and residents of this Sate, to advise the Governor in the executive part of government, whom the Governor shall have full power, at his discretion, to assemble: and he, with the Counsellors, or a majority of them, may from time to time, hold and keep a Council, for ordering and directing the affairs of State according to law. Section 2. The Counsellors shall be chosen annually, ….., by joint ballot of Senators and Representatives in Convention;…...”Section 4. No member of Congress, or of the Legislature of this State, nor any person holding any office under the United States, nor any civil officers under this State, shall be Counsellors.Note: I did not copy sections 2 & 3 as those portions were not significant to my references.

The primary reason for the language, in this article, for the Council was to have an independent body separate from any outside influence from any group or body of people, it was pure and simple.

Through out the Constitution, the reference to the decisions made by the Governor, the council is also referenced. Even though the Council was to advise in the affairs of the State according to law, the Counsellors were essential to the decisions that were made by the Governor.

If any powerful body such as the Congress, or the Maine Legislature or the Maine Court system wanted to pass repugnant bills or repugnant resolves, they would have to convince the seven members and the Governor.

After studying many bills and resolves that were enacted since 1820, we know for a fact that many bills and resolves were slipped by the law makers, but we are not sure if these resolves and bills were possibly snuck in by all of the Executive Counsellor’s and the Governors. Does this mean that the Counsellors were stupid or fooled or whether they were in on the conspiracy to ignore Articles IV & X, we do not know for sure, but we can with certainty speculate at this time!

What we do know is that in 1973, Senate Bill 661 & L.D. 2021 were discussed. The Bill “An act to redistribute Certain Statutory Powers now vested in the Executive Council, to

11

abolish the Legislative Research Committee, to create a statutory Legislative Council, to provide for permanent Joint Standing Committees of the Legislature and to provide for an Annual Rather than Biennial Budget”. This bill was created to address changes in the law and also the Constitution as the Executive Council was Article 5 – Part Second. This essentially meant that if accepted, two processes would have to take place: #1.The passage of this bill; #2. And then, a resolve would have to be fabricated, passed by 2/3rds of the legislature and then voted on by the people of Maine.

The floor discussion was quite revealing and it was quite apparent that many legislators knew that the bill was damaging (repugnant) to the Constitution, but in the end it was brought up to a vote. However, the Constitution was not changed at this time. The Executive Council held on for another three years until 1976. As a result, the Legislative Research Committee was changed in 1973 to the Legislative Council (see section in the Revisors Office) and all of the responsibilities were transferred to the Legislative Council.

The Chair of the House called on John Martin of Eagle Lake. According to Mr. Martin, this issue was raised as early as 1965. At that time, John H. Reed (Ft Fairfield) was the Republican Governor; Martin said: Reed “vetoed the statutory changes dealing with the powers of the Governors council, we would have done away with most of those powers that the Council held.” Martin went on to say: “I think it is important to keep in mind that we are talking about a complete package (the transfer of the Constitutional Power of the Governors Council to a Legislative statutory power).” When asked if the Legislature only accepts the changes of transfer of the Legislative Research Committee to the Legislative Council and does not abolish the Constitutional Governors Council, Martin said: “If this bill should in effect, become law without the other one becoming part of the Constitution, then what you in effect would have done would be to transfer the Constitutional powers of the Executive Council to the Legislative Council. You would have abolished the Legislative Research Committee and created instead the Joint Standing Committee.”

What gall this Representative Martin has to try to convince the legislators that they have the ability to override the Maine Constitution just by statutory law. What we also know is, 3 years latter in the year1976, Article V – Part Second was abolished and removed in its entirety. The resolve was created and passed as an amendment; it stated: “RESOLUTION, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to Abolish the Executive Council and to reassign its Constitutional powers to the Governor and the Legislature.” The language was removed from the Constitution and new public law was established to recognize the legislative power and to replace the Constitutional language with nothing more than mere statutory power.

Note: The Governor already had the Constitutional powers, it was the legislature that was fraudulently given the reassigned Constitutional power. That means that legislature could now by law influence the Executive Department decisions and establish new laws according to the Legislative Department.

12

Need I remind the reader that Section 4 was clearly written: No member of Congress, or of the Legislature of this State, shall be Counsellors. And need I remind the reader that the primary reason for the language, in this article, was for the Council was to have an independent body separate from any outside influence from any group or body of people.

It is obvious that this resolution was a blatant in your face act of treason against the State of Maine and its Constitution! Section 4 said NO member of the Legislature shall be a Counsillor. And now according to the new public law the legislature reassigned Constitutional powers to the Legislature.

Now at this point, allow me to interject the information found in the Maine State BAR Associations booklet “!00 Years of Law and Justice”. In the foreword, H.T. Silsby brags that “lawyers as a class have dominated in numbers the high public offices in Maine. For instance 75% of U.S. senators, 65% of the U.S. House Members and over 50% of the Maine Governors have been lawyers.” Silsby only mentions the high public offices, but he does not however disclose how many State Senators or Representatives were lawyers.

We can do no more than speculate that there have been State Senators and Representative that have held both positions - as lawyers and as members of the Maine State BARR Association and were also elected as legislators in the past and we do know that there are many that presently hold these two positions today. What we do know for sure is that we have the many acknowledgements listed in the 100 Years of Law and Justice booklet that brag about their influence the legislature.

13

The Office of the Revisor

What we know by historical fact, is that the Maine BAR Association also had other powerful insiders that made the creation of repugnant bills and resolves easier to accept by naive Governors, legislators and the public. These powerful insiders were the Revisors and their staff.

In the year 1927, a resolve was enacted to change the Maine Constitutions intent. This position and its responsibility was the first of its kind in the State of Maine. One could only imagine the need to preserve written law, develop a general order and establish a technical procedure to facilitate searches and to systematically arrange, incorporate and catalog volumes of papers that could be accessed uniformly. Written in the Resolve was the duty of the Commissioner; his main function was to: “revise, collate, arrange and consolidate all the general and public laws now in force”. There were other minor functions, but unimportant for this report to list.

At that time and now, it makes sense for a responsible person and staff to perform these functions. But as time passed and the qualifications, accountability and requirements were skillfully changed, it is easy to see how this powerful office and its staff could influence the future bills and Constitutional amendments to fit an unseen agenda.

At first, the qualified Commissioner (Revisor), was expected to be “learned in the Law” (Common Law/Constitutional Law). The key phrase here is “learned in the Law”. The Commissioner not only needed to function physically in keeping the past laws in general order, but he must understand how laws can be written/established to function under the Maine and U.S. Constitutions and the Common Law court system. This requirement was written in the Law: “interpreting the statutes and (Maine) Constitution which appear in the Maine reports and to all decisions interpreting the Constitution of the United States which appear in the United States Supreme Court reports”. The Commissioner would need to know by heart the Maine & United States Constitutions and understand past and current Supreme Court decisions. Without being “Learned in the Law”, the Commissioner would be nothing but a high paid Librarian that knew how to collate, arrange and consolidate all the general and public laws.

In 1929, a Commissioner was named and a Commission (full staff) was formed “for the completion of their work and the perfection of the revision.” This time it was the duty of the said “Commission” to be “authorized in it discretion to index or make proper arrangements for the indexing of the revised statutes and the Constitutions of the United States and of Maine.”

Note: The Maine and U.S. Constitutions were mentioned three times in the 1929 resolve.

In the year 1930, the new resolve expanded the Revisor’s new responsibility to: Assist in the preparation, drafting of legislation and to revise all legislation and statutes.

14

Note: in less than 3 years, in this resolve, there ceases to be any reference to the Constitution of Maine and the Constitution of the U.S.

In the year 1931, the term of the Revisor is established, he is to serve for 6 years. The duties of the Revisor become more defined. Additions to his duties are “to distinguish private and special laws from the public laws”. There are still no recognition or reference to the either Constitution.

In the year 1933, the resolve expanded the Revisor’s new responsibility to: “During each session of the legislature to draft public laws, at the request of members of the legislature.”

In the year 1944, the resolve reduced the Revisors qualifications from being “Learned in the Law” to someone: “who shall be a suitable person experienced in statutory revision”. To reiterate, the first Revisor’s requirement was written in the Law: “interpreting the statutes and (Maine) Constitution which appear in the Maine reports and to all decisions interpreting the Constitution of the United States which appear in the United States Supreme Court reports”.

The question now arises: why did the Legislature (and the Governor) sign onto the language that removed the requirements to be “Learned in the Law” and to the language that mandates, targets and requires the Office of the Revisor to fabricate resolves and bills in accordance to both Constitutions and not repugnant to both Constitutions?

This change allows a Revisor who does not understand the Constitutional /Common Law, the Maine and U.S. Constitutions and the United States Supreme Court Reports to function in the capacity without the knowledge as was originally required from the onset. Was this intentional or ignorance?

This resolve for the first time also gives the Revisor the responsibility to “employ such assistance and employees as may be necessary, subject to the provisions of the personnel law”.

In the year 1947, everything changes drastically. The Governor and his Council no longer appoint the Revisor, the Office of the Revisor and its responsibility is now transferred to ”The Legislative Research Committee” (LRC). The LRC’s membership is made up completely of legislators, 3 Senators – appointed by the President of the Senate & 7 Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House. The new Revisor will be appointed from within the 10-member committee and will also hold the position of director. His qualifications shall be: “well versed in economics, in political science and law, and methods in research.”

The LRC is given enormous responsibility and authority to carry out their agenda of power and control over the Maine Statutes. Many of these responsibilities and outreach are unconstitutional and allow the committee to infringe into the separation of the Constitutional Departments.

15

Before you read any further, there are some responsibilities mandated that may be viewed as essential and necessary and not unconstitutional. The LRC is given the authority under Chapter 392, Section 25, through, Paragraph II, To examine the effects of Constitutional provisions and previously

enacted statutes and to make recommendations to make amendments. Paragraph IV, To assist the legislature in the proper performance of its Constitutional

functions by providing its members with impartial and accurate information and reports concerning the legislative problems, which come before it.

Note: it was 17 years since any reference was made to studying or comparing or following any Constitutional mandates. It is not known at this time whether the authors of this resolution wanted the Constitutions involved in the creation of resolves or bills.

What I believe to be the most fraudulent and unconstitutional of Chapter 392, Section 25, is as follows: Paragraph VI, The committee shall have the authority to administer Oaths, issue

subpoenas, and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of any paper, books, accounts, documents and testimony, and to cause the deposition of witnesses, either residing within or without the state.

Paragraph XI, the Governor may from time to time send the committee messages containing his recommendations for legislation and explaining the policy of the administration.

Note #1.: It has always been the Constitutional authorities, such as the Governor, Secretary of State or a Justice “learned in the Law” who had the authority and provided Oaths. Note #2.: It has always been the Courts/Judicial Departments responsibility to issue subpoenas, and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of any paper, books, accounts, documents and testimony, and to cause the deposition of witnesses, either residing within or without the state.Note #3.: The Governor is the Supreme Executive Power of this State, he does not need to share his recommendations for legislation, nor does he have to explain the policy of the administration with this committee. He can enter emergency bills at any time and during real emergencies he may issue executive orders until the legislature could re-examine the need for the order.

In the year 1973, the “Legislative Research Committee” was dismantled and replaced by the “Legislative Council” (LC). The council as with the LRC consisted of 10 members, five of which, shall be from the Senate and 5 of which, shall be from the House of Representatives. The Committee shall have the following members, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the floor leaders and assistants of the major parties. The Chairman of the Legislative Council would be elected from within its own membership.

The authority of the new Legislative Council grows in comparison to the Legislative Research Committee. The Legislative Council is given the authority under Public Law 1973, 1161, Chapter 590,

16

Copied and recorded as follows ( in Gothic type) are all the new responsibilities and up-dates of the Legislative Council. One word of caution to those who are used to one-liners or summaries, this information is overwhelmingly and extremely boring, but important to see how much authority this one council now has over the Maine Legislature.

§ 162. AuthorityThe Legislative Council shall have the authority:1. To prepare and approve all legislative budgets;2. To establish salary schedules for all employees of legislative service agencies, departments and agencies and to develop relatively uniform salary schedules for House and Senate employees and officers;3. When the Legislature is not in session, to assign bills, resolves, and studies for consideration by the joint standing committees and joint select committees of the Legislature, to request reports, studies and legislation from said joint standing committees and to convene meetings of said joint standing committees and joint select committees and to exercise supervision over them;4. To administer oaths, issue subpoenas, compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of any papers, books, accounts, documents and testimony, and to cause the deposition of witnesses, whether residing within or without the State to be taken in the manner prescribed by law for taking depositions in civil actions in the Superior Court. In case of disobedience on the part of any person to comply with any subpoena issued in behalf of a committee, or on the refusal of any witness to testify to any matters regarding which he may be lawfully interrogated, it shall be the duty of the Superior Court of any county, on application of a member of a committee, to compel obedience by proceedings for contempt as in the case of disobedience of the requirements of a subpoena issued from such court or a refusal to testify therein. Each witness, other than a state officer or employee, shall receive for his attendance the fees and mileage provided for witnesses in civil cases in courts of record, which shall be audited and paid upon the presentation of proper vouchers sworn to by such witness and approved by the Chairman of the council;5. To assess ways and means to improve the legislative operation and to make improvements in the legislative organization, procedures, facilities and working conditions, and to make periodic reports to the Legislature concerning its findings;6. To appoint a Legislative Administrative Director, a Director of Legislative Research, a Finance Officer, a Constituent Service Officer, and a State Law Librarian, each of whom shall be chosen without reference to party affiliations and solely on the grounds of fitness to perform the duties of his office;7. To establish operating policies for each legislative agency and office;8. To oversee the appropriations and other financial accounts of the Legislature and of all-legislative agencies, departments and offices.

17

Appropriations for carrying out the purposes of this chapter shall be made annually by the Legislature. All appropriations or allocations by the Legislature for specific studies to be carried out by the joint standing committees or joint select committees shall not lapse but shall be carried forward and expended for the purpose for which the appropriation or allocation was made. The balance of any appropriation or allocation for such studies that is not fully expended shall be refunded to the Legislature;9. To see that an independent annual post-audit of all appropriations to the Legislature is prepared and distributed to each member of the Legislature, such document to become a matter of public record;10. To coordinate and oversee intergovernmental relations programs on behalf of the Legislature, and to recommend to the Legislature participation by the Legislature and its members in interstate and inter-legislative organizations; and to apply for, receive and administer all grants and appropriations for these purposes;11. To provide necessary furniture, stationery and other supplies and equipment for the use of the members, committees, agencies and offices of the Legislature;12. To insure that adequate physical facilities are provided for the efficient operation of the Legislature and to provide for and determine the utilization of legislatively controlled facilities both within and without the state house;13. To approve all transfers between divisions of the legislative appropriation and within the appropriations for all joint appropriations or legislative agency appropriations;14. To establish published rules of procedure for the conduct of the business of the council;IS. To perform such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned to the council from time to time by the 2 houses.

Sec. 5. R. S., T. 3, § 163, repealed and replaced. Section 163 of Title 3 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is repealed and the following enacted in place thereof:§ 163. Legislative Administrative Director; dutiesThe duties of the Legislative Administrative Director shall be:1. To act as executive officer of the Legislature when it is not in sessionand unless the Legislature shall otherwise order, he shall, with the cooperation of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives have custody of all legislative property and material, arrange for necessary supplies and equipment through the State Bureau of Purchases, arrange for necessary services, make all arrangements for incoming sessions of the Legislature, have general oversight of chambers and rooms occupied by the Legislature and permit State departments to use legislative property. He shall, with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House,

18

dispose of surplus or obsolete material through the continuing property records section of the Bureau of Public Improvements. He shall approve accounts and vouchers for payment. A perpetual inventory of all legislative property shall be maintained under the supervision of the Legislative Council and an accounting thereof shall be made to the Legislature upon its request.2. To coordinate, subject to the control of the council, the activities of the offices of the Director of Legislative Research, the Legislative Finance Officer, the Constituent Service Officer, the State Law Librarian, the Senate Clerk, the House Clerk and such other legislative agencies and offices as may be created by the Legislature.3. To act as a vehicle through which the several agencies, departments and offices of the Legislature may report to the council their budget requests, personnel and supply requirements and to assist the council in the orderly disposition of these requests.4. To be responsible for implementing policy resulting from decisions of the council.5. To prepare such reports as are required of the council and maintain minutes of the regular meetings of the council.6. To appoint staff assistants to the Legislature, with the consent of the council who shall be chosen without reference to party affiliations and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties to be assigned to them.7. To undertake such other duties as are assigned by the council.

Sec. 6. R. S., T. 3, § 164, amended. The first sentence of section 164 of Title 3 of the Revised Statutes is amended to read as follows:11.The Director of Legislative Research shall perform the following functions and duties:

Sec. 7. R. S., T. 3, § 164, sub-§ 12, amended'. Subsection 12 of section164 of Title 3 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by section I of chapter 8 of the public laws of 1969, is further amended to read as follows:12. Assistants. The Director shall appoint, with the approval of the Legislative Council, an assistant director and such technical assistants, and shall appoint, subject to the Personnel Law, such clerical assistants, as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.

Sec. 8. R. S., T. 3, § 165, additional. Title 3 of the Revised Statutes is amended by adding a new section 165, to read as follows:§ 165. Joint committees, authority.The Legislature may by rule establish such joint standing committees and joint select committees, as it deems necessary. Such committees shall have the authority, both when the Legislature is in session and when it is not in session:

19

1. To collect information concerning the government and general welfare of the State as related to assignments received from the council;2. To assist the Legislature in the proper performance of its constitutional functions by providing its members with impartial and accurate information and reports concerning the legislative problems which are assigned by the Legislative Council which information may be obtained by independent studies or by cooperation with and information from similar agencies in other states as to the practice of other states in dealing with similar problems;3. A majority of the members of a committee shall constitute a quorum, and a majority thereof shall have the authority to act in any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the committee. A committee may hold either public or private hearings and may hold executive sessions, excluding all except members of the committee;4. Each state department shall furnish to a committee such documents, material or information as may be requested by a committee;5. A committee shall keep minutes of matters considered and votes taken at its meetings and shall make reports to the Legislature on all matters which come before the committee, the actions taken thereon, and the progress made in relation thereto;6. Reports of a committee may be made from time to time to members of the Legislature and to the public;7. When the duties assigned to a committee so require, the Legislature may grant to it the power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, books, accounts, documents and testimony, and to cause the deposition of witnesses, whether residing within or without the State to be taken in the manner prescribed by law for taking depositions in civil actions in the Superior Court. In case of disobedience on the part of any person to comply with any subpoena issued in behalf of a committee, or on the refusal of any witness to testify to any matters regarding which he may be lawfully interrogated, it shall be the duty of the Superior Court of any county, on application of a member of a committee, to compel obedience by proceedings for contempt, as in the case of disobedience of the requirements of a subpoena issued from such court or a refusal to testify therein. Each witness, other than a state officer or employee, who appears before a committee by its order or subpoena shall receive for his attendance the fees and mileage provided for witnesses in civil cases in courts of record, which shall be audited and paid upon the presentation of proper vouchers sworn to by such witness and approved by the chairman of the committee.8. Members of a committee that meet when the Legislature is not in session shall be paid $25 for every day's attendance on days when committee meetings are held and shall be reimbursed for their actual

20

expenses with the exception of mileage which shall be paid at the same rate received by state employees.

Sec. 9. R. S., T. 3, § 166, additional. Title 3 of the Revised Statutes is amended by adding a new section 166 to read as follows: § 166. Staff assistants to the Legislature.The Legislative Administrative Director shall, under the control of the Legislative Council, assign the staff assistants to assist the joint standing or select committees, to work as directed by the committee chairmen, and to such other legislative tasks as the Legislative Council and the Administrative Director may deem appropriate. The Legislative Administrative Director shall appoint, subject to Personnel Law, such clerical assistants as may be necessary and shall provide appropriate facilities for the staff.

Sec. 10. R. S., T. 3, § 167, additional. Title 3 of the Revised Statutes IS amended by adding a new section 167 to read as follows: § 167. Legislative Finance Officer; duties.The duties of the Legislative Finance Officer shall be:I. To collect and assemble factual information concerning the fiscal affairs of the State for the use of the Joint Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee of the Legislature in formulating its proposals for appropriations;2. To examine all requests for appropriations made by the various executive agencies of State Government and attend any hearings necessary to obtain complete information;3. To examine other requests for payment of which appropriations are to be requested;4. To report in such manner as shall be directed by the Legislative Council as to any matters which may be of assistance to the committee or the Legislature in forming an independent judgment in the determination of any fiscal matters. The Finance Officer shall appoint, with the approval of the Legislative Council, an assistant finance officer to assist the Finance Officer in carrying out his duties. He shall be chosen without reference to party affiliation and solely on the grounds of fitness to perform the duties of his office.The Office of Legislative Finance Officer shall serve as the secretariat of the Joint Legislative Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs.

Sec. 11. R. S., T. 3, § 168, additional. Title 3 of the Revised Statutes is amended by adding a new section 168 to read as follows: § 168. Staff assistants to legislative leadership. The President of the Senate, the Majority and Minority Floor Leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority and Minority Floor Leaders of the House of Representatives

21

shall each have the authority to appoint, at his discretion, a personal staff assistant when the Legislature is in session. The Legislative Council shall determine the salaries of said staff assistants.

Sec. 12. R. S., T. 3, § 169, additional. Title 3 of the Revised Statutes is amended by adding a new section 169, to read as follows: § 169. Constituent Service Officer; functions and duties The constituent service officer shall perform the following functions and duties.I. Factual information. Collect such factual information as may be directed by the Legislative Council or by any member of the Legislature to the extent possible.2. Constituent service. Receive, from any member of the Legislature or from any legislative committee, any inquiry or complaint concerning services which mayor may not be provided by any governmental unit within the State of Maine. Such inquiry or complaint shall be investigated, processed and answered in accordance with procedures which may be established by the Legislative Council.3. Continuation. Serve as the continuing presence of the Legislature in Augusta during the time when the Legislature is not in session.4. Additional duties may be assigned to the constituent service officer by the Legislative Council. The constituent service officer may employ research associates and secretarial assistance, subject to the Personnel Law and the Legislative Council, if necessary to carry out this chapter.

Sec. 13. R. S., T. 3, § 172, amended. The first sentence of Section 172 of Title 3 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by section I of chapter 480 of the public laws of 1971, is amended to read as follows: The Legislative Council shall appoint a qualified State Law Librarian who shall be the Director of the Law and Legislative Reference Library.

Sec. 14. Intent of the Legislature. The present incumbents in the offices of Director and Assistant Director of Legislative Research and the Finance Officer and Assistant Finance Officer as described in the Revised Statutes, Title 3, section 163 and the office of State Law Librarian as described in the Revised Statutes, Title 3, Section 172, shall continue in their offices until the expiration of the 6-year term in which they currently serve. Vacancies in these positions created by expiration of said terms or otherwise shall be filled by the Legislative Council.

Emergency clause. In view of the emergency cited in the preamble, this Act shall take effect when approved. Effective July 3, 1973

22

Personally, I do not know how to address this Emergency Legislation! First of all, was there a dire need for emergency, or did they fool the Legislature & Governor into believing the need for immediate attention. The answer is NO to the emergency, but Yes to fooling the legislature and the Governor!Secondly, when you know that there was a hidden agenda to abolish the governors/executive council, the emergency legislation does make sense! The longer the Governors Council was in power, the less the criminals could get by the good legislators and the people!Thirdly, it is amazing as to the extreme power and control that this new Legislative Council is responsible and accountable to, in less than a 50 years period.

Let us look at this in a short time-line again. In the year 1927, the idea to systemize the Maine State laws/statutes was decided by resolution. The Revisor’s qualification was to be “Learned in the Law”; at that time it was a reference to a person knowledgeable in Constitutional and Common Law. Periodically, laws were created to expand the accountability and responsibilities of the Revisor/Director and a Committee to insure proper organization and preservation of all State laws/statutes, while remaining in the framework of the U. S. and Maine Constitutions. Less than 4 years latter, in the year 1931 there is no longer any reference to the need to compare bills to the U. S. and Maine Constitutions.In the Year 1944, the Revisor/Director no longer needs to understand the Constitution.From 1947 – 1976 The Revisor’s office is transformed to the Legislative Research Committee and then it was changed in 1973 to The Legislative Council, which essentially replaced the Governors/Executive (non-partisan) Council.

The power that this group now has is extreme, the Legislative Council is akin to an Octopus with more than 8 tentacles that essentially reaches into every department and branch of government which effect the Maine peoples lives. What a plan, nothing is out of reach from their oversight, power and control.

In 1986, the “Revisor’s Office was re-Identified under the Legislative Council. It is now claimed, in writing (with the State Seal) that: The Revisor’s Office is one of four nonpartisan offices serving the Legislature. Hopefully by now, you know how this office has influenced and functioned to maintain the control over the Legislative and Exectutive Departments. They did this by being on the ground floor while allowing and violating Articles IV, Part 3rd, Section 1 & IX, section 3, while performing 6 primary functions: legislative drafting, editing, revising, engrossing, publishing of statutes and maintaining a statutory database.

How can this Office claim nonpartisanship when there are internally infiltrated by card-carrying members of the Maine State BAR Association?

Anyone can research the membership of the past and current Selected Staff of the Maine State Legislature Office of the Revisor and make the easy connection of Attorneys/Lawyers and the Paralegal Assistants. I rest my case (sorry for the pun).

23

24

13 th Amendment of the United States Constitution

What does the 13th Amendment have to do with this report? When you are finished reading my report, you will be one step closer to understanding the fear that our founding fathers had. The founding fathers knew England was not a nation that easily gave up its possessions, especially a rag-tag nation that did not believe in Monarchal laws and foreign banking systems. The Revolutionary War was fresh in their memory, the Constitution was still young, but the founding fathers were voyeurs, they foresaw a potential catastrophe if they did not intervene quickly. Without Constitutional protections, the freedom and liberty of the people would eventually perish if the loyal members of the BAR were still beholden to the Crown and the English BAR. This is why the original 13 th Amendment was introduced and ratified early into the process. But there is a mystery as to what happened to the original 13th Amendment.

How many of you can place your hands on a U. S. Constitution? How many of you know the real date of the ratification of the current Thirteenth Amendment or that it was originally the real 14th Amendment? The current U. S. Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment was written to read: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

What if I said that according to the Laws of Wyoming of 1879, their copy of the U. S. Constitution the Thirteenth Amendment was written to read: “If any citizen of the United States shall except, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept or 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.”?

Their copy goes on to the 14th Amendment, which reads exactly the same as our 13th

Amendment reads today. Were the writers in Wyoming during 1879 that mixed up? What difference does it make what the Laws of Wyoming say?

Well the mystery does not stop there, but we can start there. There is much proof that there was an Original 13th Amendment that was, by design, eventually erased and unlawfully removed and replaced with what we now have today. If that really happened, that leaves us with many questions; Why was it removed and hidden from historic papers? Who removed and hid it, when did it happen, what were the reasons behind the mystery and how was it removed and replaced with the original 14th Amendment? And lastly if you have the time and you are interested in doing the research, look into to this issue. If the original 14th Amendment (which is the current 13th) was ratified in 1865 and the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870 where did the current, 14th amendment (with its

25

5 sections) come from? And, how can they say that it was ratified in 1868 if it was not in existence until after 1970, who is lying?

If the original 13th Amendment was removed and replaced with what we have today, it was one of the greatest unconstitutional, fraudulent, treasonous acts ever perpetrated on the citizens of this country! It is to be also noted, that unlike the Maine Constitution, the U.S. Constitution once an Amendment is ratified, it stays written in the Constitution, it is never removed even when if it is repealed at a later date (reference the 18 th and 21st

Amendments). Ergo, the questions above remain pertinent.

Many people may question the need for the original 13th Amendment because the language in the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 8 should be sufficient; It is written: No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no Person holding any Office of Profit or trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, prince, or foreign State.

Let us take this one step at a time; and time may be the key to this mystery. We know that the U. S. Constitution was ratified in 1789 and we know that the 12 th Amendment was ratified in 1804 and we know that the 1879 Laws of Wyoming had language that we do not have today. A lot of history happened within that 90-year period. So bear with me and allow me to focus on a few relative dates of events. The war of 1812, Maine separated from Massachusetts, the civil war, Lincoln’s assassination and reconstruction to mention a few.

As you should know from history, in 1812, England invaded this continent because they still believed that the United States did not have the sovereign authority that they claimed. And it was always their belief that by one way or another, they would bring this county down and back under the Crown of England. If you have read my first report, you know that there is no history that we know of that shows the Lawyers/Esquires separation from the Royal British Accredited Registry (BAR) when the United States separated from British Rule. Were the Lawyers/Esquires still loyal during and after the war of 1812?

Many archived booklets and pamphlets record the original 13 th Amendment, word for word, as I have written previously. It is believed that its proposal and its ratification took place between 1812 and 1845. When all of the available information is put together and all of the dots are connected, the scheme and true agenda is revealed.

Maine separated from Massachusetts in 1820; Maine’s Article I, Section 23 reads: “No title of nobility or heredity distinction, privilege, honor or emolument, shall ever be granted or confirmed, nor shall any office be created, the appointment to which shall be for a longer time than during good behavior.”

Did you notice any language similar to the original 13th Amendment? Do you think that there was any influence from the 13th Amendment for the language in Maine’s Constitution? The gist of the original 13 Amendment and Maine Article I, section 23 is,

26

the Authors knew that there was still an influence from the English Royalty and its nobility and the Lawyers/Esquires that were still loyal to the British Accredited Registry. The Authors of the language of both articles knew that a lawyer/esquire could not serve two masters.

Before and during the American Civil War, Great Britain supported the Confederacy in hope that the South would win the war, and thereby giving them a foot in the door. There are also historic papers in Canada that alludes to a conspiracy involving English sympathizers and the assassination of President Lincoln. But that is another story.

It is said that the second 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6th, 1865. This tells me that the original 13th Amendment lost its place sometime before or not to long after this date.

After the North won the Civil War and during the Reformation Period, the U. S. Government went into a free fall. Because the Southern States had lost the war, they were at the mercy of government officials and had to bow down to the fists of those in the Northern Government control. There was much arm-twisting and corruption involved in influencing the southern governments to except northern control. The 14th Amendment was said to be ratified July 9, 1968. During the time of the Civil War and the Reformation period, our Government ran up a large bill that forced this government to give allegiance to the Foreign Banks who also controlled most of the Lawyers/Esquires.

Now comes my theory based on all of the information at hand: The Maine State BAR Association was able to skillfully infiltrate the Legislative and Executive Departments of the Maine Government and through its BAR Members, as a result, it changed the intent of the Maine Constitution and Maine Law. If this happened so skillfully in Maine, was it not also possible for the American BAR Association to have infiltrated other State governments and their Legislative and Executive departments of the U. S. Government and as a result, to influence the changes in the U. S. Constitution and U. S. Laws? I say yes!

There are many accessible archived booklets and pamphlets that have recorded the original 13th Amendment; as I written above. It is believed that from the first proposal to its ratification, the acceptance took place between 1812 and 1825. I personally believe that it could have taken place before Maine’s Constitution was ratified because of the similarity of language in Article I, Section 23. That would place it on or before 1819-1820, if anything, and the ideas of preventing Royalty or those loyal to the Crown of England from the infiltration into the Legislative and the Executive were being discussed at the Maine Constitutional Convention.

Now let us compare the language of the U. S. Constitution, the Constitution of Maine and the original 13th Amendment. Read them over several times and I believe that you will understand why the need for the original 13th Amendment!

27

1789, U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 8 should be sufficient; It is: No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

1980, Maine’s Article I, Section 23: No title of nobility or heredity distinction, privilege, honor or emolument, shall ever be granted or confirmed, nor shall any office be created, the appointment to which shall be for a longer time than during good behavior.

1804-1825? Original Thirteenth Amendment: If any citizen of the United States shall except, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept or 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 .

Please note that the U.S. Constitution alludes to Persons that hold Titles should not hold any Office of Profit or trust under them.

Please note that the Constitution of Maine alludes to Persons that hold Titles and Honors may not be confirmed, nor shall any office be created for them.

Please note that the original 13th Amendment covers much more and to be exact, it alludes to Persons that hold Titles or Nobility or Honor 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 .

I remind you once again to remember the atmosphere and emotions of that period in history. The Revolutionary War, the era of the omnipresent English Pirates and the War of 1812 were still fresh in the minds of those who proposed and authored the original 13 th

Amendment. The authors of the 13th Amendment also knew from past experience that Great Britain had more than proven itself to be extremely dangerous and the Crown could not be trustworthy and they also knew that the elite and the bankers would not stop trying to regain their power on this continent. The Treaty of Paris, which was agreed to and signed by Great Britain, meant nothing to the English, or the war of 1812 would never have happened; we were not the aggressors. The authors knew that infiltrators were ready to step in if they could find a way around the Constitution of the U.S. and the Constitutions of each 13 States and that is why they created language that was clear, understandable and enforceable in comparison to past references.

28

TITLE 97CONSTITUTION OF MAINE

METHODS TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS

The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789. It was written in the U.S. Constitution Article V: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem in necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;….”

In 1819, members from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts prepared to separate the District of Maine, for it to become free and Independent State of the United States. Founders of the original U.S. Constitution, members from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and inhabitants of the District of Maine met during a Constitutional Convention to form the Constitution of Maine.

Together, the founders of the Constitution of Maine had 28 years to witness the trials and tribulations of the U.S. Constitution and its 10 Amendments. They incorporated the essential parts of The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of the U.S. Constitution and the 10 Amendments and incorporated them into the Maine Constitution. They then expanded other areas to give the Maine people greater protections and securities “of and for” their unalienable, natural, GOD given rights. The founders realized that there was a need to have citizens’ input when changing or amending the Constitution of Maine. The Maine founders knew that it was inevitable that the Constitution of Maine would also progress as time passed, and they wanted the citizens to participate in the expansion of their Constitution.

In the Constitution of Maine, Article X, Section 4. it is written: “The Legislature, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution; and when any amendment shall be so agreed upon, a resolution shall be passed and sent to the selectmen of the several towns and plantations, in the manner prescribed by law, at their next annual meetings in the month of September, to give in their votes on the question, whether such amendment shall be made; and if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution.”

This Article essentially gave the people input for their future participation, benefit and safety. If the Legislature was honest and truthful, and did not flower or wordsmith any proposed resolution, the voters could make an educated and proper decision in their vote. The only problem that we find today is that if we, the people, decide to change or propose a resolution to the Constitution, the Legislature may not deem it necessary to propose

29

such an amendment. We have found however, that Article I, Section 15 may be engaged at that time and the unwilling, dissenting legislator(s) may be served with a Remonstrance and shamed, if the request was valid. The plaintiffs would have the Authority to compel the defendants to be charged in a Constitutional Court and prosecution under Common Law.

The founders of this States Constitution must be rolling in their graves, for they would have never envisioned the fact that the future Governors, legislators, Lawyers and Judges would have dismantled the peoples Court system of “Common Law and County Courts” and replace them with State Corporate/Executive Law.

In the year 1875, the Maine people lost that right when two fraudulent and repugnant amendments were accepted and added to the Constitution. #1. Article IV, Part Third, Section 15 is written: Constitutional Conventions. “The Legislature shall, by a 2/3 concurrent vote of both branches, have the power to call constitutional conventions, for the purpose of amending this Constitution (Maine).” (Emphasis is mine)#2. Codification of the Amended Constitution. Article X, (1875) Section 6 is written: “After the Amendments, proposed herewith shall have been submitted to the popular vote, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court shall arrange the Constitution as amended, under appropriate titles and in proper Articles, Parts and Sections, omitting all Sections, Clauses, and words not in force, and making no other changes in the provisions or language thereof, and shall submit the same to the Legislature at its next session. And the draft, and the arrangement, when approved by the Legislature, shall be enrolled on parchment and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State; and printed copies thereof shall be prefixed to the books containing the laws of the State. And the Constitution, with the amendments made thereto, in accordance with the provisions thereof, shall be the supreme law of the State.” (Emphasis is mine)

The amendment listed above in #1, essentially removed all rights for the people to participate in voting for a proposed amendment, which is in direct violation to the intent of Article X, Section 4. Without the peoples right to vote on the amendment, the Legislature has the power to call constitutional conventions, for the purpose of amending this Constitution (Maine). (Emphasis is mine)

The amendment listed above #2, essentially codified (fraudulently changed) the Supreme Law of the State and this codification essentially turned the Constitution into public law and gave the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court the power, after the amendment is passed, to omit all Sections, Clauses, and words not in force at his or her discretion. Does it make sense that a resolve could be created and voted on by the people and passed, and then allow a Chief Justice to decide by his or her own will to omit all sections, clauses and words not in force? The reader may say: yes, but the revised and newly arranged Constitution must be “submitted to the legislature at its next session… to be approved by the Legislature”. But once again, the people are not part of this final process after arrangement and revising, a direct willful fraudulent, unconstitutional violation of Article X, Section 4. (Emphasis is mine)

30

In the year 1973 (the same year they tried to abolish the Governors/Executive Council), another amendment was accepted for Article X, Section 6 to renew the Constitution every ten years and then to prefix it “to the books containing the Revised Statutes of the State. (Note: And who revises the Statutes, but the Revisor’s Office?!) The 2003 Constitution is listed as Title 97, but yet, without change from 1820, Article X, section 6 is still written: …. Printed copies therefor shall be prefixed to the books containg the Revised Statutes of the State. How then can the Maine Constitution be Titled 97; it should by mandate to stand-alone or be titled “Title I”. The act of not prefixing the Constitution to the books containing the Revised Statutes of the State is further proof of turning the Constitution of Maine into a statute with a title larger than 1. The Constitution of Maine stands proudly alone and is the “Supreme Law of the Land” and nothing comes before it and nothing lessens its value of superiority. (Note: The 2013 codified Constitution has removed all reference to Title 97). (Emphasis is mine)

Last year, June 18 2013, LD 1564 (SP 607) was submitted: “A resolve, approving the 2013 draft and arrangement of the Constitution of Maine made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court and providing for its publication and distribution.” The bill was passed by the Legislature and deposited in the Office of the Secretary of State pursuant to the Constitution of Maine, Article X, Section 6 and is, at present time, being printed.

Note: Legislators that witnessed the passage of this bill in both the House and Senate say that this bill was read twice and passed, but the average citizen does not understand the morally offensive conditions of this particular type of passage.#1. If the bill is read and is not questioned the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the house may slam the gavel and say, “it’s a vote!”, and consider it passed. This is how many bills, or even a majority of them, are passed without discussion!#2. When the bill is read, the content and intent is not necessarily explained. If a bill is complicated or lengthy or considered safe by the political (floor) party leaders, many legislators are afraid to challenge the bill or they may be overwhelmingly confused or ignorant and therefor too embarrassed to request clarification or a “roll call vote” to show who was in favor or against. Passing a bill by the gavel is unconstitutional, fraudulent and criminal in many cases, but the legislators are afraid to challenge the process, because both political parties use it for their own applications. (Emphasis is mine)

If the founders of the State of Maine and its Constitution knew that the people should have a voice in voting for Constitutional Amendments, then why did the Legislature in 1875 & 1973 willfully propose Article IV, Part Third, Section 15; why then did the Legislature propose Article X, Section 6. The real question today is, why does the legislature still allow this treason to exist?

I have personally found that the average legislator that I have talked to, before they were elected, had never read the U. S. Constitution and they were not aware that there was a Constitution for Maine. Some of those legislators that knew of the U. S. and Maine Constitutions may have read them several times, but did not understand or study them or know how they worked together. I know of no legislator who has studied the history of

31

either Constitution and I know of no legislator or Governor who has compared any bills to either Constitution. If they had taken the time to fulfill their Oaths, the State of Maine would not be in this grave situation today.

How could this be, especially when we know that they all gave an Oath to support and faithfully discharge their ability to perform their duties under both Constitutions? Why would a legislator or Governor take and subscribe the Oath if they did not respect and plan to uphold their convictions, unless they did not take their Oaths seriously, or were/are they liars to begin with? These are harsh statements, but the State of Maine is in great trouble, and it is because past and present legislators have violated their Oaths and have done this through ignorance - or by willful design.

32

CONCLUSION

Let us try to put this all together. It is my belief that the American BAR Association and the Maine State BAR Association (MSBA) are separate by name only. The MSBA evolved to the top position in the Maine Judicial System by infiltrating the Maine Legislative and the Executive Departments with BAR members who where elected into these two departments. These Lawyers/Attorneys are known for their knowledge and intellect, so they entered these Constitutional departments with full knowledge of who they were. The Maine Supreme Court and the MSBA have recognized their members (lawyers/attorneys) as “Officers of the Court” thereby acknowledging them as members of the Judicial department/branch.

Let us look at this step by step: In 1978, the Maine Board of Overseers of the Maine State BAR Association was created. It was the intent of the Board to oversee the conduct of Lawyers that were deemed officers of the court.

A lawyer that was elected as Governor or legislator, is representing two branches of departments, the Executive and the Judicial departments, or the Legislative and the Judicial Departments. The MSBA and it members are made up of Lawyers and Justices and they have all given two Oaths that are written in the Constitution of Maine, Article IX – Section 1.Article IX – Section 1 is written: Oaths & Subscriptions. “Every person elected or appointed to either of the places or offices provided in this Constitution, and every person elected, appointed, or commissioned to any Judicial, executive, military or other office under this State, shall, before entering on the discharge of the duties of that place or office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation; “I, _________ do swear, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, so as long as I shall continue a citizen thereof. So help me GOD.”“I __________, do swear that I will faithfully discharge, to the best of my abilities, the duties incumbent on me as ___________ according to the Constitution and the laws of the State. So help me God.”

As Lawyers it is also incumbent upon them to know how to read and understand their two Oaths and the responsibilities to protect, respect and uphold the Constitution and its mandates to protect and secure the Maine Peoples GOD given, unalienable, natural rights. Why then, are those who are elected to the legislative and executive departments willing too openly violate the Maine Constitution (Article III – Sections 1 & 2)?Article III –Section 1 is written: Powers distributed. The powers of this Government shall be divided into 3 distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial.Article III –Section 2 is written: To be kept separate. No person or persons, belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted.

Come on! Do you think this all has come to pass by accident, by mistake, by coincidence? Lawyers can read and they are capable of understanding their Oaths, and they know what their responsibilities are. Maine Lawyers know that the U. S. and Maine

33

Constitutions have mandates to protect and secure the Maine Peoples GOD given, unalienable, natural rights. They know that they are “Officers of the Court” and I believe they know that they are violating Maine’s Constitution (Article 3, Sections 1 & 2).

The Maine Lawyers not only infiltrated the Legislative and Executive Departments, they created an insider system called the “Revisor” and then it was changed to the “Revisors Commission”. The Revisors’ responsibility evolved from just preserving and organizing laws, to the most powerful agency in Maine, now run by Lawyers who work in the Revisor’s Office (and many other offices under the Legislative Council mandate). The Revisor’s Office evolved to the Legislative Research Committee, and then was changed again to the Legislative Council. Both, the Committee and the Council were staffed with Legislators. They were once again reorganized in 1973 from the Legislative Research Committee and grew even larger in power to become the self-appointed Legislative Council, just 3 years before the Legislature dismantled the Governor’s Council. Coincidence? The answer is NO! The Lawyer/Legislators knew for years that the Governors Council tried their best to prevent fraudulent and treasonous changes in the Maine Law and Constitutional Law; the council was the proverbial roadblock to the agenda. Since the Governors Executive Council’s demise in 1976, the Governors have replaced the Council with - guess whom? If you said Lawyers, you would be right.

Our Founding Fathers were voyeurs, they knew past history, and they knew the weakness of man. They gave the Maine people two Constitutions and they tried to prevent a monarchal takeover by the elite. This has now happened on the Federal Level and Maine is but a few more bills from its defeat.

As a result to the conspiracy to destroy Maine’s Laws and the Constitution of Maine, I believe a select committee (Constitutional Research Committee) should be formed to investigate all Maine laws and Constitutional amendments enacted after 1820. The criteria and qualifications of the committee members would be non-partisan and have no allegiance to either Constitutional department and comply with the Constitution of Maine as defined by Article III, Section 2. Each public law and amendment since 1820 would be strictly scrutinized to fulfill the requirements of Article IV, Part 3, Section 1 & Article X, Section 3.

Legislators who are current members of the Maine State BAR Association (3 Senators and 9 representatives) must immediately resign their position in the legislature. the current staff of the Legislative Council, its appointees, and the Revisors who are current members of the Maine State BAR Association, must also immediately resign their position.

It would be prudent and justifiable to immediately, by Emergency Executive Order, set up a 7-member committee (“Governor’s councilors”) that recognizes and respects the U.S. and Maine Constitutions. Their qualifications of course would be as they were in 1820, Article V, Part Second. The new Council would have to be “learned in the Law” (Constitutional law, Common Law, Natural Law and GOD’s Law), and the members of the committee shall be non-partisan and proven to be, by past practice. No ex-

34

Governor, Senator, Representative, or member of the Maine BAR, or those listed in Article IX, Section 2, shall be eligible for selection as Councilors. Council members shall be sworn in by Oaths accordingly to Article IX, Section I and be held accountable to said Oaths.

We have proven by the information in the two reports called “100 years of Law & (un)Justice, that by using the past and current facts, that Governors, legislators and their appointees, from the onset of the fabrication of the original Constitution of Maine to this day, that they have willfully ignored, disrespected and violated the people of Maine and the Constitution of Maine and the Oaths that are written in Article IX, Section I. As these positions are extremely crucial, those elected and appointed should further prove their allegiance by willfully taking one more step to lawfully demonstrate their honesty by swearing and signing a binding Constitutional Affidavit to faithfully uphold the public trust and to be held accountable to said Affidavit in any court in the State of Maine. Please see the proposed Constitutional Affidavit on pages 35 & 36.

35

Constitutional Affidavit

I, ____________________________, hereby publicly execute this Constitutional Affidavit of my own free will, without reservation, coercion, or duress.

If I am elected, or appointed as a representative of the People, I firmly believe that I must, and hereby demonstrate by this Affidavit, that I will, abide by my Oath in the performance of my official duties; thus, uphold both the state and federal Constitutions, all laws made pursuant thereto, act only within the lawful scope of my Constitutionally delegated authority, and faithfully uphold the public trust.

Those who serve in governments in this nation have gone astray and forsaken the basic principles upon which the United States was founded. If elected or appointed to any position of public trust, I will reestablish America’s original principles, as set forth in our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, circa 1791. To that end, I hereby attest that I will reaffirm the Constitution of the United States of America, as the Supreme Law of the Land, pursuant to Article VI of that document, and the Maine Constitution as the governing Law of Maine, and I will uphold all averments and affirmations made herein.

I hereby swear or affirm that, pursuant to my oath and to this Constitutional Affidavit, I will never introduce, draft, support, or vote for any form of legislation that opposes or contradicts the federal and state Constitutions in any way whatsoever, or opposes Rights secured therein to the People. Any legislation which I support must fully comply with the Constitutions, specific to the Bill of Rights.

I,______________________________, hereby make these statements in this publicly executed Constitutional Affidavit to the People of Maine to demonstrate that if I am elected or appointed to a position of trust, I will serve only with the consent of the governed, uphold the Constitutions, the Rights of the People guaranteed therein, and faithfully serve the best interests of the People of Maine. If I violate my Oath or this Constitutional Affidavit in any way, and/or if it can be proven that I have done so, I shall immediately resign my position of trust.

36

Signed: _____________________________________

Printed Name: __________________________, Affiant

Notary Statement

State of Maine,

County of _________________________

On _________________________ , 20___, the above named personally appeared before me and signed this document of his/her own free will.

__________________________________Name of Notary Public

___________________________________ Printed or Stamped Name

My Commission Expires: __________________________ Seal:

37