CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE/QUESTION : " How can a court/hearing officer take a an oath to support the Constitution, then use a jurisdiction known as the 14th Amendment . When no lawyer/Attorney can successfully defend Article 1 Sec.3,7 and Article 4 Sec. 3 ,Article 5, and Article 6 of the US Constitution and at the same moment contend that the 14th Amendment were legally passed, because if he/she does so contend, he/she must repeal the provisions of Article 1 section 3 U.S. Const. a "Constitutional Congress", Section 7 "submitted to the President for his approval "Article 4 Sec. 3 " No state shall be formed" and Article 5 in reference to the ratification of Amendments to the Federal Const" ” and " equal suffrage in Senate" and the Supremacy Clause Article 6 paragraph 2 "Supreme Law of the Land" in order to say the said 14th Amendment is LAWFUL pursuant to his/her OATH to support the Federal Constitution . SEE POINTS 1-15 of this challenge adopted by reference AND MADE A PART of this Constitutional Challenge "hereof".
JURISDICTIONAL SHEPARDIZED CONTROLLING CASE LAW
The law provides that once state and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it MUST be proven. Mail v. Thiboutot. 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
Once jurisdiction is challenged the burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert 469 F.2d416.
The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings. Hagans v. Lavine 415 US 533.
Court must prove on the record all jurisdictional facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. Latana v. Hopper 102 F. 2d. 188, Chico v. New York 37 F. Supp. 150.
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather dismiss the action." Melo v. US 505 F2d. 1026.
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and jurisdiction once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided. Basso v. Utah Power & light Co. 495 F. 2d. 906 at 910.
There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction Joyce v. US 474 F. 2d. 215.
A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. A void order can be challenged in any court. Old Wayne Mut. L. ASSOC. v. McDonough 204 US 8.
ALSO SEE : Title 42 U.S.C. 1983—which provides that anyone who, under color of state statute, regulation, or custom deprives another of any rights, privileges, or immunities "secured by the Constitution and laws" shall be liable to the injured party encompasses claims based on purely statutory violations of federal law, such as respondents' state-court claim that petitioners had deprived them of welfare benefits to which they were entitled under the federal Social Security Act. Given that Congress attached no modifiers to the phrase "and laws," the plain language of the statute embraces respondents' claim, and even were the language ambiguous this Court's earlier decisions, including cases involving Social Security Act claims, explicitly or implicitly suggest that the § 1983 remedy broadly encompasses violations of federal statutory as well as constitutional law. Cf., e. g., Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442; Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662; Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. Pp. 4-8.
SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION
POINT 1. The strongest argument against the validity of the 14th Amendment is it violates the “Supremacy Clause” of the US Constitution article 6 paragraph 2 , which states: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the CONSTITUTION or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding"....
To create a different “citizen” “subject to” a different “jurisdiction”"a national Debt""take away guaranteed State Rights" "Change the way the Senate is Chosen"and a “different” form of government..And replaced it with the one the Constitution originally created using several Unconstitutional Acts POINTS: 1- 15 below IS outright TREASON . And MISPRISION of TREASON for duty bound officials to do nothing when made aware .
JAMES MADISON'S AND THOMAS JEFFERSON'S KENTUCKY VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OF 1798
POINT 2. The said 14th Amendment violates James Madison's and Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Virginia Resolution of 1798 by Unlawfully given powers to a Federal Government that is only limited by law to the powers given to it outlined in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1-17 of the US Constitution. Thus, violating our framers intent of the powers granted to the federal government. All of which the 14th Amendment did without being properly ratified pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Which this HEARING/COURT took an OATH to Support as SUPREME law of the land and anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL U.S. HOUSE SAID ADOPTED THE 14TH AMENDMENT
POINT 3. Ten former southern states after being sworn back into the Union and the President declaring peace Proclamation 153—Declaring the Insurrection in Certain Southern States to at an End April 2, 1866. Incorporated by the fact had it not been for 7 of the former southern states voting to abolishing slavery ratification would have failed. It passed by one vote Georgia was the deciding state (13 Statutes at Large, p. 774) . For the 39th Congress without lawful authority declared 6 of the 7 former Southern States that voted to abolish slavery 10 southern states total, claiming they did not have lawful governments and without lawful quoted authority reduced 10 lawful Southern States into military Districts because they failed to vote on and ratify the 14th Amendment. The new military District State Governments ( in violation of Article 4 Section 3 US Const. and The Articles of Confederation Section 2 ) and remain as such until they voted on adopted and ratified the 14th Amendment. NOTE: MILITARY DISTRICTS IN LAW IS NOT STATE GOVERNMENTS PER U.S. CONSTITUTION. Once again showing the14th Amendment is notwithstanding pursuant to the US Const.
POINT 4. Arkansas State Representatives have bared witness to the fact the 14th Amendment was not adopted in accordance to the US Constitution but in violation thereof . So it protested the 14th Amendment as Unconstitutional by resolution Arkansas House Journal Page 285-288 @ 278 on December 17, 1866 saying QUOTE "The Constitution Authorises that two thirds of both houses to pass an Amendment , and as 11 States were excluPROPOSED 14TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED BY THREE FOURTHS OF THE STATES
ded deliberation and discussion upon the one now submitted known as Article 14 the conclusion is inevitable that the 14th Amendment was not proposed by legal authority but in palpable violation of The US Constitution" In Violation of Article 1 Sec.3,7 Article 5,6, 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Const. and Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation.
Predetermining the ineffectiveness of said resolution, as above, fifteen (15) States out of then thirty-seven (37) States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866 and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required three-fourths of such States, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following states:
. Arkansas Senate Journal December 15th 1866 pages 212-216 @215 . Congress denied states like Arkansas from representation in voting on the 14th Amendment in violation of Article 5 of the US Constitution.
Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584; Senate Journal 1866, p. 471)
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 68; Senate Journal 1866, p. 72.)
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 76; Senate Journal 1866, p. 8)
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213; Senate Journal 1866, p. 183)
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 183; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 138)
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452)
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. (House Journal 1867, p. 60; Senate Journal 1867, p. 62)
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 101)
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452)
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 223; Senate Journal 1867, p. 176)
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 1141; Senate Journal 1867, p. 808)
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194)
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868 (House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50; Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.)
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. (Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743; Senate Journal 1868, p. 356)
OREGON DECLARES THE 14TH AMENDMENT SAID PASSED BY FRAUD WITHDRAWS ASSENT.
POINT 5: Oregon Withdrawing assent to the proposed fourteenth constitutional amendment an Unconstitutional fraud as follows:.
"And Whereas, No amendment to the Constitution of The United States is valid until duly ratified by three-fourths of all the States comprising the United States : and until such ratification is complete any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed Amendment :
AND whereas, Hon. William H. Seward. Secretary of State of the United States, on July 28, 1868 issued a proclamation, reciting among other things, that the said proposed amendment was ratified by the Legislatures of ARKANSAS, Florida, Louisiana , Alabama, South Carolina,North Carolina, and Georgia, and that the same was adopted by more that three fourths of the States of the United States:
AND whereas, the newly constituted bodies avowing themselves to be, and acting the Legislatures respectively of the States of ARKANSAS, Florida,North Carolina,Louisiana , South Carolina . Alabama, and Georgia Were created by a military despotism AGAINST the will of the legal voters of said States, under the Reconstruction Acts (so called) of Congress,which are usurpations, unconstitutional,revolutionary, and void: and consequently the acts of such bodies cannot legally ratify the said proposed amendment for the States which they pretend to represent, nor affect the rights of the other States in the Union:
AND WHEREAS, Also the said resolution, ratifying the said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, was adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon on the 19th day of September, 1866, by a vote of twenty- five yeas to twenty -two nays, and passed by the means of Thomas H. Brentz and M.M. McKenna , who were illegally and fraudulently returned as members of the said House of Representatives from the County of Grant, by the said Brentz, then acting as county clerk and canvasser of election returns for said county:
AND WHEREAS, On the 22nd day of September,1866, the said Thomas H. Brentz and M.M. McKean were declared not entitled to the seats which they had usurped, and on the same day J.M. McCoy and G.W. Knisely were declared to be duly elected members from the county of Grant, and who, on thew 20th day of September, 1866, entered their protest on the Journals of the House of Representatives, and declared therein that if they had not been excluded from the seats which they were entitled, they would have voted against the resolution ratifying the said proposed Constitutional amendment, and thereby defeated the adoption the same :
AND WHEREAS, On the 6th Day of October, 1866, the House of Representatives of this State adopted a resolution declaring that the action of that body in ratifying the said proposed Constitutional amendment, did not express the will of the said House as it stood, after being Be it purged of its illegal members. Therefore, Be it reached by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, That the above recited resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly on the 19th day of September, 1866, by fraud, be, and the same is hereby rescinded, and the ratify ratification on of the State of Oregon of the above-recited, proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States( known as article 14 )is hereby withdrawn and refused. Resolved. That any amendment to the Constitution of the United States on the subject of representation should be proposed by a Congress in which all the States are represented, or by a convention of all the States, which each could be heard in the proposing, as well as in the subsequent ratification of such amendment. Resolved. That The Secretary of State be directed to forward certified copies of the foregoing preamble and resolutions, without delay, to the President of the United States, to the Secretary of State of the United States, to the President of the Senate, and to the speaker of the House of Representatives of the united states. Adopted by the October 15 (1868) Adopted by the Senate October 6 (1868).
Without the vote of the Needed State of Oregon ratification of the14th Amendment failed . But according to Oregon ratification failed anyway said ratified by FRAUD ???
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS UNDER RECONSTRUCTION
POINT 6: The several “State Constitutional Conventions” that were organized under the "Military Districts " of former said "States" Per the “Reconstruction Act” of March 2, 1867 did not conform to the provisions of the United States Constitution. As evidenced by 15 Stat. 731 Ch. 70; the vote taken to hold a “Constitutional Convention” within the several southern States were adopted by a large majority. What the “Statute” did not reveal is that the majority votes of those States were of the “COLORED RACE” of the population. This fact is confirmed within the May 13, 1868 Senate Executive Document No. 53 of the 40th Congress, 2d Session that was issued in compliance with the “Resolution” of the Senate of December 5, 1867 by the General of the Army, Ulysses S. Grant. This “Document” consist of 12 pages and it may be found in the ”CIS Serial Index” of 1867 as “S. ex. doc. 53 (40-2) 1317.”
These “Electors” and the “Members” elected to the several “State Constitutional Conventions,” were made up of the “COLORED RACE.” They did not have the “lawful status” of a citizen of a State or of a “citizen” of the United States nor did they have any Political Rights of “Suffrage” under any law of any State for want of an Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any ”Acts of Law” coming from those State Conventions or any Legislatures that were convened under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867 are unconstitutional and must be declared so by proper authority. Pursuant to Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Const.
THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LEGISLATURES WHO ADOPTED THE 14TH AMENDMENT
POINT 7: The following paragraph, which appears at Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867 (15 Stat. 14, Ch. 30), provides us with more Constitutional questions:
“That the commander of any district named in said act (14 Stat. 428, Ch. 158) shall have power, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=47 and http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=459 ... to suspend or remove from office, or from the performance of official duties and the exercise of official powers, any officer or person holding or exercising, or professing to hold or exercise, any civil ... office or duty in such district under any power, election, appointment or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under, any so-called State or the government thereof, or any municipal or other division thereof, and upon such suspension or removal such commander. .. shall have power to provide from time to time for the performance of the said duties of such officer or person so suspended or removed, BY THE DETAIL OF SOME COMPETENT OFFICER OR SOLDIER OF THE ARMY, OR BY THE APPOINTMENT OF SOME OTHER PERSON, to perform the same, and to fill vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, OR OTHERWISE.” [Emphasis added]
Several “State Constitutions” that were adopted under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867 provided that the members of the Legislatures of those southern States may/shall consist of “colored people of whatever race” and if the people of those States refused to elect and seat those “colored people of whatever race” into the Legislatures of their States; the Military Commanders of those Military Districts appointed the members of those Legislatures under the (purported) authority of Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867. Whereas the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE at the time the newly elected/appointed Legislators were seated within their respective States and whereas those Legislators consisted of “Colored People of Whatever Race;” the State Legislatures of the southern States consisted of Members who had no “lawful status” of being “citizens” of any State or of the United States. Any “Acts” (including the “Resolutions” ratifying the 14th Amendment) that were passed by the “newly” created State Legislatures are unconstitutional. Said “Resolutions of Ratification” are without lawful force or effect for they were adopted outside the authority of the Constitution for the United States.
Several “Governors” of the southern States were removed from Civil Office by “Military Commanders” under the above cited Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867 and were replaced with “Army Officials” or other military appointees. These Military Commanders or appointees declared that they had the authority to reject or approve “Resolutions” of the Legislatures of their "Military Districts" and they declared that they had the authority to submit “Resolutions of Ratification” to the U.S. Secretary of State declaring that the Legislatures of their "Military Districts" had ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. [Note: "Military Districts" are not "States" of the Union. "Military Districts" are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress while a State of the Union is a foreign corporation to the United States that exercises sovereign authority of its own. The two forms of government are different and they cannot co-exist. The U.S. Congress, in and through its Military Districts, has no authority to ratify Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.].
Several “State Constitutions” that were adopted under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867 provided that the members of the Legislatures of those southern States may/shall consist of “colored people of whatever race” and if the people of those States refused to elect and seat those “colored people of whatever race” into the Legislatures of their States; the Military Commanders of those Military Districts appointed the members of those Legislatures under the (purported) authority of Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867. Whereas the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE at the time the newly elected/appointed Legislators were seated within their respective States and whereas those Legislators consisted of “Colored People of Whatever Race;” the State Legislatures of the southern States consisted of Members who had no “lawful status” of being “citizens” of any State or of the United States. Any “Acts” (including the “Resolutions” ratifying the 14th Amendment) that were passed by the “newly” created State Legislatures are unconstitutional. Said “Resolutions of Ratification” are without lawful force or effect for they were adopted outside the authority of the Constitution for the United States. So the 14th Amendment said ratification is In Violation of Article 1 Sec.3,7 Article 5,6 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Const. and Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation and Arkansas can't be a a lawful State pursuant to the U.S. Const. Article 4 Sec. 3
UNCONSTITUTIONAL U.S. SENATE 14TH AMENDMENT
POINT 8.
The United States Constitution provides:
Article 1, Section 3. “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State ***”
Article V provides: “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures as the State House and Senate Journals make clear in point 4 of this motion adopted by reference .
The ten States were organized into Military Districts under the unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," their lawfully constituted Legislatures illegally were removed by "military force," and they were replaced by rump, o-call Legislatures, seven of which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment, as follows:
Arkansas on April 6, 1868 (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53).
North Carolina on July 2, 1868 (House Journal 1868, 15; Senate Journal 1868, p. 15).
Florida on June 9, 1868 (House Journal 1868, p. 9; Senate Journal 1868, p. 8).
Louisiana on July 9, 1868 (Senate Journal 1868, p. 1).
South Carolina on July 9, 1868 (House Journal 1868, 50; Senate Journal 1868, p. 12).
Alabama on July 13, 1868 (Senate Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Session . p. 725).
Georgia on July 21, 1868 (House Journal 1868, p. 50).
Furthermore, governments of the States of Louisiana and Arkansas had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln on December 8, 1863. (Vol. I, pp. 288-306; Vol. II, pp. 1429-1448 — "The Federal and State Constitutions," etc., compiled under Act of Congress on June 30, 1906, Francis Newton Thorpe, Washington Government Printing Office, 906.)
The government of Georgia had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 17, 1865. (Same, Thorpe, Vol. II, pp. 809-822.)
The government of Alabama had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 30, 1865. (Same, Thorpe, Vol. VI, pp. 3269-3281.)
The government of South Carolina had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 30, 1865. (Same, Thorpe, 1. VI, pp. 3269-3281.)
These three "Reconstruction Acts" (14 Statutes at Large, p. 428, etc.; 15 Statues at Large, p. 14, etc.) under which the above State Legislatures were illegally removed and unlawful rump or puppet so-called Legislatures were substituted in a mock effort to ratify the 14th Amendment, were unconstitutional, null and void, ab initio, and all acts done thereunder were also null and void, including the purported ratification of the 14th Amendment by said six (6) Southern puppet State Legislatures of Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.
Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress and all acts and things unlawfully done thereunder were in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which required the United States to guarantee every State in the Union a republican form of government. They violated Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the Constitution, which entitled every State in the Union to two Senators, because under provisions of these unlawful Acts of Congress, ten (10) States were deprived of having two Senators, or equal suffrage in the Senate.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL 14TH AMENDMENT
POINT 9. President Andrew Johnson's March 2 1867 veto Address in which the President of the United States warned Congress "if you go ahead with Reconstruction you will make the law itself unlawful creating a de-facto government in America." The 14th Amendment is the de-facto jurisdiction(the president warned Congress about) that was a part of Reconstruction which this said State of Arkansas now uses in said jurisdiction for it's so called laws which are really commercial crimes per C.F.R. Title 27 72.11, state agencies such as this one, so called courts, and the entire Unconstitutional said State Government of Arkansas to date including this proceeding.
CALIFORNIA'S VOTE WAS UNLAWFULLY CHANGED
POINT 10 . On March 2nd the California declined adopting the 14th Amendment 1868 California Journal of the Assembly Page 601. On March 17th 1868 California Journal of the Assembly Page 758 The California House declined to adopted the 14th Amendment At 15 Stat.707 The Secretary of State William H. Seward stated Ohio and New Jersey legislatures passed resolutions withdrawing their consent for the said ratification of the 14th Amendment. Ohio and New Jersey was still counted as the Secretary points out in paragraph 6 15 Stat. 707. But California's vote was changed without their consent or resolution . THE 14th Amendment only was said ratified by ONE vote minus California the 14th Amendment failed anyway.
OHIO AND NEW JERSEY PASSED RESOLUTIONS WITHDRAWING CONSENT TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
POINT 11. Ohio and New Jersey legislatures passed resolutions withdrawing their consent for the said ratification of the 14th Amendment Due to it being UNCONSTITUTIONALLY said to have passed the Senate . Ohio and New Jersey was still counted as the Secretary points out in paragraph 6 15 Stat. 707. But California's vote was changed without their consent or resolution . THE 14th Amendment only was said ratified by ONE vote minus New Jersey and Ohio the 14th Amendment fail's said ratification.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATES VOTING FOR THE 14TH AMENDMENT
The said 14th Amendment was said to have passed by one vote. So exposing several counted Unconstitutional states who to clarify a LAWFUL vote count EXCLUDING THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS will clearly show no lawful Amendment exists pursuant to the U.S. Constitution known as the 14th Amendment.
POINT 12 . West Virginia is not a state pursuant to the US Constitution Article 4 Section 3 because they did not have the permission from Virginia to form a state in 1863. Since Virginia did not leave the Union and the Constitution of the United States and all its law is still in full effect according to the US Supreme Court Texas v. White (1869). Coupled by the additional Constitutional Violations such as Article 1 Section 3 the Senate did was not composed of any Senators from the Southern states who never left the Union, and ratification of said state should have lawfully waited for conflict to end. So deduct the Unconstitutional counted vote of said State of West Virginia the 14th Amendment failed ratification.
POINT 13. Nevada is not a lawful state pursuant to the US Constitution because the Southern States never left the Union so said vote and ratification should have lawfully waited till the conflict ended so they could lawfully be included pursuant to Article 1 Section 3 of the US Constitution which holds "the Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each State". So deduct the Unconstitutional counted vote of said State of Nevada the 14th Amendment failed ratification.
POINT 14. Nebraska is not a lawful State pursuant to the US Constitution because the Southern States who never left the Union and had already voted to abolish slavery and had it not been for 7 of the Southern States voting to abolish slavery ratification would have failed. It passed by one vote Georgia was the deciding vote. So said ratification should have wait till such time as the Southern States could lawfully be a part of the vote pursuant to Article 1 Section 3 of the US Constitution which holds "the Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each State" and Article 5 of The US Constitution which provides "No State without its consent, SHALL be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". Without ANY lawful authority what so ever the 39 Congress did not include the Southern States in said ratification process of said State of Nebraska in violation of Article 1 Section 3 and Article 5 of The US Constitution. So deduct the Unconstitutional counted vote of said State of Nebraska the 14th Amendment failed ratification .
POINT 15. The States Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama are not LAWFUL STATES pursuant to the US Constitution Article 4 Section 3 which holds "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. " Without any Lawful authority the 39 Congress declared these States not to have lawful Governments for not voting on and passing the 14th Amendment and replaced the said State governments without the consent of said States in violation of Article 4 Section 3 of The US Constitution. No authority is given Congress to remove lawful State Governments for freely voting their conscious pursuant to their oath 's to support their State and Federal Constitutions. This was done after these same states lawfully voted to abolish slavery . And had it not been for 7 of the Southern States voting to abolish slavery ratification would have failed. It passed by one vote Georgia was the deciding vote. So if these said States did not have lawful Governments for not voting a certain way would also be saying the 13th Amendment was not said ratified with lawful States several months prior ?? These State Governments were Unlawfully replaced and their lawful vote declining the 14th Amendment was Unlawfully changed to reflect said ratification in violation of the US Constitution.
POINT 16 PROCLAMATION OF RATIFICATION OF SAID 14TH AMENDMENT
In regard to the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, there appears to be no lawful Proclamation of Ratification on record. The U.S. Secretary of State, William H. Seward, had reservations that the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment had met the qualifications of ratification (see Proclamation of Ratification dated July 20th, 1868) and he expressly stated that he did not issue the Proclamation of Ratification of his free will. (see Proclamation of Ratification dated July 28th 1868). U.S. Secretary of State, William H. Seward, made it clear within the Proclamation of Ratification of July 28th 1868 that he issued the Proclamation under an “Order” of Congress. (see Concurrent Resolution dated July 21st, 1868). As the U.S. Secretary of State had not issued the Proclamation of Ratification of July 28th 1868 by his independent judgment under the laws of the United States and as the U.S. Congress had not amended the Act of Congress of April 20th, 1818 to grant the Congress authority to declare the ratification of Constitutional Amendments, there are no lawful publications of Proclamation of Ratification for the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment.
The Resolution of Congress ordering the U.S. Secretary of State to issue a Proclamation of Ratification appears to also fail Constitutional legitimacy as it was never submitted to the U.S. President for his approbation as required by Article I, Section 6, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution nor does the U.S. Constitution authorize the U.S. Congress to execute the laws of the United States.
NOTE
If the U.S. Congress has the authority to send Military Troops into the freely associated compact States of the united States of America to obtain “Votes of Ratification” on any Amendment to its liking; then why would there be a need for Constitutional Amendment procedures. For the Legislators of the States to allow the 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to stand “Ratified,” the Members of those Legislatures would be declaring to the World that they represent a “de facto” government in which the Congress of the United States has been empowered to exercising absolute “dictatorial powers” over the People and the States of the united States of America.
FIRST AMEMDMENT RIGHT OF REDRESS OF GREAVANCE
Said Defendant has a right to have his property returned and said UNCONSTITUTIONAL charge's dismissed. AS WELLAS said hearing officer/court and "OFFICERS THEREOF" is duty bound pursuant "CONSTITUTIONAL OATH" or be guilty of "MISPRISION OF TREASON" doing something about "UNCONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION KNOWN AS THE 14TH AMENDMENT" . NO said LAWFUL JURISDICTION is left to say said "STATE OF ARKANSAS" is lawful to be said "VICTIM","PRODUCTION" and have"CODES"and "TRIBUNALES" .The said situation was signed in the dark as best as possable "signed without prejudice pursuant to UCC 1-308" after signature.
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE/MISPRISION OF TREASON
All the previously quoted law/authorities used in this motion so far echo's the cries of the Constitutional violations from the era of time with the said adoption and ratification of the 14th Amendment (ALL adopted by reference and made a part hereof). Since that era of time here are some additional authorities
1. The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress.
2. Dyett v. Turner 439 P2d 266 @ 267, 20 U2d 403 (1968) The Supreme Court for the State of Utah exposes the 14th Amendment as a fraud.
3. U.S. Representative T.U. Sisson of Mississippi gives testimony before the U.S. House Senate Judiciary Committee that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were not adopted in accordance to the U.S. Constitution. The question of ratifications of Constitutional Amendments is a "Judicial Question" for the Federal Courts.
In the hearing a factual showing was made that the 14th and 15th Amendments were not Constitutionally Adopted. The recommendations of the hearing was to forward a copy to the US Attorney General who did NOTHING to date.
Oath to support the Constitution ?
Taken in part from page 10 of the 1910 hearing above: “WE all love and respect the Constitution. We take an oath to support the Constitution. and there will be no lawyer that can successfully defend Article 5 and at the same moment contend that the 14th and 15th Amendments were legally passed, because if he does so contend, he must repeal the provisions of Article 5 in reference to the Amendments to the Federal Constitution”.
4. The 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. Congress knows this. Every member of Congress received a copy Congressional research service report in 2000 and an updated version every other year till 2012 . Order Code 98-611 GOV prepared for members and committees of Congress, Page 5 of this report which is CRS-2, top paragraph, makes clear that FAKE Executive Order 6 15 Statue at Large page 706 (Fake Presidential proclamation #11) ordered the 14th Amendment ratified.
5. The second paragraph of the apendix 15 Stat. @707 of Presidential proclamation 11 the Secretary of State makes clear He not legally obligated to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of state legislatures, or as to the power of any state legislature to recall a prevision act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution. NOTE: this question of law has yet to be decided (UNTIL NOW) .
Then the Secretary goes on to say in the third paragraph of said apendix saying the 14th Amendment was said "ratified by newly constituted established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures respectively of the States of Arkansas,Florida,North Carolina, Louisiana.South Carolina, and Alabama". These State governments was forcibly replaced and their vote changed without the bill being resubmitted to Congress for exercising their right to a free vote without duress when voting against the ratification of the 14th Amendment . Once these lawful governments was replaced with military ones their vote was changed ion order to claim the 14th Amendment was said ratified. And to do this under the claim that these states did not have lawful governments for not voting for the 14th Amendment would be to also say the 13th Amendment abolishing slavers was not lawfully adopted since had it not been for 7 of the former States voting to abolish slavery ratification would have failed. It passed by ONE vote. Georgia was thew deciding vote. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=459
New governments were erected in those Southern States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. And these new legislatures were forced ratified the 14th Amendment under duress. NOTE: Nowhere can you show me where they ever changed back.
(Col. House,left, puppeteer of Presidents)