Thirty-Thousand.org

Have you guys heard about this? Is it a conspiracy theory, or real? It seems like it's actually going to court on September 12th...

http://www.boldtruth.com/index.html

They claim that papers were found showing that Connecticut had actually ratified Ammendment the First, but the document was misplaced and never sent in?

Both Connecticut AND Kentucky were found. The suit is "LaVergne v Bryson, et al". You can view all of the documents in certified true copy form on NationalTruth.com.

The opening page needs work. The documents speak for themselves. With Ct. and Ky, that's 12 of the then 15 States, or 80%. Once the 75% threshold for ratification is crossed, it may not be un-crossed.


We may further have a line on what really happened in Delaware, and Georgia's "missing" docs may have turned up...3 Million documents to go through.

This is no "Birther" suit.

Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress

NJ District Three, 2012.

Court is the 14th, btw, in the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Initially, application was made by us (and denied) for an En Banc review. The opposition demanded Oral Arguments. Now that they've read our brief and response, they want to go back to a three judge panel and written arguments - they are afraid that oral arguments, once viewable by the public, will promote support for our position.

It IS ratified, and we further prove the scrivener's error that makes the text in the last clause of the "COPIES" inoperative. Oliver Ellsworth's report, in his own hand, ALSO turned up. With the last minute change made in the CORRECT PLACE ("in the last line but one"), rather than Beckley's mistaken instruction to the engrossing clerks "in the last place of the last line", makes Article the First say what it was intended to say when Fisher Ames first presented the language in August. 50,000 persons becomes the ceiling on District size ever after the number of Representatives reaches 200 in the HOUSE. They know, but were afraid of what this would do to this election.

We are supposed to seat over 6000 representatives this Fall by the Constitution. Ratification of Article the First negates ANY other apportionment legislation that is not an amendment to the Constitution.

Connecticut's were misfiled - and there is a potential reason for that in the brief. Kentucky's was in plain sight, but nobody was looking.


Lots of nay-sayers, but 12 of the then 15 States means that that is a part of the Constitution, and can only be further changed by Amendment.



Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress, NJ District Three, 2012.

https://www.facebook.com/FrederickJohnL ... ess?ref=hl

FredericK.....can you please supply some links if possible.....Thank you

If true, a campaign of awareness should be mounted.

Is there more to come? How can we support and expand this process?

The initial case failed. You can see from http://www.boldtruth.com/news.html

They will be taking the case to the supreme court, I guess...

There is also a petition you can sign at
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... n/zfd1GwWj

We need to get the number of signatures over 150 before the petition shows up in searches and such.
Please forward this link to others you might know!

Apparently the Supreme Court refused to receive the case. Oh well... They have other plans to take it to the Congressional Archivist, so we'll see.

http://www.boldtruth.com/news.html

StriderV wrote:Apparently the Supreme Court refused to receive the case.

That is disappointing. Regretfully, I did not delve into this particular case as I wanted to, but I will when I can. I do want to understand the CT ratification and the other assertions made.

SCOTUS did the same thing in Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al. (see Apportioment.us). In that case, they evidently were not willing to question Congress's authority to create an oligarchy. It seems to me that there is an understanding between Congress and SCOTUS that "you don't interfere with our co-equal branch of government, and we won't interfere with yours." That disappointing realization prevented me from being optimistic about LaVergne's gallant endeavor.

There is a petition to sign now. It's at MoveOn.org.... isn't that a liberal website? I consider myself a conservative, but this cause is definitely cross-parties.

Here is a copy/paste after I signed it:

Subject: The Bill of Rights Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified by vote of the states.

Hi,

I signed a petition to Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, and 3 others which says:

"We, the petitioners request that the Congress stand up for the Congressional Apportionment Amendment and ask that the Department of Commerce present the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment to Congress and take its place as the 28th amendment to the Constitution. Once that happens, we request the proper number of Representatives be seated in the House of Representatives per this amendment. One Representative for every 50,000 people per District in the United States of America. Stand for One, Stand for All."

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-bi ... by=9079921

Thanks!

StriderV wrote:There is a petition to sign now. It's at MoveOn.org.... isn't that a liberal website? I consider myself a conservative, but this cause is definitely cross-parties.

I just signed that petition. Thank you for letting us know about it. You are correct: Representational enlargement is a truly non-partisan cause, and Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan organization that is supported by people across the political spectrum. Please encourage everyone to like us on Facebook. This is one cause that should bring everyone together in otherwise dangerously divisive & partisan times.

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-bi ... by=9079921

Only 51 signatures since Sept 27, 2013. C'mon people!

Isn't it odd that not one Connecticut reporter for any major Connecticut paper did a story on LaVergne's discovery of the Connecticut ratification, and that the custodian of the records where the ratification was found never expressed a reaction in the press about the discovery? And that no Connecticut or Constitutional historian anywhere has commented in the press about the discovery?

There was only one reporter that I could find who did a story on it at all, Don Pesci in N.J., and he never followed it up with another story.

Isn't this lack of news coverage and commentary bizarre in light of the magnitude of this historical discovery?

I fear something is rotten in the state of Connecticut.