The American Aurora

 

 

 

The following are Facts…not myth, not misinformation…Facts.

 

 

 

FACT -  In the period between 09/24/1789 and 12/31/1792, 12 of the then 15 States voted affirmatively to ratify “Article the First” of the proposed “Articles of Amendment to the Constitution”…what we, today, refer to as “The Bill of Rights”.

 

 

 

FACT – The language voted on September 24th (HOUSE) and September 25th (SENATE) was incorrectly transcribed in the “copies” sent to the States for ratification, with several known differences even between the several copies.

 

 

 

FACT -  The original and “correct” language as recorded by Senate Leader Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut – in his own hand, and as party to the bicameral committee of three Representatives and three Senators recommending the last-minute change to the original language as proposed by Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, reads as follows…

 

 

 

“The Committees were also of opinion that it would be proper for both houses to agree to amend the first Article by striking out the word “less” in the last line but one, and inserting in its place the word “more“, and accordingly recommend that the said Article be reconsidered for the purpose”

 

 

 

 

FACT – An error by the then Clerk of the House,Beckley, caused the change to be made “in the last place of the last line” in the “copies” distributed for review to the several States’ Legislatures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACT – While this certainly changes the meaning of the Article from the reader’s perspective, it does not, as a matter of the Constitutional law-making process, change the language as voted in Congress – which IS the law, once ratified.  A clerical error, or “scrivener’s error”, does not negate the intent of the legislation.

 

 

 

FACT -  The language of Article the First indicated that, once the body of the House surpassed 200 members, the size limit of Congressional Districts was raised to 50,000 persons per district…not voters, persons.

 

 

 

What does that mean to us, today, with a population of 333,000,000 at the last decennial census?

 

 

 

FACT – Frankly, it means we are presently required to have 6189 Representatives in Congress under our own Constitution.  (not interpretation, merely simple mathematics)

 

 

 

FACT -  Every single member of the House and Senate, each sitting Justice on the Supreme Court, every single Federal, State, and County official,  each judge in every courtroom, all the members of the Executive Branch, and all of our military, swear an oath to uphold/protect/defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  They swore to protect it “as it is”, not as they might “like” it to be.

 

 

 

I specifically call to your attention the head of the Department of Commerce, whose duty it is presently to set the Apportionment of the House of Representatives.

 

 

 

FACT  -  Having so sworn, and with the knowledge that Article the First is indeed ratified, a failure to APPLY this Amendment, which, until a further amendment is passed and ratified by at least 75% of the present States’ Legislatures (whose members have ALSO all sworn to uphold the Constitution “as it is”), would be a violation of that oath, and cause for removal from office by “We, the People”.

 

 

 

FACT – The Department of Commerce, who is charged with setting the Apportionment of the House, the counsel for the House of Representatives, the counsel for the Speaker of the House, and the Federal Courts, have all been aware of this since 12/6/2011, when the original suit was filed in New Jersey to bring this to the attention of the Court.

 

 

 

FACT – The lawsuit, “LaVergne v Bryson, et al”, Federal Docket # 12-1171, clearly demonstrates the necessary proof of ratification AND clearly documents the “scrivener’s error”.

 

 

 

It is only with willful MIS-interpretation that the case has been kept from the public.

 

 

 

You don’t need to secede to recover those rights you already own…and you have a right to responsible, PROPORTIONAL Representation in Congress.  Your Constitution guarantees it, and has for over 220 years.

 

 

 

Frederick John LaVergne, “Democratic-Republican” for Congress, NJ 2014

 

If you, alone, went into a voting booth in an election, and pulled a lever for President, Vice President, Senator, Congressman, Freeholder (1), Freeholder (2), Sheriff, Mayor, and DOG CATCHER….

How many VOTERS are YOU?

According to the Democratic and Republican Parties in New Jersey, over the last 40 years or so – There are NINE of YOU.

That’s right – in violation of logic and “one man, one vote”…the Republicans and Democrats have falsely maintained “major party” status, garnering them a secure ballot line without having to “petition” for a ballot position, and a STATE-FUNDED primary election, because of exactly that sort of phony mathematics.

Not only that, but the Board of Elections has assisted them in promoting this fiction of support, guaranteeing the two bad actors in this “Left-Side” columns as ‘preferred real estate’.

Earlier this month, the Counsel for the Board had the audacity to AFFIRM, in her argument before Judge Wolffson, that the two so-called “MAJOR” parties were specifically entitled to special treatment – flying in the face of the Constitution she swore to uphold.

We were already ON the ballot, so this was in no way a “Ballot Access” Case, and yet the Judge saw fit not only to treat it as an “Access” case, rather than a “Position” case, she failed to apply the correct standard of Judicial Scrutiny in the case.

It seems that the FEDERAL Third Circuit Court of APPEALS agrees, as they not only agreed to HEAR the appeal on these grounds, they have discarded the entirety of the NJ Proceedings, intending to go forward de Novo on the merits and evidence in the case as presented.

Not only that, the Third Circuit has stated that they will begin deciding the case on Monday, to allow time for a ballot machine change before the election.

Why is this important?

Firstly, it’s compelling the State and the two-party corrupt system we are saddled with to comply with FEDERAL Law – and not just this November, but forever afterward.

Secondly, because of how the State tallies “VOTERS” in the primary elections, the “key” to major party status, it is almost certain that they will ALSO find that the Republican Party has failed to tally sufficient community response under New Jersey’s own statutes to warrant them having even a ballot COLUMN.

Let me repeat that – The Republican Party failed to maintain major party status in NJ, and may not receive a column on the Ballot…placing all of their candidates RANDOMLY on the right side with the independent candidates who are NOT in a qualified ballot column.

The may also lose their right to a State-funded primary for next year’s State-wide election.

The standard that applies is 10% of the votes cast for NJ Assembly in the prior year’s election.  As Lt. Gov. Guadagno has certified, that total is a little over 2.67 MILLION votes cast.  (sad, since that’s not even 50% of the registered voters in the State.)

That means that the so-called major parties needed only 267000 or so voters to show up at the primaries.

Thanks to the fight in Bill Pascrell’s district in North Jersey, the Democrats squeaked by on their FACTUAL tally of voters on June 5th in their primary.  Were it not for the disputed primary, where Menendez and company tried to unseat an incumbent from within their own party due to the Senator’s personal dislike of Mr. Pascrell’s more moderate “independent” voice in Congress by running a crony of theirs from outside the district, the Democrats would not have met the necessary standard EITHER.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, they are about 50,000 votes short.

Let’s put that in perspective.

They needed 10% of LESS THAN HALF of the NJ registered voters.  They failed to reach even that total.

That’s “overwhelming evidence” of community support?

In fact, even adding BOTH PARTY’s total ballots cast together, they fail to reach 10% of the total REGISTERED VOTERS in NJ.

Yet they run the show, and exclude everyone else – bullying independent candidates, restricting their rights to assemble, and denying them fair ballot access – all with the support of the State department charged with insuring a fair and equitable balloting process.

Is the media in the tank with them?  Let’s look in my district – District Three.

Ocean County College is hosting a debate, but has only invited the Democratic and Republican Candidates, because “no other candidates” have demonstrated more than 15% support in the community.

I guess it should be pretty quiet next week at the debate, because, according to REAL polling records – those actually taken by polling the people of NJ in a balloting process – neither party has even 10% support, so NOBODY qualifies to be at a podium in this debate.

Of course, the Ocean County College debate sponsor, WOBM, decided their 15% on the basis of a telephone poll – the details of which we have no information on.  Did they only call Republican or Democrat voters on the voting lists from the County?

Did they ask “Will you be voting democrat or republican?” ?  That is rather like asking “of the 26 letters of the alphabet, do you like A or B better?

The voter lists in NJ OVERWHELMINGLY show voters registered as independents – more than 50% are “undeclared”.  That means that, on the basis of registration alone, neither party can claim more than about 25% support, and even that is a fiction, because, years ago, voters registering for the first time were told they had to choose between “D” and “R”, so many are registered as democrats or republicans “by default”.

Not only is this debate rigged – the last one was, too.

No independents were invited to the League of Women Voters’ debate in Medford Leas, which must have given both Runyan and Adler cause to breathe a sigh of relief.  Why?

Because, as all present other than “those two” at the Asbury Park Press Editorial Board Review will tell you, there was a clearly dominant presence in the room – and it was an independent.

That independent was me – so much so that two of my competing independent candidates are withdrawing -  TO ENDORSE ME, and to help support the Democratic-Republican party’s agenda, including the “Change the Rules” pledge.

Real audio of the Asbury Park Press is available on youtube.com, posted by candidate Robert Witterschein.  He’s staying in the race, for now, pending Monday’s decision.

In that audio, you can hear what Shelley Adler and John Runyan had to say on specific topics – including Mr. Runyan’s taking the position verbally that the retirement age should be raised to 75….only to be brought up short when the moderator said “but your written answers say you wouldn’t raise the retirement age…”

John’s response?  “They DO?”

Are you telling me we’re supposed to elect a guy who doesn’t even know what the party staff wrote in doing HIS homework for him?

He was less than soft-spoken – almost timid.  He sat rigidly in his chair, never making direct eye-contact with the interviewers, and concentrating, as though trying to remember his lines.

Ms. Adler came off as snarky, and continuously spouted her much-used talking points rather than giving relevant answers, all negative toward Mr. Runyan – several of which have been oft-reported as “less than accurate”.

There was no “leadership” in evidence from either of the two “majors”.

To the apparent frustration of the moderators, she had to be asked THREE TIMES what her plans were to help break the grid-lock in Congress.  After ignoring the question by explaining how John Runyan is bad for her district (she doesn’t live here), she finally espoused that “It’s time for new people in Congress”

I couldn’t agree more, Ms. Adler.  I think a thorough “House” cleaning is in order.

The following is a reply to an editorial comment made regarding “Democratic-Republican Party Organization of New Jersey v  Guadagno, et al”…

The substantive argument is that the two major parties have conspired to keep any valid third party candidate off the ballot for years, especially here in NJ.

We were initially blocked from using “Democratic-Republican” as our party name and ballot slogan under a statute that is known to be unconstitutional.  We have a right to assemble, and a right to call our party whatever we wish  (“First Amendment”), as long as it is not EXACTLY that of another major party.  The “Democratic-Republican” party already exists in history, and predates the “Democratic Party”, the name adopted by supporters of Andrew Jackson during his first (unsuccessful) campaign for President, in which he opposed John Quincy Adams, a Democratic Republican.  Both of these predate the founding of the modern “Republican” party, which was formed in the 1850′s.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have tried to wrap themselves in Jefferson’s mantle, but neither are really aligned with the principles of the “Democratic-Republican” party he founded, which favors strict interpretation of the Constitution, strong protections for States’ and individual rights, and an abhorrence of Hamilton’s Central Banking platform.  We are promoting the tenets of the “Democratic-Republican” party in our collective candidacy.

As the research in preserving our right to the “Democratic-Republican” name expanded, we further discovered that the statute which determines preferred ballot position and major party status inNew Jerseyis also Constitutionally flawed.  Under the statute, a voter in a primary may cast a ballot for a President and Vice President, a Senator, a Congressman, Freeholders, a Mayor, a Sheriff, and Council Persons, or any combination of the above, and these votes are counted as individual ballots for the purpose of “polling” – meeting the required 10% threshold by which a major party retains it’s status as such.  The 10% figure I refer to here is calculated as 10% of the total votes cast for the NJ Assembly in the prior year’s State election.  Under this present system, one person walking into a voting booth during the primary may be counted as one vote, or two, or five, or even nine.  They are a single voter, but this absurd language has been interpreted to allow both the Democrats and Republicans to report sufficient primary election turn-out to retain preferred ballot position, a State-funded Primary, and other benefits, which, under a strict interpretation of “one voter = one ballot”, both parties have often failed to achieve.   (Both parties were, in fact, “de-certified” by Judge Fisher in “  v  “, which was overturned by an extraordinary appellate decision, which we are also seeking to overturn).

It is a fact that, in the primary this past June, over 50,000 too few votes were cast for Mr. Kyrillos and the other Republican primary candidates hoping to represent the Republican Party in the race for the US Senate, which means that, if we were to follow a strict, logical, and Constitutionally conforming method of calculation, the Republican Party loses it’s “Major Party” status for this Fall’s election – in all offices.  It was also not entitled to a primary election held at taxpayer expense, and further does not qualify for preferred position on the ballot.

Where should the NJ Taxpayers go to get their money back?  I am certain that, at the very least, the Democratic citizens of New Jersey will demand nothing less.

We used the tally for Mr. Kyrillos in calculating the compliance with the 10% threshold, because this office is voted for in every district in NJ, and because there is only one Senate seat open in this election.

The history of the shenanigans with respect to the selection of first or second column is well known in political circles, and is described in the lawsuit our party has filed.  This is the level of honesty and ethical behavior that we have sadly come to expect from both sides of the “mythical” aisle.

The two parties have entered into a “detente” of sorts, cooperating when necessary to eliminate any competition from a third-party movement.  This unlikely partnering to protect the financial interests behind both parties has existed for decades before I was even born, but, if we have our way, and the Constitution has hers, that collusion will be brought to a screeching halt, at least for now.

A friend at the Department of Energy asked me an important question a while back – it bears repeating, as does the answer. – Fred

The following is the running commentary on Facebook,

Drew *********

Fred, what is a “democratic-republican”?

Frederick John LaVergne

The Democratic-Republican Party (“Anti-Federalist”) was founded in the 1790′s by Jefferson and Madison when Jefferson sought the Presidency. The Democratic-Republicans formed to counteract the policies of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. Deeply committed to republicanism (small “R”, not as in the modern Republican Party), State’s Rights, Individual Rights, and to thwart the monarchical tendencies of the Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans managed to elect Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams to successive terms in the office of the President, and controlled the Congress throughout this period. They also supported the French Revolutionaries, which is how we got to the table with Napoleon in the Louisiana Purchase.

Jefferson and his fellow Democratic-Republicans were strict Constitutional Constructionists – what we would today call Constitutional Conservatives – but they were more Liberal when the issues concerned individual freedoms. It is forgotten by many that the Federalists, led by John Adams, were responsible for the “Alien and Sedition Acts”, violating the new Constitution’s allocation of civil rights, specifically Free Speech, Free Press, and Right to Assemble.

We defend the Constitution AS IT IS, with the understanding that the rule of law contained within is a tool in the hands of the PEOPLE, to regulate CONGRESS, and not the other way around. The Constitution is brilliantly written, to allow for change as needed/demanded by the People. Unfortunately, in our time, the Constitution is perverted to inhibit the People’s will in favor of that of Corporate Lobbyists and Special Interests.

Both the Democratic Party, founded by the “Jacksonians” in the 1820′s, and the Republican Party, founded in the 1850′s, attempt to wrap themselves in the mantle of the Founding Fathers, but today BOTH have BROKEN FAITH with the People they are to serve, instead becoming Self-Serving Oligarchies. They have failed us, they have divided us. 80% of the New Jersey Electorate refers to themselves as “independent”.  With less than 20% total of the REGISTERED DEMOCRATS and REGISTERED REPUBLICANS showing up for the Primary Election, it is more than apparent that the voters are not satisfied with the choices with which they are presented.  In fact, on further examination of the primary balloting process, it has become apparent that the true number of individuals at the polls this time was less than 10% of the ballots cast for NJ Assembly in 2011 – the standard needed to maintain major party status.

To Promote REAL CHANGE, we have gone to the PEOPLE, and found fiscal conservatives who believe in the rights and freedoms of others – who hold the Constitution as sacred. That is who we are. When forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil. We’re not everywhere in THIS election, but, when we prevail in the Courts, we will most certainly have an opportunity to take back the People’s House.

We are actively fought tooth and nail by the Two-Party Establishment, of which BOTH SIDES are beholden to the same Lobbyists and Special Interests. The original structure of the HOUSE in Article the First would utterly thwart the Present Two-Party Roadblock to excellence. Remember, the enemy of excellence is “Good Enough”.

The most dangerous person to an established dominance in government is the person who, having lost everything, still has his values and morals intact.

The Democratic and Republican Parties are actively preventing us from using our Party Name, which historically predates their own. My Ballot Petitions were marked up AFTER I SIGNED AND SUBMITTED THEM by a Clerk, acting on instruction from an Administration Attorney, to read “No Slogan Submitted” – I will post the picture of it later today – I did not assent to that, nor do I now.

We are the “Democratic-Republicans”.

Now, aren’t you sorry you asked?

Drew *******  Nope! Good to know, and good luck!

DELAWARE did not REJECT Article the First, but rather “postponed”.  This is likely due to John Vining, (who served on the committee of communication, made up of three members of the House, who worked in coordinating the versions in the House and Senate), discovering the scrivener’s error in that article.  He would have been intimately familiar with the text as it was to have appeared.

As recorded by Senator Oliver Ellsworth ofCt., the last-minute change from “less” to “more” was to have taken place in the “last line but one”.  Instead, however, a clerk’s error occurred when Beckley incorrectly transcribed this as “in the last place of the last line”, so, while the engrossed “copies” contain language that makes the last clause of Article the First mathematically improbable, the had the change in the correct place, it would set a floor of 40,000 constituents and a ceiling of 50,000 constituents, once a total of 200 members was reached.

This would only be an interesting historical footnote, had not the ratification vote of Connecticut been discovered in the Fall of 2011 in their State Archives.  With Connecticut’s ratification, including Article the First, we have 12 of the then 15 States at Kentucky’s ratification.  The line for ratification, once crossed, cannot be “un-crossed”.  It requires a new Constitutional Amendment to remove an existing amendment, hence the “repeal of prohibition”, rather than just striking it out.  It is a further peculiarity of Constitutional Law that an amendment is ratified when it is voted in the State Legislature – “reporting” is not a requirement, to prevent cowains and usurpers from diluting, obfuscating, or otherwise thwarting the will of the people.

As Article the First passes the threshold for Ratification, it MUST be applied in this decennial Apportionment.  A lawsuit has been filed to compel recognition of this historical fact, AND to compel the application of the “Apportionment Amendment”.  That suit has oral arguments scheduled for 09/14/2012 in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.  The Docket Number is 12-1171, and the suit is entitled “LaVergne v. Bryson, et al”.  Contained in the “Final Brief and Addendums” filed by Eugene M. LaVergne, a New Jersey Civil Rights attorney and expert in Constitutional Law, contains all of the supporting documents, including the original report from Congress, penned in Ellsworth’s own hand.  There has been significant institutional resistance to this suit, and it has so far been successfully kept from the American Public, to the point where the censorship of our history includes the National Archives having pulled one of their own press releases from their web-site…that press release is a further exhibit in the “Final Brief and Addendums”, which can be viewed at NationalTruth.org, a private web-site hosting the documents until a better venue can be obtained.  The gist of the press release, which offended those listed among the defendants, was that the language of Article the First allowed for a Congress of over 6000 with this apportionment.  In the language of the engrossed copies, that is not so, BUT, in the actual language of what was voted, it says EXACTLY that.  The story of the “Scrivener’s Tale” is one of error, omission, and Machiavellian deceit.

Article the First, as it was ratified in 1792, must be recognized, and, as a part of the Constitution, must be adhered to.  Every single member of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of our Government are compelled to take an “Oath of Office” before beginning their tenure in public service.  Those oaths all contain language compelling that they preserve, protect, defend, or otherwise uphold the Constitution of the United States- AS IT IS, not as they might like it to be.  Will they?

~~~~Frederick John LaVergne for Congress, NJ Third Congressional District~~~~

Welcome to “The American Aurora”, the modern-day counterpart of the Philadelphia Newspaper whose publishers were jailed under the “Alien and Sedition Act” for printing the un-whitewashed truth about the affairs of our National Government.  The test case for our first amendment rights, the story of  the original “American Aurora” is an all but forgotten chapter in our history.

We will tell the story of the “American Aurora”, of our founding fathers, and of the Constitution they wrought as a bit in the mouth of goverment, with the reins to be held by “We, the People”…and how that Constitution was subverted, then and today.

An inconvenient truth has come to light.  In the original “Articles of Amendment”, known more commonly as “The Bill of Rights”, there were TWELVE amendments proposed.  The first of these, referred to as “Article the First”, was penned to provide for a guarantee of proportional representation in the House of Representatives.  As originally written, it called for an upper limit on constituency size, over three tiers…an initial upper limit of 30,000 persons per district, a rise to 40,000 per district once the number of Representatives reached 100, and a final increase to 50,000 per district once “The People’s House” had grown to 200 Representatives.  The phrase “so regulated by Congress” was added, but, in fact, the proposed amendment was “so regulated by mathematics”.

A last-minute change in the text of a single word, intended to establish a “floor” on the final district size, was recorded correctly in the report of Senator Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, but incorrectly re-transcribed by House Clerk Beckley.  The resulting misplacement of the change made the text mathematically inoperable.  Fortunately, the original Ellsworth report still exists, demonstrating that the “Copies” transmitted to the States contained a “Scrivener’s Error” as a result of a “Clerk’s Error”.  Further, it is a fortunate happenstance that the foresight of our founding fathers made the Constitutional Law-Making Process more protected from such error – that interpretation of any amendment must follow the logic of the whole article, not the absurdity of a single phrase that does not comply in form to the rest of the amendment.

A lawsuit is pending in the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled in Philadelphia (across the street from Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and the Constitution Center), to compel recognition of the ratification of Article the First, and to apply it under the 2010 Decennial Census to the present apportionment of the House.

Docket # 12-1171, “LaVergne v. Bryson, et al”, is the suit, and the Final Brief and Addendum may be found at NationalTruth.org.

In short, it was discovered in the Fall of 2011 that both Connecticut and Kentucky had, in fact, ratified Article the First by 1792.  This is significant, because, with the 10 known ratifications already found in our history books, the total of the the then fifteen States to have ratified was now known to be 12…80%, which exceeds the required 75% for it to be enacted as the law of the land.

What this means, in short, is that Congress should have over 6175 Representatives seated after this next election.

 

 

Whenever any part of our government breaks faith with the Constitution, we will tell the story.  They are not the only ones who swore to protect and defend and uphold the Constitution.