Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
c/o General Delivery
Hastings [zip code exempt]
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without prejudice
                      DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], )  Case No. 4:CV96-3275
          Plaintiff [sic],      )  NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
                                )  MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
     v.                         )
                                )  Rule 201(d),
VANCE E. KNUDSON [sic],         )  Federal Rules of Evidence;
                                )  Full Faith and Credit Clause
          Defendant [sic].      )
COMES NOW Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Nebraska state,
expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"),
and  Defendant   in  the   above  entitled   matter  (hereinafter
"Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties,
and to  demand mandatory judicial notice by this honorable Court,
pursuant to  Rule 201(d)  of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to
the  Full Faith and Credit Clause  in the  Constitution  for  the
United States of America, as lawfully amended, of an excerpt from
the opinion  of the  Utah Supreme  Court in  the case of Dyett v.
Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), reciting irrefutable historical
details proving  that  the  so-called  14th amendment  was  never
lawfully  ratified.     Said   excerpt  is  attached  hereto  and
incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein, to wit:
      Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 1 of 8

     General Lee  had surrendered  his army on April 9, 1865, and
General Johnston surrendered his  17 days later.  Within a period
of less  than six  weeks thereafter,  not one Confederate soldier
was bearing  arms.  By June 30, 1865, the Confederate states were
all  restored   by  presidential  proclamation  to  their  proper
positions as  states in an indissoluble union,(1) and practically
all citizens thereof (2) had  been granted  amnesty.  Immediately
thereafter each  of the  seceding states  functioned  as  regular
states in  the Union  with both  state and federal courts in full
     President Lincoln  had declared the freedom of the slaves as
a war  measure, but  when  the  war  ended,  the  effect  of  the
proclamation was ended, and so it was necessary to propose and to
ratify the Thirteenth Amendment in order to insure the freedom of
the slaves.
     The 11  southern states  having  taken  their  rightful  and
necessary  place   in  the   indestructible  Union  proceeded  to
determine whether  to ratify  or reject  the proposed  Thirteenth
Amendment.  In order to become a part of the Constitution, it was
necessary that the proposed amendment be ratified by 27 of the 36
states.  Among those 27 states ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment
were 10  from the  South, to wit, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas,
South Carolina,  Alabama, North  Carolina, Georgia,  Mississippi,
Florida, and Texas.
     When the  39th Congress  assembled on  December 5, 1865, the
senators and representatives from the 25 northern states voted to
deny seats  in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the
11 southern states.  The  full complement of senators from the 36
states of  the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House
was 240.  Since it  requires only  a majority  vote  (Article  I,
Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in
Congress, only the 50 senators and 182 congressmen from the North
were seated.  All of  the 22 senators and 58 representatives from
the southern states were denied seats.
     Joint Resolution  No. 48  proposing the Fourteenth Amendment
was a  matter of  great concern to the Congress and to the people
of the Nation. In order to have this proposed amendment submitted
to the  36 states  for ratification,  it was  necessary that  two
thirds of each house concur. A count of noses showed that only 33
senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from
two thirds  of 72  and lacked  one of  being two thirds of the 50
seated senators.
     While it  requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat
to a  senator, it  requires a  two thirds  majority to  unseat  a
member once he is seated.  (Article 1, Section 5, Constitution of
the United States) One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5,
1865, as one of the senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in
his  opposition   to  Joint   Resolution  No.  48  proposing  the
Fourteenth Amendment.  The leadership  in the  Senate not  having
control of  two thirds  of the seated senators voted to refuse to
seat  Mr. Stockton upon  the ground  that he  had received only a
plurality and  not a  majority of  the votes  of the  New  Jersey
legislature.  It was the  law of  New Jersey  and  several  other
states  that  a  plurality  vote  was  sufficient  for  election.
      Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 2 of 8

Besides, the Senator had  already been seated.  Nevertheless, his
seat was  refused, and  the 33  favorable votes  thus became  the
required two thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.
     In the  House of  Representatives it would require 122 votes
to be  two thirds of the  182 members seated.  Only 120 voted for
the proposed  amendment, but because there were 30 abstentions it
was declared  to have  been passed  by a  two thirds  vote of the
     Whether it  requires two  thirds of  the full  membership of
both houses  to propose  an amendment to the Constitution or only
two thirds  of those seated  or  two thirds of those voting  is a
question which  it would  seem could  only be  determined by  the
United States  Supreme Court.  However,  it  is  perhaps  not  so
important for  the reason  that the amendment is only proposed by
Congress.  It must be  ratified by three fourths of the states in
the Union  before it  becomes a  part of  the  Constitution.  The
method of securing the passage through Congress is set out above,
as it  throws some light on the means used to obtain ratification
by the states thereafter.
     Nebraska  had  been  admitted  to  the  Union,  and  so  the
Secretary  of   State  in  transmitting  the  proposed  amendment
announced that  ratification by  28 states would be needed before
the amendment  would become part of the Constitution, since there
were at the time 37 states in the Union. A rejection by 10 states
would thus defeat the proposal.
     By March  17, 1867, the proposed amendment had been ratified
by 17 states and  rejected by 10,  with California voting to take
no action thereon,  which  was equivalent to rejection.  Thus the
proposal was defeated.
     One of  the ratifying  states, Oregon,  had  ratified  by  a
membership wherein  two legislators were subsequently held not to
be duly  elected, and  after the contest the duly elected members
of the  legislature of  Oregon rejected  the proposed  amendment.
However, this  rejection came  after the  amendment was  declared
     Despite  the   fact  that   the  southern  states  had  been
functioning peacefully  for two  years and  had been  counted  to
secure ratification  of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed
the  Reconstruction   Act,  which   provided  for   the  military
occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee
from military  occupation, and  one must  suspect it  was because
Tennessee had  ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866.
The Act  further disfranchised  practically all  white voters and
provided that  no senator or congressman from the occupied states
could be  seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted
by each  state which  would be  approved by Congress, and further
provided that  each of  the 10  states must  ratify the  proposed
Fourteenth Amendment,  and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a
part of the Constitution of the United States before the military
occupancy would  cease and the states be allowed to have seats in
      Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 3 of 8

     By the  time the  Reconstruction Act had been declared to be
the law,  three more  states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment, and  two -- Louisiana and Delaware -- had rejected it.
Then Maryland  withdrew its  prior ratification  and rejected the
proposed Fourteenth Amendment.  Ohio  followed suit  and withdrew
its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which
earlier had  voted not  to pass  upon the  proposal, now voted to
reject the  amendment.  Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the
proposed amendment.
     By spurious,  nonrepresentative  governments  seven  of  the
southern states  which  had  theretofore  rejected  the  proposed
amendment under  the duress  of military  occupation and of being
denied representation  in Congress  did  attempt  to  ratify  the
proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20,
1868, issued  his proclamation  wherein he stated that it was his
duty under  the law  to cause  amendments  to  be  published  and
certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official
notice that  they had  been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.
Thereafter his certificate contained the following language:
          And whereas  neither the  act just quoted from, nor any
     other  law,   expressly  or   by   conclusive   implication,
     authorizes the  Secretary of  State 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 previous act or resolution
     of  ratification   of  any   amendment   proposed   to   the
          And whereas  it appears from official documents on file
     in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of
     the United  States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified
     by the  legislatures of  the States of [naming 23, including
     New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon];
          And whereas  it further  appears from documents on file
     in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of
     the United  States, proposed  as aforesaid,  has  also  been
     ratified by  newly constituted  and newly 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;
          And whereas  it further appears from official documents
     on file  in this  Department that the legislatures of two of
     the States  first above  enumerated, to  wit, Ohio  and  New
     Jersey,   have   since   passed   resolutions   respectively
     withdrawing the  consent of  each  of  said  States  to  the
     aforesaid amendment;   and  whereas it is deemed a matter of
     doubt and  uncertainty  whether  such  resolutions  are  not
     irregular,   invalid,    and   therefore   ineffectual   for
     withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either
     of them, to the aforesaid amendment;
      Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 4 of 8

          And whereas  the whole  number of  States in the United
     States is thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them];
          And whereas  the twenty-three States first hereinbefore
     named, whose  legislatures have  ratified the  said proposed
     amendment, and  the six  States next  thereafter  named,  as
     having  ratified   the  said  proposed  amendment  by  newly
     constituted and  established  legislative  bodies,  together
     constitute three  fourths of  the whole  number of States in
     the United States;
          Now, therefore,  be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
     Secretary of  State of  the United  States, by virtue and in
     pursuant of  the second  section of  the  act  of  Congress,
     approved  the  twentieth  of  April,  eighteen  hundred  and
     eighteen, hereinbefore  cited, do hereby certify that if the
     resolutions of  the legislatures  of  Ohio  and  New  Jersey
     ratifying the  aforesaid  amendment  are  to  be  deemed  as
     remaining of  full force  and  effect,  notwithstanding  the
     subsequent resolutions  of the legislatures of those States,
     which purport  to withdraw  the consent  of said States from
     such ratification,  then the  aforesaid amendment  has  been
     ratified in  the manner  hereinbefore mentioned,  and so has
     become valid,  to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
     Constitution of the United States. (3)
     Congress was  not satisfied  with the proclamation as issued
and on the next day passed a concurrent resolution wherein it was
resolved "That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a
part of  the Constitution  of the  United States, and it shall be
duly  promulgated  as  such   by  the  Secretary  of  State." (4)
Thereupon,  William  H. Seward,  the  Secretary of  State,  after
setting  forth  the  concurrent  resolution  of  both  houses  of
Congress,  then certified that the amendment "has become valid to
all intents  and purposes  as a  part of  the Constitution of the
United States." (5)
     The Constitution  of the  United States  is silent as to who
should decide  whether a  proposed amendment  has or has not been
passed  according  to  formal  provisions  of  Article V  of  the
Constitution.  The  Supreme Court of the  United  States  is  the
ultimate authority  on the  meaning of  the Constitution  and has
never hesitated  in a  proper case  to declare an act of Congress
unconstitutional --  except when  the act  purported to amend the
Constitution. (6)  The  duty  of   the  Secretary  of  State  was
ministerial, to wit, to count and determine when three fourths of
the states  had ratified the proposed  amendment.  He  could  not
determine that  a state once having rejected a proposed amendment
could thereafter approve it,  nor could he determine that a state
once having  ratified that proposal  could  thereafter reject it.
The  court  and  not  Congress  should  determine  such  matters.
Consistency would  seem to require that a vote once cast would be
final or  would not  be final,  whether the  first vote  was  for
ratification or rejection.
      Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 5 of 8

     In order  to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment,
it was  necessary to  count those states which had first rejected
and then  under the  duress of  military occupation had ratified,
and then  also to count those states which initially ratified but
subsequently rejected the proposal.
     To leave  such dishonest  counting to  a fractional  part of
Congress is  dangerous in  the extreme.  What is  to prevent  any
political party  having control  of both  houses of Congress from
refusing to  seat the  opposition and then without more passing a
joint resolution  to the  effect that the Constitution is amended
and that  it is  the duty  of the  Administrator of  the  General
Services Administration (7) to proclaim  the adoption?  Would the
Supreme Court  of the  United States  still say  the problem  was
political  and   refuse  to   determine  whether   constitutional
standards had been met?
     How can  it be  conceived in  the minds  of  anyone  that  a
combination of  powerful states can by force of arms deny another
state a  right to  have representation  in Congress  until it has
ratified an  amendment which its people  oppose?  The  Fourteenth
Amendment was  adopted by  means almost  as bad as that suggested
(1)  13 Stat. 760, 763, 764, 765, 767, 768, 769, 771 (1865).
(2)  13 Stat.  758 (1865).  A few citizens were excepted from the
     amnesty  proclamation,   such,  for  example,  as  civil  or
     diplomatic officers  of the  late confederate government and
     all of  the seceding  states;  United States judges, members
     of Congress  and commissioned  officers of the United States
     Army and  Navy who  left their  posts to  aid the rebellion;
     officers in  the Confederate  military forces above the rank
     of colonel  in the Army and lieutenant in the Navy;  all who
     resigned commissions  in the  Army or  Navy  of  the  United
     States to  assist the  rebellion;   and all  officers of the
     military forces  of the Confederacy who had been educated at
     the military  or naval  academy of  the United States, etc.,
(3)  15 Stat. 707 (1868).
(4)  Resolution set  forth in proclamation of Secretary of State,
     15 Stat. 709 (1868).   See  also  U.S.C.A.,  Amends. 1 to 5,
     Constitution, p. 11.
(5)  15 Stat. 708 (1868).
(6)  In the case of Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217,
     66 L. Ed. 505,  the question was before the Supreme Court as
     to whether or not the Nineteenth Amendment had been ratified
     pursuant to  the Constitution.  In the last paragraph of the
     decision the  Supreme Court said:" * * * As the legislatures
     of Tennessee  and of  West Virginia  had power  to adopt the
     resolutions  of   ratification,  official   notice  to   the
      Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 6 of 8

     Secretary, duly  authenticated, that they had  done so,  was
     conclusive  upon   him,  and,  being  certified  to  by  his
     proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. * * *"
(7)  65 Stat. 710, Sec. 106b (1951), designates the Administrator
     of General Services Administration  as the one whose duty it
     is to certify that an amendment has been ratified.
(8)  For a  more detailed account of how the Fourteenth Amendment
     was forced  upon the Nation, see articles in 11 S.C.L.Q. 484
     and 28 Tul. Rev. 22.
                             #  #  #
     Because the  issues  discussed  in  said  excerpt  are  very
similar to  the issues  expected to  arise in  the instant  case,
particularly  the  failed  ratification  of  the  so-called  14th
amendment,  Defendant hereby incorporates  by reference all facts
and laws  as cited  therein,  as if the same were set forth fully
I, Vance  E. Knudson,  Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of
perjury,  under the laws of the United States of America, without
(outside) the  "United States",  that  the attached documents are
true and  correct copies  of the  originals,  to the best  of  My
current information,  knowledge, and  belief,  so  help  Me  God,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Dated: ______________________________
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Vance Knudson
Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
      Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 7 of 8

                        PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Vance  E. Knudson, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of
perjury, under  the laws of the United States of America, without
the "United States,"  that  I am  at least  18 years  of  age,  a
Citizen of  one of  the United  States of  America,  and  that  I
personally served the following document(s):
                   NINTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
             Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence;
                  Full Faith and Credit Clause
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
class United  States Mail,  with  postage  prepaid  and  properly
addressed to the following:
Office of U.S. Attorney
487 Federal Building
100 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln [zip code exempt]
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
c/o POB 7238, Ben Franklin Station
Washington [zip code exempt]
Dated:  __________________________________
/s/ Vance Knudson
Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]
      Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 8 of 8


Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Knudson