The Congressional Apportionment Amendment, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - 12 Articles were to be voted on, not 10. All 12 are now found passed.

HomeThe Proof and Case - News from Bold TruthWhy 6000 Representatives? - Oliver Ellsworth's Correction Letter

Sign Our Petition on MoveOn to Present the Congressional Apportionment Amendment to Congress


11/26/16 - The Book is out. How "Less" is "More": the Story of the Real First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Over 600 pages showing you why the Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the Bill of Rights is ratified.

In a stunning work that spans more than 600 detailed and fascinating pages, within which is reproduced hundreds of actual copies of portions of rare government and private books, journals and manuscripts, some never made available to the general public at large before, and with all factual historical claims supported by page after page of meticulously detailed endnotes, American Constitutional Historian Eugene Martin LaVergne has brought together for the first time in the Nation’s History all of the irrefutable proof in one place to show that the Real “First Amendment” proposed by Congress to the State Legislatures in September 1789 was actually fully ratified and consummated into Federal Constitutional Law more than 220 years ago. And as the United States Archivist said in 2010, “Had this been ratified, there would be far more than 435 Members of Congress - nearly 6,000”. With a nation that is today so deeply politically divided by a People resenting the effect of money in politics caused by the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision, exacerbated all the more by a People feeling that our Federal Government has become unresponsive to their concerns and unaccountable to their needs, this stunning historical discovery could not have come at a better time in our history. As the People all soon are informed and come to realize and accept that Article the First is already part of the United States Constitution, this will inevitably be the catalyst for a peaceful Revolution and the immediate and unstoppable reformation of the composition of the size of the United States House of Representatives, all done by the People themselves simply speaking up and taking back the power that they were promised by our founding documents but then wrongfully denied. A must read for all Americans.

11/9/15 It's always nice when another researcher and respected editor does their own home work. I mean, come on, do we really have 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights and all are ratified including the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. According to respected Editor-in-Chief of the New Revere, Justin Haskins, the answer would seem to be YES. Mr. Haskins actually double checked all of Eugene LaVergnes work and references and can find no errors in the assumption that the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified. His recently published story at The Blaze confirms everything we've been saying here at the Bold Truth site. That that Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified and needs to be presented to Congress as soon as possible. I'm sure we'll see more and more stories now that someone as respected as Justin Haskins has presented his findings to the public. By the way, The Blaze is owned by Glenn Beck, well known media personality and if Glenn Beck thinks it's correct, everyone should take a very hard look at it.

8/20/15 From Frederick J. LaVergne - Applying to Represent the 3th Congressional District of NJ in 2016. Frederick was invited to write about the discovery that the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified. Since Frederick actually researched this at the Library of Congress and other archives with a researcher pass (which most people actually can't get but claim they do), and has visited the archives of the states that are described as having to show that votes were taking for the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, he is someone that can stand and shout that a change needs to happen in our Congress as soon as possible before more damage is done to our great country.

"There are whole libraries chock-full of what I don't know...but I DO know that this Nation will succeed or fail based on whether or not we, as a people, truly revere the principles set forth in our founding documents - all of them.

Article the First, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified. Certain Historical information you were told about the amendment is just wrong. The correct language is not what you were taught. It can be proven unequivocally, and it's a game-changer.

This will be very big news in the coming months - as it affects the Presidential Election more than any caucus, or any other factor beyond election day turn-out.

Taxation without PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION is Tyranny. Our Congressional Districts are just wrong by the Constitution and no one is telling you about it or  how to fix it now.

If you live in Montana, for example, should your vote in the upcoming Presidential Election count less than half that of the people in, say, Rhode Island? Failing promulgation of Article the First to Congress, which was ratified in 1792, that's what your vote is worth.

When our Nation was formed, the impossibly high number of 10 million souls was scarcely considered in deciding apportionment of the House of Representatives. It was also never considered that we might one day expand West of the Ohio Territory.

Our original House of Representatives was almost apportioned at 40,000 persons per representative...until George Washington, our first "Constitutional President", personally asked Congress to change Article V of the Constitution, and to lower the district size to 30,000 persons. This was largely because Delaware would have been horridly disenfranchised at 40,000.

If you look at the engrossed copies that were brought forward for signature, you will find that 40,000 was literally scraped off the vellum, and 30,000 substituted. It is actually plainly visible, up close.

No kidding.

I have had the privilege of being up close and personal with many of these documents. I can assure you that is true.

When the original "Articles of Amendment" were proposed, they had been debated from June until September of 1789, and pared down from over sixty to just twelve...

That's right.


Not TEN.

TWELVE Amendments.

Our schools teach that only ten were ratified (along with many other fictions regarding the amendments)...why? Because that's what THEIR teachers taught THEM over the decades.

A mistake, repeated, does not suddenly become fact.

What we refer to as our "First Amendment", when cited in scholarly works, is shown in "square brackets" ( [ ] ). Why? Because it is technically NOT correct.

Your "First Amendment" rights are derived from the language of "Article the THIRD" or the Free Speech Article.

There were two MORE important issues addressed, even before individual freedoms.

The first was to prevent a "Power Grab".

The second, to prevent a "Salary Grab".

An unsung hero, our friend, Greg Watson, who has paid dearly professionally for this since the 1990s, through tireless effort, managed to get sufficient States' Legislatures to ratify Article the Second. You and I now know this as the 27th Amendment or the Pay Amendment" - which John Boehner rode into the HOUSE, then ignored for the next 25 years.

Article the First or the Congressional Apportionment Amendment was believed not to have been ratified.

We considered making the same effort with Article the First and have enough states ratify the amendment so it could be presented to Congress.

Turns out, we don't have to. The work has been done and the vote has been taken and the Congressional Apportionment Amendment was ratified by 1792.

Reviewing the ratification records in the most widely-accepted work, Bernard Schwartz's Two-Volume text on the history of the Constitution, my brother Eugene, found a mistake. He knew Pennsylvania had ratified Article the First - in fact, the volume contains a chart, attributed to Jefferson, that says as much. The text, however, does not count Pa. as having ratified.

Three States are noted as having taken no action, and - and this becomes of critical importance, later - Delaware, inscribing their ratification at the foot of the proposed articles, chose to postpone their vote on Article the First.

In 2010, my brother discovered the ratification of Connecticut, thanks to leads from other Constitutional Law colleagues. It had been "misfiled", and the vote was not reported to Congress - but notification is not a requirement of ratification.

I've been to the Delaware Archives, and, rather than only reviewing the type-set records, reviewed the hand-written notes taken during the Legislature's deliberations on the Amendments.

There was an error as the amendment was sent to the states and Delaware caught the "Scrivener's Error"! (see Eugene M. LaVergne's book for the whole story.)

Now, it would come down to interpretation of how fractional numbers should be dealt with, as to whether Article the First had passed, or was still an open question.

We weren't finished.

The Library of Congress had no record of any action taken by the FIFTEENTH State, Kentucky, as it was added to the Flag.

We realized that there might well be a good reason for that.

The British had burned our Library of Congress in 1814.

We went back to Kentucky's own archives, and Guess what we FOUND!

Not only had the Legislature adopted the Articles of Amendment formally, they adopted ALL TWELVE individually.

That meant TWELVE of the then FIFTEEN States had assented to Article the First as the law of the land.

Whatever your views on "fractional numbers", MATH says 12 of 15 is 80%, and further says that 75% is less than, the threshold for ratification had been crossed.

The mathematical progression contained in the language VOTED IN CONGRESS in New York, at Federal Hall, on September 24th, (SENATE) and 25th (HOUSE) of 1789, means that we are to presently have NO district in Congress where greater than 50,000 persons is represented, based on the 2010 Census.

That's how it works. That's the law.

This would break the strangle-hold that the false duopoly have on our Representation - and would return the reins of Congress to the hands of "We, the People".

It's ratified. It's not what we "may" do, "might" do, or even "should" do.

It's what we MUST do.

They know. We told them all, four years ago.

Every sitting Congressman knows of this - if they say they don't, they're either lying or woefully uninformed by a staff that isolated them from this - incompetence, if not willful ignorance.

Every single one of them, as well as all of your State, County, and Local Officials, have sworn an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Article the First IS a part of that Constitution.

They don't get to pick and choose - neither does the Executive Branch, nor the Judicial Branch.

This is YOUR Nation. This is YOUR Constitution. Demand compliance. Demand Promulgation of Article the First, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment.

"Stand for what's right, or settle for what's left" - FJL for Congress 3rd CD NJ 2016

4/19/15 - Was reading the site on Apportionment and came across this little note that you are supposed to ignore because it's better for the country:

The number of representatives or seats in the U.S. House of Representatives has remained constant at 435 since 1911, except for a temporary increase to 437
at the time of admission of Alaska and Hawaii as states in 1959 (see Table 1). However, the apportionment based on the 1960 Census, which took effect for the
election in 1962, reverted to 435 seats.

The average size of a congressional district based on the 2010 Census apportionment population will be 710,767, more than triple the average
district size of 210,328 based on the 1910 Census apportionment, and 63,815 more than the average size based on Census 2000 (646,952). Based on the
2010 Census apportionment, the state with the largest average district size will be Montana (994,416), and the state with the smallest average district size will be
Rhode Island (527,624).p>

The point being, the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment says we are to have 50,000 people per district. Back in 1911, we had 200,000 people. Now we up to almost a million people in some districts and some down below 600,000. Where is the fairness I ask you?

2/9/15 - Not much to report. There was a private conversation between myself and another reader that the founding fathers never planned on the country growing so large and than used it as an excuse to say we shouldn't follow the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment. To do that, we'd have to say the founding father never thought our country would grow large but in fact, John Adams stated in 1788 that "... Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." Adams understood what would be the growth of our great country and so no reason to remove the ceiling of 1 Representative for every 50,000 people per district for the House of Representatives. Growth was coming and that lock was there for a reason.

Did you tweet to Archivist of the United States David Ferriero today to do his job as he swore to? Cut and paste to Mr. Ferriero, "Mr. Ferriero, please submit the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment to Congress. Let's give Congress our 28th amendment!" @dferriero at Twitter.

3/14/14 - Sent to the Senators of Connecticut:

Dear Senator, in 1790, Connecticut voted for all 12 of the Bill of Rights Amendments including the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. For some reason, that vote never made it to Congress or was delivered and ignored by the person in charge of presenting it to Congress. That vote now needs to be presented to the Department of Commerce and the Archivist of the United States and Connecticut should proudly stand behind that vote, now that we know it was ratified in 1790. Your archivist certified that vote in 2011 when Constitutional Scholar Eugene Martin LaVergne of NJ found the lower and upper house votes, misfiled in the archives for 220 years. What happens after that is up to the courts.

Please confirm you received this and if you are going to present this vote to Congress. With your vote and presentation to Congress, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment can now be applied to our Congress and country as it was supposed to be.

Yours Truly,

Scott Neuman

11/23/13 - Nice to see the writers over at the Daily Kos pick up on the Don Pesci article and understanding we have a 28th amendment to be followed. 

10/18/13 - Submitted Letter to the Editor of the Asbury Party Press for publication:

The House of Representatives has an issue. A small minority can take control of a large majority with rule changes at a moments notice and without vote of the House. In 1911, Congress made a rule change. That change caused the House of Representatives to hold at 435 Representatives no matter what the population of the USA would become. The problem is, this is directly in violation of a Bill of Rights amendment. That amendment is the Congressional Apportionment Amendment or “Article the First” (Free Speech was the 3rd article). That amendment set the amount of the Representatives in the House on a population ratio. The ceiling for that ratio was one representative for every 50,000 people per district.
It was believed that the amendment was short one state from ratification and if just one state extra voted for it, per Article Five standards of the Constitution, it would self ratify. Four states never voted for the amendment or so we are told in history. This week, well known political writer Don Pesci of Connecticut wrote a story that Long Branch native Eugene Martin LaVergne was researching this amendment and wanted to see the voting record for the 12 amendments of the Bill of Rights by Connecticut. With help, LaVergne did found the voting record and presented it to the Connecticut Archivist. The Archivist signed off on the historical record in their archives that Connecticut's lower house and upper senate members voted for the 12 amendments of the Bill of Rights and ratified them by vote in 1790. It was thought they never voted because the voting records could never be found. With the 1790 Connecticut vote, and then Vermont voting for the amendments in 1791, we had 78.5% of the states voting for this amendment.
I’m stunned to say we have a newly discovered and ratified amendment that was hidden by history and is now available to be confirmed by anyone that wants to look. We are to have a ceiling of one Representatives for every 50,000 people. This is now required per the Bill of Rights. My representative, Chris Smith covers over 700,000 people as a representative. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Ellsworth and Sherman agreed in Congress with the other creators of the Bill of Rights that we were to have 1 for 50,000 as a ceiling ratio. That was never to change and we were certainly never to have 435 representatives as a ceiling. Plainly, we need local representation after the bomb effect we just saw in the House of Representatives. The current ratios are now clearly unconstitutional. We the people, should be demanding from our senators that Congress accept the Congressional Apportionment Amendment and start seating the proper number of Representative that can actually HEAR the people in a district that makes sense. Gerrymandering would be much, much harder to set up with this ratio and your vote would be much more equal. You could actually call your Representative and get a real person to answer and hear you under this amendment. Think of it. I’m not for a bloated bigger government, I’m for Better Democracy by just following this Bill of Rights Amendment that is ratified. At the moment, not a lot of people know that this amendment was ratified. Don Pesci is the first respected newsperson to stand up for this amendment. If we all stand up as a nation of people, we can align our country to the way the Found Fathers wanted. Better Representation via The Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Our 28th amendment to the Constitution.
Scott Neuman 

10/14/13 - Thanks to Don Pesci of the Connecticut Political Reporter for standing up and speaking about the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Mr. Pesci writes a clear and concise article about Connecticut's role in the ratification of the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Mr. Pesci is a highly regarded political writer in the state of Connecticut. Hopefully he also has the eyes and ears of the people of Connecticut in getting the Congressional Apportionment Amendment promulgated to Congress. 

9/28/13 - The turn out at the West Jersey Tea Party was great. Mr. LaVergne was scheduled to speak for 1 1/2 hours but by crowd request, was asked to stay and continued on the subject of the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, why it is ratified, produced proof that is ratified and showed why history tells us by mistake that it isn't ratified. The packed house loved every minute of the discussion and couldn't believe that we had 12 amendments and that we were missing the Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the Constitution. Mr. LaVergne was able to answer all their questions with facts and historical documents and is accepting appointments for other talks at this time. Email: to request Mr. LaVergne speak at your event. Belowis Parts 1 through 8 on the talk Mr. LaVergne gave at the West Jersey Tea Party event about the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Get a beer or a drink. It's a long story but when it's done, you'll understand why we have a 28th amendment, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment.

Part ONE

Part TWO




Part SIX



9/2/13 Come hear Constitutional Scholar Eugene Martin LaVergne discuss the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, his discovery of the unreported ratifications of the State Legislatures of Connecticut and Kentucky and his forthcoming book, on Sept 13th, in Medford, NJ 7:00pm to 9:30pm. Braddock's Tavern, 39 South Mill Street, Medford, NJ 08055. For more information, Contact William Haney, West Jersey Tea Party Organization at 609-668-4827

7/25/13 - Two updates. We had a conversation with someone that hates this amendment. Regardless of anyone liking or disliking the amendment, it's still a ratified amendment and needs to be presented to Congress. We're a nation of laws, aren't we? Of course we are and a ratified amendment is a ratified amendment regardless of you thinking it's the best thing since chopped liver or not. The states are more then welcome to rescind the amendment by vote just like they voted by 80% of the states to ratify it. 

2nd. The term in Article 5 of the Constitution says "Ratify" by 75% of the states. Not notify. Time for the Bill of Rights amendments is not an issue here. There is no time limit that kicks in on Notification. It is at the moment that an amendment is ratified by 75% of the states that it becomes part of the Constitution. Not when Congress is notified. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to use the word "Notified or Notify", they would have. The 11th amendment was ratified but Congress wasn't notified for 3 years after it was ratified. It still was considered ratified. Because notification isn't necessary to have a ratified amendment, The Congressional Apportionment Amendment for all purposes became ratified in 1791. If you don't like just over 75%, 80% with Kentucky becoming our 15th state has to be pretty convincing to all considered. Read below:

  The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

We have a 28th amendment regardless of what anyone tells you as you see from the what makes an amendment to the Constitution.

7/25/13 We're looking for comments from the Representatives of Connecticut in Congress. John B Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa L. DeLauro, Jim Himes and Elizabeth Esty as to the possible increase in Representatives in the House to 20 because of the recent found Bill of Rights vote from 1790 ratifying the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. 

5/4/13 When you consider if the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment should be followed, we applaud this important statement from Senator Ted Cruz "The Constitution matters,” Cruz said.. “All of the Constitution. It’s not pick and choose. It’s not take the parts you like and get rid of the parts you don’t like. We agree Senator and look forward to you standing up for the Congressional Apportionment Amendment in your run for President.

4/21/13 We're reading talk about David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States is considering accepting as ratified, the Apportionment Amendment. If he does, we'll have our 28th Amendment to the Constitution. We'll let you know as we hear more. We are able to reach out to an unnamed source who said they're verifying this news and will be getting back to us.

4/6/13 We really feel like calling someone out. Political heat can make you do odd things. Don Wilson, our Archivist for the United States back in 1992 stood the political heat. He did the job he swore to do. He accepted as ratified, our 27th Amendment, this amendment had been "Live" from the Bill of Rights since our country voted on the amendment in the 1700's. By 1992, Don Wilson was presented with information that at least 75% of the states had voted for Article the 2nd from the Bill of Rights to be ratified.

On May 18, 1992, in his official capacity as Archivist, he officially certified the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and on May 19, 1992, printed it in the Federal Register, together with the certificate of ratification.[5] Due to the length of time between the amendment’s submission and ratification (more than 202 years), doing this without congressional approval was controversial, (In our opinion, no it wasn't, as he was given that job just so Congress couldn't screw with the Process) with Speaker of the House Tom Foley and others called for a legal challenge to the amendment's unusual ratification. (Again, there wasn't anything unusual unless you feel the states don't have the right to vote yes or no for amendments).

However, Wilson had acted under statutory authority granted to his office by the Congress under Title 1, section 106b of the United States Code, which states:

Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.

On May 20, 1992, each house of the 102nd Congress passed a version of a concurrent resolution agreeing that the amendment was validly ratified, despite the unorthodox period of more than 202 years for ratification.

And now we have the same situation,  as we find the Apportionment Amendment had 75% or more of the states voting YES for this amendment and over 225 years later, that correct vote has finally come to light. A great wrong can be corrected as Don Wilson did. The problem this time is that the Current Archivist, David Ferriero isn't willing to do his job so far but there is talk that he might shortly. Don Wilson took a huge amount of heat for doing his job but in the end, he stood up and did his job. A job he pledged with his hand held high to the people of the United States to do. All his political favors got used up on that day. David Ferriero doesn't seem to be up to the job he signed on for as Archivist. It's a shame. He could have changed the world for the better by just doing his job. The job of Archivist of the United States. One man will change the world. That man could shortly be David Ferriero. 

4/6/13 We love this article written by Frederick LaVergne. Take a read below:

Featured Writer – Frederick John LaVergne, “Democratic-Republican” for Congress. Mr. LaVergne stood up to be a Candidate for the Third Congressional District in NJ and he is an expert on the subject of Article the First of the Bill of Rights Ratification and why Article the First of the Bill of Rights is a ratified amendment.


What if you found out that there was a part of the Bill of Rights that WAS ratified, and yet has NEVER been applied?

Once you knew it was a part of our Constitution, could you do anything BUT uphold it, as an elected official sworn to do exactly that?

Hang on to your seats, folks – it happened.

In the fall of 2011, the ratification records of Connecticut and Kentucky as concerns the “Articles of Amendment” – what we, today, refer to as “The Bill of Rights”, were discovered hidden away in the drawers of the archives of those States. 

In BOTH cases, the documents clearly demonstrate that “Article the First” had been passed in the affirmative by the Legislatures of those States, even though the US Government and history say they didn't. We can now prove different. 

By ANY counting, that meant that 12 of the then 15 States voted to ratify “Article the First”.

To become a part of the Constitution, an amendment must pass 75% of the States’ Legislatures. 12 of 15 are 80% - clearly over the 75% threshold.

Therefore, “Article the First” has been the law of the land for over 220 years.

Adhering to the Constitution AS IT IS is not something we “may do”, or “might do”, or “should do”…it is what we “MUST do”.

What does this mean to us, today?

“Article the First” set a ceiling on the size of Congressional Districts at perpetually no larger than 50,000 persons, once there were a total of more than 200 Representatives in Congress.  This was to provide an assurance of proportional representation of the different States by population and of accessibility to one’s Representative for redress of grievances and proposal of legislation, as well as the many other benefits derived from consistent district size.


Why would 12 of the then 15 States count, today, now that there are 50 States? 

The Constitutional Law-Making process is different than the Civil or Criminal law-making process.

In simple terms, “ratification” is not “notification” – as I am fond of saying, “they’re different words – they even enjoy there own place in the dictionary.”

This position proves out in the Supreme Court Ruling in “Coleman v Miller” {Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)}. In short, a vote in the State Legislature FOR ratification is self-enacting. 

This was primarily to prevent outside forces from influencing a Legislative decision by preventing notification of Congress…remember, at the time the Constitution was penned, we were still a fledgling Nation, and there was a very real risk of invasion from without, and insurrection from within.

Didn’t the clock run out on “Article the First”? 

Again, no.  Under another peculiarity of the Constitutional law-making process, unless a specified time frame is given, the question remains open indefinitely…even unto the point that all the States could say “no”, then, over a period of time, as States changed their minds and voted “yes”, each would be added to the tally of affirmative votes, until a total sufficient to demonstrate 75% of the then States had ratified…again, not ‘notified’ – simply ‘ratified’.  The case law for this is the well known “Dillon v. Gloss” – {Dillon v. Gloss 256 U. S. 368 1921} that every Constitutional Law student in Law School is drilled on.

It is this very law that allowed Greg Watson to pursue ratification of “Article the Second”, now known as the [27th Amendment], or, more informally, “The Watson Amendment”, which was fully ratified in 1992.

Isn’t there a “mistake” in the language of “Article the First”, and doesn’t it mathematically defeat the intent of the Article as proposed?

There IS a mistake in the copies transmitted to the States for ratification – both in the printed and the hand-engrossed copies. 

Please review carefully what I have just said. 

I have twice used the word “copies”.  That is because there is no “original” version of the “Articles of Amendment” as proposed “in Congress assembled”.  As both the Journals of the House and the Senate clearly note, several last-minute changes were made to the version eventually voted on – pared down over several weeks to only 12 Articles of Amendment. Specifically, a joint committee of three members of the House and three members of the Senate proposed on the last day – 09/24/1789, a language change to the “Eighth Article” (what we know as the [“6th Amendment”]), a change in the “Third Article” (our [“1st Amendment”]), and a “last-minute” change of “less” to “more” in body of the “First Article”.

According to Ellsworth, who sat on the committee, and who served as the acting “majority leader” in the Senate, (and his is the only record of the committee proceedings extant), the change was to have taken place “in the last line but one…”.

This bears repeating - “…in the last line but one…”.  This means the “second-to-last line”, or, if you’re a grammar geek, like me, “the penultimate line”.

The mistake occurred when John Beckley, the Clerk of the House, made a ‘scrivener’s error’.  He copied in his instructions to the “engrossing clerks” and the printers that the change was to have taken place “…in the last place of the last line”.

The “second-to-last line” is not the same as “the last line but one”…is it?

Yes, it’s not.

These fellows in Congress weren’t being “clever” in their speech…that’s how they actually SPOKE to one another in a formal setting.

Here is the text of “Article the First”, as transmitted to the States for ratification.  You will see just how easy it is to be confused as to what was meant…and, in fact, it is more than likely that that’s exactly what happened in the several States’ Legislatures.

“After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”(emphasis added in bold to denote location where change was made to “more”, and where it was supposed to have been made)

It was confusing enough in this form that the Archives of the United States actually issued a Press release on 12/07/2010 affirming the 50,000 per district interpretation, even with the mistake! 

Not surprisingly, due to the present litigation, it has been removed from their website, but may be viewed in original form, here:

Full understanding of this is of critical importance, because what Ellsworth and the committee proposed, and what was “VOICE”-voted in the House and Senate, was NOT what Beckley sent to the States for ratification.

Here, again, we have another peculiarity of the Constitutional law-making process.  It is the language as voted by the Federal Legislature that is law – not the “copies” sent out afterward, and not even what was voted on in the States’ Legislatures, that BECOMES the law.

As proposed and affirmed in the House and Senate, the language SHOULD read as follows:  (What “Ellsworth’s Report” ACTUALLY says – with clauses separated for clarity, and with red text inserted for interpretation purposes only.)

“After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every forty thousand persons (sets a minimum of 100 Representatives thereafter, and creates a “floor” of 40,000 persons per District)until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”(sets a minimum of 200 Representatives thereafter, and creates a “ceiling” of 50,000 persons per District)

What this does, in “English”, is create a situation where, once 200 Representatives are seated, they may Represent no LESS than 40,000, but no MORE than 50,000.

Most houses need a “floor” and a “ceiling”– so does “the People’s House”

Congress “built” one in 1789…and the States ratified it in 1792.

It is a very difficult puzzle to unravel, and we never expected to find evidence that “Article the First” was ratified, or that what we saw as defective language would turn out to be, in fact, a literal “mistake”.

Notwithstanding, “Article the First” IS ratified…and, further, it means what Ellsworth and the Senate and House meant it to. 

LaVergne v Bryson, et al – Docket # 12-1171, the lawsuit compelling recognition of the fact of the ratification, and demanding that the correct interpretation be applied, has now been passed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now it’s up to YOUR Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution, as they were all sworn to do.

Will they?

Frederick John LaVergne, “Democratic-Republican” for Congress. NJ Third Congressional District

There is a small amount of irony to this.  Oliver Ellsworth, possessor of the brilliant judiciary mind that recorded the original vote in Congress, had twin sons – one of whom married Noah Webster’s daughter.  If they had had “Scrabble”, back then, it would have been brutal in that household – as it is in ours.

Ellsworth was also responsible for the creation of much of the Judiciary Act…wherein he penned a grammatically correct and perfectly punctuated sentence of 311 words (plus the “name of the district” to be inserted) – Article 27, historically broken into two sentences, one of 49 words, followed by one of 252 words…again, grammatically correct, and properly punctuated.

The Sentence reads as follows:

And be it further enacted, that a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for the term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting therein, and also the Supreme Court in the District in which that court shall sit, and to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States, and he shall have power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty, and to appoint as there shall be occasion, one or more deputies, who shall be removable from office by the judge of the district court, or the circuit court sitting within the district, at the pleasure of either; and before he enters on the duties of his office, he shall become bound for the faithful performance of the same, by himself and by his deputies before the judge of the district court to the United States, jointly and severally, with two good and sufficient sureties, inhabitants and freeholders of such district, to be approved by the district judge, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and shall take before said judge, as shall also his deputies, before they enter on the duties of their appointment, the following oath of office: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will faithfully execute all lawful precepts directed to the marshal of the district of ____________ under the authority of the United States, and true returns make, and in all things well and truly, and without malice or partiality, perform the duties of the office of marshal (or marshal’s deputy, as the case may be) of the district of , during my continuance in said office, and take only my lawful fees. So help me God."

Try getting that one out in one breath.  For comparison, the whole of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is only 271 words long.

It is probably safe to say that Ellsworth, who was present at both the decision to make the last minute change AND the actual vote as taken in the Senate would have correctly written down what he and his committee had proposed – and we have that documented in Ellsworth’s own hand in the report GIVEN to Clerk Beckley to transcribe.

The “second-to-last line” is not the same as “the last line but one”…is it? Yes, it’s not.”

Looks funny to read it that way, doesn’t it? 

Yes, it is. 

See how I did that? 

That was a little grammatical “gim-crackery” to illustrate my point.  It is unfortunately a common practice in legislation to use “negative argument” in proposing a question for debate.  (or in an election question… “there oughtta be a law”.  Send me to Congress – there will be.)

Frederick John LaVergne

2/19/13 - Very simply, the response from the court was petition denied without an explaination. You need four Justices to agree to hear a case that would bring it before all nine judges for oral arguements. We did not get the four judges we needed. We can file other cases with the court, we can try and have Kentucky and Connecticut contact the Archivist of Congress to accept their 1790 and 1792 ratification votes or the Archivist of Congress can just accept as true, that they voted for Article the First, the Apportionment Amendment.

2/8/13 - As we get closer to the Supreme Court decided if they'll pick up the LaVergne vs Blank case, we found more and more editors in newspapers talking about the case and why it's time to allow the Apportionment Amendment to shape our Congress. David Roberts of the Western Mountain Independent gets to the heart of the issue and how it's time for Congress to accept the ratification.

2/8/13 - After looking at the Logs, China citizens have been blacklisted from seeing anything about the Apportionment Amendment at Up to December 22nd, China was the top viewer of I guess someone in the Chinese Government was worried about how the Apportionment Amendment would change our Country and didn't want the investors to know about it. By blocking our IP addresses or domain name, no one in China can see how Bold Truth is carrying the torch for the Apportionment Amendment and your Bill of Rights.

01-23-13 The filing for Article the First is in place and to be considered for review by the court on 02/15/13. Note the new filing number.  The case is filed as Eugene M. LaVergne v. Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce, et al., No. 12-778

12/24/12 - LaVergne vs Bryson 12-1171 is now filed with the Supreme Court on appeal from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals after the 3rd Circuit denied the appeal on "Political Grounds", basically dumping it in the Supreme Courts lap. We'll be posting the filing shortly. You'll be amazed at what we found and we're sure the Supreme Court will uphold their Consitutional duties and place Article the First in its rightly place as our 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

11/15/12 - Thanks to Frederick LaVergne - Candidate for Congress standing up for Article the First. There is No Need for Secession...

11/13/12 - We've added a petition to the "We the People" Site at the White webpage. We the People allows you to petition the government but you don't see any petition until at least 150 people sign it. We're asking you to sign the petition and keep "Article the First" in the eye of the people as we prepare to present this lawsuit "LaVergne vs Bryson" 12-1171 to the Supreme Court.

10/8/12 - Just found the response from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. I'm printing this and waiting for a response from Eugene LaVergne or any other attorney helping out. My personal comments are below with quotes from the court.

On Page 4 of the response from the court, Here, by contrast, the relief LaVergne seeks would result in every state, based on its population, gaining congressional seats under Article the First. The result would be an increase for each state in the same proportion as the present method produces. If there will be "dilution" to LaVergne’s vote when New Jersey is redistricted using the § 2a apportionment method, LaVergne’s proposed solution would neither affect it nor change the size of New Jersey’s congressional delegation relative to the size of other states’ delegations.

In fact, that would be untrue since current Representatives could be representing anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 people per district per state. Taking that down to 50,000 people would be more precise to say the least in my opinion (sn).

Congress acted within its authority by delegating the ministerial tasks of implementing the method of equal proportions, for redistricting, to the Department of Commerce and its employees

And yet, anyone with eyes can see that the districts in the United States are anything but equal with again, some being 100% out of wack to other districts. Basically, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals failed to do their job and find that Article the First was ratified,  and that the court should force Congress to seat the proper amount of Representatives according to Article the First. Since Congress won't, then it becomes the job of the court to fix that problem as the final step. Two down. One to go. We'll let you read the response and decide yourself. Good luck to all of us.

9/15/12 - We're back from Independence Mall in Philadelphia. If you have an interest in the Constitution, this is the place to visit. Parking is expensive but easy to find and park. You'll see the Liberty Bell, you'll hear the bell tower on the hour at Independence Hall, you'll find the grounds and the park rangers going out of their way to be helpful. You'll see people from around the world coming to the birth place of personal freedom and representation. Something many of them back home don't have. Being part of the resurrected Democratic-Republican Party, all the candidates were there to meet people searching for our history and for an understand of basic freedom. 

On site were Eugene La Vergne who is running for NJ Senate and Frederick La Vergne who is running for the House in the 3rd District, Len Marshall who is running for the House in the 4th District, myself, Scott Neuman and Tracy Ciprioni running for Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders were all on the Mall (by permit) showing off our reasons on why Article the First of the Bill of Rights is ratified. The park rangers, as you'd assume were knowledge about Article the First and all agreed it had ratified based on the information we'd provided to the courts. The day before, the case La Vergne Vs Bryson Docket 12-1171 was heard. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals was right across the street from where we were. The court didn't have the attorneys or Eugene come down, rather they used the court briefs to decide the case with an answer coming in 60 days or less, (after this years election). Two things will happen. They'll complete agree with us and send us back to Trenton. They'll disagree with us and we'll appeal to the Supreme Court. Either way, this amendment was self ratifying when Eugene and his team found the Connecticut ratification paperwork that stated they said yes to Article the First. 80% of the states as of 1792 ratified this article into constitutional law. What's amazing about Constitutional law is that notifying Congress isn't required for an amendment to be ratified. Notice is not required. If it was, we might never have had our 11th amendment which was also passed but took three years for Congress to know it was passed. No one asked. It's the same here. If someone had asked Connecticut if they'd passed Article the First, someone would have said yes, but no one ever asked, other then Eugene La Vergne is. 

While the candidates were there at Independence Mall, we also signed a Pledge. The pledge is called the "Change the Rules" pledge. It's quite simple in what it does. Recently, we've all heard about Citizens United, where the Supreme Court gave Corporations the right to donate as much money as they deemed to PAC committees to be used to try and swing the election one way or another. Corporations were given personhood. Why anyone would think corporations were people leaves a lot of scratching our heads. The issue of course is that big money can buy big swing votes from Senators, Presidents and Congressmen. Our pledge takes that away without a Constitutional Amendment that no one thinks will pass. The pledge required by anyone running for Congress or the Senate says basically, if you take money from a PAC, you agree not to join a committee that is directly affected by the business you took money from or you agree to abstain from participating in that committee or not even join that committee. You can vote on the floor for or against a bill that comes to the floor as long as you have no input in its creation. Simple! If you don't sign the pledge, you basically shoot yourself in the foot. We all signed this pledge on this date in Independence Mall in full view of Independence Hall and marching Revolutionary Soldiers that are part of the Sons of the American Revolution. We also handed out hundreds of examples of the pledge form asking people to sign them and either return them to us or send them on to their Representatives and Senators. So far traffic is up double of what it was last month.  

9/3/12 - Scott Scharpen of Apportionment.US gives a good argument on why we should increase the size of the House of Representatives. Scott wrote this before the filing of our lawsuit.

9/2/12 - Two weeks to go before we wind up in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Phila. 9/14/12 is the date and 9/15/12, we'll have a demonstration at Independence Hall. Come and join us after 9:00am in front.

9/1/12 Traffic has increased in August by almost 100% to the site. We had 2500 hits on the site vs half that in June and July. Thanks for the support.

8/19/12. Take a listen to Madison Raising. Nice to see a fresh take on a national song.

8/17/12 - Blog post from Frederick LaVargne on where the phrase "The United States of America" came from: The phrase appears many times in history - it became our "NAME", however, at the insistence of Oliver Ellsworth - who proposed it as an alternative to "The National Government of the United States". Ellsworth was a senator in the First Constitutional Congress, and participated in the creation of the Judiciary Act (penning a grammatically correct sentence of over 300 words as part of the 27th Article), and was a member of the 6 person "committee of correspondence" responsible for the reduction to 12 articles the many proposed Constitutional Amendments from our First Constitutional Congress. Ellsworth was a Senate member (3 from the Senate, 3 from the House). He was the DeFacto Majority Leader of the Senate, and it was his notes that were transcribed to create the first REAL record of the Bill of Rights. The transcription of his notes by House Clerk John Beckley was a less than faithful rendering, and several "scrivener's errors" and clerks errors found their way into the engrossed "copies" (COPIES - there is no "original") distributed to the States for consideration for ratification. Article the First, arguably the most important amendment (guaranteeing proportional representation for "We, the People") was thought to have failed in the ratification process, possibly because the error in transcription made the version sent out mathematically defective. Two important facts to note - the Constitutional law-making process is different than the "Federal" law-making process, and it is the accurate language of Ellsworth's report that is the true content of the amendment, and, as it turns out, Article the First WAS ratified, but, apparently, until last Fall, nobody knew. The ratification votes for Connecticut and Kentucky have turned up in their respective archives, meaning that 80% of the then 15 States affirmed Article the First as a part of our Constitution. A lawsuit is presently pending before the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for 09/14/2012 (the 198th anniversary of the Battle of Baltimore (see "Star-Spangled Banner")). Docket # 12-1171, "LaVergne v. Bryson, et al", compels recognition of the ratification of Article the First, demonstrates that the present apportionment of the House is therefore unconstitutional, and compels the Federal Government to uphold the Constitution "As it IS", not as the D's, R's, and special interests might like it to be. has links to all of the certified documents entered into evidence. Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress, NJ's Third Congressional District, 2012.
8/13/12 - Here is a copy from the National Archives on what would have happened if Article the First of the Bill of Rights was ratified. That US Citizens would have had One Representative for every 50,000 citzens once our country had gotten up to eight million citizens. Up till 2011, Citizens were short one state, at the time, of a ratification and either Kentucky or Connecticut could have pushed the amount of states needed for a ratification of this article over the 75% limit. Both would have brought it up to 80%. Either's vote is an automatic ratification. BoldTruth's site clearly shows Kentucky and Connecticut's ratification paperwork from 1792. After the LaVergne lawsuit was file, this press release from the National Archives was removed from their site. Oops. We found it and make a copy here.

6/28/12 - Below is a letter from House of Representatives Candidate for the 3rd District Frederick John LaVergne of NJ, talking about Wikipedia changing or adding inaccurate information about Article One of the Bill of Rights: This is the post that was edited back out of the WikiPedia story on the Bill of Rights, which, in the current version, contains many historically incorrect assertions.

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 Ellsworth of Ct., 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 voting Yea to Article the First. The 15th state would be Kentucky with a Yea vote and 80% of the states now voting for ratification of Article the First. 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, 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 defendents, 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, ommission, 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? (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Frederick John LaVergne for Congress, NJ Third Congressional District. 


6/20/12 We're going to Court. Come join us on Sept 14th, 2012 and make history.

Court Date

Back to Home Page

Copyright 2012 / Hosted by Recordweb Communications LLC. Comments to