Non-Existent Amendments

to the
Constitution for The United States of America

{Supplement}

Gordon Warren Epperly

With a line-up of “Candidates” for the “Office of President” for “The United States
of America” and with a line-up of “Negroes” and “Women” administering
the “Oath of Office” to enlisted “Men” and “Women” for the “Military” of
the “United States,” there are questions of “Office Qualifications.”

What is at issue is the “granting” of “Political Powers” of “Suffrage,” either for

the casting of “Votes” or for the holding of “Public Offices of Trust” of the government
of the “United States.”

The exercise of “Political Powers” of “Suffrage” does not automatically come with
the status of “Citizenship,” but it is an exercise of government granted “Privileges” as
identified by “Constitutions,” “Statutes,” and other “Laws” of our “Nation.”

The “U.S. Supreme Court” ruled in the case of “Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162,
22 L.Ed. 627, 21 Wall. 162” (1875) that "the Constitution of the United States
DOES NOT confer the right of suffrage upon anyone." The “Court” held
that the “Fourteenth Amendment,” (“U.S. Const. Amend. XIV”), had not
conferred “citizenship” upon “Plaintiff” (“Minor”) because “Plaintiff” had been a “citizen”
since her birth. The “Court” held, however, that the “Fourteenth Amendment,”
(“U.S. Const. Amend. XIV”), did not add to the “privileges” and “immunities” of
a “citizen,” but simply created an additional “guaranty” for the protection of those
already possessed by a “citizen.” The “Court” held that the “Constitution” had
not added the right of “suffrage” to the “privileges” and “immunities” of “citizenship”
as they existed at the time the “Constitution” was adopted. The “Court” found
that “suffrage” was not coextensive with the “citizenship” of the “states” when
the “Constitution” was adopted. [Emphasis added].

Furthermore; after the election, “Susan B. Anthony” was indicted, tried, and convicted,
in the “Federal Court” sitting at “Rochester, New York” for having “voted” unlawfully,
the presiding Judge “Ward Hunt” instructed the “Jury” that the “privilege of voting” is one

Page 1 of 18
conferred by the “state governments” only, and that they might restrict that “privilege”
to whomsoever they pleased. The “Judge” also declared that “citizenship”
and “suffrage” are entirely different, and that while “Miss Anthony” was a “citizen”
by birth in the “United States,” citizenship does not necessarily carry with it the right
to vote. [Emphasis added].

The terms “Citizenship” and “Suffrage” must not be confused. There are two (2) kinds
of “citizenships,” that of a “state” [“State”] and that of the “United States” [“Federal”].
Under the “Fourteenth (14th) Amendment” of the “Constitution” for “The United States
of America,” a “citizen” of the “United States” is also a “Citizen” of the “state” wherein
he/she resides, but it does not follow that a “Citizen” of one of the “states” is also
a “Fourteenth (14th) Amendment” created “citizen” because of his “state” citizenship.
A “natural born caucasion male citizen” of a “state” is also a “natural born [C]itizen” of
the “United States.” /1 Please keep in mind that there was no such thing as
a “[c]itizen” of the “United States” until the [purported passage] of
the “Fourteenth (14th) Amendment” to the “Constitution” for “The United States
of America.” The term “[c]itizen” was created within “Section One”
of that “Amendment.”

“Citizenship” is the relation one bears to his or her “government.” “Suffrage,” on the
other hand, is merely the “privilege” grant of government to “Vote” or to hold
a “Public Office of Trust.”

The “U.S. Supreme Court” did not establish the connection between “citizenship”
and “voting rights” until the mid-twentieth Century. This accomplishment was done
with rulings of “Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)” and “Reynolds v. Sims,
1
/ The “Constitution” for “The United States of America” speaks of “three (3) C [c] itizenships.” The
first and supreme, is the “Caucasian citizen male” of a “state” of the “Union,” the second is the
“[C]itizen” of the “United States,” either by “statutory” (e.g. “naturalization”) or by “natural birth” of
a “Caucasian male citizen” of a “state,” and the third is by “creation” of
the “Fourteenth (14th) Amendment.” The upper case letter “C” “Citizen” is found in the “main body” of
the “Constitution,” whereas, the lower case letter “c” “citizen” is found in the “Amendments” to
the “Constitution.” These two (2) “Citizens” [“citizens”] of the “government” of “The United States
of America” (“United States”) are separate and they cannot be combined into one.

Page 2 of 18
377 U.S. 533 (1964),” rulings that altered the “Constitution” for “The United States
of America” without the approval of the “U.S. Congress” or any “Legislature” of
the fifty (50) “states” of the “Union”:

“The Court declared in “Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964),” that “no right is
more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election
of those who make the laws under which we, as good citizens, must live,”
and in “Reynolds” /2 the Court said that “any alleged infringement of the right
of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized” because
“the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner
is preservative of other basic civil and political rights . . .” While not creating
any substantive voting rights, these pronouncements helped to establish
the modern conception of “voting” as an essential aspect of “citizenship.” /3
[Emphasis added].

Questions now arise. If this position of the “Justices” of the “U.S. Supreme Court”
is true, then may I ask as to what / why is the need for
the “Fifteenth (15th) Amendment”? /4

“The right of “citizens” of the “United States” to “vote” shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude –” /5 [Emphasis added].

(Section One, Fifteenth Amendment).

/ “Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533” (1964).

3
/ Quoted from “Page 20” of “Ann D. Gordon’s” (“Rutgers University”) writing of “The Trial
of Susan B. Anthony.”
4
/ see “https://tinyurl.com/3uz5esmc”
5
/ The “voting qualifications” of “citizens” of the “United States” (e.g. “Negroes”) is regulated by
the “states” of which they “reside” in.” [see wording of “Section One” of the “Fourteenth Amendment”].

Page 3 of 18
 and the need for the “Nineteenth (19th) Amendment”? /6

“The right of “citizens” of the “United States” to “vote” shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of “sex”.” /7
[Emphasis added].

(Section One, Nineteenth Amendment).

We must examine these two (2) “Amendments” to the “Constitution”

for “The United States of America” in the light of a pending “Election.”
We take “Judicial Notice” that these two (2) “Amendments” speak “only” of “voting,”
not the “holding” of any “Public Office of Trust.” Nowhere may it be found within these
two (2) “Amendments” the word “Suffrage” and no “Judge” / “Justice” has any authority
to enlarge the word “vote” of any “Amendment” to include the “holding” of
any “Public Office of Trust” (via “dicta rulings” /8 or otherwise).

The first recorded “usurpation” of “Office” is with the election

of “Jeannette Pickering Rankin” into the “Office” of the “U.S. Congress” as
a “U.S. Representative.” This “usurpation” took place shortly after the “ratification” of
the “Nineteenth Amendment” and she was “sworn” into “Office” on “April 2, 1917.”
The trend of “usurpation” of “Office” continued with “President
William Jefferson Clinton” and with “President Joseph Robinette Biden”
nominating “Women” and “Negros” for “Cabinet” and “Judgeship” positions without
any “Vetting” taking place.

6
/ See “https://tinyurl.com/4n2mx6am”
7
/ The “Nineteenth (19th) Amendment” (and other “Amendments”) do not exist. Upon the declared
“ratification” of the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment,” there has been no legitimate “members” for
the “Senate” to the “U.S. Congress.” Details may be found in the “MS Word” version of “Non-Existent
Amendments to the Constitution for The United States of America” -- and the “PDF Version” of
that “Document.”
8
/ “Dicta” in law refers to a comment, suggestion, or observation made by a Judge in an Opinion that is
not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other Courts but may still
be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation.

Page 4 of 18
This trend of “Usurpation” of “Office” continued with “President Joseph Robinette Biden”
nominating twelve (12) “Women” to his “Cabinet” — eight (8) of them
being “Women of color” — and over ninety (90) “Women” being nominated and confirmed
for “Federal Judgeship.”

It appears that the “U.S. Congress” has not set up a “Body of People” to “oversee”
the “Office Qualifications” of “Candidates” for “Public Offices of Trust” for
the “government” of “The United States of America.” NONE HAS BEEN LOCATED.
Could this be why we have “Foreign Nations” sitting over us as “Members” of
the “U.S. Congress” and “Executive Offices?” /9

The “Politics” of “Suffrage” does not exist as a “matter of right” of “citizenship.” It exist as
a “privilege” via “enactments” of “law.” There are no “Amendments” to the “Constitution”
for “The United States of America” that authorizes “Women” or “Negros” to hold
a “Public Office of Trust” of the “United States” (notwithstanding any “Statute” or any
other form of law to the contrary).

Donald J. Trump

What about the “States” of the “Union”? Several “States” had their “Constitutions”
modified by the “U.S. Congress” during the years of “1867-1870.” The “U.S. Congress”
imposed “Restrictions” upon the “Constitutions” of several “States,” with
the “State of Georgia” being required in part:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That each of the States of . . . Georgia, . . .
when the legislature of such State shall have duly ratified the amendment to
the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress and
9
/ Such as those whom gave their “Allegiance” to the “state of Israel” and “Vatican City state”
and other “Nations” that we may not be aware of.

Page 5 of 18
 known as article fourteen, upon the following fundamental conditions: That the
constitutions of neither of said States shall ever be so amended or changed as
to deprive any citizens or class of citizens of the United States of
the right to vote in said State, who are entitled to vote by the constitution
thereof herein recognized, . . . .” [Empasis added].

FOURTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II. Ch. 70 dated June 25, 1868.

On or about August 14, 2023, “District Attorney, Fani T. Willis” did “file” with
the “Fulton County District Court” for the “state” of “Georgia,”
a “Grand Jury Indictment” /10 charging “Donald J. Trump” (and “Eighteen (18) Others”)
with a multitude of “Crimes.” “District Attorney, Fani T. Willis” authority to hold
a “Public Office of Trust” appears to be founded upon “Article II” of
the amended “Constitution” for the “state” of “Georgia”:

“Paragraph II. Right to register and vote. Every person who is a citizen of
the United States and a resident of Georgia as defined by law, who is at least
18 years of age and not disenfranchised by this article, and who meets
minimum residency requirements as provided by law shall be entitled to vote at
any election by the people. The General Assembly shall provide by law for
the registration of electors. [Emphasis added].

Georgia Constitution, Article II, Section I, Paragraph II

“Paragraph III. Persons not eligible to hold office. No person who is not
a registered voter or who has been convicted of a felony involving
moral turpitude, unless that person's civil rights have been restored and at least
ten years have elapsed from the date of the completion of the sentence without
a subsequent conviction of another felony involving moral turpitude, or who is
the holder of public funds illegally shall be eligible to hold any office
or appointment of honor or trust in this state. . . .” [Emphasis added].

Georgia Constitution, Article II, Section II, Paragraph III

.
10
/ See “Indictment” in “PDF” format: “https://tinyurl.com/ysreakvk “.

Page 6 of 18
This looks bad for “Donald J. Trump” and others named in the “Grand Jury Indictment,”
but wait a minute; it is the “Congress” for “The United States of America” that has been
given the “unlimited authority” to grant a “citizen” of the “United States” the “privileges”
of “Suffrage,” not the “legislature” of any “state” of the “Union”:

“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,

the provisions of this Article.” (“14th Amendment”). [Emphasis added].

U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section Five

As stated herein (supra.), “citizenship” has nothing to do with “Suffrage” and

the “Fourteenth (14th) Amendment” has nothing to do with the exercise of “Suffrage.”
The “Privilege” to cast “Votes” or to hold a “Public Office of Trust” are not one of
the same for they are a “grant” of “privileges” of a “government.” No “political body”
of “The United States of America” nor of any “state” of the “Union” has been
granted “authority” to combine the “two (2)” “provisions” of “Suffrage” into “one (1).”

In regard to “citizens” of the “United States,” it is the “Congress” for “The United States
of America” that has been granted “exclusive authority” by “Section five (5)” of
the “Fourteenth (14th) Amendment” to the “U.S. Constitution” to grant the “privilege(s)”
of “Suffrage” to “citizens” of the “United States.” This was done with
the “enactment” and “ratification” of the “Fifteenth (15th) Amendment” and
the “Nineteenth (19th) Amendment” to the “Constitution” for “The United States
of America,” and then the “Congress” saw fit to “limit” the exercise of “Suffrage” to
the casting of “votes,” not the “occupancy” of an “Office of Trust.”

For the “legislature” or the “Constitution” of any “state” of the “Union” (such as
the “states” of “Alaska,” “Georgia,” “Idaho,” “Iowa,” “Montana,” “Utah,” “Wyoming,”)
to declare otherwise is “unconstitutional,” “null and void,” “Ab initio,” so says “Article VI,
Section 1, Clause 1” of the “Constitution” for “The United States of America”:

Page 7 of 18
 “This Constitution, and all the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and
the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution
or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding.” [Emphasis added].

For the “people” of those “states” (“supra.”) to “exclude” the “Citizens” of their
own “state” from holding a “Public Offices of Trust,” and reserving those “Offices” for
those who are “citizens” of a “foreign body” known the “United States” is “unacceptable.”

The “legislature” for the “state” of “Georgia” had no authority to “amend”

its “Constitution” to read:

“No person (“person who is a citizen of the United States”

per “Georgia Constitution, Article II, Section I, Paragraph II ” [“Supra.”]) who is
not a registered voter … shall be eligible to hold any office or appointment
of honor or trust in this state.” [Emphasis added].

“District Attorney, Fani T. Willis,” being a “Women” and a “Negro” “citizen” of

the “United States,” is an “Usurper” of a “Public Office of Trust.” She had no “authority”
to “convene” a “Grand Jury” and she has no “authority” to occupy the “Office”
of “Fulton County District Attorney.” The “True Bill” of her “Indictment” (as brought
against “Donald J. Trump” and others named) should be “quashed” and “removed” from
the “record” of the “Court.”

Michelle Lujan Grisham recently made “Headlines” by declaring herself to be

the “Governor” of the “state” of “New Mexico” and by declaring herself to be
the “Governor,” she proclaimed herself to be a “citizen” of the “United States.”
(see “Article V, Section 1” and “Article V, Section 3” of the “Constitution” for the “state”
of “New Mexico”):

“The executive department shall consist of a governor, lieutenant governor . . .”

New Mexico Constitution, Article V, Section 1 [Emphasis added].

Page 8 of 18
 “No person shall be eligible to any office specified in Section One, hereof, unless
he be a citizen of the United States . . . ”
New Mexico Constitution, Article V, Section 3 [Emphasis added].

When she took it upon herself that “U.S. Supreme Court Rulings” and that
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” are not “absolute” in the protection
of “Rights” to carry “Firearms,” she brought herself into the “limelight” of
the “General Public.”

Michelle Lujan Grisham, as a “citizen of the United States,” has been given
no “authority” by the “Congress” for “The United States of America” to hold
a “Public Office of Trust” of the “state” of “New Mexico.” Michelle Lujan Grisham has
committed the crime of ???

Fani T. Willis commits the “crime” of “Impersonating another in the course of an action,
proceeding, or prosecution”:

“O.C.G.A. 16-10-96 (2010)

“16-10-96. Impersonating another in the course of an action, proceeding,

or prosecution

“Any person who shall falsely represent or impersonate another and in such
assumed character answer as a witness to interrogatories or do any other act in
the course of any action, proceeding, or prosecution or in any other way,
matter, or thing, whereby the person so impersonated or represented, or any
other person, might suffer damage, loss, or injury shall, upon conviction thereof,
be punished by confinement for not less than one year nor more than
five years.”

Page 9 of 18
Nowhere may it be found that the word “Suffrage” appears within any “Amendment” to
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.” It is found only in “Article V” of
the “Constitution” /11 for “The United States of America”:

“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.” [Emphasis added].

Do you remember the “Politics” of the “Election” of “Barack Obama Jr.”? Do you
remember the line-up of “Complaints” with the “Federal Courts” questioning “Obama’s
Office Qualifications” for want of having the status of being a “Natural Born Citizen”?
As pointed out by his “Attorney” /12 and the “Courts,” the “Plaintiffs” had “no standing”
and the issue of “citizenship” was “frivolous.”

As stated; the question to be answered was the “grant” of “Political Rights” of holding
a “Public Office of Trust” of “President” of the “United States.” That “grant”
of “Political Rights” is not founded upon any requirement of “citizenship” [”Citizenship”].

11
/ “https://tinyurl.com/m94fdwum”
12
/ “Elena Kagan” was the “Attorney” that represented “Barack Obama Jr.” during his “Candidacy”
for “President” of “The United States of America.” As a reward for the work of “Elena Kagan”
usurping “Barack Obama Jr.” into “Office,” she was rewarded for her “services” by being “nominated”
for “Associate Justice” of the “U.S. Supreme Court,” a position which she holds today.

Page 10 of 18
The “Birth Certificate” /13 may be an issue, but it is not an issue in this instance. It is
the status of “Barack Obama Jr.” as having the “Blood” of a “Negro” flowing through
his “Veins” and the “absence” of a “grant” of “Political Rights” of “Suffrage” to “hold”
a “Public Office of Trust” for the “President” of “The United States of America.”

The “Candidates” for a “Public Office of Trust,” either for the “President” of
the “United States” or for the “U.S. Congress,” must possess a government “grant”
of “Political Rights” of “Suffrage” to occupancy any of those “Public Offices” as well
as having the required status of “Citizenship.” Today, we have “Women” of
the “U.S. House of Representatives” totaling “125” (92D, 33R) and we have “Women” in
the “U.S. Senate” totaling “25” (15D, 9R, 1I) and in regard to “Negroes,” we have a total
of “56” in the “U.S. Congress,” all of which have no “Constitutional” or “Legislative”
grant of “Political Rights” of “Suffrage” to hold a “Public Office of Trust”
for “The United States of America” or of any “state” of the “Union.”

For a “Listing” of “Court” filings challenging “Barack Obama’s Candidacy” for “President”
of “The United States of America,” the “Listing” may be found on the “Internet”
at: “https://tinyurl.com/3tpn6nbj”.

The “Constitution” for “The United States of America” reads the same as the day
it was written. It is not a living “Document” that changes at the whim of the day.
There is no authority to be found giving anyone other than a white “Male” citizen of
a “state” of the “Union” to hold a “Public Office of Trust” of the “government”
of “The United States of America.” See also the wording of “Section Two (2)” of
the “Fourteenth Amendment”:

“. . . is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one

years of age, and citizens of the United States, . . .” [Emphasis added].
13
/ It was rumored that the “Birth Certificate” of “Barack Obama Jr.” as presented to the “People,”
was manufactured by the “Staff” of “U.S. Rep, Nancy Pelosi.”

The “Birth Certificates” of the “State of Hawaii” are recorded on “Micro-Film.” [see “Obama's
Birth Certificate” (“Hawaii-Kenya)” ].

Page 11 of 18
 CONCLUSION

I have been approached with comments of “So What! There is nothing that I can do for
there is no solution to the problem.” Those “Individuals” have also labeled me as
a “Bigot” /14 and a “Racist,” /15 so be it.

I am not the author of the “U.S. Constitution” and all the “Laws” of the “U.S. Congress”
that were made pursuant to it. The “U.S. Constitution” is not only “Law,” it is
the “Supreme Law” of our “Nation.” /16 This is not a popularity contest where “Politics”
rules the day. I am an “Originalist” /17 having the belief that the “U.S. Constitution” is not
a “living document” that changes from day to day to match the “life styles” of the day.
It reads the same today as the day it was written. /18

14
/ BIGOT - A person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who
have different beliefs or a different way of life. [“Cambridge Dictionary”].
15
/ RACIST - Someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral,
etc. than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result.
[“Cambridge Dictionary”].
16
/ “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[“U.S. Const, Article VI, Clause 2”].

17
/ ORIGINALISM – “In the context of United States law, originalism is a theory of constitutional
interpretation that asserts that all statements in the Constitution must be interpreted based on the
original understanding "at the time it was adopted." This concept views the Constitution as stable
from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps
set out in Article Five.”

[“B. Boyce, ”Originalism and the Fourteenth Amendment", 33 Wake Forest L. Rev. 909”].
18
/ For a discussion on the “Originalism” of the writing of the “U.S. Constitution,” I direct you to
the “The University of Chicago, Law School.”
[“https://tinyurl.com/26uupx97”].

Page 12 of 18
I believe a solution is at hand and it may be found with those who administer
the “Oaths of Office” to the “Elected” and “Appointed” “Officers” and “Employees” of
the “government” of “The United States of America.” Even though the “U.S. Congress”
has not codified the “false administration” of an “Oath of Office” as a “crime,” we may
conclude that an “Official” (e.g. “Judges”/”Justices” and others) whom falsely
administers an “Oath of Office” to a “Candidate” who is without “qualifications”
of “Office,” has committed the “crime” of “Malfeasance of Office”: /19

19
/ 18 U.S. Code § 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of
the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain
any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorist, imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates
to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 159, then the term of
imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. [Emphasis added].

Page 13 of 18
 “Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as
a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct
which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty;
as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which
a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful;
as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong
or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party
performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.

"Malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all
and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that
which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority
whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty
of malfeasance." [Emphasis added].

— Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956)

An “Official” that has administered a false “Oath of Office,” that “Official” must also have
the “authority,” and duty (implied or otherwise), to “revoke” that “Oath.” Precedence has
been set when a second “Oath of Office” was administered to “Barack Obama Jr.” for
the “Office” of “President” for “The United States of America.” /20

Although there are several “Offices” of “The United States of America” that are occupied
by “Women” and “Negroes” that have no “Office” qualifications, one “Women” comes
to mind. That is “Kamala Harris” as “Vice-President” of “The United States of America.”
Nowhere may it be found within the “Constitution” for “The United States of America”
(notwithstanding the “Nineteenth (19th) Amendment”) that “Kamala Harris”
(as a “Woman” having the “blood” of a “Jamaican” born father and the “blood” of
an “Indian” born mother in her “Veins”) has ever been granted the “Political Powers”

20
/ See “Reuters” article “Obama takes oath again after inauguration” dated January 21, 2009.

Page 14 of 18
of “Suffrage” to be a “Candidate” (or an “Office Holder”) of a “U.S. Senator”
or “Vice-President” of “The United States of America.” /21

Supreme Court Justice, “Sonia Sotomayor” (a “Women” who also does not qualify as
an “Office Holder”) administered the [defacto] “Oath of Office” to “Kamala Harris”
on “January 20, 2021.”

You need to bring forth “litigation” before a “Federal Court.” Here is a “Secrete”:

You have “standing” before a “Federal Court” for it was given to you by
the “U.S. Congress” in the “Law” of “18 U.S. Code § 4” (“Misprision of felony”):

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony

cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as
soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person
in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
[Emphasis added].

You also have knowledge of “felonies” being “committed” as given to you by

this “Document.” We see “Women,” “Negroes,” and those of
the “LGBTQ” community, /22 pretending to be “Candidates” for the purpose
of usurping a “Public Office of Trust” of the “government” of the “United States.”
Said “Candidacy” is without authority of “Law” or the “Constitution”
for “The United States of America”:

21
/ See wording of the “Fifteenth (15th) Amendment” to cast “votes” (which is not a grant
of “Political Powers” to “occupy” a “Public Office of Trust” of “The United States of America”).
22
/ The “LGBTQ” community does not recognize the existence of “Men” or “Women.” They are known
as “Queers” in “Dictionaries” and “Encyclopedias.” There are no provisions of “Law” or
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” that authorizes the “LGBTQ” community to
hold “Public Offices of Trust” of the “government” of the “United States.”

Page 15 of 18
 “Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting
under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or
officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character
demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,
or both.” [Emphasis added].

18 U.S. Code § 912 - Officer or employee of the United States.

It is these two (2) “Sections” of the “U.S. Code” (“18 U.S. Code § 4”
and “18 U.S. Code § 912”) that needs to be stated within the “Standing” section of
the “Header” of your “Complaint.” Please keep in mind that “Standing” is
not “Jurisdiction.” A “Jurisdictional” statement of the “Court” also needs to appear in
the “Header” of the “Complaint.”

And when those defato “Office Holders” searches or arrest a person,

and their buildings or other property without authority of “Office,” they are
committing “crimes” under “18 USC § 913” (“Impersonator making arrest or search”):

“Whoever falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent, or employee of

the United States, and in such assumed character arrests or detains any
person or in any manner searches the person, buildings, or other property
of any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.” [Emphasis added].

And when they use their defacto “Offices of Public Trust” to interfere with any
administrative “employee” of a “Federal,” “State,” or “Territorial Governments,”
they commit “crimes” under “18 USC § 695” (“Interference by administrative employees
of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments”):

“Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by

the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by

Page 16 of 18
 the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by
any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States,
or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of
such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned
or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States
or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection
with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants
made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his
official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting,
the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office
of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate,
Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from
the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. . . .”
[Emphasis added].

The future of our “Nation” is now in your hands. At my age of eighty-three (83) years
and being crippled in a “Wheel Chair” with no “income” other than “Social Security,”
I am no longer able to circulate this information, and worse; I am unable to bring
forth “litigation.”

It is up to you. Please pass this “Message” around to everyone, especially to those

who are in powerful “Offices” of “Washington, D.C.”. Go to “Court.”

/////

/////

/////

Page 17 of 18
This “writing” is presented as a “Supplement” to the “writing” of:

Non-Existent Amendments
to the
Constitution for The United States of America

“https://tinyurl.com/yrvc8dea”
“https://tinyurl.com/bdd82jc3”

Respectfully Submitted

Gordon Warren Epperly

P.O. Box 34358
Juneau, Alaska 99803

e-mail: enter7740@14th-amendment.com

Page 18 of 18