Stanley I. Evans
Oakland, CA 94601
Date: November 1, 2025
The Honorable Stephanie Thomas
Office of the Secretary of the State of Connecticut
165 Capitol Ave, Suite 1000, Hartford, CT 06115
The Honorable Allen Ramsey
State Archives
231 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
The Honorable Deborah Schander
State Librarian
231 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
DATE: October 30 2025
Subject: Request for Review — Non-Authentic Attesting Signatures on the 1813 House Journal and Committee Report Concerning the Titles of Nobility Amendment
Dear Secretary Thomas, Allen Ramsey and Deborah Schander,
Pursuant to my continuing research into the ratification history of the Titles of Nobility Amendment, I have examined certified copies of two primary documents now held by the Connecticut State Library:
- The House Journal of the Connecticut General Assembly dated May 13, 1813, and
- The Committee Report on the Proposed Amendment from the same session.
After comparison with multiple verified 1813 exemplars of Charles Denison, Clerk of the House, and Theodore Dwight, Chairman of the Committee, I have found that the attesting signatures now appearing on those records are not authentic and are written in a different hand than that of the named officers.
- Legal effect of a forged attestation
Under both Connecticut law and the Federal Rules of Evidence, a government record is presumed authentic only if it bears a genuine attestation by the officer whose signature confers authenticity.
- Conn. Code of Evidence § 9-2 and Fed. R. Evid. 901–902 both require that a writing be authenticated by evidence sufficient to support a finding that it is what its proponent claims.
- When the attesting signature is proven forged, the document loses its presumption of authenticity and is legally treated as unauthenticated secondary evidence.
Because the attestation clause is the very act that certifies a legislative record as valid, a forged attestation renders the record void as proof of legislative action.
See Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) — each affirming that only actions “duly authenticated” by the proper state officers can constitute ratification or rejection under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
- Application to the Connecticut records
- The questioned “Chs. Denison, Clk.” on the 1813 House Journal is written in the same hand and ink as the body text, not Denison’s verified handwriting.
- The “Theodore Dwight, Chairman” signature on the Committee Report is demonstrably forged when compared to genuine signatures on other 1813 committee reports, confirmed by forensic handwriting examination.
- Therefore, both documents are derivative copies, not contemporaneously attested originals.
While the Committee Report bears the State Seal and the signature of the Secretary of State, those elements authenticate only the issuance of the copy, not the truth of the underlying content. If the foundational signatures are false, the certification is tainted by reliance on falsified records.
Accordingly, the wording within those documents — particularly the entry stating that Connecticut was “dissenting to the ratification” of the amendment — is legally invalid as an act of the General Assembly.
- Request for official review
I respectfully request that your office:
- Initiate an internal authentication review of the 1813 House Journal and Committee Report now held by the State Library.
- Determine whether the original signed manuscripts still exist or whether these are later reconstructions.
- Annotate or correct the official archival description to reflect the absence of genuine attesting signatures.
- Notify the U.S. Archivist or other appropriate federal authority if the record presently recognized as Connecticut’s “rejection” of the Titles of Nobility Amendment cannot be authenticated under Article V standards.
- Summary of controlling law
- Article V, U.S. Constitution – requires legislative ratification by the states; only duly authenticated instruments count.
- 1 U.S.C. § 106b – modern codification assigning the Archivist responsibility to record and proclaim amendments upon receipt of properly authenticated state notices.
- Federal Rules of Evidence 901–902; Conn. Code Evid. § 9-2 – require proof of authenticity for official writings.
- Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) – judicial precedent confirming that only authenticated state acts have constitutional effect.
- Conclusion
If these findings are correct, the State’s current archival record purporting to show non-ratification of the Titles of Nobility Amendment rests upon documents whose attestations are false and therefore cannot serve as valid evidence of legislative intent. I respectfully request a formal review and written response from your office acknowledging the issue and outlining any steps that will be taken to ensure the integrity of Connecticut’s historical records.
Please, also refer to the attached PDF file for clarification as to why I am pursuing this matter. These are certified records from the NARA.
Respectfully,
Stanley I. Evans
Oakland, CA 94601
