FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Researcher Releases Virginia Evidence Packet Showing State-Level Adoption of the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA)

Virginia’s official volumes state “Amendments to Constitution adopted”; State Department copy marked “C.1.” (Chapter One) confirms publication to federal authorities; Supreme Court precedent supports validity of the state’s assent

Oakland, CA — October 13 2025— Researcher Stanley Ivan Evans today released a documentary packet indicating that the Commonwealth of Virginia formally adopted the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) and published it in its official volumes—evidence the U.S. Department of State also possessed. The packet includes images from Virginia Volume II showing the heading “Amendments to Constitution adopted” and the State Department’s copy whose cover page bears “C.1.” (Chapter One), signifying placement within Virginia’s published laws. Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, a state legislature’s duly recorded and published assent is a lawful Article V ratification.

“Virginia’s own books say what they say—‘Amendments to Constitution adopted’. The State Department’s copy is marked and cataloged accordingly. A state can only declare what it has adopted, and that is exactly what Virginia did,” said Stanley Ivan Evans, author of Hocus Pocus: The Art of Deception.

Why this constitutes a lawful adoption (Article V)

The following U.S. Supreme Court decisions frame how state assent is given legal effect:

• Hawke v. Smith (No. 1), 253 U.S. 221 (1920) — Article V ratification is an act of the state legislature (or convention, if Congress so chooses); extra steps (e.g., referendum) cannot be interposed. The legislature’s recorded action is the state’s assent.

• Hawke v. Smith (No. 2), 253 U.S. 231 (1920) — Reaffirms that the legislature’s vote, as reflected in its official proceedings, is the controlling act.

• National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920) — Treats state legislative ratifications as effective and sufficient when properly counted toward three-fourths.

• Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) — Recognizes Congress’s power to set timing but presumes the operative unit of ratification is the state legislature’s action within that framework.

• Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) — Once the federal political branches (upon proclamation) accept ratifications, courts do not unravel individual state assents; legislatures act in a federal capacity when ratifying.

• United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931) — Article V is a federal process; when Congress designates legislatures as the ratifying organ, their affirmative action is the state’s assent.

• Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) — Issues about the sufficiency/timeliness of ratifications are political questions for Congress, reinforcing the finality of accepted state assents.

Applied to Virginia:

1. Official declaration: Virginia’s Volume II expressly states “Amendments to Constitution adopted.” Under Hawke, the legislature’s formal action—as recorded in its official books—is the ratification.

2. Publication by authority: The State’s publication and organization (including the “C.1.”/Chapter One marking on the State Department’s copy) shows Virginia treated the amendment as part of the authoritative legal text—the very conduct courts have long viewed as memorializing the legislature’s will.

3. A state can only declare what it has adopted: By announcing “adopted,” Virginia was not speculating; it was memorializing its completed assent—consistent with Article V and the Court’s treatment of state ratifications as legislative acts.

4. Federal notice and acceptance: The State Department’s copy, marked and retained, evidences federal awareness of Virginia’s publication—supporting the principle in Leser and Coleman that, once ratifications are acknowledged by the political branches, their validity is not for judicial re-litigation.

Documents included in the packet (attachments/links)

1. Virginia, Volume II plate showing “Amendments to Constitution adopted.”

2. State Department copy with “C.1.” at the bottom of the cover page (Chapter One indicator).

3. Context images demonstrating the placement and publication of the amendment text within Virginia’s official compilations.

Requested actions

1. Legislative recognition: The Virginia evidence should be formally noticed to relevant state and federal custodians so that historical records reflect the Commonwealth’s adoption.

2. Archival reconciliation: Federal repositories (e.g., Department of State/NARA) should cross-reference their holdings and catalog notes with the Virginia publication and the C.1. State Department copy.

3. Public access: Post high-resolution images and catalog metadata so journalists and scholars can verify the adoption entry and the federal copy markings independently.

“The record is straightforward: Virginia’s volumes say the amendments were adopted; the State Department’s copy is marked and organized as such. Under Article V and the Supreme Court’s own guideposts, that’s a valid assent,” Evans said.

About the researcher

Stanley Ivan Evans is an independent constitutional-history researcher and author of Hocus Pocus: The Art of Deception. He publishes document sets and analysis at USGE13.com and TonaOnline.com.

Media Contact:
Stanley Ivan Evans
510-899-0252 – Stan@StanleyEvans.com
USGE13.com | TonaOnline.com