PDA

View Full Version : The Constitution - An Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom :



Trust Guy
05-14-11, 07:30 PM
Greetings All. Herein I will be presenting the Constitution as an Express Trust Indenture. It will take some time to sort through all the info I’ve put together on the subject and edit for presentation. Please bear with me.

-----------------------------------------------------

It takes some study to really grasp this , so lets just state the Founders followed the Common Law in their dealings . That’s the Common Law of Mother England , by the way . This body of Law stretches back some 1,000 years . We are dealing primarily in Estates and Inheritance .

It is a tenet of Law that in order to determine the intent of a writing one must look to the preamble . ( In Statute that would be the “Empowerment Clause” ) . For our purposes I will note how it established the Constitution as a Trust instrument by fulfilling the requirements to establish a Trust .

Definitions of words from the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language are enlightening. Particularly State ( 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. ) and Estate ( 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State. ) and States ( n. plu. Nobility. The ONLY definition ) An online version is available at : http://1828.mshaffer.com/

Numbered items are necessary elements to establish a Trust . See Bogert on Trusts . Earlier the edition the better .

WE THE PEOPLE ( 1 - Grantors ) of the United States ( from or out of the United / Joined Nobility ) , in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the General Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty ( 2 - Statement of Purpose ) to ourselves and our Posterity ( 3 - Grantees : Heirs unnamed ) , do ordain and establish ( 4 - Statement of Intent . Note : Ordain comes from Cannon Law ) this Constitution ( 5 - Written Indenture ) for the United States of America ( Joined Nobility belonging to America : 6 - The Name of the Entity Created )

The Preamble fulfills the 6 requirements necessary to establish a Trust . Recall that Rights , Privileges and Prerogatives of Commoners to Royalty are considered Personal Property ( incorporeal heredatiments ) inheritable by decent and Personal Property may only devolve to a Body Politic via Trust. We took all those combined Properties as spoils from the War for Independence . Had to divide up the booty somehow . Can it get any simpler ?

So how does this help me fend off intrusions by government Actors ? Simply ask them if they are exercising an Office of Trust, or one of Profit .

If the claim of authority is from an Office of Profit I am entitled to demand, either ;

1 - The circumstance whereby I came under the direct power of the Executive Branch / Office, or any Agency of the Executive, or :

2 - Production of the contract , agreement or other indenture binding me to commercial activity profitable to the claimant. Don’t hand me that line that I am party to some unwritten , unspoken “Social Contract” by mere fact of being Born Alive in some County confines .

If from an Office of Trust I am entitled to know how the claimant establishes their superior Claim of Rights in Property and may seize elements of my Personal Inheritance .

More later on the Bill of Rights as list of Property specifically excluded from the Federal Trust Res.

David Merrill
05-15-11, 01:25 AM
I find your opening post spellbinding!

It sheds new light on something (http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8837/danielfinancial2007.pdf) that seemed rather meaningless at the time - about Article VI of the federal Constitution (http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/2503/doc32.pdf).

motla68
05-15-11, 01:42 AM
Greetings All. Herein I will be presenting the Constitution as an Express Trust Indenture. It will take some time to sort through all the info I’ve put together on the subject and edit for presentation. Please bear with me.

-----------------------------------------------------

It takes some study to really grasp this , so lets just state the Founders followed the Common Law in their dealings . That’s the Common Law of Mother England , by the way . This body of Law stretches back some 1,000 years . We are dealing primarily in Estates and Inheritance .

It is a tenet of Law that in order to determine the intent of a writing one must look to the preamble . ( In Statute that would be the “Empowerment Clause” ) . For our purposes I will note how it established the Constitution as a Trust instrument by fulfilling the requirements to establish a Trust .

Definitions of words from the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language are enlightening. Particularly State ( 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. ) and Estate ( 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State. ) and States ( n. plu. Nobility. The ONLY definition ) An online version is available at : http://1828.mshaffer.com/

Numbered items are necessary elements to establish a Trust . See Bogert on Trusts . Earlier the edition the better .

WE THE PEOPLE ( 1 - Grantors ) of the United States ( from or out of the United / Joined Nobility ) , in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the General Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty ( 2 - Statement of Purpose ) to ourselves and our Posterity ( 3 - Grantees : Heirs unnamed ) , do ordain and establish ( 4 - Statement of Intent . Note : Ordain comes from Cannon Law ) this Constitution ( 5 - Written Indenture ) for the United States of America ( Joined Nobility belonging to America : 6 - The Name of the Entity Created )

The Preamble fulfills the 6 requirements necessary to establish a Trust . Recall that Rights , Privileges and Prerogatives of Commoners to Royalty are considered Personal Property ( incorporeal heredatiments ) inheritable by decent and Personal Property may only devolve to a Body Politic via Trust. We took all those combined Properties as spoils from the War for Independence . Had to divide up the booty somehow . Can it get any simpler ?

So how does this help me fend off intrusions by government Actors ? Simply ask them if they are exercising an Office of Trust, or one of Profit .

If the claim of authority is from an Office of Profit I am entitled to demand, either ;

1 - The circumstance whereby I came under the direct power of the Executive Branch / Office, or any Agency of the Executive, or :

2 - Production of the contract , agreement or other indenture binding me to commercial activity profitable to the claimant. Don’t hand me that line that I am party to some unwritten , unspoken “Social Contract” by mere fact of being Born Alive in some County confines .

If from an Office of Trust I am entitled to know how the claimant establishes their superior Claim of Rights in Property and may seize elements of my Personal Inheritance .

More later on the Bill of Rights as list of Property specifically excluded from the Federal Trust Res.

How about the 50 states are the estates, the body politic of all estates makes up the union of estates, the compact for the state as mentioned at a International Level as well,
called the United States of American. Would this be the light as what I have posted in the past from Canada Providence statutes that say Lawful Money of Canada has
the same meaning as Lawful Money of the United States of America?

What was the true original inheritance though, was it a monetary value or was it the earth, the paper and ink, the Gold Ceasar put his stamp on, all the equity made from it that earth?

shikamaru
05-15-11, 01:28 PM
... the body politic of all estates makes up the union of estates ....

The body politic in the republican forms of government of the several States is the People.
State governments through their representatives create a political corporation by charter which you know as the US Constitution.
Governments are the agents of "the People". "The People" are principal.

Actually, it wasn't the idea of "the People" of the States to create a federation. It was the idea of "the Peoples' " representatives (with commercial interest in mind).


These United States is an association of States.

Trust Guy
05-15-11, 02:47 PM
motla,

Yes, the (E)States in Union are each separate Estates. The power granted to the central government, to represent the Union (E)States to the Family of Nations, necessarily had to be transferred in Trust. This should become clearer in my next few posts. Be aware that an Estate may be Tangible / Corporeal or Intangible / Incorporeal or in combination.

> What was the true original inheritance though, was it a monetary value or was it the earth, the paper and ink, the Gold Ceasar put his stamp on, all the equity made from it that earth?<

This post should begin to clarify inheritance somewhat.

shikamaru,

> These United States is an association of States. <

Yes, however the Powers, Rights, Duties and Responsibilities of the United States Government are Granted / Assigned property.

Everyone, please just bear with me. Will get into the Association / Corporate structure and the nature of Inheritance as things progress.
------------------------------------------------------------

There are several points to keep in mind to establish the Constitution as a Trust Instrument. That is it’s Paramount purpose. It is also a Compact or Charter . It is an instrument of dual nature at least. First and foremost, the Property of the Government consists of Rights, Powers, and Duties. These are all Intangible.

The War for Independence, so called “Revolution”, was not a war authorized and funded by the English Parliament. It was an action by The Crown, King George III, in conflict with his chartered Crown Colonies. AKA Plantation Estates. In Corporate terms, he was facing a Hostile Takeover.

As such, King George put up everything he owned against every thing the Colonists claimed. The root of the claim being restoration of Magna Charta Rights to the Peoples of all Class Stations. That was the Rule of War. “To the Victor belong the Spoils”. Same way the German House of Hanover took the Crown from the House of Stuart. Scottish Stuarts from the Welsh-English Normans from the Anglo-Saxons. By conquest.

King George gave it all up. As “The Font of All Law and Authority” he also necessarily relinquished all authority under his Rule. Every Title of Nobility. This is why polite American Society uses the appellations “Sir” and “Madame”. Titles of Nobility and Honor. ( APPELLA'TION (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,appellation), n. [L. appellatio. See Appeal.] - Name; the word by which a thing is called and known. )

If we accept the premise Our Founders were dealing with newly acquired Sovereign Title, Rights and Prerogatives, when forming the new Body Politic, we can see where the Constitution can not be Testamentary in nature. The Constitution can not be a Testamentary Trust.

( PREROG'ATIVE, (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,prerogative) [L. proerogativa, precedence in voting; proe, before, and rogo, to ask or demand.] An exclusive or peculiar privilege. A royal prerogative, is that special pre-eminence which a king has over all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his regal dignity. It consists in the possession of certain rights which the king may exercise to the exclusion of all participation of his subjects; for when a right or privilege is held in common with the subject, it ceases to be a prerogative. Thus the right of appointing embassadors,and of making peace and war, are, in Great Britain, royal prerogatives. The right of governing created beings is the prerogative of the Creator. )

The Sovereign has no Testamentary Power at Common Law.

Our laws come down to us from the Common Law of England and its Statutes. Of these laws the most important are the laws of "Descent and Distribution". These are the laws that make a king. The King does not receive a crown in a will, it descends upon his head from his father or his mother if she was Queen. It matters more what is not written in Descent and Distribution, than what IS written. Before man could write these laws were in existence.

If one man wanted to transfer title of land to another the two would meet on the land and the owner would kneel and take some dirt in hand, rise and give the dirt to the man who was to take it. This was a transfer of title. This man would make a home on this land free, the only thing he owed was homage to the King by defending the land from encroaching invaders ( Vassalage ). If there were serfs on the land their Rights were indirect relation to the land and their status to it. (so it is today) The idea of ownership being passed from Sovereign to a someone lower on the totem pole was gleaned from the Bible. The stories in this book are not only for spirit. They were the only instructions written on how to establish kingdoms, ownership, transfers, and mostly inheritance, ie. "descent and Distribution". Who got what and in what manner and fashion. The first born son was supposed to "get" the major amount of inheritance, that is why many times it is repeated that so-in-so in the birth of twins stuck his foot out and a red string was placed upon it. They had to know who was entitled to the Estate, crown, land, flocks, etc. This was the first born sons "birthright" The second son or younger son got less. If no sons were born, only daughters, the estate went to the eldest as a fem "sole". This is how Kings and Queens are determined. They own the "Estate" of land creating their country.

Widows always got one third of an estate of the husband, it was the place of the oldest son to make sure the Widow got her rightful third since none of this was EVER written. Her Dower. Once anything was written it was no longer an inheritance, it was "taken under the will", which was taxable. Descent and Distribution was recognized as established by God and taking under the Will was recognized as being established by man, making it a taxable thing.

The first recognized Title and land transfer was the land that God gave to Abraham. The words used to transfer that land to him are still used in deeds today. That is because the laws of descent and distribution still exists and are still valid. These words are called "words of inheritance". God gave all the land to Abraham and "his heirs forever" all the land he could see and walk upon. The Bible is the oldest written book showing mankind how to obtain and keep property. The stories have more meaning than mystical woo - woo. That mysticism is only for the ignorant who do not know the game being played to take what belongs to them, the Laws of the Land.

There was no other written information on rights of property ownership until 121, when the cousins of King John forced him to sign the Magna Charta, thereby putting in writing for the first time what a Freeman's inheritance was. ( Freeman is the First Estate / Social Class / Status above Serfs and other Bonded or Indentured people. ) To read that document it appears it is about the objects written. When studied one can see that the subject is inheritance due to the "words of inheritance" used throughout. These words designate Freedom and how much belonged to a Freeman. The Widow is there also, dealing with the bankers (Jews), the Catholic Church, and last but not least section 64 which is probably the most important. All these ideas of law were gleaned from the Bible because there was no other writing to take it from.

Trust Guy
05-15-11, 03:56 PM
Let me touch on Heraldry for a bit.


http://the-legacy.info/pix/column.JPG

This is the first Seal ( Coat of Arms ) of the United States ( Joined Nobility ) of America. It is from the Records of the First Continental Congress, September 1774. The Seal is described, saved and passed on to us by Associate Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin during his term in 1837.

The Seal is sacred and in Heraldry every Element, spec, leaf, object, word and part has an absolute meaning. A meaning of which the person or persons who created it were trying to convey. In this particular Seal we know that:

In the surround in Latin ( HANC - TUEMUR ~ HAC - NITIMUR ) are the words “On This we Rely” “This we Defend”.

We see 12 Dexter ( right ) Arms representing the 12 colonies in Congress Assembled Georgia was not present. ( Left arms are called Sinister and the meaning is dark ). An Arm means a person with qualities of leadership.

These arms are issuing forth from the surrounding clouds. Clouds represent mystery or obscured truth.

The center Pillar or Column represents fortitude and constancy. On top of the column is the Phrygian Cap of Liberty and all of this is resting on a solid base ( The Bible ) covered by a white scroll with the words Magna Charta written on it. The Column and Cap ( as a phallus ) also represent the way and means for a human being to be conceived, born and capable of inheriting an Estate and claim their Status to the world.

It was these issues the Founding Fathers were fighting for, and not taxation without representation. The Right to inherit Freedom as their Forefathers had done, derived from the Magna Charta of 1215. This pretty much lays out the intention and mind set of the assembly for those versed in such things. The Founders called themselves Heirs of Freedom, to claim their Inheritance.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms anyone ?

Michael Joseph
05-15-11, 04:07 PM
Let me touch on Heraldry for a bit. ( I don't know why the image comes out so small from my album. It should be over 300 pix square )

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/asset.php?fid=331&uid=744&d=1305473607
This is the first Seal ( Coat of Arms ) of the United States ( Joined Nobility ) of America. It is from the Records of the First Continental Congress, September 1774. The Seal is described, saved and passed on to us by Associate Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin during his term in 1837.

The Seal is sacred and in Heraldry every Element, spec, leaf, object, word and part has an absolute meaning. A meaning of which the person or persons who created it were trying to convey. In this particular Seal we know that:

In the surround in Latin are the words “On This we Rely” “This we Defend”.

We see 12 Dexter ( right ) Arms representing the 12 colonies in Congress Assembled Georgia was not present. ( Left arms are called Sinister and the meaning is dark ). An Arm means a person with qualities of leadership.

These arms are issuing forth from the surrounding clouds. Clouds represent mystery or obscured truth.

The center Pillar or Column represents fortitude and constancy. On top of the column is the Phrygian Cap of Liberty and all of this is resting on a solid base ( The Bible ) covered by a white scroll with the words Magna Charta written on it. The Column and Cap ( as a phallus ) also represent the way and means for a human being to be conceived, born and capable of inheriting an Estate and claim their Status to the world.

It was these issues the Founding Fathers were fighting for, and not taxation without representation. The Right to inherit Freedom as their Forefathers had done, derived from the Magna Charta of 1215. This pretty much lays out the intention and mind set of the assembly for those versed in such things. The Founders called themselves Heirs of Freedom, to claim their Inheritance.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms anyone ?

those in Yisra'el know that their nations - are UNDER the Scripture - incun.1454.b5 - to claim assurance in the Scripture is to be in agreement.

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his [right] arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

right arm = strength. Yehoshuah sitting on the right side of Yehovah.

Trust Guy
05-15-11, 04:32 PM
MJ,

In the Heraldry Our Claim rests on a firm foundation, not upon sand. I'm merely presenting history here, not individual Belief.

Michael Joseph
05-15-11, 04:37 PM
very well - I notice that the arms rest on a pillar that gets it foundation on the Bible. Now, my individual belief has nothing to do with that fact. So it really does not matter what I believe or what anyone else believes. The foundation is on the Bible. And that is a fact.

proceed sir....

Trust Guy
05-15-11, 04:42 PM
A bit on Real Estates. The first written Feoffment.

And behold, the Lord stood over and beside him and said
“I AM the Lord, the God of Abraham, your for-father,
and the God of Isaac; I will give to you and your descendants the land on
which you are lying forever”.

Genesis 28 : 13

( FEOFFMENT, (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Feoffment) n. feff'ment. [Law L. feoffamentum.] The gift or grant of a fee or corporeal hereditament, as land, castles, honors, or other immovable thing; a grant in fee simple, to a man and his heirs forever. When in writing, it is called a deed of feoffment. The primary sense is the grant of a feud or an estate in trust. [See Feud.] )
--------------------------------------------------------------

I’ll get to the Bill of Rights as Personal Property specifically exempt from the Trust Res, I promise. Maybe even today.

Trust Guy
05-15-11, 05:12 PM
Excerpts from : A GENERAL VIEW on the ORIGIN AND NATURE of the Constitution and Government of the United States deduced from POLITICAL HISTORY AND CONDITION of the COLONIES AND STATES, FROM 1774 UNTILL 1788. and *****
- Justice Henry Baldwin

pdf - 11 pgs - 2.10 MB : http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?attachmentid=28&dateline=1305477418
-----------------------

And you thought I was wordy.

Trust Guy
05-15-11, 08:07 PM
A little on the Nature of “Rights”.

This writing was gleaned from my study of Kent’s Commentaries on American Law and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England ( American footnote addition. ) Additionally I rely on Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828. (http://1828.mshaffer.com) Webster is the recognized authority on American usage, both legal and ordinary. After all, he was there and he should know.

In conversations with the head of Constitutional Studies at Loyola Marymount University School of Law, ( yes the Jesuit one ) Webster’s authority was confirmed. I was further led to understand I could stipulate Webster’s as a final source of authority in any court action, in these regards, precluding the opposition from using any other legal dictionaries. Any word with a special meaning in law was marked as such in the print edition. These notes are not available in the Online edition, unfortunately.

The Professor was an acquaintance of one of my study partners and expressed an interest in the “Patriot” / “State Citizen” movements and granted us access to the library. I was fortunate to have several enlightening, and rather candid conversations with him.

The logic is as follows :

In Blackstone’s you will find various “Rights” defined , whom they belong to and how acquired . You also find rights are personal property , whether acquired by contract from another owner or inherited , like the Title Duke or Earl, or the Copyright to a work.

Some “Rights” belonged to every class of Englishman above Serf , excepting prisoners . That is Freeman - Cottager - Husbandman - Yeoman - and on up . I’ve forgotten how many classes there are. 6 or 7 before you hit the lowest Noble Titles starting about Squire, and up to Royal Titles . Such as Right to Free Travel , pursuit of Craft , exchange of labor for other property , self defense and such . These rights belonged to each and every Englishman as individual property by Right of Birth .

( BIRTH'RIGHT, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Birthright) [birth and right.] Any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.

Esau, for a morsel, sold his birthright. Heb.12.

It may be used in the sense of primogeniture, or the privilege of the first born, but is applicable to any right which results from descent. )

Example for the Noble Titles . How about a Duke . He has rights to Free Title of his lands in Estate . The tenements and surfs there on . The right to compel labor from serfs and extract some form of income from Tenants on his land , or expel them . He also has rights to the very title of “Duke” , which pass to his eldest Son . The Duke is Free.

( FREE, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,free) [Heb. See Frank.]

1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations.

2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. )

The Royals as top of the Noble heap . A King’s right to wage war is Personal Property which passes by decent to their eldest son , or daughter if no sons are issue of birth . The King may present his Petition of War to the Parliament to enlist the aid of his Vassals in any contest outside the Kingdom. Should conflict come from outside the Vassals are duty bound to engage in defense of the Realm.

( REALM, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,realm) relm. [L. rex, king, whence regalis, royal.]

1. A royal jurisdiction or extent of government; a kingdom; a king's dominions; as the realm of England.

2. Kingly government; as the realm of bees. [Unusual.] )

Note : While the American Colonies were property of the Crown, and assigned Plantation Estates to certain Lords, they were not fully within the meaning of “Dominion”. The Vassals were not bound to fight the “Rebels”, since the belligerents were Free Englishmen themselves, and in their Own Right . Additionally the conflict was not from an outside Sovereignty / Power, nor properly within the Domain of the Mother Country. Had the “Rebels” been in country, things would have been different. A sticky situation, to be sure.

Also a King’s Right to be addressed as Sire or Your Highness is also property .

motla68
05-15-11, 08:31 PM
motla,

Yes, the (E)States in Union are each separate Estates. The power granted to the central government, to represent the Union (E)States to the Family of Nations, necessarily had to be transferred in Trust. This should become clearer in my next few posts. Be aware that an Estate may be Tangible / Corporeal or Intangible / Incorporeal or in combination.

> What was the true original inheritance though, was it a monetary value or was it the earth, the paper and ink, the Gold Ceasar put his stamp on, all the equity made from it that earth?<

This post should begin to clarify inheritance somewhat.

shikamaru,

> These United States is an association of States. <

Yes, however the Powers, Rights, Duties and Responsibilities of the United States Government are Granted / Assigned property.

Everyone, please just bear with me. Will get into the Association / Corporate structure and the nature of Inheritance as things progress.
------------------------------------------------------------

There are several points to keep in mind to establish the Constitution as a Trust Instrument. That is it’s Paramount purpose. It is also a Compact or Charter . It is an instrument of dual nature at least. First and foremost, the Property of the Government consists of Rights, Powers, and Duties. These are all Intangible.

The War for Independence, so called “Revolution”, was not a war authorized and funded by the English Parliament. It was an action by The Crown, King George III, in conflict with his chartered Crown Colonies. AKA Plantation Estates. In Corporate terms, he was facing a Hostile Takeover.

As such, King George put up everything he owned against every thing the Colonists claimed. The root of the claim being restoration of Magna Charta Rights to the Peoples of all Class Stations. That was the Rule of War. “To the Victor belong the Spoils”. Same way the German House of Hanover took the Crown from the House of Stuart. Scottish Stuarts from the Welsh-English Normans from the Anglo-Saxons. By conquest.

King George gave it all up. As “The Font of All Law and Authority” he also necessarily relinquished all authority under his Rule. Every Title of Nobility. This is why polite American Society uses the appellations “Sir” and “Madame”. Titles of Nobility and Honor. ( APPELLA'TION (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,appellation), n. [L. appellatio. See Appeal.] - Name; the word by which a thing is called and known. )

If we accept the premise Our Founders were dealing with newly acquired Sovereign Title, Rights and Prerogatives, when forming the new Body Politic, we can see where the Constitution can not be Testamentary in nature. The Constitution can not be a Testamentary Trust.

( PREROG'ATIVE, (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,prerogative) [L. proerogativa, precedence in voting; proe, before, and rogo, to ask or demand.] An exclusive or peculiar privilege. A royal prerogative, is that special pre-eminence which a king has over all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his regal dignity. It consists in the possession of certain rights which the king may exercise to the exclusion of all participation of his subjects; for when a right or privilege is held in common with the subject, it ceases to be a prerogative. Thus the right of appointing embassadors,and of making peace and war, are, in Great Britain, royal prerogatives. The right of governing created beings is the prerogative of the Creator. )

The Sovereign has no Testamentary Power at Common Law.

Our laws come down to us from the Common Law of England and its Statutes. Of these laws the most important are the laws of "Descent and Distribution". These are the laws that make a king. The King does not receive a crown in a will, it descends upon his head from his father or his mother if she was Queen. It matters more what is not written in Descent and Distribution, than what IS written. Before man could write these laws were in existence.

If one man wanted to transfer title of land to another the two would meet on the land and the owner would kneel and take some dirt in hand, rise and give the dirt to the man who was to take it. This was a transfer of title. This man would make a home on this land free, the only thing he owed was homage to the King by defending the land from encroaching invaders ( Vassalage ). If there were serfs on the land their Rights were indirect relation to the land and their status to it. (so it is today) The idea of ownership being passed from Sovereign to a someone lower on the totem pole was gleaned from the Bible. The stories in this book are not only for spirit. They were the only instructions written on how to establish kingdoms, ownership, transfers, and mostly inheritance, ie. "descent and Distribution". Who got what and in what manner and fashion. The first born son was supposed to "get" the major amount of inheritance, that is why many times it is repeated that so-in-so in the birth of twins stuck his foot out and a red string was placed upon it. They had to know who was entitled to the Estate, crown, land, flocks, etc. This was the first born sons "birthright" The second son or younger son got less. If no sons were born, only daughters, the estate went to the eldest as a fem "sole". This is how Kings and Queens are determined. They own the "Estate" of land creating their country.

Widows always got one third of an estate of the husband, it was the place of the oldest son to make sure the Widow got her rightful third since none of this was EVER written. Her Dower. Once anything was written it was no longer an inheritance, it was "taken under the will", which was taxable. Descent and Distribution was recognized as established by God and taking under the Will was recognized as being established by man, making it a taxable thing.

The first recognized Title and land transfer was the land that God gave to Abraham. The words used to transfer that land to him are still used in deeds today. That is because the laws of descent and distribution still exists and are still valid. These words are called "words of inheritance". God gave all the land to Abraham and "his heirs forever" all the land he could see and walk upon. The Bible is the oldest written book showing mankind how to obtain and keep property. The stories have more meaning than mystical woo - woo. That mysticism is only for the ignorant who do not know the game being played to take what belongs to them, the Laws of the Land.

There was no other written information on rights of property ownership until 121, when the cousins of King John forced him to sign the Magna Charta, thereby putting in writing for the first time what a Freeman's inheritance was. ( Freeman is the First Estate / Social Class / Status above Serfs and other Bonded or Indentured people. ) To read that document it appears it is about the objects written. When studied one can see that the subject is inheritance due to the "words of inheritance" used throughout. These words designate Freedom and how much belonged to a Freeman. The Widow is there also, dealing with the bankers (Jews), the Catholic Church, and last but not least section 64 which is probably the most important. All these ideas of law were gleaned from the Bible because there was no other writing to take it from.

There seems to be a lot of assumption here that we are the people the states represent. Tell me how is it recorded events called births are the people? yes, there was a baby born, but we are no longer babies.

The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.

Is the word man in any of the birth registration statutes? please back up your answers with some case law or something, edifying where you got your information from?

motla68
05-15-11, 08:40 PM
Let me touch on Heraldry for a bit.


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=482&stc=1&d=1305485439

This is the first Seal ( Coat of Arms ) of the United States ( Joined Nobility ) of America. It is from the Records of the First Continental Congress, September 1774. The Seal is described, saved and passed on to us by Associate Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin during his term in 1837.

The Seal is sacred and in Heraldry every Element, spec, leaf, object, word and part has an absolute meaning. A meaning of which the person or persons who created it were trying to convey. In this particular Seal we know that:

In the surround in Latin ( HANC - TUEMUR ~ HAC - NITIMUR ) are the words “On This we Rely” “This we Defend”.

We see 12 Dexter ( right ) Arms representing the 12 colonies in Congress Assembled Georgia was not present. ( Left arms are called Sinister and the meaning is dark ). An Arm means a person with qualities of leadership.

These arms are issuing forth from the surrounding clouds. Clouds represent mystery or obscured truth.

The center Pillar or Column represents fortitude and constancy. On top of the column is the Phrygian Cap of Liberty and all of this is resting on a solid base ( The Bible ) covered by a white scroll with the words Magna Charta written on it. The Column and Cap ( as a phallus ) also represent the way and means for a human being to be conceived, born and capable of inheriting an Estate and claim their Status to the world.

It was these issues the Founding Fathers were fighting for, and not taxation without representation. The Right to inherit Freedom as their Forefathers had done, derived from the Magna Charta of 1215. This pretty much lays out the intention and mind set of the assembly for those versed in such things. The Founders called themselves Heirs of Freedom, to claim their Inheritance.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms anyone ?

Long ago families had their own coat of arms, they stopped using them and if they accept the coat of arms of a state what position doe it put them in? You say forefathers, I see to recall a maxim of law that says when you accept the rights from one form you waived your rights in the other form. If you call them father, does that waive your natural rights in your connection to your biological father?

motla68
05-15-11, 09:01 PM
Excerpts from : A GENERAL VIEW on the ORIGIN AND NATURE of the Constitution and Government of the United States deduced from POLITICAL HISTORY AND CONDITION of the COLONIES AND STATES, FROM 1774 UNTILL 1788. and *****
- Justice Henry Baldwin

pdf - 11 pgs - 2.10 MB : http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?attachmentid=28&dateline=1305477418
-----------------------

And you thought I was wordy.

It says there right in the middle of the cover page though that this book is all opinions about court cases. And that Magna Carta seal is all over it just like your avatar. So it is not law, it is just your belief in opinion.

David Merrill
05-15-11, 09:02 PM
There seems to be a lot of assumption here that we are the people the states represent. Tell me how is it recorded events called births are the people? yes, there was a baby born, but we are no longer babies.

The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.

Is the word man in any of the birth registration statutes? please back up your answers with some case law or something, edifying where you got your information from?



I did not read Trust Guy's opening post that way at all. The People of the Preamble are outside the government trust, while those who claim party to the Constitution are either participating in an office or public trust described in Article VI.


...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Trust Guy
05-15-11, 09:29 PM
OK then. Now that we have a little right knowledge under our belt let’s take a look at the “Bill of Rights”.
( finally )

The Bill of Rights are also called the First Articles in Addendum to the Constitution. The Bill was heavily debated and quite the point of contention . Students of American Colonial History know the Constitution would never have come to be with out it. The Title “Bill of Rights” sets them apart from the remainder of “Amendments”. Something apparently lost to our Legislative Bodies for many years.

Let’s do some quick association.

Bill -- Think-- Bill of Fare -- Bill -- Think -- Bill of Lading.

OK. What do we have ? We have lists of things.

A Bill of Fare, more commonly Menu, is a list of prepared offerings at an eating establishment. A Bill of Lading is an acknowledgment that certain specified / listed , goods / property , have been received on board a conveyance as cargo, to be delivered to some specified destination and receiver. An inventory for delivery. But you knew that.

The concept of a Bill of Rights is nothing new. The Code of Hammurabi is considered a Bill of Rights.

The term was first applied in English Law in 1689. It was the short title for “An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown”. The English Bill of Rights.

Now, knowing something of what your Rights are, what is the Bill of Rights ? A list of property. But whose property ? Ownership is set out in the Articles themselves.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

( Note : free State does not exclusively mean Government.

First and foremost ( STATE, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/searchword,state) [L., to stand, to be fixed.]

1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. We say, the body is in a sound state, or it is in a weak state; or it has just recovered from a feeble state. The state of his health is good. The state of his mind is favorable for study. So we say, the state of public affairs calls for the exercise of talents and wisdom. In regard to foreign nations, our affairs are in a good state. So we say, single state, and married state.

4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.] )

Freedom is Your Estate . Your free State can be defended. You have the Right to Self defense as a Natural Right. Cats got claws. Bees got stings. Dogs got teeth. )

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-----------------------------------
I think you get the idea.

I contend the Constitution created an Estate in Trust, in which certain Rights of Use ( not Transferred in Total ) in Incorporeal Property were placed. Such Property, as Heir, to which I am Joint Owner, but can not properly exercise in my Own Private Capacity. This constitutes part of the Trust Property or Res. The Incorporeal part. It would be foolish of me to declare war against Belgium. Nor can I, in my Own Right, appoint an Ambassador or Trade Envoy to same, to represent an Estate to which I am a Joint Owner.

All other Personal Property not so listed and granted for Use are outside the Trust Res and therefore outside the purview of the Trust or it’s management / regulating creations.

I contend The Bill of Rights is a list of Personal Property specifically listed as Exclusive to the Heirs in their individual Personal and Joint Estates ( mine currently including, but not limited to, the meets and bounds of the County of Madison, Missouri State )
---------------------------------------------------

Whew. That’s enough for now.

motla68
05-15-11, 09:50 PM
A little on the Nature of “Rights”.

This writing was gleaned from my study of Kent’s Commentaries on American Law and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England ( American footnote addition. ) Additionally I rely on Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828. (http://1828.mshaffer.com) Webster is the recognized authority on American usage, both legal and ordinary. After all, he was there and he should know.

In conversations with the head of Constitutional Studies at Loyola Marymount University School of Law, ( yes the Jesuit one ) Webster’s authority was confirmed. I was further led to understand I could stipulate Webster’s as a final source of authority in any court action, in these regards, precluding the opposition from using any other legal dictionaries. Any word with a special meaning in law was marked as such in the print edition. These notes are not available in the Online edition, unfortunately.

The Professor was an acquaintance of one of my study partners and expressed an interest in the “Patriot” / “State Citizen” movements and granted us access to the library. I was fortunate to have several enlightening, and rather candid conversations with him.

The logic is as follows :

In Blackstone’s you will find various “Rights” defined , whom they belong to and how acquired . You also find rights are personal property , whether acquired by contract from another owner or inherited , like the Title Duke or Earl, or the Copyright to a work.

Some “Rights” belonged to every class of Englishman above Serf , excepting prisoners . That is Freeman - Cottager - Husbandman - Yeoman - and on up . I’ve forgotten how many classes there are. 6 or 7 before you hit the lowest Noble Titles starting about Squire, and up to Royal Titles . Such as Right to Free Travel , pursuit of Craft , exchange of labor for other property , self defense and such . These rights belonged to each and every Englishman as individual property by Right of Birth .

( BIRTH'RIGHT, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Birthright) Any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.

Esau, for a morsel, sold his birthright. Heb.12.

It may be used in the sense of primogeniture, or the privilege of the first born, but is applicable to any right which results from descent. )

Example for the Noble Titles . How about a Duke . He has rights to Free Title of his lands in Estate . The tenements and surfs there on . The right to compel labor from serfs and extract some form of income from Tenants on his land , or expel them . He also has rights to the very title of “Duke” , which pass to his eldest Son . The Duke is Free.

( FREE, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,free) [Heb. See Frank.]

1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations.

2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. )

The Royals as top of the Noble heap . A King’s right to wage war is Personal Property which passes by decent to their eldest son , or daughter if no sons are issue of birth . The King may present his Petition of War to the Parliament to enlist the aid of his Vassals in any contest outside the Kingdom. Should conflict come from outside the Vassals are duty bound to engage in defense of the Realm.

( REALM, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,realm) relm. [L. rex, king, whence regalis, royal.]

1. A royal jurisdiction or extent of government; a kingdom; a king's dominions; as the realm of England.

2. Kingly government; as the realm of bees. [Unusual.] )

Note : While the American Colonies were property of the Crown, and assigned Plantation Estates to certain Lords, they were not fully within the meaning of “Dominion”. The Vassals were not bound to fight the “Rebels”, since the belligerents were Free Englishmen themselves, and in their Own Right . Additionally the conflict was not from an outside Sovereignty / Power, nor properly within the Domain of the Mother Country. Had the “Rebels” been in country, things would have been different. A sticky situation, to be sure.

Also a King’s Right to be addressed as Sire or Your Highness is also property .

Statute of Uses 1535

In order to avoid paying land taxes and other feudal dues, lawyers developed a primitive form of trust called ‘the use’. This trust enabled one person (who was not required to pay tax) to hold the legal title of the land for the use of another person. The effect of this trust was that the first person owned the land under the common law, but the second person had a right to use the land under the law of equity.

Henry VIII enacted the Statute of Uses in 1535 (which became effective in 1536) in an attempt to outlaw this practice and recover lost revenue. The Act effectively made the beneficial owner of the land the legal owner, and liable for feudal dues.

The response of the lawyers to this Statute was to create the ‘use upon a use’. The Statute recognised only the first use, and so land owners were again able to separate the legal and beneficial interests in their land. [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29)]

Own nothing, control everything, have full use and abundance. " the earth is held in usufruct for the living " - Thomas Jefferson

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907

Signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907.

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 26 January 1910
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of [B]usufruct.

Art. 56. The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

See page 13 of the following document in the highlighted area:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxLUZd1PWAf2NGRhZjJkOTctYzU1Ny00Y2I0LWFkYzc tYmQ3ODhmOTkwODlk&hl=en&authkey=CLb_1dYN

David Merrill
05-15-11, 09:55 PM
The Bill of Rights then, is my intellectual property. If I grant a judge use of my property then I hold him in trust to abide in that responsible position responsibly.

motla68
05-15-11, 10:15 PM
OK then. Now that we have a little right knowledge under our belt let’s take a look at the “Bill of Rights”.
( finally )

The Bill of Rights are also called the First Articles in Addendum to the Constitution. The Bill was heavily debated and quite the point of contention . Students of American Colonial History know the Constitution would never have come to be with out it. The Title “Bill of Rights” sets them apart from the remainder of “Amendments”. Something apparently lost to our Legislative Bodies for many years.

Let’s do some quick association.

Bill -- Think-- Bill of Fare -- Bill -- Think -- Bill of Lading.

OK. What do we have ? We have lists of things.

A Bill of Fare, more commonly Menu, is a list of prepared offerings at an eating establishment. A Bill of Lading is an acknowledgment that certain specified / listed , goods / property , have been received on board a conveyance as cargo, to be delivered to some specified destination and receiver. An inventory for delivery. But you knew that.

The concept of a Bill of Rights is nothing new. The Code of Hammurabi is considered a Bill of Rights.

The term was first applied in English Law in 1689. It was the short title for “An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown”. The English Bill of Rights.

Now, knowing something of what your Rights are, what is the Bill of Rights ? A list of property. But whose property ? Ownership is set out in the Articles themselves.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

( Note : free State does not exclusively mean Government.

First and foremost ( STATE, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/searchword,state) [L., to stand, to be fixed.]

1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. We say, the body is in a sound state, or it is in a weak state; or it has just recovered from a feeble state. The state of his health is good. The state of his mind is favorable for study. So we say, the state of public affairs calls for the exercise of talents and wisdom. In regard to foreign nations, our affairs are in a good state. So we say, single state, and married state.

4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.] )

Freedom is Your Estate . Your free State can be defended. You have the Right to Self defense as a Natural Right. Cats got claws. Bees got stings. Dogs got teeth. )

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-----------------------------------
I think you get the idea.

I contend the Constitution created an Estate in Trust, in which certain Rights of Use ( not Transferred in Total ) in Incorporeal Property were placed. Such Property, as Heir, to which I am Joint Owner, but can not properly exercise in my Own Private Capacity. This constitutes part of the Trust Property or Res. The Incorporeal part. It would be foolish of me to declare war against Belgium. Nor can I, in my Own Right, appoint an Ambassador or Trade Envoy to same, to represent an Estate to which I am a Joint Owner.

All other Personal Property not so listed and granted for Use are outside the Trust Res and therefore outside the purview of the Trust or it’s management / regulating creations.

I contend The Bill of Rights is a list of Personal Property specifically listed as Exclusive to the Heirs in their individual Personal and Joint Estates ( mine currently including, but not limited to, the meets and bounds of the County of Madison, Missouri State )
---------------------------------------------------

Whew. That’s enough for now.

I still have a problem with this word people, seems to me a group of men and women not free by natural law, but a pledge to a king. Why not say inhabitants or men and women? I am not their government person/instrument.

Earth's monarchs are her peoples. --Whitter.
[1913 Webster]

PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its
collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467.

Who's the group of people you have to ask, Citizens/persons ,,, again we are accepting being people of a king on earth instead of the kingdom that is eternal as Esau did.
Biblically speaking, " be not respective of persons".

motla68
05-15-11, 10:28 PM
The Bill of Rights then, is my intellectual property. If I grant a judge use of my property then I hold him in trust to abide in that responsible position responsibly.

Your intellectual property, where have you been given specific permission to posses Bill of Rights as your property or to grant it to someone else?

Certificate of Title is just evidence that a original title(survey) exists somewhere, the only evidence of where that exists is the seals upon the COT.

Trust Guy
05-15-11, 10:44 PM
Part of our dialogue here will be contentions regarding the meanings of words, not necessarily the definitions as apply to the subject matter. I’m not sure how to express the subtitle differences. There is no way I can be specific to all understandings. Common meaning vs. defined meaning. I go to lengths to use capitalization in relating the difference.

If you have a copy of Webster’s 1828, it includes a condensed, and precise, section, just after the INTRODUCTION, titled - A PHILOSOPHICAL AND PRACTICAL GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE . Friends, when I bought my edition it was the best $50 I ever spent. I highly recommend it to everyone. You might find one to peruse at your local public library.

My use of capitalization comes from my own education in these regards. And I may be wrong occasionally. I am no scholar after all.

When I capitalize the word people, it becomes a proper noun, meaning a particular People within the broader definition of the word . This is all within context of the language and law of the time .

motla

> There seems to be a lot of assumption here that we are the people the states represent. <

The states do not represent people. The States are people as a particular Body Politic.

> Tell me how is it recorded events called births are the people? yes, there was a baby born, but we are no longer babies. The word "person" in legal terminology * * * <

I think you are mixing metaphores here. "A figure of speech in which an implicit comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common." An individual live birth can not be construed to mean “people”, which is a word denoting multiples.

PEOPLE, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,people) [L. populus.]

1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation.

PERSON, n. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,person) per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

A person is a thinking intelligent being.

> Is the word man in any of the birth registration statutes? <

I do not know. You will however find the term “man or other animals” in the statutes here and there. I'll find some particular cites later. Or just do a web search, it will turn up.

> Long ago families had their own coat of arms, they stopped using them and if they accept the coat of arms of a state what position doe it put them in? You say forefathers, I see to recall a maxim of law that says when you accept the rights from one form you waived your rights in the other form. If you call them father, does that waive your natural rights in your connection to your biological father? <

What position that that put them in ? I don’t see how anyone could “accept” the Coat of Arms of a state.

I’m not accepting rights ( benefits and privileges ) . I claim Title to Inherited Property. And if I did I would not be alienating my Inherent Rights.

If you call GOD “Father” have you waived your natural rights in connection to your biological father from his and his father before ? Are these your forefathers or not ? If you are breathing I would say you have accepted. Particularly since their mud apparently "accepted" the breath of life from GOD .

> this book is all opinions about court cases. And that Magna Carta seal is all over it just like your avatar. So it is not law, it is just your belief in opinion. <

All court cases are exchanges of opinion . All rulings are opinions, that is why you can appeal, to get a higher courts opinion. If you do not agree with any temporal courts opinion you are free to “Appeal to GOD and Arms” to settle the contest. Just as the Founders of the Republics did.

David,

> The People of the Preamble are outside the government trust <

Being the Creators of the Trust they are Superior to it. Just as their Heirs should be.

motla,

I should get further into the Statute of Uses as this thread develops, but only within context of the thread topic. Should touch on Mortmain, Cy-près, Parens Patriae, and a few more bits of legal Metaphysics .

Michael Joseph
05-16-11, 01:34 AM
okay i have been waiting for the momentum to slow before posting. The Settlor of a State is the Sovereign. The Sovereign holds that capacity but may also take an oath and hold capacity as Trustee of the new State. Perhaps Secretary of State. The Sovereignty cannot be waived at any time as the Sovereignty is in the State and not the man. But a man had to Settle the State as dead things don't move by themselves. Follow my Grammar - the Sovereigns are We the People. Notice the capitalization.

Now then, if the Settlors come from a particular class also as representatives, then we have a situation where the people [lower case p] are joint tenants IN the Sovereignty. These benefit from the action done by the set apart class - the People. The People can engage [the] United States of America in all sorts of obligations by and thru International Treaty. Because the United States is independent and the States are dependent to it. Ask yourself, when was the last time the State of North Carolina entered into an international treaty on behalf of itself and the other States? Not gonna happen.

Now therefore, the class structure is a grant in and of itself. For it descends from royalty by Heir or inheritance. See if you can figure our who granted the Divine Rights of Kings? It is in the greatest Trust Book ever written. Somewhere in Samuel. Therefore, the original Grant was made by one who possessed all Rights, Titles and Interest. The Self Existing One.

But in regard to the Preamble, we find that the Settlors are "We the People", of the United States. Stop now for a moment and consider. Have you ever seen the Trust Documents of this association? This unincorporated corporation of men calling their body the United States did a thing for the failing "the United States of America." Don't forget that "the" it is how the confederacy was styled. This body of men settled a new thing - "the constitution for the United States of America."

Reader, i submit to you that the Settlors did not make the constitution for the United States. Ensminger is clear - the Claim is the United States NOT the United States of America.

Notice that the United States is Sovereign to "the United States of America" as it does a thing for it. And clearly the thing done was accepted as benefit. Because we find even as early as 1789 first judiciary act the United States is dictating to the States what they will and will not do.

So then lets elevate. Who gave the grant of title and nobility to the men [We the People of the United States] whom issued forth the grant for the United States of America? That would be the king. And therefore the Grantor can only grant what is within his/their own ability to grant. And if the king only allows a restricted grant then those grantors being UNDER the king - exercising the Right of Self Determination - could only grant according to their restricted powers; and, the new Grant is subject still to the king's power and authority, as International Sovereign.

Now, therefore, truly it could be said then that the Grantors/Settlors are Sovereign but do they truly have Real Property to put into the Trust? Or are they also with a cestui que relationship to the king? I think the answer is both. Remember though that the king sent his surveyors and his subjects to North America to Survey and Claim for the Crown. See Sir Walter Raleigh. Also see attachment regarding the Carolinas.

483

As we go further and further up the chain of title we will naturally have to come to a point of Singularity. The Original Organic Trust Deed. That friends is what the Pillar is built upon - Scripture. Now then if John has vested in his kingship a Grant from the Self Existing One, by lineage, then in fact John has all rights, titles and interest in the office of king. Is it possible that the kingship could default upon making a foreign agreement and default? Absolutely.

Now then where do we find the people, in this mix? There is an interesting relationship here because we have the Scripture and we then have coming out of the Scripture a grant by The Self Existing One to the kings of Yisra'el. So then the man kingship being REQUESTED by the people was Granted by the Sovereign.

shalom,
michael joseph

motla68
05-16-11, 03:24 AM
Never the less in the King's court equity was favoured compared to what we have now, we clearly had a choice, restore the treasury or sell out to foreign banksters currency:

Psalms 99:4 The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish equity, thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob.

or

Hebrews 12: 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Actions in commerce is coined by definition to be intercourse. Is the penalty for fornication be Trustee De Son Tort?

David Merrill
05-16-11, 03:44 AM
Your intellectual property, where have you been given specific permission to posses Bill of Rights as your property or to grant it to someone else?

Certificate of Title is just evidence that a original title(survey) exists somewhere, the only evidence of where that exists is the seals upon the COT.

By accepting them (the Bill of Rights) for value.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMmI3MDgyZmUtMzZjOS00MzM5LWJlM TEtZGUyZWI4YTI5NTIw&hl=en

motla68
05-16-11, 05:24 AM
By accepting them (the Bill of Rights) for value.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMmI3MDgyZmUtMzZjOS00MzM5LWJlM TEtZGUyZWI4YTI5NTIw&hl=en

Thank you, I had heard of someone doing this before, but had forgotten about it. Somewhat of a dot connector, part of that oath being Ecclesiastical and of MJ's find of the Gutenburg deposit into trust via incun. as well as the connection with the ecclesiastical statement on the currency.

Putting more thoughts together from previous scripture quoted:

Psalms 99:4 The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish equity, thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob.

adding on the next verse another thought mj might be able to expand upon:
Psalms 99:5 Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.

Mark 12:41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

The lineage seems to carry on from ecclesiastical symbolism through the King's tradition as having the " seat " of government, and most likely thought as guardian over treasury.

Now for this story further down in Mark about the old woman who deposited all of her living, how do you suppose her expenses for life, liberty and happiness were taken care of after that?

Mark 12:44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

David Merrill
05-16-11, 01:07 PM
This post, that post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think&p=2667&viewfull=1#post2667) and this one too (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?205-The-US-Government-has-(nearly)-Defaulted-on-the-National-Debt!&p=2669&viewfull=1#post2669) might best be read together and given some thought for a Mosaic about current events. - Like as of today according to GEITHNER.

I am the Thirteenth Son (http://www.gatesofhorn.com/blog/the_thirteenth_sign_of_the_zodiac) on a wet ink perpetual inheritance (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg).


The point being a resulting trust has formed by the US Government gambling on American homeowners going into foreclosure - starting today with GEITHNER offering mortgage-based securities for sale.

Trust Guy
05-16-11, 07:10 PM
Thank You MJ, Quite a thoughtful post. Give me something to ponder as I go about the days chores.

Let’s take a quick look at the debate over the Title of the Constitution ( of / for ) the United States of America.

It doesn’t exist. Take a look at the Document in the National Archives and put that debate to rest.


http://the-legacy.info/pix/Con%20Top.jpg

Document starts with We the People.

I invite you all do your own quick study on the pertinent words.

this (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,this) Constitution (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Constitution) for (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,for) the (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,the) United (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,united) States (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,states) of America (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,america)

I wish to direct your inquiry particularly to the word “for”.

FOR, prep. [L. per.; The English, for; to forbid. For corresponds in sense with the L. pro, as fore does with proe, but pro and proe are probably contracted from prod, proed. The Latin por, in composition, as in porrigo, is probably contracted from porro, Gr. which is the English far. The Gr. are from the same root. The radical sense of for is to go, to pass, to advance, to reach or stretch.]

1. Against; in the place of; as a substitute or equivalent, noting equal value or satisfactory compensation, either in barter and sale, in contract, or in punishment. "And Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for flocks, and for the cattle of the herds;" that is, according to the original, he gave them bread against horses like the Gr. Gen. 48:17.

2. In the place of; instead of; noting substitution of persons, or agency of one in the place of another with equivalent authority. An attorney is empowered to act for his principal. Will you take a letter and deliver it for me at the post office? that is, in my place, or for my benefit.

Please do look at the Webster’s 1828 link provided. There are a total of 31 definitions.

The word “of” is not in the online Webster’s. 3 letter minimum was put up. In the bound edition the section goes on for a column and a half. I have typed a very little from it and pointed out what we consider the most pertinent. It’s worth at least one read through if you can access the bound edition.

OF, prep - [ The primary sense is departing, issuing or proceeding from; but this sense has been modified by usage ]

1. From or out of; proceeding from, as the cause, source, means, author or agent bestowing.

About one column down - Of sometimes implies a part or share.
------------------------------------

Well, I've dallied enough. Got work to do.

Be Well All, TG

motla68
05-17-11, 06:12 AM
Thank You MJ, Quite a thoughtful post. Give me something to ponder as I go about the days chores.

Let’s take a quick look at the debate over the Title of the Constitution ( of / for ) the United States of America.

It doesn’t exist. Take a look at the Document in the National Archives and put that debate to rest.

http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/docs/cpage1.jpg

Document starts with We the People.

I invite you all do your own quick study on the pertinent words.

this (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,this) Constitution (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Constitution) for (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,for) the (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,the) United (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,united) States (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,states) of America (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,america)

I wish to direct your inquiry particularly to the word “for”.

FOR, prep. [L. per.; The English, for; to forbid. For corresponds in sense with the L. pro, as fore does with proe, but pro and proe are probably contracted from prod, proed. The Latin por, in composition, as in porrigo, is probably contracted from porro, Gr. which is the English far. The Gr. are from the same root. The radical sense of for is to go, to pass, to advance, to reach or stretch.]

1. Against; in the place of; as a substitute or equivalent, noting equal value or satisfactory compensation, either in barter and sale, in contract, or in punishment. "And Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for flocks, and for the cattle of the herds;" that is, according to the original, he gave them bread against horses like the Gr. Gen. 48:17.

2. In the place of; instead of; noting substitution of persons, or agency of one in the place of another with equivalent authority. An attorney is empowered to act for his principal. Will you take a letter and deliver it for me at the post office? that is, in my place, or for my benefit.

Please do look at the Webster’s 1828 link provided. There are a total of 31 definitions.

The word “of” is not in the online Webster’s. 3 letter minimum was put up. In the bound edition the section goes on for a column and a half. I have typed a very little from it and pointed out what we consider the most pertinent. It’s worth at least one read through if you can access the bound edition.

OF, prep - [ The primary sense is departing, issuing or proceeding from; but this sense has been modified by usage ]

1. From or out of; proceeding from, as the cause, source, means, author or agent bestowing.

About one column down - Of sometimes implies a part or share.
------------------------------------

Well, I've dallied enough. Got work to do.

Be Well All, TG

Yes, lets look at these words at face value. It does not say men and women, it says for the U.S. of A in trust. Who is your trust in?

I would have felt a little better about it if it would have said: "Constitution for Man in the Providence" , why not? The United Nations is in New York, all of the shipping ports are sold out, china owns a good portion of the debts, basically the capital of the world here, what would be the difference?

A man cannot have 2 masters, he will love the one and hate the other. So on this premise does this Constitution have anything do do with us without our consent?

Disparata Non Debent Jungi.

David Merrill
05-17-11, 12:49 PM
Yes, lets look at these words at face value. It does not say men and women, it says for the U.S. of A in trust. Who is your trust in?

I would have felt a little better about it if it would have said: "Constitution for Man in the Providence" , why not? The United Nations is in New York, all of the shipping ports are sold out, china owns a good portion of the debts, basically the capital of the world here, what would be the difference?

A man cannot have 2 masters, he will love the one and hate the other. So on this premise does this Constitution have anything do do with us without our consent?

Disparata Non Debent Jungi.


You speak of the servants who sign oaths of office, or otherwise accept their appointment (accept a job).

The People of the Preamble are not among them. We do not trust in the USA.

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 01:19 PM
motla,

It is a Trust to preserve inherited Status. The Estate of Freedom being paramount. The law of Inheritance, and the order of decent distribution of such, was handed down by God. God's Law is not commercial. God's Gifts are not taxable. Man's law is commercial. Esau sold his Birth Right. Here lies duality.

The word "Posterity" was employed to avoid naming the Heirs. To do so would have been limiting and made the instrument testamentary in nature. Also to express current condition. "to Ourselves and our Posterity" indicates possession being concurrent (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,concurrent). Had it been testamentary, the Estate would not pass until the demise of the testator.

Any property taken under a testamentary instrument ( will ) is considered purchased. All purchase is taxable.

Some info on Deeds Testamentary : http://www.jstor.org/pss/1277805 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1068433

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 01:35 PM
Actions in commerce is coined by definition to be intercourse. Is the penalty for fornication be Trustee De Son Tort?

commercial intercourse = fornication ? Pretty narrow definition. intercourse = fornication is certainly not on Webster's list.

IN'TERCOURSE, n. [L. intercursus, intercurro; inter and curro, to run.] Literally, a running or passing between. Hence,

1. Communication; commerce; connection by reciprocal dealings between persons or nations, either in common affairs and civilities, in trade, or correspondence by letters. We have an intercourse with neighbors and friends in mutual visits and in social concerns; nations and individuals have intercourse with foreign nations or individuals by an interchange of commodities, by purchase and sale, by treaties, contracts, &c.

2. Silent communication or exchange.

This sweet intercourse

Of looks and smiles.

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 02:37 PM
As the Statute of Uses has come up, now would be a good time to touch upon the Constitution’s Religious Intent.
-----------------------------------

The Word "ordain" as used in the Preamble also had relevance, "do ordain" imparted the religious significance required to bring the document within the purviews of Henry's Statute of Uses, Elizabeth's Statutes of Charitable Uses and the Statutes of Mortmain, as to make The Constitution a valid, legal document under the English Laws.

B. Blacks Law Dictionary: Ordain ...***...To confer on a person the holy orders of priest or deacon. Establish ...***... Found.

C. Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Ordain v. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Ordain) To set; to establish a particular office or order; hence, invest with ministerial function or sacerdotal (priesthood) power; to introduce and establish or settle in the pastoral office with the customary forms or solemnities; as to ordain a minister of the gospel.

(1) In America, men are ordained over a particular church and congregation or as evangelist without the charge of a particular church, or as deacons in the Episcopal church.

Strange as it may sound, the word "ordain" conveys the idea, to this writer, that the Founding Fathers were attempting to show the King of England that they were performing ministerial functions, had established a religious society, and an estate in trust for the members of that society under The Statute of Uses, Statute of Charitable Uses, and Mortmain. This line of thought was upheld, when this writer was researching this document, by the fact that the only place that the word "Constitution" appeared under any subject(18) was Religious Societies.

D. 66 Am Jur 2d Religious Societies

1. '7 Constitution, rules, and regulations. The Governing body of a religious society may adopt a constitution and prescribe rules and regulations as to the government of the society...***...

2. '8 Amendment of constitution, changes in confession of faith: So long as not contrary to the laws of the land or to the provisions of the society's old constitution, the method of submitting proposed amendments to the constitution of a religious association may be devised and proclaimed by the association's general officers.

3. ' Members, Generally; relationship and rights: The relations, rights, and obligations arising from membership in a religious society are to be determined according to the constitution, rules, or bylaws of the society, as well as by reference to the statutory provisions governing such religious bodies, since all who unite themselves to a religious body do so with an implied consent to its government and are bound by its laws, usages, and customs, and principles,...***...

True, while there are other organizations that do maintain "constitutions", the religious overtones and significance found within the Preamble, coupled with the behaviorism of the United States Government as compared to the workings of a religious societies, tells this writer that the Founding Fathers were creating a Religious Society by way of Express Trust, a society whose members could worship in any manner that pleased them and were still heirs to a fee simple absolute estate. If this be the truth of the matter, you are a member of a religious society and "bound by its laws, usages, and customs and principles". And I have never found a better description and definition of the words "PUBLIC POLICY" anywhere else. However; if as a member of this religious society, you are having Fourteenth Amendment citizenship being imposed upon you, not allowing you to access the Express Trust, then could you possibly see that your freedom of religious affiliation is being denied you? (19)

If you have a problem with the possibility of a Religion being established in the Preamble, Trusts and Trustees by Bogert, shows that religion can mean many different things:

4.The word "religion is not a term of exact meaning. It has been defined as:

a. "the endeavor to secure the conservation of socially recognized values through specific actions that are believed to evoke some agency different from the ordinary ego of the individual, or from other merely human beings, and that imply a feeling of dependence upon this agency;(20)

b. "the serious and social attitude of individuals or communities toward the power or powers which they conceive as having ultimate control over their interests and destinies;(21)

c. "faith in the conservation of values;(22)

d. "the worship of spiritual beings from a sense of need;(23)

e. "any system of faith in and worship of a divine being or beings.(24)

Whether a given set of dogmas or rules will be dignified with the name of a religion by a court does not depend upon the name which the Settlor has placed upon his trust. ...***...It would seem that the court must find some element of spiritual improvement in the plan before it can be properly termed a religion. 66 Am Jur 2d Religious Societies, also revealed other interesting features regarding the Trusts of such societies:

5. '48 Determination of nature and existence of trust: In determining whether a trust has been created by a conveyance of property to a religious society, the same rules will be applied as are applicable in the construction of wills. The deed, if any, creating the trust is the primary source for ascertaining what was the form of worship and the doctrine intended by the foundation. Where there is no specific designation in the deed as to the particular religious tenets or doctrines which the gift is to be used to advance or support, the denominational name may indicate the nature of the trust, so far as respects doctrines admitted to be fundamental.

Please take note that "the same rules will be applied as are applicable in the construction of wills" to a trust created by deed, this is very important. The construction of "wills" is being applied to our trust, to the Articles, and to the Amendments. The Government is applying the Fourteenth Amendment as a will provision based upon this construction, and not knowing any better everyone is going along with it. No one has brought up the fact that it is a trust and deed. Whenever there is a deed mentioned in a conveyance, wills go along in the same breath, they go hand in hand.

If the Founding Fathers intent behind the Preamble, was to create a Religious society in Trust by Deed, whose members were free to worship as they wished, they made it perfectly clear in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Not the last, the first. Religion was foremost on their minds, and I am absolutely convinced that a charitable trust to protect religious beliefs, by deed was created in the Preamble. However; the Statute of Charitable Uses (43 Eliz. c 4, 1601) only recognized trusts for the repair of churches not the creation of a church, but that does not mean that the Founding Fathers couldn't get around that little problem by making the trust appear to be something other than what it was.
__________________________________________________ ___

Footnotes :

18. , Corporations, trusts, wills, deeds, charities, Religious Societies, Estates, Dower and Curtsy, Title 26, Title 31, etc.

19. Great Theory, now let's get out there and prove it.

20. " W.K. Wright, Philosophy of Religion, P. 47.

21. " J. B. Pratt, The Religious Consciousness, P. 2.

22. " H. Hoffding, Philosophy of Religion, P. 98.

23. " Menzies, History of Religion.

24. " Century Dictionary

motla68
05-17-11, 02:40 PM
motla,

It is a Trust to preserve inherited Status. The Estate of Freedom being paramount. The law of Inheritance, and the order of decent distribution of such, was handed down by God. God's Law is not commercial. God's Gifts are not taxable. Man's law is commercial. Esau sold his Birth Right. Here lies duality.

The word "Posterity" was employed to avoid naming the Heirs. To do so would have been limiting and made the instrument testamentary in nature. Also to express current condition. "to Ourselves and our Posterity" indicates possession being concurrent (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,concurrent). Had it been testamentary, the Estate would not pass until the demise of the testator.

Any property taken under a testamentary instrument ( will ) is considered purchased. All purchase is taxable.

Some info on Deeds Testamentary : http://www.jstor.org/pss/1277805 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1068433

I like the first paragraph, no argument there.

Posterity though it has to be specified, posterity of Abraham or posterity in the estate created by man for commercial purposes?
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned “Nature’s God” and the “Creator,” the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbade the establishment of any official church or creed.

Purchase has already been made by Yashuwah, if your first paragraph is true then it would make the foregoing statement about any further purchase made a mute issue.
But if you want to go down the path of purchase and tax anyway, that has been done as well, such example is the Louisiana purchase, if all the land is already been purchased then why are some people having to do the dance with bankers?
See page 2 of the following linked document:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxLUZd1PWAf2MGMwMzljOTQtZGZiZC00MGVkLWFiYmE tZTAyZDVkYWU3NzYw&hl=en&authkey=CMfv6uQO
Se there where is says the money is really not needed?

Not all purchases are taxable, especially if your a native american like myself. Certain places give you exemption cards when making purchases if this is your status.

You can basically call a deed as in the office of the dead as it once was, county records were once kept in the coroners office of accounting. If I am living through the spirit then what liability do I have to dead wood called paper?
Office of the dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Dead
" The office of Coroner was formally established in England by Article 20 of the "Articles of Eyre" in September 1194 to "keep the pleas of the Crown" (Latin, custos placitorum coronas) from which the word "coroner" is derived.[7] This role provided a local county official whose primary duty was to protect the financial interest of the crown in criminal proceedings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner

motla68
05-17-11, 02:48 PM
commercial intercourse = fornication ? Pretty narrow definition. intercourse = fornication is certainly not on Webster's list.

IN'TERCOURSE, n. [L. intercursus, intercurro; inter and curro, to run.] Literally, a running or passing between. Hence,

1. Communication; commerce; connection by reciprocal dealings between persons or nations, either in common affairs and civilities, in trade, or correspondence by letters. We have an intercourse with neighbors and friends in mutual visits and in social concerns; nations and individuals have intercourse with foreign nations or individuals by an interchange of commodities, by purchase and sale, by treaties, contracts, &c.

2. Silent communication or exchange.

This sweet intercourse

Of looks and smiles.

Fornication;
But this word is more frequently used in a symbolical than in
its ordinary sense. It frequently means a forsaking of God or a
following after idols (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1:2;
2:1-5; Jer. 3:8,9).
1913 Websters Dictionary

INTERCOURSE. Communication; commerce; connexion by reciprocal dealings
between persons or nations, as by interchange of commodities, treaties,
contracts, or letters.
1913 Websters Dictionary

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 02:50 PM
motla,

We're dealing with the law and language of the time. Any application of law settled afterward would be auxiliary at best. The study was to establish the nature of the Constitution at the time. It is the foundation.

Let’s cover points needed to clarify use of the word “Posterity”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The importance of charitable trusts comes into play with our Express Constitutional Trust created by the Preamble. The Founding Fathers, being at effect of the English common law had to create something that would last and still be valid under the law of England.

A. A trust is charitable if it is made for a charitable purpose and the ultimate recipients constitute either the community as a whole or an indefinite portion thereof(36)

B. A charitable trust has similarly been defined as a gift in trust for the benefit of the public(37)

C. "A bequest is charitable if it is made for a charitable purpose, its aims and accomplishments are of religious, educational, political, or general social interests to mankind and the ultimate recipients constitute either the community as a whole or an unascertainable and indefinite portion thereof".(38)

The above definitions define and describe the trust established by the Constitutional Express Trust that should apply to us. However, Fourteenth Amendment citizens may be the "public" but they are not the "people", nor are they the posterity, nor are they the heirs or beneficiaries, they cannot receive the charitable benefits of the Express Trust. Why?

D. "Charity begins where certainty in beneficiaries ends, for it is the number and uncertainty of the objects, and not the mode of relieving them, which forms the essential element of a charity."(39)

[ Note : This is why the Heirs could not be named. Had they been named the element of certainty would be established ]

If this be the case, you may well re-read the above as...Charity ends where certainty of the beneficiaries begins. The Charitable purposes of the Preamble of the Constitution ENDS with the designation of the Fourteenth Amendment citizen.

E. "The following interests are not subject to the common law rule against perpetuities(40)

1. Present interests in possession

2. Charitable trusts

F. "The general rule that a gift for charitable purposes of permanent interest and benefit to the public may be perpetual in it duration and is not within the rule against perpetuities.(41)

G. "The general test of the nature of a trust as charitable is whether the accomplishment of the trust purpose is of a social interest to the community as to justify permitting property to be devoted to the purpose in PERPETUITY."(42)

If the Constitutional Trust was not a charitable trust it would be subject to the rule against perpetuities, which it is not.
__________________________________________________ ____

Footnotes :

36. . Estate of McKenzie, 227 Cal App 2d 167, 38 Cal Rptr 496; Ellert v Cogswell 113 Cal 129, 45 P 270.

37. . Estate of Schloss, 56 Cal 2d 248, 363 P2d 875; Re Estate of Sutro, 155 CAL 727, 102 P 920.

38. Estate of Henderson, 17 Cal 2d 853, 112 P2d 605; Estate of Mc Kenzie, infra.

39. Russell v Allen, 107 US 163, 2 S Ct 327; Beatty v Kurtz 27 US 566; Re Estate of Coleman, 167 Cal 212, 138 P 992.

40. : Survey of the Law of Property, Smith & Boyer Second Edition, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 76-142383.

41. " 15 Am Jur 2d Charities '18.

42. Evans v Newton, 382 US 296, 15 L Ed 2d 373, 86 S Ct 486, on remand 221 Ga 870, 148 SE2d 329 (separate opinion).

motla68
05-17-11, 02:51 PM
As the Statute of Uses has come up, now would be a good time to touch upon the Constitution’s Religious Intent.
-----------------------------------



From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned “Nature’s God” and the “Creator,” the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbade the establishment of any official church or creed.

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 03:13 PM
Many are not aware that “The Law of Nature and Nature’s God” is the title of an actual book on Natural Philosophy. A pretty big tome. It’s also hard to come by. Even the LONANG Library does not have it listed among their copious resources. http://www.lonang.com/index.html

Our Compatriot Otis was able to get a copy, after months of waiting, from the Antelope Valley Public Library.

As it is referred to by name in the Declaration of Independence, it may be “included in entirety herein by reference”, as legal brief language allows.

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 03:30 PM
Let’s look at the 14th Amendment and it’s trust implications before I leave and get to the days chores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resulting & Constructive Trusts:

I view the Fourteenth Amendment as a constructive spendthrift trust created by implication of law. In order for one to understand what I just said, a person has to understand what a constructive trust is, a spendthrift trust, and a trust created by operation of law.

A. A trust by operation of law may exist where an express trust does not exist and it may exist without being created or manifested in writing. It is based on rule, presumption, or inference of law, and not on expression of intention by the trustor. A trust by operation of law, whether it is a resulting or a constructive trust, is NOT within the statute of frauds NOR the statute of wills, and is not required by that statute to be created or proved in writing(44)

B. A trust of this kind arises from the fact of "consideration", and not from a written agreement, instrument, or will,..(45)

C. A trust by operation of law may exist without being created or manifested in writing(46)

D. A trust by operation of law is based on rule, presumption, or inference of law, and not on expression of intention by the trustor(47)

A through D are excellent descriptions of the Fourteenth amendment trust. We have never been able to bring Fraud into any suits upon the Government because the Statute of Frauds and Wills is excluded from the Fourteenth Amendment or vice versa. Everything about the amendment is by presumption or inference of law. However; there are rules that govern the trust created by it, and we will get to them shortly.

Resulting Trusts: 76 Am Jur 2d, Trusts

A. A resulting trust involves primarily the operation of the equitable doctrine of consideration -- the doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest resulting from a transaction.

B. A resulting trust involves a presumption, implication, or supposition of law of an intention to create a trust.

C. There is no element of fraud in a resulting trust.

D. The two most important groups of resulting

Trusts are:

1. Those arising on a failure of an express trust or purpose; and

2. Those arising on a conveyance to one person on a consideration from another.

What we need to contemplate here is; Is the Fourteenth Amendment a resulting Trust? Is United States citizenship the valuable consideration? Is the "Debt" the valuable consideration? Was the "consideration" separate and distinct from citizenship, such as a Banking agreement? Did the Express Trust Fail in 1868 in order to create a resulting trust? or did it fail in first years of this century? Did it fail at all or was it set up to look as if it did? Was there "no element of fraud" in its creation? The Government may consider the Fourteenth Amendment creating a resulting trust, but I don't personally see it fitting any of the above.

Constructive Trusts:

A. A constructive trust generally involves primarily a presence of fraud, in view of which equitable title or interest should be recognized in some person other than the taker or holder of the legal title.

B. A constructive trust is entirely independent of any actual or presumed intention of the parties and is frequently imposed against the intention of the trustee.

C. "Otherwise known as a trust ex maleficio, a trust ex delicto, a trust de son tort, an involuntary trust, or an implied trust is a trust by operation of law which arises contrary to the intention and in invitum against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive by duress or abuse of confidence by commission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment or questionable means, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy".(48)

D. "A constructive Trust arises only after an act of Fraud or Breach of Confidence or duty and as a relief against the same, it is in substance a state of secondary rights and liabilities growing out of a violation of a primary right and liability hence a constructive trust frequently is classified as a division of adjectival rather than SUBSTANTIVE LAW; and it is said that ground for relief is fraud and not trust.(49)

Accordingly the 14th Amendment having been created under fraud, established a system that allowed U.S. Citizens to acquire title to property that rightfully they should not hold, and a constructive trust literally turns Tom, Dick, Harry and you into trustees.

E. "A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression, and when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the Beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee".(50)

You retain the "beneficial interest" in property Rightfully belonging the Posterity of the Express Trust; therefore you can be converted into a trustee. After all haven't you ever felt that you were the public servant not the IRS agent cornering you. All those government agencies are out to make sure that you, as a quasi trustee are not unjustly enriched. I think they are doing an excellent Job of that.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________

(43. : 76 Am Jur 2d, Trusts, ''190 and 191; Broadway Bldg. Co. v Salafia, 47 RI 263, 132 A 527, 45 ALR 847.)

(44. . Whitney v Hay, 181, US 45 L Ed 758, 21 S Ct 537; Smithsonian Institution v Meech 169 US 398, 42 L Ed 793, 18 S Ct 396; Levis v Kengla 169 US 234, 42 L Ed 728, 18 S Ct 309; Ducie v Ford, 138 US 587, 34 L Ed 1091, 11 S Ct 417. Restatement, Trusts 2d '406: "Neither the statute of wills nor the statute of frauds is violated by raising a constructive trust upon a mere promise to create a trust in property not then in existence, where thereafter such property comes into existence and vest in the one who made the promise to act as trustee. Voelkel v Tohulka, 236, Ind 588, 141 NE2d 344, 70 ALR2d 1349, cert den 355 US 891, 2 L Ed 2d 189, 78 S Ct 263. (Do you see why we can't prove fraud? This quote is real interesting, it looks just like the Government to me.) )

(45. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts, '194.)

(46. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts '190)

(47. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts '190)

(48. Am Jur 2d, Trusts '221; Loomis v Loomis 148 Cal 149, 82 P 679; Central Stock & Grain Exch. v Bendinger 109 F 926 cert den 183 US 699, 46 L Ed 396, 22 S Ct 935; Des Moines Terminal Co. v Des Moines U.R. Co. 52 F 2d 616, cert den 285 US 537, 76 L Ed 930, 52 S Ct 311; St Louis & S.F.R.Co. v Spiller 274 US 304, 71 L Ed 1060, 47 S Ct 635; Angel v Chicago, S.P.M & O. R. Co. 151 US 1, 38 L Ed 55, 14 S Ct 240; Monroe Cattle Co. v Becker 147 US 47, 37 L Ed 72, 13 S Ct 217; Felix v Patrick 145 US 317, 36 L Ed 719, 12 S Ct 862; and more.)

(49. " 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts, '222.)

(50. Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co. 225 NY 380, 122 NE 378.)

motla68
05-17-11, 03:38 PM
motla,

We're dealing with the law and language of the time. Any application of law settled afterward would be auxiliary at best. The study was to establish the nature of the Constitution at the time. It is the foundation.

Let’s cover points needed to clarify use of the word “Posterity”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The importance of charitable trusts comes into play with our Express Constitutional Trust created by the Preamble. The Founding Fathers, being at effect of the English common law had to create something that would last and still be valid under the law of England.

A. A trust is charitable if it is made for a charitable purpose and the ultimate recipients constitute either the community as a whole or an indefinite portion thereof(36)

B. A charitable trust has similarly been defined as a gift in trust for the benefit of the public(37)

C. "A bequest is charitable if it is made for a charitable purpose, its aims and accomplishments are of religious, educational, political, or general social interests to mankind and the ultimate recipients constitute either the community as a whole or an unascertainable and indefinite portion thereof".(38)

The above definitions define and describe the trust established by the Constitutional Express Trust that should apply to us. However, Fourteenth Amendment citizens may be the "public" but they are not the "people", nor are they the posterity, nor are they the heirs or beneficiaries, they cannot receive the charitable benefits of the Express Trust. Why?

D. "Charity begins where certainty in beneficiaries ends, for it is the number and uncertainty of the objects, and not the mode of relieving them, which forms the essential element of a charity."(39)

[ Note : This is why the Heirs could not be named. Had they been named the element of certainty would be established ]

If this be the case, you may well re-read the above as...Charity ends where certainty of the beneficiaries begins. The Charitable purposes of the Preamble of the Constitution ENDS with the designation of the Fourteenth Amendment citizen.

E. "The following interests are not subject to the common law rule against perpetuities(40)

1. Present interests in possession

2. Charitable trusts

F. "The general rule that a gift for charitable purposes of permanent interest and benefit to the public may be perpetual in it duration and is not within the rule against perpetuities.(41)

G. "The general test of the nature of a trust as charitable is whether the accomplishment of the trust purpose is of a social interest to the community as to justify permitting property to be devoted to the purpose in PERPETUITY."(42)

If the Constitutional Trust was not a charitable trust it would be subject to the rule against perpetuities, which it is not.
__________________________________________________ ____

Footnotes :

36. . Estate of McKenzie, 227 Cal App 2d 167, 38 Cal Rptr 496; Ellert v Cogswell 113 Cal 129, 45 P 270.

37. . Estate of Schloss, 56 Cal 2d 248, 363 P2d 875; Re Estate of Sutro, 155 CAL 727, 102 P 920.

38. Estate of Henderson, 17 Cal 2d 853, 112 P2d 605; Estate of Mc Kenzie, infra.

39. Russell v Allen, 107 US 163, 2 S Ct 327; Beatty v Kurtz 27 US 566; Re Estate of Coleman, 167 Cal 212, 138 P 992.

40. : Survey of the Law of Property, Smith & Boyer Second Edition, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 76-142383.

41. " 15 Am Jur 2d Charities '18.

42. Evans v Newton, 382 US 296, 15 L Ed 2d 373, 86 S Ct 486, on remand 221 Ga 870, 148 SE2d 329 (separate opinion).

Not charitable, it was a surrender:


Articles of Confederation
XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

What I did is try to track down these elusive terms of union and perpetual, the first thing found was this:

CONSOLIDATION, civil law. The union of the usufruct with the estate out of which it issues, in the same person which happens when the usufructuary acquires the estate, or vice versa. In either case the usufruct is extinct. In the common law this is called a merger. Ley. El. Dr. Rom. 424. U. S. Dig. tit. Actions, V.

There is that word that keeps popping up again, "usufruct" also used in the same sentence as the word union. So I had to go back to the time of Lincoln remembering that he also used the words perpetual and union and from past research in relation to usufruct. 2 very interesting things to note here:

1. The south and the north after the Civil War became one, what word is often used to describe this? Looking back on my previous search the word Consolidate also means to bring 2 entities together so the latter term use probably would mean Consolidated and the south did have to surrender, so seems to fit to me.

2. Another intent that Lincoln said was the intent to create a more perfect union, remembering what I read about usufruct, lets take a look:

usufruct;
3. Usufructs are of two kinds; perfect and imperfect. Perfect usufruct, which is of things which the usufructuary can enjoy without altering their substance, though their substance may be diminished or deteriorated naturally by time or by the use to which they are applied; as a house, a piece of land, animals, furniture and other movable effects. Imperfect or quasi usufruct, which is of things which would be useless to the usufructuary if be did not consume and expend them, or change the substance of them, as money, grain, liquors. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 525, et seq.; 1 Browne's Civ. Law, 184; Poth. Tr. du Douaire, n. 194; Ayl. Pand. 319; Poth. Pand. tom. 6, p. 91; Lecons El. du Dr. Civ. Rom. 414 Inst. lib. 2, t. 4; Dig. lib. 7, t. 1, 1. 1 Code, lib. 3, t. 33; 1 Bouv. Inst. Theolo. ps. 1, c. 1, art. 2, p. 76.

There is nothing really sweet about it, we have to engage a force out of necessity for our basic life. liberty and happiness. To act in the statutes of one entity waives your rights in another.

Well I do not know about you, but it seems to me that Lincoln would have saved us all a lot of aggravation if he would have just said: " a more perfect usufruct" , would you say?
Those who make a war like claim such as titles on a thing must inherit the suffrage of it's liabilities.

motla68
05-17-11, 03:43 PM
Many are not aware that “The Law of Nature and Nature’s God” is the title of an actual book on Natural Philosophy. A pretty big tome. It’s also hard to come by. Even the LONANG Library does not have it listed among their copious resources. http://www.lonang.com/index.html

Our Compatriot Otis was able to get a copy, after months of waiting, from the Antelope Valley Public Library.

As it is referred to by name in the Declaration of Independence, it may be “included in entirety herein by reference”, as legal brief language allows.

Thank you, this might make for some interesting reading when I get a chance.

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 05:09 PM
motla,

You’re quite welcome. A lot of good resource there.

“At Law and of Necessity” , another of my favorite conditional endorsements. Judges just plain shut down with that one. At least in my limited experience.

It should be kept in mind that Trust Law is in the Private realm. Somewhere I have cites stating that if the matter of Trust arises in a court case, all action stops until such is addressed in the instant case. I think this is where some people who have asked if the Judge is Trustee in the matter have found the proceedings in limbo.

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 06:31 PM
Let’s back up a moment and look at the Treaty of Paris.

Article 1

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question : What was “every part there of” ? Did not the original Colonies and Plantation Estates have a local authority ? Did not Sir Walter Raleigh hold Royal Patent ? William Penn absolute proprietorship from 1681 forward ? I submit the local authority was part and parcel with “every part”. All Charters and Patents were spoils of war. Every jot and title.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 7

There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, how long did that last ? 1812 anyone ?

motla68
05-17-11, 10:30 PM
Let’s back up a moment and look at the Treaty of Paris.

Article 1

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question : What was “every part there of” ? Did not the original Colonies and Plantation Estates have a local authority ? Did not Sir Walter Raleigh hold Royal Patent ? William Penn absolute proprietorship from 1681 forward ? I submit the local authority was part and parcel with “every part”. All Charters and Patents were spoils of war. Every jot and title.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 7

There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, how long did that last ? 1812 anyone ?

Yeah, only thing is it does not stop there, there is many layers of trusts, some we can find and others are Like you said private trusts that we will not see, at least not to most of the people.
http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Texts/japan.html#adminarr

But really, how can one man ever hope to keep up with all their changes every year?

Michael Joseph
05-17-11, 10:38 PM
Yeah, only thing is it does not stop there, there is many layers of trusts, some we can find and others are Like you said private trusts that we will not see, at least not to most of the people.
http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Texts/japan.html#adminarr

But really, how can one man ever hope to keep up with all their changes every year?

Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.


but understand that we have man-kings because God allows it. Do not usurp those trusts as the estate is not ours it is held in trust by a trustee. but notice those states cannot exist and do not exist except by the Providence of God.

Michael Joseph
05-17-11, 11:06 PM
Let’s back up a moment and look at the Treaty of Paris.

Article 1

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question : What was “every part there of” ? Did not the original Colonies and Plantation Estates have a local authority ? Did not Sir Walter Raleigh hold Royal Patent ? William Penn absolute proprietorship from 1681 forward ? I submit the local authority was part and parcel with “every part”. All Charters and Patents were spoils of war. Every jot and title.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 7

There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, how long did that last ? 1812 anyone ?

here's a bit of a rattlesnake.

490

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 11:20 PM
But really, how can one man ever hope to keep up with all their changes every year?

By simply standing upon and claiming the substance ( Original Jurisdiction ) of the document. Private Inheritance.

In the few times I have engaged in Controversy, I do not answer, accept or admit to later interpretations, applications or implementations of the substantive nature of the original. It keeps things simple.

US and State Statutes and Codes are "After the Fact". They are neither germane nor pertinent to the subject matter.

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 11:30 PM
here's a bit of a rattlesnake.

490

Ah yes indeed. One sticky point. Fortunately, Providence has precluded my needing to address the point. Example. I ran nearly 14 years without DL or Plates. Never got stopped, thank the Good Lord.

Also, Judges appear loathe to go beyond a well stated Claim and inquiry regarding their Individual Capacity to render opinion on the matter.

Michael Joseph
05-17-11, 11:38 PM
Ah yes indeed. One sticky point. Fortunately, Providence has precluded my needing to address the point. Example. I ran nearly 14 years without DL or Plates. Never got stopped, thank the Good Lord.

Also, Judges appear loathe to go beyond a well stated Claim and inquiry regarding their Individual Capacity to render opinion on the matter.

it has been my direct experience - as I too travel and move about absent license - that I will not allow a constructive trust to form as I will not usurp the trustee. I claim the Original Estate - Case Dismissed.

One cannot escape the fact that the Pillar stands atop a certain book - Scripture. That is not to say that the Pillar relieves Scripture but it is to say that the Pillar gets its Authority from Scripture.

Therefore there exists two trusts and the Estate in one is in CESTUI QUE TRUST - which i am not trustee and the Estate in the other is in Yehoshuah. The latter - In those days those that call upon the name of Yehovah shall be saved.

Trust Guy
05-17-11, 11:44 PM
To clarify for onlookers : A cestui que (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cestui+Que) trust is a person for whose benefit a trust is created; a beneficiary. Although legal title of the trust is vested in the trustee, the cestui que trust is the beneficiary who is entitled to all benefits from a trust.

Time to spend time with the Wife. BBL

motla68
05-18-11, 01:11 AM
By simply standing upon and claiming the substance ( Original Jurisdiction ) of the document. Private Inheritance.

In the few times I have engaged in Controversy, I do not answer, accept or admit to later interpretations, applications or implementations of the substantive nature of the original. It keeps things simple.

US and State Statutes and Codes are "After the Fact". They are neither germane nor pertinent to the subject matter.

I hear you there, but I think our interpretation of that is quite different. For you it seems it is the manifested value in a monetary sense, For me it is the actual paper and ink them words rest upon as something taken from the original gift given from the creator " the earth " to create, at least this is where I am headed from being in the conscience you appear to be in.

Trust Guy
05-18-11, 02:25 AM
I am unable to establish a monetary value to my Inheritance, being absolute yet incorporeal. While some attempt to charge, or lien, a money value for individual time in dealing with “Authorities” , I do not.

For me, their encroachment on my time or Right is in the nature of Trespass. There is no transfer in cash value or like kind involved. They Trespass and I charge / accuse against same. Should they continue in Trespass after written or verbal Notice, the circumstance becomes actionable. I’ve never had an “Authority” proceed beyond the Notice.

Then again, I am blessed with a generally calm demeanor and assertiveness in such dealings. A soft answer turneth away wrath, and all that

motla68
05-18-11, 03:20 AM
I am unable to establish a monetary value to my Inheritance, being absolute yet incorporeal. While some attempt to charge, or lien, a money value for individual time in dealing with “Authorities” , I do not.

For me, their encroachment on my time or Right is in the nature of Trespass. There is no transfer in cash value or like kind involved. They Trespass and I charge / accuse against same. Should they continue in Trespass after written or verbal Notice, the circumstance becomes actionable. I’ve never had an “Authority” proceed beyond the Notice.

Then again, I am blessed with a generally calm demeanor and assertiveness in such dealings. A soft answer turneth away wrath, and all that

Thank you for the clarification, I never used the word incorporeal to describe ones self, I try to stay away from saying I am " not " such as using incorporeal as this is making a claim upon something that Is only by way of proxy through the creator of the universe.
Also am the same way with authorities, the rookie cops though chalk up my calm demeanour as being on drugs or other intoxication it seems until supervisor is called in to correct the mistake.
In all though no, when the chips are down and it comes to that climatical moment they have backed down every time. The last time communicating with a peace officer it was a situation where someone hit me and the officer was literally asking me permission to write a ticket for expired inspection and registration so that the computer would release the information to her insurance company so that she could get her car fixed. I took the peaceful inhabitant route and let him do it because i knew it was easily reversible charges with the clerk of court.

I think it is coming clearer now that you are actually separating yourself from that system, but for the benefit of the forum attempting to explain your interpretation of how the system works? seems we are mostly within the same conscience in actions.

Bless you brother.

Trust Guy
05-19-11, 02:03 PM
Considerable further reading from one of the under appreciated American Political Philosophers.

"It is only by considering the granted powers, in their true character of trust or delegated powers, that all the various parts of our complicated system of government can be harmonized and explained".- John C. Calhoun, ( 7th Vice President of the United States )
A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm)

A Disquisition on Government (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/disq_gov.htm)

John C. Calhoun an Introduction (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/intro_jr.htm)

shikamaru
05-19-11, 05:39 PM
Considerable further reading from one of the under appreciated American Political Philosophers.

"It is only by considering the granted powers, in their true character of trust or delegated powers, that all the various parts of our complicated system of government can be harmonized and explained".- John C. Calhoun, ( 7th Vice President of the United States )
A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm)

A Disquisition on Government (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/disq_gov.htm)

John C. Calhoun an Introduction (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/intro_jr.htm)

Wow .... powerful stuff, neighbor :)
Thanks for that.

Trust Guy
05-19-11, 05:48 PM
You’re quite welcome Friend.

Wish We’d have had access to this work way back when. Could have made things easier to figure out. One thing I know for sure, politicians and “administrators” blanch when being addressed on the subject.

Trust Guy
05-19-11, 06:25 PM
I never used the word incorporeal to describe ones self, * * *

Let’s separate terms a little more.

Corporeal = Tangible, Incorporeal = Intangible, however there is a difference in application.

I am corporeal, flesh and blood and bone. I was first taught the distinction when accompanying a senior Compatriot as witness in filing of a Suit. He determined to Quiet Title his Corporeal Hereditaments. It took a bit of doing as the Clerk refused to accept the paperwork. The Clerk finally called the County Attorney for help in figuring out how to explain the papers were un-fileable.

The Atty. came in and looked over the Petition. He said “WHAT! You want to Quiet Title your BODY!!!”

My Compatriot says “Yes, I need to determine any superior Title or Right to my own Claim”. Atty. said “OK, file it”. Case ended with "failure to state a claim" and all that.

Point of the story, the terms ( In ) / Corporeal go originally to matters pertaining to people. ( In ) / Tangible to things.
---------------------------------------
hereditament
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corporeal+hereditaments)
Anything that can be passed by an individual to heirs.

There are two types of hereditaments: corporeal and incorporeal.

A corporeal hereditament is a permanent tangible object that can be seen and handled and is confined to the land. Materials, such as coal, timber, stone, or a house are common examples of this type of hereditament.

An incorporeal hereditament is an intangible right, which is not visible but is derived from real or Personal Property. An Easement is a classic example of this type of hereditament, since it is the right of one individual to use another's property and can be inherited.

hereditament n. any kind of property which can be inherited. This is old-fashioned language still found in some wills and deeds.

( Note : old-fashioned does not mean outdated or ineffective. Just trying to ridicule through sophistry to me.
--------------------------------------------

Hereditament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditament)
In law, a hereditament (from Lat. hereditare, to inherit, heres, heir) is any kind of property that can be inherited.

Hereditaments are divided into corporeal and incorporeal. Corporeal hereditaments are "such as affect the senses, and may be seen and handled by the body; incorporeal are not the subject of sensation, can neither be seen nor handled, are creatures of the mind, and exist only in contemplation" (Blackstone, Commentaries). An example of a corporeal hereditament is land held in freehold.

Examples of incorporeal hereditaments are: hereditary titles of honor or dignity, heritable titles of office, coats of arms, Prescriptive Barony, rights of way, tithes, advowsons, pensions, annuities, rents, franchises, etc. The term is still used in the phrase "lands, tenements and hereditaments" to describe property in land, as distinguished from goods and chattels or movable property.
----------------------------------------------

Hope this helps to clarify and sharpen the points presented.

Peace, TG

Trust Guy
05-19-11, 07:39 PM
Now, let’s get into some meet. Where the rubber meets the road, that is.

I expect this is why IRS and Motor Vehicle Departments have fallen away in their demands. Just ask the right question ( acting under Office of Trust or Profit ) and suggest / charge Breach and Conversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breach of Trust n. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/breach+of+trust) : - 1) any act which is in violation of the duties or a trustee or of the terms of a trust. Such a breach need not be intentional or with malice, but can be due to negligence. 2) breaking a promise or confidence.

The Trustees have breached the Trust and their duties for profit for themselves at your expense.

A Breach of Trust of Duty by a Trustee is a violation of Correlative (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/correlative) Right of the Cestui Que Trust, and gives rise to a liability on the part of the Trustee and a correlative cause of action, on the part of the Beneficiary for any loss to the Trust Estate. The rule is applicable in respect to both positive acts and omissions or negligence constituting a Breach of Duty by the Trustee. (26)

A Trustee liability for Breach of Trust is Personal (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,personal) in character ( there goes their immunity ) with all the consequences and incidents of personal liability and is enforceable against his estate.

A Trustee breaching his duty comes within the maxim that "equity will not aid one who comes into court with unclean hands. (it's about time)

When the Trustees have made acts of omission, the Beneficiary can question the Propriety (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,propriety) of the Trustees. The Beneficiary had to have had, full disclosure, full knowledge of all the material facts and circumstances. A Beneficiary must have had knowledge of and understood their RIGHTS. (27)

And the Beneficiary is UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO SEARCH PUBLIC RECORDS. (28)

The old adage that you "knew or should have known" will just not work in the case of the Trust. How could you have known when there were acts of omission, non-disclosure, lack of understanding of your Rights, and when everything you were told was done so in order to mislead and deceive you and coerce you into giving up your Beneficial Interest in the Trust. On the other hand ignorance of the Law is NO excuse for a Fourteenth Amendment citizen.

"Enforcement of a Constructive Trust (codicil trust) in favor or those named in a Will which Testator was prevented by fraud, duress or undue influence from executing, against those who have thus obtained decedents property, does not annul the Decedents Estate Law, The Statute of Fraud or the provisions of the Statute of Wills as to the mode in which a testamentary disposition (29) must be effected."
__________________________________________________ __
Footnotes :

26. 76 American Jurisprudence 2d Trusts

27. 76 American Jurisprudence 2d Trusts

28. McAllister v McAllister 120 NJ Eq 407, 184 A 723, affd 121 NJ Eq 264, 190 A 52 afd 121 NJ Eq 249, 190 A 53. The Beneficiary is presumed to be reposed in innocence as in contradistinction to a citizen abiding in ignorance.

29. American Jurisprudence - Wills

motla68
05-19-11, 11:30 PM
Considerable further reading from one of the under appreciated American Political Philosophers.

"It is only by considering the granted powers, in their true character of trust or delegated powers, that all the various parts of our complicated system of government can be harmonized and explained".- John C. Calhoun, ( 7th Vice President of the United States )
A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm)

A Disquisition on Government (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/disq_gov.htm)

John C. Calhoun an Introduction (http://www.constitution.org/jcc/intro_jr.htm)

Thanks, I like the quote and the article linked right below it. Shows the land my camp is on known as North Carolina was dragged into it kickin, protesting and spittin about it.

Michael Joseph
05-20-11, 12:21 AM
Now, let’s get into some meet. Where the rubber meets the road, that is.

I expect this is why IRS and Motor Vehicle Departments have fallen away in their demands. Just ask the right question ( acting under Office of Trust or Profit ) and suggest / charge Breach and Conversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breach of Trust n. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/breach+of+trust) : - 1) any act which is in violation of the duties or a trustee or of the terms of a trust. Such a breach need not be intentional or with malice, but can be due to negligence. 2) breaking a promise or confidence.

The Trustees have breached the Trust and their duties for profit for themselves at your expense.

A Breach of Trust of Duty by a Trustee is a violation of Correlative (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/correlative) Right of the Cestui Que Trust, and gives rise to a liability on the part of the Trustee and a correlative cause of action, on the part of the Beneficiary for any loss to the Trust Estate. The rule is applicable in respect to both positive acts and omissions or negligence constituting a Breach of Duty by the Trustee. (26)

A Trustee liability for Breach of Trust is Personal (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,personal) in character ( there goes their immunity ) with all the consequences and incidents of personal liability and is enforceable against his estate.

A Trustee breaching his duty comes within the maxim that "equity will not aid one who comes into court with unclean hands. (it's about time)

When the Trustees have made acts of omission, the Beneficiary can question the Propriety (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,propriety) of the Trustees. The Beneficiary had to have had, full disclosure, full knowledge of all the material facts and circumstances. A Beneficiary must have had knowledge of and understood their RIGHTS. (27)

And the Beneficiary is UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO SEARCH PUBLIC RECORDS. (28)

The old adage that you "knew or should have known" will just not work in the case of the Trust. How could you have known when there were acts of omission, non-disclosure, lack of understanding of your Rights, and when everything you were told was done so in order to mislead and deceive you and coerce you into giving up your Beneficial Interest in the Trust. On the other hand ignorance of the Law is NO excuse for a Fourteenth Amendment citizen.

"Enforcement of a Constructive Trust (codicil trust) in favor or those named in a Will which Testator was prevented by fraud, duress or undue influence from executing, against those who have thus obtained decedents property, does not annul the Decedents Estate Law, The Statute of Fraud or the provisions of the Statute of Wills as to the mode in which a testamentary disposition (29) must be effected."
__________________________________________________ __
Footnotes :

26. 76 American Jurisprudence 2d Trusts

27. 76 American Jurisprudence 2d Trusts

28. McAllister v McAllister 120 NJ Eq 407, 184 A 723, affd 121 NJ Eq 264, 190 A 52 afd 121 NJ Eq 249, 190 A 53. The Beneficiary is presumed to be reposed in innocence as in contradistinction to a citizen abiding in ignorance.

29. American Jurisprudence - Wills

or, just offer a benefit upon the trustee....how may i help you.

motla68
05-20-11, 12:41 AM
Let’s separate terms a little more.

Corporeal = Tangible, Incorporeal = Intangible, however there is a difference in application.

I am corporeal, flesh and blood and bone. I was first taught the distinction when accompanying a senior Compatriot as witness in filing of a Suit. He determined to Quiet Title his Corporeal Hereditaments. It took a bit of doing as the Clerk refused to accept the paperwork. The Clerk finally called the County Attorney for help in figuring out how to explain the papers were un-fileable.

The Atty. came in and looked over the Petition. He said “WHAT! You want to Quiet Title your BODY!!!”

My Compatriot says “Yes, I need to determine any superior Title or Right to my own Claim”. Atty. said “OK, file it”. Case ended with "failure to state a claim" and all that.

Point of the story, the terms ( In ) / Corporeal go originally to matters pertaining to people. ( In ) / Tangible to things.
---------------------------------------
hereditament
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corporeal+hereditaments)
Anything that can be passed by an individual to heirs.

There are two types of hereditaments: corporeal and incorporeal.

A corporeal hereditament is a permanent tangible object that can be seen and handled and is confined to the land. Materials, such as coal, timber, stone, or a house are common examples of this type of hereditament.

An incorporeal hereditament is an intangible right, which is not visible but is derived from real or Personal Property. An Easement is a classic example of this type of hereditament, since it is the right of one individual to use another's property and can be inherited.

hereditament n. any kind of property which can be inherited. This is old-fashioned language still found in some wills and deeds.

( Note : old-fashioned does not mean outdated or ineffective. Just trying to ridicule through sophistry to me.
--------------------------------------------

Hereditament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditament)
In law, a hereditament (from Lat. hereditare, to inherit, heres, heir) is any kind of property that can be inherited.

Hereditaments are divided into corporeal and incorporeal. Corporeal hereditaments are "such as affect the senses, and may be seen and handled by the body; incorporeal are not the subject of sensation, can neither be seen nor handled, are creatures of the mind, and exist only in contemplation" (Blackstone, Commentaries). An example of a corporeal hereditament is land held in freehold.

Examples of incorporeal hereditaments are: hereditary titles of honor or dignity, heritable titles of office, coats of arms, Prescriptive Barony, rights of way, tithes, advowsons, pensions, annuities, rents, franchises, etc. The term is still used in the phrase "lands, tenements and hereditaments" to describe property in land, as distinguished from goods and chattels or movable property.
----------------------------------------------

Hope this helps to clarify and sharpen the points presented.

Peace, TG

That would be my reply too. The quite title on the body has already been done and deposited into the Library of Congress, incun 14545.B4. All we have to do is accept it in very much the same way that David discussed about a friend who accepted a Judges bond and then the judge recused himself from the case. Since 2009 when our group started looking at things in a different light it has made a lot of positive changes in peoples lives, one such insight is that why go through the hassle of creating all these instruments to pass through ports when a trust is operating a usufruct from which we can use these things for everyone else's benefit? This is along the lines of the story of King Nebekennezer who ordered 3 men to walk through the firy furnace and to his surprise he received a benefit, being entertained that things are not always what they seem to be, a new intent was formed.

I have this whole thing about the casting of spells on paper too and making claim to it, but not going to go into that since it will not pass the snuff of DM's scientific regulations here. If interested send me a PM.

motla68
05-20-11, 12:53 AM
or, just offer a benefit upon the trustee....how may i help you.

Yes, you can definitely say that again, the double edged sword is that it can go both ways and intent be reversed from the norm.

Notice how they say in this article " encourage defendants to take action ", if that is not unveiling the truth I do not know what is.
Well what if they did not take action, to whom's benefit will it be then?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/724205

Trust Guy
05-20-11, 01:16 AM
or, just offer a benefit upon the trustee....how may i help you.
That brings to mind an incident from several years ago.

Wife and I were in a caravan of cars one A.M. , all members of the Missouri Mycological Society , out for a foray. Hit a Police road block. Click it or Ticket thing, supposedly. Half a dozen patrol cars and upwards of 12 personnel. Two or three checking out the cars, peeping in windows. Getting ID’s from everyone. All very serious and authoritative.

When it was our turn the cop made his “Papers Please” request. I handed him the documents with a “This is for your benefit, not mine. May I help you ?” Cop was taken somewhat aback and waived off the other guys headed our way. He looked at the DL but not the other documents, and asked - “Mr. ( me ), where are you headed this morning ?” Responded - “Following them to ( whatever State Park we were going to ) for a mushroom hunt .” He handed back the documents with a “Have a nice day”. Never asked for the Wife’s ID.

Go figure .

Trust Guy
05-20-11, 01:23 AM
Notice how they say in this article " encourage defendants to take action ", if that is not unveiling the truth I do not know what is.
Well what if they did not take action, to whom's benefit will it be then?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/724205

Verrrrrry telling . Thanks .

motla68
05-20-11, 01:27 AM
That brings to mind an incident from several years ago.

Wife and I were in a caravan of cars one A.M. , all members of the Missouri Mycological Society , out for a foray. Hit a Police road block. Click it or Ticket thing, supposedly. Half a dozen patrol cars and upwards of 12 personnel. Two or three checking out the cars, peeping in windows. Getting ID’s from everyone. All very serious and authoritative.

When it was our turn the cop made his “Papers Please” request. I handed him the documents with a “This is for your benefit, not mine. May I help you ?” Cop was taken somewhat aback and waived off the other guys headed our way. He looked at the DL but not the other documents, and asked - “Mr. ( me ), where are you headed this morning ?” Responded - “Following them to ( whatever State Park we were going to ) for a mushroom hunt .” He handed back the documents with a “Have a nice day”. Never asked for the Wife’s ID.

Go figure .

Great story, you have experience that realm in which I have posted about a couple times in here. Another fun thing to do is next time put it on the dashboard and tell them if they need a benefit to go ahead and take claim to the instruments. Experience cops know better, rookie cops will put you through the ropes of a real entertaining time before they are told to back off by a superior.

Trust Guy
05-20-11, 01:55 AM
Another fun thing to do is next time put it on the dashboard and tell them if they need a benefit to go ahead and take claim to the instruments. Experience cops know better, rookie cops will put you through the ropes of a real entertaining time before they are told to back off by a superior.

Playing with fire a bit there. I generally don't bait my traps . Just watch where to catch them in their own web .

As a child I learned the trick of touching a spider from beneath when they are laying out a single line . They scramble back up , gathering their silk so fast it balls them up good . Cruel I know , but I was a child and have since repented .

motla68
05-20-11, 02:27 PM
Playing with fire a bit there. I generally don't bait my traps . Just watch where to catch them in their own web .

As a child I learned the trick of touching a spider from beneath when they are laying out a single line . They scramble back up , gathering their silk so fast it balls them up good . Cruel I know , but I was a child and have since repented .

I look at it as more of giving them a way out so they do not have to mess with the paperwork of having to deal with me, warning sign e.t.c, here is your sign. Some mosquito traps kill them, but others like a couple plants I have repel them away without killing them, I put one at the front door and one at the back door, usually no problems throughout the summer of my wife getting bit near the camp anyway.

Anthony Joseph
05-20-11, 05:27 PM
That brings to mind an incident from several years ago.

Wife and I were in a caravan of cars one A.M. , all members of the Missouri Mycological Society , out for a foray. Hit a Police road block. Click it or Ticket thing, supposedly. Half a dozen patrol cars and upwards of 12 personnel. Two or three checking out the cars, peeping in windows. Getting ID’s from everyone. All very serious and authoritative.

When it was our turn the cop made his “Papers Please” request. I handed him the documents with a “This is for your benefit, not mine. May I help you ?” Cop was taken somewhat aback and waived off the other guys headed our way. He looked at the DL but not the other documents, and asked - “Mr. ( me ), where are you headed this morning ?” Responded - “Following them to ( whatever State Park we were going to ) for a mushroom hunt .” He handed back the documents with a “Have a nice day”. Never asked for the Wife’s ID.

Go figure .

I'm confused, I thought you wrote that you haven't had or used a DL in 14 years and yet you write here that several years ago you handed a cop a DL when requested. Also I'm confused that you positively answered to the "Mr. (me)" name on the card, which expresses trust and claim in that name, and the encounter ended in the manner you suggest.

Perhaps you can clarify for us further what transpired during that encounter as I am always interested in positive and uneventful roadside encounters while exercising the right of avoidance and inherent immunity.

Trust Guy
05-20-11, 08:26 PM
I look at it as more of giving them a way out so they do not have to mess with the paperwork of having to deal with me, warning sign e.t.c, here is your sign.

Fair enough .


I'm confused, I thought you wrote that you haven't had or used a DL in 14 years and yet you write here that several years ago you handed a cop a DL when requested. Also I'm confused that you positively answered to the "Mr. (me)" name on the card, which expresses trust and claim in that name, and the encounter ended in the manner you suggest.

Perhaps you can clarify for us further what transpired during that encounter as I am always interested in positive and uneventful roadside encounters while exercising the right of avoidance and inherent immunity.


Past tense Friend, I “ran” 14 years.

My Mother passed in the fall of 2006. She did not have a Will as everything was done to avoid probate, less executing a written trust. As eldest Son the Estate responsibilities fell to me. I simply could not function efficiently for the surviving family without a bank account and DL to expedite things. There was the property mortgage and outstanding debts to be settled . There were personal effects and stocks to be distributed . Matter of Necessity . The license period here is 6 years. I may well let it lapse again next year , I may take more affirmative action .

On the road block : I answered to “Mr. ( me )” because I had already expressed the documents were for his benefit, not mine. Everything on that card can be disputed in court readily enough , although bringing up the Trustee aspect of administrative proceedings usually puts the stopper in place . The car and insurance are not in my name, but he didn’t even look . I doubt the line Officer had a clue , but his body language said something got his attention or caught him off guard . No idea what it would be unless Missouri State Police have had some kind of training in the matter .

The rest of the encounter was as stated. That was it for my part. I did have time to observe several cars ahead in line being run . Every adult handed out ID . Every driver had theirs disappear into a patrol car for computer check . Was kind of an assembly line operation. Working 2 - 3 cars at a time on the busy rural highway . One Officer first, then two more . One to take the drivers info up to the computer car and one to talk to others in the car , if any , and do a walk around looking in windows and checking for seat belt use, beer cans , plates . Only need one plate hereabouts, although 2 are provided . Don’t even need to be on the bumper . At least when I last checked . Country folks , especially / farmer ranchers , can make plates unreadable in short order .

Forgot to mention there was no computer check on my DL either , like the travelers ahead. The two other Officers coming over were waived away, so Bunny did not get asked to provide ID , or even identify herself . When the line cleared we were waived on through .

Anthony Joseph
05-21-11, 02:49 AM
Past tense Friend, I “ran” 14 years.

My Mother passed in the fall of 2006. She did not have a Will as everything was done to avoid probate, less executing a written trust. As eldest Son the Estate responsibilities fell to me. I simply could not function efficiently for the surviving family without a bank account and DL to expedite things. There was the property mortgage and outstanding debts to be settled . There were personal effects and stocks to be distributed . Matter of Necessity . The license period here is 6 years. I may well let it lapse again next year , I may take more affirmative action .

On the road block : I answered to “Mr. ( me )” because I had already expressed the documents were for his benefit, not mine. Everything on that card can be disputed in court readily enough , although bringing up the Trustee aspect of administrative proceedings usually puts the stopper in place . The car and insurance are not in my name, but he didn’t even look . I doubt the line Officer had a clue , but his body language said something got his attention or caught him off guard . No idea what it would be unless Missouri State Police have had some kind of training in the matter .

The rest of the encounter was as stated. That was it for my part. I did have time to observe several cars ahead in line being run . Every adult handed out ID . Every driver had theirs disappear into a patrol car for computer check . Was kind of an assembly line operation. Working 2 - 3 cars at a time on the busy rural highway . One Officer first, then two more . One to take the drivers info up to the computer car and one to talk to others in the car , if any , and do a walk around looking in windows and checking for seat belt use, beer cans , plates . Only need one plate hereabouts, although 2 are provided . Don’t even need to be on the bumper . At least when I last checked . Country folks , especially / farmer ranchers , can make plates unreadable in short order .

Forgot to mention there was no computer check on my DL either , like the travelers ahead. The two other Officers coming over were waived away, so Bunny did not get asked to provide ID , or even identify herself . When the line cleared we were waived on through .

Thank you for the clarification.

I am still amazed that the mere statement, "This is for your benefit, not mine. May I help you ?" rendered and effected the response you shared with us. Good for you and perhaps I will add that verbiage to my statement to LEOs, "I do not present or offer you this DL card as identification but only for competency purposes". I see no harm in adding that speech as I agree with the premise and truth of it. I will be interested in the response I get when speaking those words in addition to what I usually declare.

Trust Guy
05-21-11, 11:27 AM
AJ,


I credit above all the Hand of Providence. My little prayer for safe passage my be routine, but it is still heart felt .

I have no idea why the reaction was such. Maybe he had been in court to watch a Trust and Benefit savvy individual the Judge wouldn't deal with. "I waive the Benefits and offer their return" , is also a pretty Proceeding stopping statement. What can a Judge do not to spill the beans that the pompously vaunted "Benefits of Law" have just been given up as quickly and easily as they attempt to get you to abandon your right / benefit against self incrimination ? ( contrived from Bill items I , IV & IX ) "Do you understand these rights?" no = aggravated cop / yes = waiver / silence is golden .

David Merrill
05-21-11, 02:27 PM
It is possible to construct elaborate mental models around our heritage. It is my hope that anybody reading can pick up the syllables of their true name, and their family surname, translate them into biblical Hebrew and get a "horoscope" reading and even interpret the numerical equivalent to find an insight into your purpose in Life that would inspire.

A great book about this is Eric Temple BELL's Numerology (1933). He wrote a comprehensive treatise about how many different constructs will fit patterns in our psychic archetypes. One feature of his book is the Beasting Parties that BELL would hold for the university mathematics students. BELL found it worth pondering that the students could always find a 666 equivalent for some acceptable variation of any student's name but Eric Temple BELL.

My own pattern (Planet Merrill if you will) seems anchored in reality in Milestone Park (http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3596/vanpeltmilestone.jpg), Brooklyn and connects to an annointing upon one of my ancestors by high Mason George WASHINGTON himself (http://www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/Town/Rambles/VanPelt6.html), right there at the Manor - which is not a true manor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Pelt_Manor) after all.


However, author Harold D. Eberlein states: "there never was a duly and legally constituted Van Pelt Manor and this appellation has no defense whatever on any historic grounds.

Therefore technically Van Pelt Manor has never been subjected properly to British Rule and Fealty.

I have described this in detail elsewhere in these forums but in a nutshell it describes a factual wet-ink perpetual inheritance (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg) and it is no surprise that there is a land plot preserved on the Van Pelt Manor lot for monument.


http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/48/milestoneparkplacard2s.jpg

Now I wonder how anybody would explain the 12' prison fence facing the public park?

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4132/milestonepark.jpg

The placard is located near the middle of the park on the right.




I am mentioning this because other people must have noticed similar things about themselves and their families, political histories and financial heritage; and their own objectives and behavior - I am sure. I feel that some of the seemingly subjective conjecture that people try attributing to divine intervention can be mapped out in a profound memory drawn into a double helix found in every one of our cells; a mathematical Fourier Transform of profundity.

Calling it divine providence or divine intervention is just like a technician claiming a background signal is noise, rather than everything. If pulling comprehensible patterns from the matrix is too much of a headache, we just tend to dismiss it as noise whereas if we would just go the extra mile to understand the mathematics a little - then we might find that the divine providence is much more reproducible (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDgzNjVhMjctZmNhNy00YTlmLWE0O TAtYzk2ZWIyY2U1Yjdj&hl=en_US) than we suspected.

The prime biblical example, for me anyway is that Daniel found his claim to fame as a prophet for a simple subtraction; figuring for Darius that it was time for the Jews to return to Israel from Jeremiah's Letter. Had Daniel not done the mathematics, it would seem that history may have completely forgotten the both of them.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Richard Earl
12-19-11, 08:01 PM
When are you moving in? :) Is the survey reduced down to the mere volume of the pole?

David Merrill
12-21-11, 02:35 AM
When are you moving in? :) Is the survey reduced down to the mere volume of the pole?


I have wondered about camping there for three days.