PDA

View Full Version : Charter



Michael Joseph
07-15-11, 08:29 PM
CHARTER. A grant made by the sovereign either 1) to the whole people or 2) to a portion of them, securing to them the enjoyment of certain rights. Of the former kind is the late charter of France, which extended to the whole country; the charters which were granted to the different American colonies by the British government were charters of the latter species. 1 Story, Const. L. 161; 1 Bl. Com. 108 Encycl. Amer. Charte Constitutionelle.

COMMERCE, trade, contracts. The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. 2. Congress have power by the constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. 1 Kent. 431; Story on Corst. 1052, et seq. The sense in which the word commerce is used in the constitution seems not only to include traffic, but intercourse and navigation. Story, 1057; 9 Wheat. 190, 191, 215, 229; 1 Tuck. Bl. App. 249 to 252. Vide 17 John. R. 488; 4 John. Ch. R. 150; 6 John. Ch. R. 300; 1 Halst. R. 285; Id. 236; 3 Cowen R. 713; 12 Wheat. R. 419; 1 Brock. R. 423; 11 Pet. R. 102; 6 Cowen, R. 169; 3 Dana, R. 274; 6 Pet. R. 515; 13 S. & R. 205.

LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.


MJ Commentary: You know this Trust stuff is pretty boring stuff....funny though it seems to be the stuff that is running the entire globe.

PRODIGAL, civil law, persons. Prodigals were persons who, though of full age, were incapable of managing their affairs, and of the obligations which attended them, in consequence of their bad conduct, and for whom a curator was therefore appointed.

CURATOR, persons, contracts. One who has been legally appointed to take care of the interests of one who, on account of his youth, or defect of his understanding, or for some other cause, is unable to attend to them himself. [MJ adds also according to their ignorance]

2. There are curators ad bona, of property, who administer the estate of a minor, take care of his person, and intervene in all his contracts; curators ad litem, of suits, who assist the minor in courts of justice, and act as curator ad bona in cases where the interests of the curator are opposed to the interests of the minor. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 357 to 366. There are also curators of insane persons Id. art. 31; and of vacant successions and absent heirs. Id. art. 1105 to 1125.

3. The term curator is usually employed in the civil law, for that of guardian.


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

NORTH CAROLINA. The name of one of the original states of the United States of America. The territory which now forms this state was included in the grant made in 1663 by Charles II. to Lord Clarendon and others, of a much more extensive country. The boundaries were enlarged by a new charter granted by the same prince to the same proprietaries, in the year 1665. By this charter the proprietaries were authorized to make laws, with the assent of the freemen of the province or their delegates, and they were invested with various other powers. Being dissatisfied with the form of government, the proprietaries procured the celebrated John Locke to draw a plan of government for the colony, which was adopted and proved to be impracticable; it was highly exceptionable on account of its disregard of the principles of religious toleration and national liberty, which are now universally admitted. After a few years of unsuccessful operation it was abandoned. The colony had been settled at two points, one called the Northern and the other the Southern settlement, which were governed by separate legislatures. In 1729, the proprietaries surrendered their charter, when it became a royal province, and was governed by a commission and a form of government in substance similar to that established in other royal provinces. In 1732, the territory was divided, and the divisions assumed the names of North Carolina and South Carolina.

GRANT, conveyancing, concessio. ….the term comprehends everything that is granted or passed from one to another, and is applied to every species of property… [Property is Rights and Interests IN a THING.]

3. To render the grant effectual, the common law required the consent of the tenant of the land out of which the rent, or other incorporeal interest proceeded; and this was called attornment. (q. v.) It arose from the intimate alliance between the lord and vassal existing under the feudal tenures., The tenant could not alien [alien means to transfer] the feud without the consent of the lord, nor the lord part with his seigniory without the consent of the tenant. The necessity of attornment has been abolished in the United States. 4 Kent, Com. 479. He who makes the grant is called the grantor, and he to whom it is made the grantee. Vide Com. Dig. h. t.; 14 Vin. Ab. 27; Bac. Ab. h. t. 4 Kent, Com. 477; 2 Bl. Com. 317, 440; Perk. ch. 1; Touchs. c. 12; 8 Cowen's R. 36.

TENANT, estates. One who holds or possesses lands or tenements by any kind of title, either in fee, for life, for years, or at will. See 5 Mann. & Gr. 54; S. C. 44 Eng. C. L. Rep. 39; 5 Mann. & Gr. 112; Bouv. Inst. Index, h . t.

[Comments by MJ: Notice a Tenant is a Trustee How many deeds have you seen taken in JOINT TENANT's or TENANTS IN COMMON]

SEIGNIORY, Eng. law. The rights of a lord as such, IN lands. Swinb. 174.

MJ's Commentary: If you will open the attachment you will first see a SURVEY, then later comes a Grant.

shikamaru
07-15-11, 08:57 PM
The thing about charters is the King still retains an interest in that which is granted too.
A charter is somewhat akin to a servitude.

Michael Joseph
07-15-11, 09:48 PM
The thing about charters is the King still retains an interest in that which is granted too.
A charter is somewhat akin to a servitude.

Thank you. Someone who finally gets that the War did not bring about the DEMISE of the Grant.

shikamaru
07-15-11, 09:54 PM
Thank you. Someone who finally gets that the War did not bring about the DEMISE of the Grant.

Those land patents of the 13 original colonies still have the force and effect of law.

Michael Joseph
07-15-11, 10:46 PM
Those land patents of the 13 original colonies still have the force and effect of law.

Right! Lets go back to LAND...

LAND. This term comprehends any found, soil or earth whatsoever, as meadows, pastures, woods, waters, marshes, furze and heath. It has an indefinite extent upwards as well as downwards; therefore land, legally includes all houses and other buildings standing or built on it; and whatever is in a direct line between the surface and the centre of the earth, such as mines of metals and fossils. 1 Inst. 4 a; Wood's Inst. 120; 2 B1. Com. 18; 1 Cruise on Real Prop. 58.

Would you agree with me that a Grant is a Legal Construction? And therefore a Grant begs a Trustee.

Carolina Charter of 1663 (http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/154/entry/)

Example of CESTUI QUE USE (http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1666)

CESTUI QUE USE. He to whose use [“B”] land is granted to another person [“A”] the latter is called the terre-tenant, having in himself the legal property and possession; yet not to his own use, but to dispose of it according to the directions of the cestui que use, and to suffer [allow] him to take the profits. Vide Bac. Read. on Stat. of Uses, 303, 309, 310. 335, 349; 7 Com. Dig. 593.

Therefore the Original King's Subjects were Undertakers....as they strove to Settle a new thing for the Cestui Que Use [the King].

UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

SETTLEMENT, contracts. The conveyance of an estate, for the benefit of some person or persons.

Michael Joseph
07-17-11, 05:18 PM
Later....

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


Is not the "government of the United States" a Person?

Michael Joseph
07-17-11, 05:38 PM
Trustees in Commerce - Terre Tenant

581

Trust Guy
07-17-11, 08:09 PM
Trustees in Commerce - Terre Tenant

581
:) Michael , I am so happy to see you jump into this subject with both feet . And quite firmly , I might add .

David Merrill
07-18-11, 03:11 AM
Here is one Charter (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg).

shikamaru
07-18-11, 10:26 AM
Here is one Charter (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg).

That's some charter !!
That was granted by a company (corporation).

David Merrill
07-18-11, 02:12 PM
Yes indeed. It offers a perpetual inheritance. I am thirteenth son from Teunis Jansen Laenen VAN PELT who piloted the Red Tree Rosenbaum, with seventy-two souls to New Utrich (Manhattan). Interestingly the Van Pelt Manor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Pelt_Manor) evaded the trappings of the British manorial law:



Van Pelt Manor was an area in New Utrecht one of the Dutch towns in Brooklyn. Van Pelt Manor was originally owned by the descendants of Teunis Laenen van Pelt, an early Dutch settler. Some authors have written that Teunis Van Pelt was a "Patroon" who was granted manorial rights. Several other tracts of land in New York were designated as "manors', such as Pelham Manor and Livingston Manor. 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

After a fire in the '50s the stone remains were destroyed, the Milestone was preserved at the Brooklyn Historical Society and some of the estate was dedicated to public use as a park:


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

To the right there, remains my family Patroon monument:


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

The seriousness of the claim is reflected in the prison fence.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6489/milestoneparkmilestonem.jpg

Part of this is an annointing carried through the esoterics (http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3596/vanpeltmilestone.jpg) - who have born many different names; primarily Mason (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9579/templestonesmogandavid.jpg)/Illuminati/Merovingian/Order of Archelaus (by John the Baptist)... in this case. - A thinly disguised annointing (http://www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/Town/Rambles/VanPelt6.html) that took place on that very spot:


Litte Peter VAN PELT was on the end of the line, and he was the last boy to whom George Washington spoke; and to little Peter he looked very tall, as he came near to him and laid his hand on Peter's head.

"Be a good boy, my son," said Washington, "and you will be a good man."


Another interesting excursion is about this amicus curiae (http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8137/amicuscuriaefiled10thci.pdf), and the rule that it cannot be filed without leave of the court and consent by both parties - unless it comes from a territory, state (estate) or the AG:


http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8947/amicuscuriae5.jpg

In fact, that would be a Class 5 felony to use that Great Seal of Authority if not properly situated in affiliation (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8756/affiliations.jpg) with state business. Yet you see there; it is duly FILED. Right in front of people - justices of the Tenth Circuit (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2773/uscourthouse.jpg) - who are trained to understand the Charter.

More interestingly was when Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire was making an attempt to usurp James Timothy TURNER's pretended Presidency, he covered some of that same Masonic history about the Dutch East Indies Trading Company claim - Click Here (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMDhjZGRhODctMDdiOS00ODRmLTljN TMtZDAxNjQ2ZTFkMjJj&hl=en_US).


Regards,

David Merrill.
High Priest of the DEITI


[Dutch East Indies Trading Industry]

Trust Guy
07-18-11, 04:20 PM
Yes indeed. It offers a perpetual inheritance. I am thirteenth son from Teunis Jansen Laenen VAN PELT * * *

A distinguished lineage Sir , and valid Claim it seems .

Clip from :

The Dutch and the Patroons (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/rubenstein_stan_dutch_patroons.html)

[An essay included in an historical series published by the Henry George School of Social Science, New York, NY - 1967]

In 1664 the Dutch ceased to rule in New York for they were defeated by the English. The lords of the manor now took on proportions of a landed aristocracy. A footnote to the cessation of Dutch rule in New York was the recognition by the Duke of York of England of the validity of all titles granted by the Dutch Trading Company.

shikamaru
07-18-11, 05:46 PM
A distinguished lineage Sir , and valid Claim it seems .

Clip from :

The Dutch and the Patroons (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/rubenstein_stan_dutch_patroons.html)

[An essay included in an historical series published by the Henry George School of Social Science, New York, NY - 1967]

In 1664 the Dutch ceased to rule in New York for they were defeated by the English. The lords of the manor now took on proportions of a landed aristocracy. A footnote to the cessation of Dutch rule in New York was the recognition by the Duke of York of England of the validity of all titles granted by the Dutch Trading Company.


I will have to establish a claim and lineage by manufacturing it myself.

I'll be the settlor :).

Michael Joseph
07-18-11, 07:25 PM
That's some charter !!
That was granted by a company (corporation).

Sort of like "We the People" - an unincorporated corporation of men

Chisholm v. Georgia the opinions produced the following:

“To the Constitution of the United States, the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But even in that place, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves "SOVEREIGN" people of the United States. [MJ's Comments: Instead of "We the People of the United States"] But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”; and,

“No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”; and,


MJ's commentary: The Settlors are Sovereigns absent Subjects - via Grant from a Sovereign. The men and women remain British Subjects or citizens of America - as Tenants. The citizens are not set apart they are equal as fellow citizens in regard to class.

A TENANT begs a Trustee, Beneficiary and a Cestui Que Use.



DEVOLVED, pp. Rolled down; passed over to another.

Clearly, at Chisholm v. Georgia, the Sovereigns are “We the People” and those Signatories chose not to employ that term Sovereign [to themselves] probably, in my opinion, as to not awaken the consciousness of Yisra’el in regard to their former agreement codified with the Ever Living at 1st Samuel 8 in the 1611 King James Version referenced hereinbefore; and, clearly Chisholm v. George notices that the Sovereigns, the Signatories of the new Trust, [the] United States are in fact Sovereigns without Subjects and “have none to govern but themselves”; however, the ones who would come under the “Shade” of the new Trust [the] United States take the office of citizen and are equal in that office as fellow citizens as joint tenants; and, the citizens of America remain as subjects to the king of England as these never pledged anything, except maybe a pledge to a flag, and therefore never took the necessary steps to set themselves apart in this world;


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

Now consider the foregoing in Light of the New Deal. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=75174#axzz1SU9cpTtz)

The folks who Settled the New Trust - United States for [the] United States of America, pledged to themselves in their Declaration of Independence their lives, their fortunes, their honor...

Now look at a President giving notice of existing conditions and making an interesting Pledge indeed....

I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a New Deal for the American people. Let us all here assembled constitute ourselves prophets of a new order of competence and of courage. This is more than a political campaign; it is a call to arms. Give me your help, not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people.

APP Note: In the Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, this document is sub-titled, "I Pledge You—I Pledge Myself to a New Deal for the American People."


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

I find the foregoing extremely interesting in light of Trust. Did anyone utter a peep of protest or rebuttal? Therefore their "man king" pledged the people - fellow citizens, equal to themselves as joint tenants in the sovereignty - as security for the New Deal. Notice the capitalization? This New Deal is a new Trust with specific intent - to restore America to its own People.

I know I am not going to be well received by the following:

I think that the BRITAINIC MAJESTY has reclaimed her Colonies thru banking processes began long before the Revolutionary War. Look at the attached THE OREGON TREATY, 1846......look carefully at the Parties, there are many indeed.

1. The United States of America - style of the Condederacy
2. her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
3. President of [the] United States of America
4. President of the United States
5. government of the United States
6. United States government

Plenipotentiaries
1. Secretary of State of the United States - JAMES BUCHANAN
2. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States - RICHARD PAKENHAM

What did this Treaty do?

Create an International Government - no Boundary exists between the two parties - United States and Great Britain.

Michael Joseph
07-18-11, 08:13 PM
Here is one Charter (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg).

do you have articles I and II. I would love to read about "the Company".

David Merrill
07-18-11, 10:04 PM
A distinguished lineage Sir , and valid Claim it seems .

Clip from :

The Dutch and the Patroons (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/rubenstein_stan_dutch_patroons.html)

[An essay included in an historical series published by the Henry George School of Social Science, New York, NY - 1967]

In 1664 the Dutch ceased to rule in New York for they were defeated by the English. The lords of the manor now took on proportions of a landed aristocracy. A footnote to the cessation of Dutch rule in New York was the recognition by the Duke of York of England of the validity of all titles granted by the Dutch Trading Company.

Indeed, the claim and charter seems to have survived even while British troops have occupied the Van Pelt "Manor" during the Revolutionary War.



do you have articles I and II. I would love to read about "the Company".

Yes MJ;


Thanks for inquiring. I intended to get the entire package from the NY Public Library in Downloads before now. Here you go!


Freedoms and Exemptions (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/544/charteroffreedomsandexe.pdf). I have a great deal more that is specific to my family estate for Downloads when I get some time. I had an exciting thing happen today involving the Criminal Complaint form for federal prosecutions and the local DA's oath of office. I hope to get a thread going on that later today.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Michael Joseph
07-19-11, 09:47 PM
Freedoms and Exemptions (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/544/charteroffreedomsandexe.pdf). I have a great deal more that is specific to my family estate for Downloads when I get some time. I had an exciting thing happen today involving the Criminal Complaint form for federal prosecutions and the local DA's oath of office. I hope to get a thread going on that later today.



What is interesting to me is HOW THE DOCUMENT IS STYLED.

This document begs a former Grant. Meaning, who Granted Liberty to the WEST INDIA COMPANY [there goes that STYLE again] to be able to make a Grant upon a Society known as Patroon? Furthermore, it appears that the Grant expressed created a Cestui Que Use in the original Grantor making the Patroons Trustees in Terre-Tenant.

Trust Guy
07-19-11, 10:54 PM
According to the Yale-ie Avalon Project , their Charter was ;

Charter of the Dutch West India Company : 1621 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westind.asp)

Given under our Great Seal, and the Signature and Seal of our Recorder, at the Hague, on the third day of the month of June, in the year sixteen hundred and twenty one.

Was countersigned

J. MAGNUS, Secr.

Underneath was written,

The ordinance of the High and Mighty Lords the States General.

It was subscribed,

C. AERSSEN.
-------------------------------

Note : States General of the United Netherlands. The bicameral legislative Houses of United Netherlands.