Patroons of New York

I painted a picture for the Mormons recently. Get a look for a brief description of my family heritage.


Key to understanding how my heritage survived British Rule is the avoidance of British manorial law.

Quote:

---

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. In 1675, 1678 and 1680 considerable tracts of land were acquired by Teunis Van Pelt, the emigre, and added to what he already had previously.

---

Better than that I recognize a thinly veiled anointing:

Quote:

---

From the little school-house near VAN PELT Manor the school-chi1dren were hustled home for fresh linen and face-washings and hair-combings; and they were as quickly marched back, dressed in new clothes and company manners, for the great George Washington would pass their way. At last, after many anxious scannings of the road, they saw him riding toward the little school-house, and the children lined up and waited until he approached. 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."

---

To understand that my way though this photo of the Van Pelt Milestone in the Brooklyn Historical Society will help:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3...tmilestone.jpg

The encrypted story is there if you have the key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This is nearly direct to World Citizenship but I am taking this over to Patroons of New York. What you have shown me is that Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON may not have been talking about an improper quorum for New York, but rather an improper quorum for the States of the Union?

Rhode Island is missing all right! - And it says:

---

Yes. I had LIVINGSTON in mind. I've long had a sense of perhaps like a foreboding about the 1788 Constitution. The lack of quorum may have been also applicable to New York but primarily appears to be with respect to ratification of the Articles of Confederation. One thing that provided an interesting perspective was a comment by Rice MCLEOD about how certain Lenape/Delawares/Indians/Moors/Natives preferred peaceful co-existence with separate systems of law for the incoming Europeans and themselves (i.e. they were OK with them keeping their laws to themselves). Perhaps there were others who had the same viewpoint? So was the Constitution of 1788 maybe perhaps about creating a new system with the Treaty With the Delawares and the Ft. Staniwix treaties in the backdrop..the result -> two parallel systems? The Treaty of Paris and the Jay's Treaty give clear open door for preservation of pre-existing British claims. Could James MADISON have been aware of this and have exploited this?

In view of the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the topic of postliminy, the 1788 Constitution . Perhaps Jay's Treaty provides further insight.

Quote:

---

IX. It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.

X. Neither the debts due from individuals of the one nation to individuals of the other, nor shares, nor monies, which they may have in the public funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever in any event of war or national differences be sequestered or confiscated, it being unjust and impolitic that debts and engagements contracted and made by individuals having confidence in each other and in their respective Governments, should ever be destroyed or impaired by national authority on account of national differences and discontents.

---

Treaty of Paris parallels....

Quote:

---

Article 4:

It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.
....
Article 9: In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Yes. I had LIVINGSTON in mind. I've long had a sense of perhaps like a foreboding about the 1788 Constitution. The lack of quorum may have been also applicable to New York but primarily appears to be with respect to ratification of the Articles of Confederation. One thing that provided an interesting perspective was a comment by Rice MCLEOD about how certain Lenape/Delawares/Indians/Moors/Natives preferred peaceful co-existence with separate systems of law for the incoming Europeans and themselves (i.e. they were OK with them keeping their laws to themselves). Perhaps there were others who had the same viewpoint? So the Constitution of 1788 was perhaps about creating a new system with the Treaty With the Delawares and the Ft. Staniwix treaties in the backdrop..the result -> two parallel systems?


In view of the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the topic of postliminy, the 1788 Constitution . Perhaps Jay's Treaty provides further insight.

---

I have a little information on some of those but have never delved into them thoroughly. I am captivated by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix coming up in this context. I consider it the ceding of the entire USA to the US by praying on the ignorance of the Iroquois Federation's geography. In other words all lands west of an eastern seaboard river were given away. I have something around here (a thread) about the original scam being done by an attorney... I will link that when I find it.

I recall a child custody case I won and Dad was all hyped up that I cite the Jay Accord as we were into the Hague Convention already - Mom in Canada. I did so and he won custody and the local Supreme Court got all bent about it (notice the cure for SARS is a default judgment) but I did not pay enough attention to follow the model you are painting. A captivating model it is though!

http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._default_9.jpg

Very very interesting. I'd like to see how you cite the Jay Accord. I mention John/Jon Jay leading up to the fact that it was John Jay who gave the famous Chisolm decision.

Quote:

---

at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

---

Also, State v Manuel is more lucid, IMHO.

Quote:

---

“The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a 'subject of the king' is now 'a citizen of the State'.” [State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)]

---

What some fail to grasp is that, State v Manuel refers to: [1] sovereigns; [2] subjects (i.e. citizens of the State).

So I took some time to peruse some other links that you entered above.

Quote:

---

The history is thinly veiled but Van Pelt Manor was never a manor according to British law.

---

I perceive on some level that you already realize as profoundly if not morseo. To some it (the threat title and the discussion about the 1788 Constitution) might seem unrelated a discussion about avoidance of obligations under British manorial law. This and the discussion on the Constitution in many ways to the right of avoidance and also to refusal for cause. I recall an affidavit being served on the US Government concerning someone's status only to find that the IRS took to deleting and purging all records. Since 1993 or so, not a peep. The affidavit in a sense was a notice of refusal for cause and avoidance --a polite no thanks to USA personhood.

With regards to British or USA-ian manorial law, it might be relevant that I have formed trust companies without, say, the laws of the State of Georgia, but they are nonetheless no less trust companies than any other trust. Some might say "oh it wasn't legally formed under State of Georgia law" as if to deride or debase it. In fact, I would thank them for pointing that out that the trusts, unlike companies formed under the State of Georgia laws, did and do not owe their existence to the State of Georgia. I asserted that the people of Georgia had no more authority than I did to create things.

Clearly Van Pelt Manor did not need British law 'exist'. Now, that typed :) I've yet to get around to digesting the 1688 invasion. That should be... quite interesting.

Perhaps we have an interesting history of one group wanting to avoid the manorial law of others.

James Madison and co. wanting to avoid America Manorialism perhaps? America and Dutch-folk wanting to avoid British manorialism, etc.

Quote:

---

Royal Dutch Shell plc (LSE: RDSA, RDSB), commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo?Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands and with its registered office in London, United Kingdom.[2] It is the world's second largest company by 2011 revenues and one of the six oil and gas "supermajors". Shell is also one of the world's most valuable companies.[3] As of September 2012, its largest shareholder is BlackRock with 5% stake, while the Qatar Investment Authority has announced a plan to raise its stake from below 3% to 7%.[4]

---

Attachment 984

[ Royal Dutch Shell ]

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/bp-4.jpg

[ British Petroleum ]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/...c5dbeeeeac.jpg



[ Or

Thanks! I am throwing in some delicious Crosstalk:

Quote:

---

I believe that one's trust is easily seen in ones actions = implied trust. Now if one is applying Home Rule - the Government shall be upon His Shoulder - then one may peacefully enter upon the Court parting the sea with the Staff of a Melchizedok Priest - which is to say The Word of God. For my Claim is not in stuff - for ALL THINGS are Under Yehoshuah = The Word of God. For Yehovah said that the Melchizedok Priest will be Granted Right of Way before those that MINISTER to Him.



Pray Tell, did the Preamble declare a MINISTERIAL TRUST - IT DID! For it was ORDAINED.

---

The Law demanded Levite priests as Israel had affronted God with the Golden Calf idolatry. See Exodus 24:7 - the very last verse.

Therefore both Melchizedek and Levi are in authority to minister but Levi is under the authority of Melchizedek. The Seventy-Two Fold Name of God plays a major role here too. See Exodus 14:19-21 as these three verses are exactly 72 letters each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Pray Tell, did the Preamble declare a MINISTERIAL TRUST - IT DID! For it was ORDAINED.

---

I recall spending some time discussing in private with someone about the following words: ordain, appoint, annoint. You also have similar or related words like endue, deputize, nominate. A king or priest might be annointed. But a governor-general might be appointed. That they used ordain was no doubt intentional. The word ordain seems reminiscent of order...ordinance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

I recall spending some time discussing in private with someone about the following words: ordain, appoint, annoint. You also have similar or related words like endue, deputize, nominate. A king or priest might be annointed. But a governor-general might be appointed. That they used ordain was no doubt intentional. The word ordain seems reminiscent of order...ordinance.

---

I certainly enjoy linguistics and etymology of regular and ordinary too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I certainly enjoy linguistics and etymology of regular and ordinary too.

---

I enjoy linguistics as well. Maybe too much!

Also one of the first things I did when as part of getting 'my house in order', was to more formally establish a household in the sense of say "the House of Doe". The household is IMHO a government in and of itself of a superior order to say the State of Georgia. Were there attempts to vitiate the framework of my household, yes has proved quite costly for those who conspired to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Also one of the first things I did when as part of getting 'my house in order', was to more formally establish a household in the sense of say "the House of Doe". The household is IMHO a government in and of itself of a superior order to say the State of Georgia. Were there attempts to vitiate the framework of my household, yes has proved quite costly for those who conspired to do so.

---

I am glad to hear that, both of you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

...I am captivated by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix coming up in this context.....

---

The Treaty of Fort Stanwix appears to have a more direct link to the establishment of a territorial government for the United States of America. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 itself appears to be a kind of constitution.

I probably mentioned this on Page 1.


http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/1...tanwixpete.jpg

The protections of the natives in the Northwest Ordinance seem commensurate with a good spirited conference and relationship between the Iroquois (Moors) Confederation and the states of America. One theme worth noting is the push for a centralized territorial government--this seems missed by most all historians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

The protections of the natives in the Northwest Ordinance seem commensurate with a good spirited conference and relationship between the Iroquois (Moors) Confederation and the states of America. One theme worth noting is the push for a centralized territorial government--this seems missed by most all historians.

---

Okay...

Now you got me wondering.

From Article III of the Northwest Ordinance:

Quote:

---

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall, from time to time, be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

---

Thank you Allodial.

That is what has struck me so typical about Richard PETERS Esquire. He cajoled the consent in ignorance for the Iroquois Federation to grant America to the US government.

Underlying the survey however from 1629 through municipal jurisdiction we find the perpetual inheritance.

What is also pertinent is the frequent lack of just or lawful war with respect to treatment of the Moors/Indigenous/Indians especially after the Civil War. Even the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this. What is also interesting is what appears to have been a wide-spread (understatement) presumption of 'membership in a tribe' or even a presumption of a 'monolithic tribe' when it was known that membership in a tribe wasn't necessarily required. Again similarly we have fixations on tribes, states--'political entities' rather than living souls. This points at a more widespread kind of juristic 'Dink complex' (i.e. replace 'resident' with 'dink')? What a gambit. Furthermore, the British subjects or US-ians that disobeyed laws due to thirsting after land speculation were with respect to their offices as citizens or residents were wholly ultra vires. Its interesting the two-edge sword or is it a cleaver?: (i) the rogues that break the laws and make the lawful state actors look bad; (ii) state actors that break laws based on mere presumption (juristic dink complex 'presumption of residence', et. al.) Its interesting perspective if one looks from the view of the sovereign that has to keep peace.

And so points to: refusal for cause, rebuttal, wielding your voice (which can be a type of 'shofar' I was once told).

Did you say you have been to the Hague???? and WON????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by looking for truth

Did you say you have been to the Hague???? and WON????

---

I apologize for being so busy elsewhere lately.

I have not been to the Hague. I served the Hague the BoE (by extension - serving the UN-NY) with the Charter cited on it.