NO OFFENSE DAVID, AS YOUR A LONG STANDING BUDDY OF MINE.

BUT I DOUBT YOU CAN REFUTE THIS CASE LAW, AND THUS
THIS MAKES YOUR SAVING TO SUITORS CLAUSE A MOOT
POINT IN MORTMAIN LEGISLATION AND EQUITY.


Are you the "grantor" or beneficiary of the Trust? No. Under Grantor-Grantee Law....take a wild guess as to who is in control. And, since it is "their Posterity" that are the trustees....if you screw with "their best interest"; then you are a bad trustee/grantee and considered by the Grantor and Beneficiaries to be an absconding debtor...and the Grantor will un-Grant your Granted Civil Rights and toss you in for being a bad Trustee/Cow/Slave.


Citizens are subjects...period. No rights...only privileges granted by the President. Patrick Henry stated that once the Constitution was ratified that the Prez would have the powers of a King. What is it that you don't get about the word: King? He's an Emperor and if the Roman Emperor request or decrees that you die....then you're a dead man. This is not rocket science. ONE KEY...ONE DOOR. Did you see the MATRIX? THEY told you the truth.
You are a slave and the sooner you wake up to that fact the easier this is going to be for you.
The answer is in wiki

The Eleventh Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."

This means that the U.S. and all the "states" have sovereign immunity over citizens.

The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.[1]

They were telling you here that the "Federal Government" controlled the decision as to whether or not the States could be sued by citizens. It was a given that the U.S. (federal) Government could not be sued by citizens or the States...because the States agreed to become Suzerains under the Powers of the President and US Congress, while sitting at the Seat of Government. "While sitting" means "as long as the President allows them to sit".