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

[Trust Guy]

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. [L. populus.]

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

PERSON, n. 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]

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.

north carolina land patent.pdf

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]

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?

[Trust Guy]

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.

[motla68]

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