Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 74

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

  1. #11
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    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/dynam...ine=1305477418
    -----------------------

    And you thought I was wordy.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    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. 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. [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. [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. 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 .

  3. #13
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust Guy View Post
    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, 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, [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?

  4. #14
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust Guy View Post
    Let me touch on Heraldry for a bit.


    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?

  5. #15
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust Guy View Post
    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/dynam...ine=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.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-15-11 at 09:10 PM.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    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. [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.

  8. #18
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust Guy View Post
    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. 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. [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. [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. 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]

    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 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&p...thkey=CLb_1dYN

  9. #19
    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.

  10. #20
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust Guy View Post
    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. [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".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •