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 .