I did not write the following; however, I think it speaks to the issue at hand. The man who wrote this has accomplished remedy because he does what he says and is consistent.

================================================== ================================================== ============================
Thomas Jefferson



"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, .....



'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' . . .."



"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead;



This here would seem to explain why the word "usufruct" is so powerful when spoken in the courts where it has an effect equal to that of a priest throwing holy water on a demon or that equal to garlic or a cross being put before a vampire.



The word "usufruct" itself pertains solely to the LIVING and NOT to the DEAD! And the courts can only see and recognize the DEAD, such as artificial entities like "persons."



I have had a few people say that what I have done by recording the release of claim and interest to the name and having unconditionally surrendered all claims and interest to the United States as usufructary, that they believe I have actually given up my right to my estate.



Well there are two flaws in their belief.



One, they seem to believe that the State can somehow magically hold your living estate in trust. The State is merely a fiction and no fiction can hold nor control anything that is real pertaining to anything that is life and living. It can only hold what is also just fiction. What I am saying here is that any interests being held by the Name Estate is all just artificial property that was created on paper that has no real attachment to anything that is real. That paper merely gives an illusion as if attaches to real property. The only attachment between fiction and reality is merely one's own belief that comes from their mind, but is not reality. So in this respect I gave up nothing that exist within the living world. I merely surrendered all claims and interest in what only exist within the DEAD world that pertains solely to anything that is artificial, and not real!



Two, let us just ASSUME here that the State which is a fiction actually could hold anything real that pertains to the living where the State could hold that in a trust, such as the artificial entity Name Estate? Even "IF" this could be the case I still did not give up anything real pertaining to the real world that was given to me by the Creator as might right of dominion over it. The key word these few people appear to miss here is "usufructary."



The surrender to everything was made to the United States as USUFRUCTARY, which means even "IF" that artificial entity could hold my real living estate in trust, this surrender only establishes the United States as being the entity holding everything in trust where that entity is the usufructary that is liable for settling all claims and dues on behalf of that Name Estate where it is merely acknowledged that everything is held in trust by the United States and that entity is the usufructary responsible for settling everything out of that estate.



It would be equal to the same thing as what the signatories on the Declaration of Independence did where they all pledged everything into that trust. By unconditionally surrendering all to the United States as USUFRUCTARY you have pledged everything into that trust to be held in that Name Estate where by everything being pledged into that entity all claims must be settled out of that estate by a trustee of that estate which can only be a "public/State Official" serving the State as an elected or appointed official or an authorized employee of any agency of that government entity.



So either way the result remains the same where everything whether real or artificial is all pledged into that trust where nothing is claimed by me as being mine where I cannot be held liable for that Name I use.













Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution, The Stewardship Doctrine:

II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their Contemporaries

B. Generational Sovereignty and the Land – The Earth as Tenancy-in-Common - Thomas Jefferson's Usufruct


The most succinct, systematic treatment of intergenerational principles left to us by the founders is that which was provided by Thomas Jefferson in his famous September 6,1789 letter to James Madison. f116 The letter was Jefferson's final installment in a two year correspondence with Madison on the proposed Bill of Rights. f117 Given the importance of this letter as background material for the bill of rights, f118 and its independent value as a brilliant statement of intergenerational equity principles, it serves as the natural starting point for a discussion of the founders' views on specific intergenerational issues.

Jefferson begins his letter by asserting that:

"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' . . .." f119

Since Jefferson explicitly bases his entire philosophy regarding generational relations upon this "self-evident" principle, f120 it behooves us to examine closely the precise language employed to express the principle. Of most importance is the single word: usufruct.

The legal concept of usufruct can be traced back at least as far as ancient Roman law f121 and has changed little over the centuries. In Jefferson's time, as now, "usufruct" referred to "the right to make all the use and profit of a thing that can be made without injuring the substance of the thing itself." f122 It was a term used to describe the rights and responsibilities of tenants, trustees, or other parties temporarily entrusted with the use of an asset -- usually land. f123

Under the common law, the doctrine of usufruct is closely conjoined with the doctrine prohibiting waste, defined by Blackstone as "a spoil or destruction in houses, gardens, trees, or other corporeal hereditaments, to the disheison of him that hath the remainder or reversion." f124 Taken together, these two doctrines provide that a tenant (or other caretaker / interest holder) is entitled to the beneficial use of the land and its fruits, but is prohibited from prejudicing future interest bearers by using the land in a way that destroys or impairs its essential character or long term productivity. f125

Jefferson's philosophy that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living at least partially reiterates the biblical/Lockean paradigm of the earth as intergenerational commons, the fruits and benefits of which should be accessible to every member of every generation. f126 He takes the position that no landholder has a natural right to control the land or dispose of it after his or her death. The land is entailed to the larger society; it reverts to the larger society upon the holder's death. Society may choose to pass the land on to beneficiaries or assignees chosen by the original landholder, but there is nothing in natural law which requires this. "By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or moveable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it." f127

Society, as trustee of the earth, reasonably expects the natural estate to be returned undiminished at the end of each landholder's tenure. Jefferson maintains that each individual, and each generation collectively, has the obligation to pass on his, her, or its natural estate undiminished and unencumbered to later generations:

"... [N]o man can by natural right, oblige lands he occupied... to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead rather than the living, which would be the reverse of our principal. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." f128

For Jefferson, "eating up the usufruct" means extinguishing the next generation's ability to share equitably in the benefits of a natural resource. No individual or society has authority to cause such extinction, whatever personal or collective rights they may allege. f129


it continues