Upper Tier
Survey - first
Claim - second
Rights are obtained thru the Claim.
Superior Trustee
Those Rights are Placed into Trust and the Trustees own the Legal Title for the benefit of some class.
Ownership of the Rights rests in the Superior Trustee
------
Tangent: Rights of Use is a term which means Property. A collection of property is called an Estate.
------
Inferior Trustee
Rights of Use OF the Rights held by the Superior Trustee are held by the Inferior Trustee.
Really one may say said Rights of Use are possessed of said Inferior Trustee - called a Terre Tenant.
So we see that the Inferior Trustee possesses the Rights of Use or Property and you could say said Trustee holds the Rights of Use for the benefit of himself and his heirs and/or assigns. As we can see it is Impossible for the Inferior Trustee to sell, assign, convey, bargain or grant the original Right as said Inferior Trustee does not hold the Legal Title.
In fact, we can see that the Inferior Trustee is in himself a part of a larger trust structure called Society in a Public Trust. As such, we can see that the Inferior Trustee holds the Rights of Use [property] for the benefit of himself and his heirs and/or assigns but also Society as well. For man is not an island unto himself. It is not good for the man to be alone.
So it can be said that the one who holds the capacity of Inferior Trustee also holds the Equitable Title [for himself and his heirs and/or assigns - a class]
and it can be said that he has the beneficial interest in the Rights of Use of the Superior Right.
Therefore Ownership must be framed properly for at the Superior Right level the Trustee Owns the Right for the benefit a class of beneficiaries. And we can see at the Inferior Trustee level Property is Owned for the benefit a class of beneficiaries.
The distinction is between Ownership of the Right and Ownership of Property. Therefore in the Superior Trustee is vested Ownership of the Right and in the Inferior Trustee is vested Ownership of the "Right of Use of the Right" which is a way of saying property derived of the Right.
FOR EXAMPLE: If the Right obtained in Claim is in Land, then a Right of Use of the Land might be Residential, Commercial, Agricultural, Religious, etc., etc.
The Inferior Trustee would then own a Residential Estate. If you look at your Trust Indenture typically called a Warranty Deed we see a Grantor and a Grantee. As such we find the Estate is sold and not the Right in Land. And we see the Land is leased which in times past was called a "quit rent". This is commonly today called a property tax. See now? The terre-trustee is paying for the ability to make a Use of the Property. Which is another way of saying the terre-trustee is using the Right of Use of Land. Whereby in the foregoing example, the Right of Use is Residential.
Residential Estates are bought and sold all the time, and ownership of said estate is NOT ownership in the Land. The terre-trustee is allowed to use the estate and to provide maintenance for the estate and for that consideration is allowed to take profits and avails from the sale or rent of the estate.
Nevertheless, the estate being in Residential in no way allows the user to alienate the Rights in Land. So it can be said that one has an allodial estate in fee simple. But it cannot be said that one has allodial Rights unless one is holding the Rights of the original Claim. In medieval times the ones who held the Rights in Land were often clothed in Royalty - as Earls, Dukes, Barons, Lords, etc, etc.
If one considers carefully how the plantation called the Carolinas was originally setup - we see Earl Granville and Lord Carteret clothed in Rights. See attached.
So to your question, and according to your analogy, the 10 percent which is the Ownership of the Right is in the Superior Trustee, the 90 percent which is in the Inferior Trustee is in the Rights of Use of said Right. We can see an Inferior Trust for we can see that Rights of Use is property and property begs an Estate.
Tangent: It is wonderful and frightful to see so many people awakening out of their sleep. I say frightful because one of the first emotions one goes thru when one realizes the methods of control is anger. Also, there are many who don't comprehend the subtle nature of the trust and estate and as such, in desiring to own everything, have they not considered their latter end? How will they keep from gun fights in the streets? Greed blinds the eye to the possibility of society.
I was speaking with a friend yesterday and we were discussing some of the early settlements in Pennsylvania. Families settled in the valleys and worked together to form society. These families were close-knit and as such, they all were invested in the success of the whole. As such, they worked together to help each other for if too many failed, then they would all fail. That society is built upon the foundation of the family and more specifically the male and the female working the field together. Creation requires a male and a female. And as we look around who cannot see the efforts to destroy family? In this fragmentation of society, we can see that no longer are societies close-knit and personal. Rather societies are run by impersonal departments / officers of which said society turns a blind eye until problems come a-knocking at the individuals door.
I went off on this seemingly unconnected tangent to develop the idea that in Society sometimes Rights are surrendered to a higher power so that peace may be obtained. What I mean is that while many today are awakening to anger and greed as we see this manifest in the onslaught of folks who are desirous to own everything not subject to anyone or anybody, I don't think these have truly considered their latter end. Do they really desire to return to shooting each other in the streets? Not to propagate fear, but I have traveled extensively in the world and I have seen places in the world where the ignorant rule due to their strength and ability to use violence. Heck, just take a walk down to your closest public school and observe.
I suppose we are indeed looking for middle ground. And I think the State is a beautiful creation and can operate wonderfully if we can work to consider each other first. Isn't that the "golden rule"? Do unto others, as we would have done to ourselves?
Basically, I think that Love might be the first step but latter in maturation, we can see Love married to Faith. For we now see the Man and Woman married [Leadership and Citizen] in Holy Matrimony Under God. I will grant it seems impossible but then again, someone has to sound the trumpet. Can it be possible that we might come to Unity in terms of a plurality in Church. I think the cultures and societies formed around the world are beautiful and I would hate to see them destroyed by some political goal based on monetary gain for Oneism. Maybe it is an impossible dream, I admit I do not see the end in sight - but I can see that many are working on a counterfeit means to obtain said dream. And I think the first weapon of choice will be the economy which attacks the flesh and thus what seemingly is what man desires most in the world.
Who is this usurper entered into the Love Feast of Man and Wife [Leadership and Citizen]? The bank? How did the bank enter - save thru lust? What was the "fruit" save born upon the sexual waters of desire?
Is not selfishness a horrible stink?