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

[David Merrill]

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.

[Trust Guy]

Bill -- Think-- Bill of Fare -- Bill -- Think -- Bill of Lading1. 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

[motla68]

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&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxLUZd1PWAf2NGRhZjJkOTctYzU1Ny00Y2I0LWFkYzctYmQ3ODhmOTkwODlk&hl=en&authkey=CLb_1dYN

[David Merrill]

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.

[motla68]

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".

[motla68]

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.

Your intellectual property, where have you been given specific permission to posses Bill of Rights as your property or to grant it to someone else?

Certificate of Title is just evidence that a original title(survey) exists somewhere, the only evidence of where that exists is the seals upon the COT.

[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.

[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?

[David Merrill]

Your intellectual property, where have you been given specific permission to posses Bill of Rights as your property or to grant it to someone else?

Certificate of Title is just evidence that a original title(survey) exists somewhere, the only evidence of where that exists is the seals upon the COT.

By accepting them (the Bill of Rights) for value.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMmI3MDgyZmUtMzZjOS00MzM5LWJlMTEtZGUyZWI4YTI5NTIw&hl=en

[motla68]

By accepting them (the Bill of Rights) for value.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1E...YTI5NTIw&hl=en

Thank you, I had heard of someone doing this before, but had forgotten about it. Somewhat of a dot connector, part of that oath being Ecclesiastical and of MJ's find of the Gutenburg deposit into trust via incun. as well as the connection with the ecclesiastical statement on the currency.

Putting more thoughts together from previous scripture quoted:

Psalms 99:4 The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish equity, thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob.

adding on the next verse another thought mj might be able to expand upon:
Psalms 99:5 Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.

Mark 12:41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

The lineage seems to carry on from ecclesiastical symbolism through the King's tradition as having the " seat " of government, and most likely thought as guardian over treasury.

Now for this story further down in Mark about the old woman who deposited all of her living, how do you suppose her expenses for life, liberty and happiness were taken care of after that?

Mark 12:44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

[David Merrill]

This post, that post and this one too might best be read together and given some thought for a Mosaic about current events. - Like as of today according to GEITHNER.

I am the Thirteenth Son on a wet ink perpetual inheritance.


The point being a resulting trust has formed by the US Government gambling on American homeowners going into foreclosure - starting today with GEITHNER offering mortgage-based securities for sale.

[Trust Guy]

Document starts with We the People.

I invite you all do your own quick study on the pertinent words.

this Constitution for the United States of America

[motla68]

his Constitution for the United States of America

Yes, lets look at these words at face value. It does not say men and women, it says for the U.S. of A in trust. Who is your trust in?

I would have felt a little better about it if it would have said: "Constitution for Man in the Providence" , why not? The United Nations is in New York, all of the shipping ports are sold out, china owns a good portion of the debts, basically the capital of the world here, what would be the difference?

A man cannot have 2 masters, he will love the one and hate the other. So on this premise does this Constitution have anything do do with us without our consent?

Disparata Non Debent Jungi.

[David Merrill]

Yes, lets look at these words at face value. It does not say men and women, it says for the U.S. of A in trust. Who is your trust in?

I would have felt a little better about it if it would have said: "Constitution for Man in the Providence" , why not? The United Nations is in New York, all of the shipping ports are sold out, china owns a good portion of the debts, basically the capital of the world here, what would be the difference?

A man cannot have 2 masters, he will love the one and hate the other. So on this premise does this Constitution have anything do do with us without our consent?

Disparata Non Debent Jungi.

You speak of the servants who sign oaths of office, or otherwise accept their appointment (accept a job).

The People of the Preamble are not among them. We do not trust in the USA.