The Constitution is a Trust Instrument :
#1
[Image: xRvAgDe.png]


It Established a Perpetual Estate based on as much as 1 , 500 Years of British Common Law experience .

In It 's time , there was nothing New about it , except the Political Body it Acknowledged , We The People . And the Application of Trust Law for Benefit of the Common People . Prior Use for the Privileged Nobles and developing Elites alone .

Key lies in recognizing the Preamble as a Statement of Trust and as a Transfer Deed . " A Conveys Black Acre to B , His Heirs and Assigns forever "

It is My intention and hope to explain this Document in the simplest terms possible . Let 's start by outlining the Preamble for what it is .


[Image: 5ol7muv.jpg]



.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
Like Reply
#2
An Introduction 

The constitution granted the government power to administrate and carry on Corporate functions. Under the Common Law. Inherent Rights cannot devolve to a "body politic" through a corporation. Rights only devolve to human beings (as a body politic) through and by way of a "Trust".

Under Constitutional law in order to determine the meaning of a written instrument a court must look to the title. In our case it is the Preamble. The Preamble clearly shows a Freehold / feesimple absolute in it. (Pursuant to the Laws of Real Property that have been in existence since day one.) Freeholds/feesimples were instruments of Trust not corporate. Since it states "our posterity" it cannot be speaking of a corporate entity as posterity only can mean a human being by birth.

The posterity or heirs cannot be defined as it would invalidate the meaning of a freehold/ feesimple absolute. When the 14 Amendment was invoked in 1868 it was still valid under the laws of Real property. (whether or not it was legally ratified or not) it established a trust of a different nature. ( no one can defeat it because the subject has never been brought up). It was still a Freehold but with the ability to be changed and lessened under the laws of Real Property. This is because it defines the heirs as those subject to the jurisdiction of the congress.

Now you may say, how can this be. Go back to the fact that Rights cannot devolve to a body politic by way of corporation, but the freehold in the 14 th Amendment can be lessened piece by piece because its workings are subject to the Jurisdiction of the congress. After time, it no longer is a Freehold but an estate of Tenancy. All of America has been reduced to this Tenancy and no one can understand what has happened to the Rights they were told they had.

Since early on in the 1900s people were told they were receiving "Equality" but never told equal to what. The 14th Amendment Freehold was supposed to be "Equal" to the Preamble Freehold and so it was for approximately 30-40 years. People forgot the civil war, they forgot the 11 southern states that were denied their equal footing and thrown out of the legislature. The United states of America was overthrown in 1868 and a new form of government put in its place. No one ever noticed because they had forgotten that the founding fathers fought for Inherent Rights not taxation without representation.

The government states that the Constitution is a grant of power and that is correct, but  to perform corporate functions, which is the Office of Profit, everyone misses the Key words in the document like "office of Trust" along with that office of profit.  No one seems to see it, as if it is invisible and has no meaning, but IT is the creator. No one invokes the common law because the laws established under the 14th amendment are not common law, but they cannot be in conflict with  it, and they aren't. People do not know who they are and where they came from, why they are here, and where their Rights come from.  The Amendments are a restatement of rights but under the 14th amendment they are ONLY a codicil that changes the intentions of the founding fathers. Thus Civil Rights.

To invoke the common law one must ask the administrators which office they represent (office of trust or office of profit), inform them they are trustees of the trust you are a beneficiary/legatee/heir of, tell them where the Trust resides,  inform them that Rights do not devolve through an office of profit, that they would be in breach of trust if they continue to follow their proceedings as is,  and that as an Heir you are invoking the Common Law of England as it stands in this country.

Under Constitutional Law a court, Any court, MUST look toward the Trust first and make determinations from that  point , not statutory law.

Bunny


.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
[-] The following 16 users Like Heir's post:
  • , Apache54, Arkan_Ted, ASOG, Cedar, DaDa, DaJavoo, Goldilocks, HomelessPatriot, Librarian, MinnieTheMoocher, PickleSnout, PresidentElectSquirrel, rikster111, Sami aka Roxi, Wingsprint
Like Reply
#3
What's This All About


What we are dealing with at base is; what sort of document is this "Constitution" and what Law was it constructed in accordance with?

It was constructed in accordance with English Common Law. More specifically those laws established concerning Decent and Distribution The Statute of Uses, Statute Against Perpetuities, Statute on Trusts and others, ALL having to do with Estates and Inheritance matters.

What needed to be addressed is how the new Body Politic divided up the spoils of war. Among those spoils were well recognized "Rights" of Englishmen. From the basic Rights afforded every Free Englishman to the highest exclusive power of the Royal Family, it all needed to be distributed among the victors.

All these Rights were recognized as inheritable property. Personal Property Owned by the individual and passed on to their Heirs at death.

Problem, how to pass the Rights, Titles and Duties of an individual ( King and Nobles ) on to a body politic. The answer is via Trust.

The Constitution established an Estate in trust for the "Posterity". What is lost is Trustworthy Trustees of the Estate. The "elected" office holders are operating exclusively in their capacity of Office of Profit, having long forsaken their Office of Trust.

Yes.

The Constitution is a Trust document, establishing an equitable interest in, and asset management for, specific inheritable Personal Property, comprised of everything the Crown lost in the War for Independence.

The personal property in question included the lands in America and the special Rights and Privileges of the Royal and Noble families. The Body Politic could not, individually own some of the Kings Royal Prerogatives.

Example : It would be foolish for me to declare war on Canada or appoint an Ambassador to Italy.

On the other hand there are certain Sovereign Privileges which a single Sovereign should exercise.

Example : The Lord must have his Revenue.

Translate : No taxes on personal wages or gains. Period.


.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
[-] The following 14 users Like Heir's post:
  • , Apache54, Arkan_Ted, ASOG, Cedar, DaDa, DaJavoo, Goldilocks, HomelessPatriot, Librarian, MinnieTheMoocher, PickleSnout, PresidentElectSquirrel, rikster111
Like Reply
#4
The Preamble as a Trust Instrument


I don't think many if any of us have looked upon the Preamble as a writing establishing a trust, and if we have, the full legal meaning has never really struck home. Blacks Law 5th Edition defines "trust" as:

"A right of property real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another. A Confidence reposed in one person, who is termed trustee, for the benefit of another who is called Cestui Que Trust (Beneficiary) respecting property which is held by the trustee for the benefit of the Cestui Que trust. Any arrangement whereby property is transferred with intention that it be administered by trustee for another's benefit.

The written history of Trusts or Uses go back to Biblical times. Our particular laws regarding them were derived from English Law and the Restatement of Trusts. The "restatement" is simply a restatement of the English "Use" Statutes.

Restatement, Second Trusts Sec. 2 . . is a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, subject in the person by whom title to the property is held to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit of another person which arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it.

Does not our Constitution hold certain rights in trust for us to be used exclusively by us? This is property. Rights are property, Rights are corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments. The Trustees are the Legislators, they were "granted" authority to maintain the Trust. The Trustees were also granted the authority to make money to maintain the Res in proper condition. They were not granted the Authority to Change the Intent of the Original Trust, except by written change. That is what the 14th Amendment did. It created a new trust and trust res. It created a new Estate.

How do I recognize the Preamble and Constitution as a Trust? Let us look first at the requisites of an Express Trust.

1. It must have a competent settlor and trustee.

2. It must have an ascertainable Trust Res.

3. It must show sufficiently certain beneficiaries.

4. A trust comes into being only upon execution of an intention to create it by the parties having legal and equitable control of the subject matter of the trust.

Does the Preamble and Constitution show a competent settlor and define the trustees? Yes it does. The settlor is established as "We the People". And the body of the constitution, (Articles) establishes the trustees and their duties.

Does the Preamble and Constitution ascertain the trust res being passed on?(10) Absolutely. "The Blessings of Liberty". Keep in mind the founding fathers had already defined the meaning of liberty prior to the establishment of the Constitution. If you require someone else to tell you what your liberties are and define them for you, then YOU ARE NOT FREE.(11)

Does the Preamble show sufficient, certain beneficiaries? Absolutely! To "ourselves and our Posterity".

Did the founding fathers have equitable control of the subject matter discussed in the Preamble and Constitution? Absolutely!

Does the Preamble state an intention (12) for which the document was created. It certainly does. "In Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, Insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Does it show an intention to manifest? Yes. "Do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America" In just a few words the Founding Fathers created a document of immense meaning.

An express trust or as they sometimes are called are "direct" trusts and are those trusts INTENTIONALLY created by the direct and positive act of the settlor by some WRITING, deed, OR WILL, or oral declaration.(13)

The Founding Fathers were not ignorant farmers, they were highly educated. They knew about Uses, Trusts, Hereditaments, Conveyances, Fraud, Uses, and Wills. In that day and age it was a requirement to know Latin and Greek to enter a College of higher learning.(14)And they knew these languages at an early age. Their legal knowledge was implemented in the making of the Constitution. Why? Fraud, the founders did not want to commit fraud any more than we would and their writings were legal under the Statute of Frauds.

Can you see the Statutes of Henry VII, Elizabeth I and Charles II in the following American Laws?

"A writing not intended specifically by the parties to be used as an actual memorandum of trust, may never the less, be sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds" Restatement, Trusts 2d sec. 47.

"A typical provision of the Statute of Frauds is that a writing required to create or manifest a trust be signed by the parties creating or declaring the trust."

"A Memorandum is sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, it sets forth with reasonable degree of definiteness the trust property, the beneficiaries and the purposes of the Trust", Restatement 2d section 46.

Do you see that the Preamble qualifies under even the last quotation. Do you think George and the rest of the good ole boys wanted to be caught at FRAUD? Absolutely not! The Constitution was created in the form of a trust so as to stand under the Construction of documents and under the laws of the day. This document was not just thrown together without forethought and without complete knowledge of the then existing laws.

Just because the Preamble is called Preamble and not Trust does not mean it changes the character of the document. "The Test is not what the instrument is called but what the person executing it designed to have it accomplish".(15)
____________________________________________________
Footnotes :

10. Trust res: The property of which the trust consists.

11. Freedom does not mean unrestraint, nor lawlessness. To the contrary, with true freedom comes heavy responsibilities, moral and ethical responsibilities. I do not condone blatant injury, disregard or disrespect for someone else or their property.

12. The cardinal rule of construction is, of course, to determine the intention of the parties, where such a creation is a bilateral matter. Colton v Colton 127 US 300, 32 L Ed 138, 8 S Ct 1164.

13. 76 American Jurisprudence 2d section 15

14. The AVERAGE reading ability of a normal person, at the time the constitution was created, was equivalent to 17 years of formal education. Today's average reading ability is 7 years of formal education. The founding fathers had a formal education equivalent to a masters degree. They did not sit around the "tube" all night, they read and stimulated their minds with knowledge.

15. 79 American Jurisprudence 2d Wills, Section 24


.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
[-] The following 15 users Like Heir's post:
  • , Apache54, Arkan_Ted, ASOG, Cedar, DaJavoo, DeepSouthLady, FlyoverCountry, Goldilocks, HomelessPatriot, Librarian, MinnieTheMoocher, PickleSnout, PresidentElectSquirrel, rikster111
Like Reply
#5
[Image: giphy2.gif]

Time to remind the thievin' bastards in Congress and fat asses in all levels of gov for whom they work.

Thanks for postin' @Heir
[Image: qHzIQOs.png] [Image: Flag_of_Georgia_US_state.gif]
[-] The following 10 users Like DaJavoo's post:
  • , Apache54, Cedar, Goldilocks, Heir, HomelessPatriot, Librarian, PresidentElectSquirrel, rikster111, Wingsprint
Like Reply
#6
Thanks @DaJavoo . My pleasure I assure You .

14 Parts in total so may take a while to get everything up .

Any Questions welcome at any time .


.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
[-] The following 9 users Like Heir's post:
  • Apache54, Cedar, DaJavoo, DeepSouthLady, Goldilocks, HomelessPatriot, Librarian, MinnieTheMoocher, PresidentElectSquirrel
Like Reply
#7
Inheritable Property


Rights are Personal Property inheritable by descent. Incorporeal Hereditaments

INCORPO'REAL , a. [L. incorporalis, incorporeus.]

Not consisting of matter; not having a material body; immaterial. Spirits are deemed incorporeal substances.


HEREDIT'AMENT , n. [L. haeres, haeredium. See Heir.]

Any species of property that may be inherited; lands, tenements, any thing corporeal or incorporeal, real, personal or mixed, that may descend to an heir.

A corporeal hereditament is visible and tangible; an incorporeal hereditament is an ideal right, existing in contemplation of law, issuing out of substantial corporeal property.


Personal Property may only devolve to a Body Politic via Trust.

The Framers were dealing with forming a new Body Politic.

The War for Independence won not only the Lands and other Tangible / Corporeal Properties of the Crown in the New World, but also the Intangible / Incorporeal Rights of the Crown and all levels of Nobility under the Crown.

Before we get too far, allow me to address the only two dissenting positions I am aware of.

1 : The Constitution is a Will with Articles in Addendum ( Bill of Rights ) being Codicil.

A Will is by nature a Testamentary Instrument. The Sovereign has no testamentary power at common law. Again this may be found in Corpus Juris Secundum.

The Founders were acting in behalf of the new Sovereign Power, the victors of the war. Sovereigns with out Subjects, and all that. There fore the position the Constitution is a Will fails.

2 : Lysander Spooner in his treatise No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority, makes the argument the Constitution is merely a contract between the signing parties. All deceased and therefore unbinding in any way.

When one understands the Constitution as a Trust Instrument and not a personal contract, this position falls away.

Let's take a look at our contention the Constitution formed an Estate in Trust .

It takes some study to really grasp this , so lets just state the Founders followed the Common Law in their dealings . That's the Common Law of Mother England , by the way . This body of Law stretches back some 1,000 years . We are dealing primarily in Estates and Inheritance .

It is a tenet of Law that in order to determine the intent of a writing one must look to the preamble . ( In Statute that would be the "Empowerment Clause" ) . For our purposes I will note how it established the Constitution as a Trust instrument by fulfilling the requirements to establish a Trust .

Definitions of words from the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language are enlightening. Particularly State ( 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. ) and Estate ( 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State. ) and States ( n. plu. Nobility.. The ONLY definition )

Numbered items are necessary elements to establish a Trust . See Bogert on Trusts . Earlier the edition the better .

WE THE PEOPLE ( 1 - Grantors ) of the United States ( from or out of the United / Joined Nobility ) , in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the General Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty ( 2 - Statement of Purpose ) to ourselves and our Posterity ( 3 - Grantees : Heirs unnamed ) , do ordain and establish ( 4 - Statement of Intent . Note : Ordain comes from Cannon Law ) this Constitution ( 5 - Written Indenture ) for the United States of America ( Joined Nobility belonging to America : 6 - The Name of the Entity Created )

The Preamble fulfills the requirements necessary to establish a Trust . Recall that Rights , Privileges and Prerogatives of Commoners to Royalty are considered Personal Property inheritable by decent and Personal Property may only devolve to a Body Politic via Trust. We took all those combined Properties as spoils from the War for Independence . Had to divide up the booty somehow .

Can it get any simpler ?


.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
[-] The following 9 users Like Heir's post:
  • ASOG, Cedar, DaJavoo, Librarian, MinnieTheMoocher, PickleSnout, PresidentElectSquirrel, rikster111, Wingsprint
Like Reply
#8
Trusts in General


An Overview :

A. "Express" or "direct" trusts are those trusts intentionally created by the direct and positive act of the Settlor, by some writing, deed, or will, or oral declaration.

B. The creation of a trust is not merely the making of one form of a contract. It is the Creation of a STATUS...(29)

C. A trust always involves an equitable ownership embracing a set of rights and duties fiduciary in character.

D. A trust involves legal and equitable estates in different person, a trust is imperative in that it must be performed.

E. If the trustee becomes insolvent, the cestui may take ALL THE TRUST PROPERTY from the assets of the insolvent and need not come in as a general creditor, except as to trust assets which he cannot trace(30)

A major distinction between trust and contract is that in the trust, there is always a divided ownership of the property, the trustee has a legal title and the beneficiary has an equitable title to the same property. In insolvency situations the trustee may be guilty of embezzlement of the trust res. In order to avoid the charge of embezzlement Franklin Roosevelt came up with the "New Deal". The "New Deal" created a new "status, and that being one of "Debt".

F. Trusts frequently change to debts, and debts to trusts. If by CONSENT of the beneficiary the trustee is absolved from his obligation as trustee and undertakes in place thereof to come under a "contract liability", a DEBT may well be SUBSTITUTED FOR THE TRUST; but the trustee cannot of his own accord work such a change.(31)

By the acceptance of the Social Security Number an actual "acceptance of an offer" is made, and now you fall under the law of contract and you are debtor. The law of contract was developed almost entirely by courts of law, while the rules of trusts are the product of chancery courts.

G. Equitable jurisdiction over contracts is auxiliary and secondary, Equitable enforcement of trusts is PRIMARY AND ALMOST EXCLUSIVE. This difference is well illustrated in the attitude of equity toward the specific enforcement of contracts. Equity asserts a discretion in giving that relief. It examines the adequacy of the remedy at law, and sometimes considers mutuality of relief, and other matters. BUT THE SAME COURT gives the cestui a remedy for BREACH OF TRUST without regard to the relief available in a court of law.(32)

In every suit I ever filed against the United States, the U.S. Attorney would come in and say there were adequate remedies available to me at law and bango, my case was out of there. Until I read Bogert I had no contemplation of the full meaning of what information was being transmitted. He was literally stating this was a "contract" case. Unfortunately he failed to inform me of just what contract made the court look for an adequate remedy at law and I knew no better. In cases that are based upon some sort of contract, the court will naturally look to all other possibilities, but a trust case is a court of equities primary concern, and according to the above, should look no where else. Now when a court of equity says there is another adequate remedy at law, I would want to ask it what contract was created as to give it the authority to make that determination.

Right up to present date, the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the fact that a person can only bequeath property provided by statute, because that is how the Founding Fathers bequeathed the trust to the posterity.

H. The right to will or inherit property has usually been held not to be a constitutionally protected property right(33)

I. "A person must devise or bequeath his property in accordance with and subject to the conditions and limitations provided by statute; otherwise he cannot bequeath it all."(34)

The reason it is not held to be a constitutionally protected right is because it falls under Common Law protection, this is why "the Common Law shall prevail"(35) in many states.

When a person starts talking about their inheritance established by the Constitutional Trust that person bypasses all the Constitutional arguments and goes straight to the Common Law of England, the Statute of Uses, the Statutes of Charitable Uses, Statute of Wills, and Statutes of Mortmain. You should no longer argue "their" constitutional protection. God bless their Royal Majesties.

============================================================================

(29. . Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, copyright 1935 and 1951, Vernon Law Book Co)

(30. . In order to prevent you as the cestui from taking the trust res no declaration of insolvency has transpired from the United States.)

(31. In re Gans & Klein, D.C. 1926, 14 F.2d 116.)

(32. Bogert, Trusts and Trustees)

(33. . 16A Am Jur 2d Constitutional Law, '585.)

(34. 79 Am Jur 2d Wills '55.)

(35. " Except Louisiana, it is definitely different.)


.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
[-] The following 8 users Like Heir's post:
  • ASOG, Cedar, DaJavoo, Librarian, PickleSnout, PresidentElectSquirrel, rikster111, Wingsprint
Like Reply
#9
Trusts by Operation of Law


Trusts by Operation of Law (43)

Resulting & Constructive Trusts:

I view the Fourteenth Amendment as a constructive spendthrift trust created by implication of law. In order for one to understand what I just said, a person has to understand what a constructive trust is, a spendthrift trust, and a trust created by operation of law.

A. A trust by operation of law may exist where an express trust does not exist and it may exist without being created or manifested in writing. It is based on rule, presumption, or inference of law, and not on expression of intention by the trustor. A trust by operation of law, whether it is a resulting or a constructive trust, is NOT within the statute of frauds NOR the statute of wills, and is not required by that statute to be created or proved in writing(44)

B. A trust of this kind arises from the fact of "consideration", and not from a written agreement, instrument, or will,..(45)

C. A trust by operation of law may exist without being created or manifested in writing(46)

D. A trust by operation of law is based on rule, presumption, or inference of law, and not on expression of intention by the trustor(47)

A through D are excellent descriptions of the Fourteenth amendment trust. We have never been able to bring Fraud into any suits upon the Government because the Statute of Frauds and Wills is excluded from the Fourteenth Amendment or vice versa. Everything about the amendment is by presumption or inference of law. However; there are rules that govern the trust created by it, and we will get to them shortly.

Resulting Trusts: 76 Am Jur 2d, Trusts

A. A resulting trust involves primarily the operation of the equitable doctrine of consideration -- the doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest resulting from a transaction.

B. A resulting trust involves a presumption, implication, or supposition of law of an intention to create a trust.

C. There is no element of fraud in a resulting trust.

D. The two most important groups of resulting

Trusts are:

1. Those arising on a failure of an express trust or purpose; and

2. Those arising on a conveyance to one person on a consideration from another.

What we need to contemplate here is; Is the Fourteenth Amendment a resulting Trust? Is United States citizenship the valuable consideration? Is the "Debt" the valuable consideration? Was the "consideration" separate and distinct from citizenship, such as a Banking agreement? Did the Express Trust Fail in 1868 in order to create a resulting trust? or did it fail in first years of this century? Did it fail at all or was it set up to look as if it did? Was there "no element of fraud" in its creation? The Government may consider the Fourteenth Amendment creating a resulting trust, but I don't personally see it fitting any of the above.

Constructive Trusts:

A. A constructive trust generally involves primarily a presence of fraud, in view of which equitable title or interest should be recognized in some person other than the taker or holder of the legal title.

B. A constructive trust is entirely independent of any actual or presumed intention of the parties and is frequently imposed against the intention of the trustee.

C. "Otherwise known as a trust ex maleficio, a trust ex delicto, a trust de son tort, an involuntary trust, or an implied trust is a trust by operation of law which arises contrary to the intention and in invitum against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive by duress or abuse of confidence by commission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment or questionable means, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy".(48)

D. "A constructive Trust arises only after an act of Fraud or Breach of Confidence or duty and as a relief against the same, it is in substance a state of secondary rights and liabilities growing out of a violation of a primary right and liability hence a constructive trust frequently is classified as a division of adjectival rather than SUBSTANTIVE LAW; and it is said that ground for relief is fraud and not trust.(49)

Accordingly the 14th Amendment having been created under fraud, established a system that allowed U.S. Citizens to acquire title to property that rightfully they should not hold, and a constructive trust literally turns Tom, Dick, Harry and you into trustees.

E. "A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression, and when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the Beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee".(50)

You retain the "beneficial interest" in property Rightfully belonging the Posterity of the Express Trust; therefore you can be converted into a trustee. After all haven't you ever felt that you were the public servant not the IRS agent cornering you. All those government agencies are out to make sure that you, as a quasi trustee are not unjustly enriched. I think they are doing an excellent Job of that.

============================================================================

(43. : 76 Am Jur 2d, Trusts, ''190 and 191; Broadway Bldg. Co. v Salafia, 47 RI 263, 132 A 527, 45 ALR 847.)

(44. . Whitney v Hay, 181, US 45 L Ed 758, 21 S Ct 537; Smithsonian Institution v Meech 169 US 398, 42 L Ed 793, 18 S Ct 396; Levis v Kengla 169 US 234, 42 L Ed 728, 18 S Ct 309; Ducie v Ford, 138 US 587, 34 L Ed 1091, 11 S Ct 417. Restatement, Trusts 2d '406: "Neither the statute of wills nor the statute of frauds is violated by raising a constructive trust upon a mere promise to create a trust in property not then in existence, where thereafter such property comes into existence and vest in the one who made the promise to act as trustee. Voelkel v Tohulka, 236, Ind 588, 141 NE2d 344, 70 ALR2d 1349, cert den 355 US 891, 2 L Ed 2d 189, 78 S Ct 263. (Do you see why we can't prove fraud? This quote is real interesting, it looks just like the Government to me.) )

(45. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts, '194.)

(46. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts '190)

(47. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts '190)

(48. Am Jur 2d, Trusts '221; Loomis v Loomis 148 Cal 149, 82 P 679; Central Stock & Grain Exch. v Bendinger 109 F 926 cert den 183 US 699, 46 L Ed 396, 22 S Ct 935; Des Moines Terminal Co. v Des Moines U.R. Co. 52 F 2d 616, cert den 285 US 537, 76 L Ed 930, 52 S Ct 311; St Louis & S.F.R.Co. v Spiller 274 US 304, 71 L Ed 1060, 47 S Ct 635; Angel v Chicago, S.P.M & O. R. Co. 151 US 1, 38 L Ed 55, 14 S Ct 240; Monroe Cattle Co. v Becker 147 US 47, 37 L Ed 72, 13 S Ct 217; Felix v Patrick 145 US 317, 36 L Ed 719, 12 S Ct 862; and more.)

(49. " 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts, '222.)

(50. Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co. 225 NY 380, 122 NE 378.)


.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
[-] The following 8 users Like Heir's post:
  • ASOG, Cedar, DaJavoo, Librarian, MinnieTheMoocher, PickleSnout, PresidentElectSquirrel, rikster111
Like Reply
#10
Preamble Religious Intent


The Word "ordain" as used in the Preamble also had relevance, "do ordain" imparted the religious significance required to bring the document within the purviews of Henry's Statute of Uses, Elizabeth's Statutes of Charitable Uses and the Statutes of Mortmain, as to make The Constitution a valid, legal document under the English Laws.

B. Blacks Law Dictionary: Ordain ...***...To confer on a person the holy orders of priest or deacon. Establish ...***... Found.

C. Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Ordain v. To set; to establish a particular office or order; hence, invest with ministerial function or sacerdotal (priesthood) power; to introduce and establish or settle in the pastorale office with the customary forms or solemnities; as to ordain a minister of the gospel.

(1) In America, men are ordained over a particular church and congregation or as evangelist without the charge of a particular church, or as deacons in the episcopal church.

Strange as it may sound, the word "ordain" conveys the idea, to this writer, that the Founding Fathers were attempting to show the King of England that they were performing ministerial functions, had established a religious society, and an estate in trust for the members of that society under The Statute of Uses, Statute of Charitable Uses, and Mortmain. This line of thought was upheld, when this writer was researching this document, by the fact that the only place that the word "Constitution" appeared under any subject(18) was Religious Societies.

D. 66 Am Jur 2d Religious Societies

1. '7 Constitution, rules, and regulations. The Governing body of a religious society may adopt a constitution and prescribe rules and regulations as to the government of the society...***...

2. '8 Amendment of constitution, changes in confession of faith: So long as not contrary to the laws of the land or to the provisions of the society's old constitution, the method of submitting proposed amendments to the constitution of a religious association may be devised and proclaimed by the association's general officers.

3. ' Members, Generally; relationship and rights: The relations, rights, and obligations arising from membership in a religious society are to be determined according to the constitution, rules, or bylaws of the society, as well as by reference to the statutory provisions governing such religious bodies, since all who unite themselves to a religious body do so with an implied consent to its government and are bound by its laws, usages, and customs, and principles,...***...

True, while there are other organizations that do maintain "constitutions", the religious overtones and significance found within the Preamble, coupled with the behaviorism of the United States Government as compared to the workings of a religious societies, tells this writer that the Founding Fathers were creating a Religious Society by way of Express Trust, a society whose members could worship in any manner that pleased them and were still heirs to a feesimple absolute estate. If this be the truth of the matter, you are a member of a religious society and "bound by its laws, usages, and customs and principles". And I have never found a better description and definition of the words "PUBLIC POLICY" anywhere else. However; if as a member of this religious society, you are having Fourteenth Amendment citizenship being imposed upon you, not allowing you to access the Express Trust, then could you possibly see that your freedom of religious affiliation is being denied you?(19)

If you have a problem with the possibility of a Religion being established in the Preamble, Trusts and Trustees by Bogert, shows that religion can mean many different things:

4.The word "religion is not a term of exact meaning. It has been defined as:

a. "the endeavor to secure the conservation of socially recognized values through specific actions that are believed to evoke some agency different from the ordinary ego of the individual, or from other merely human beings, and that imply a feeling of dependence upon this agency;(20)

b. "the serious and social attitude of individuals or communities toward the power or powers which they conceive as having ultimate control over their interests and destinies;(21)

c. "faith in the conservation of values;(22)

d. "the worship of spiritual beings from a sense of need;(23)

e. "any system of faith in and worship of a divine being or beings.(24)

Whether a given set of dogmas or rules will be dignified with the name of a religion by a court does not depend upon the name which the settlor has placed upon his trust. ...***...It would seem that the court must find some element of spiritual improvement in the plan before it can be properly termed a religion. 66 Am Jur 2d Religious Societies, also revealed other interesting features regarding the Trusts of such societies:

5. '48 Determination of nature and existence of trust: In determining whether a trust has been created by a conveyance of property to a religious society, the same rules will be applied as are applicable in the construction of wills. The deed, if any, creating the trust is the primary source for ascertaining what was the form of worship and the doctrine intended by the foundation. Where there is no specific designation in the deed as to the particular religious tenets or doctrines which the gift is to be used to advance or support, the denominational name may indicate the nature of the trust, so far as respects doctrines admitted to be fundamental.

Please take note that "the same rules will be applied as are applicable in the construction of wills" to a trust created by deed, this is very important. The construction of "wills" is being applied to our trust, to the Articles, and to the Amendments. The Government is applying the Fourteenth Amendment as a will provision based upon this construction, and not knowing any better everyone is going along with it. No one has brought up the fact that it is a trust and deed. Whenever there is a deed mentioned in a conveyance, wills go along in the same breath, they go hand in hand.


If the Founding Fathers intent behind the Preamble, was to create a Religious society in trust by deed, whose members were free to worship as they wished, they made it perfectly clear in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Not the last, the first. Religion was foremost on their minds, and I am absolutely convinced that a charitable trust to protect religious beliefs, by deed was created in the Preamble. However; the Statute of Charitable Uses (43 Eliz. c 4, 1601) only recognized trusts for the repair of churches not the creation of a church, but that does not mean that the Founding Fathers couldn't get around that little problem by making the trust appear to be something other than what it was.
_____________________________________________________

Footnotes :

18. , Corporations, trusts, wills, deeds, charities, Religious Societies, Estates, Dower and Curtsy, Title 26, Title 31, etc.

19. Great Theory, now let's get out there and prove it.

20. " W.K. Wright, Philosophy of Religion, P. 47.

21. " J. B. Pratt, The Religious Consciousness, P. 2.

22. " H. Hoffding, Philosophy of Religion, P. 98.

23. " Menzies, History of Religion.

24. " Century Dictionary


.
[Image: 3FTRPrR.png][Image: on1tkoS.png]
https://web.archive.org/web/201310032204...gacy.info/
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist "
[-] The following 9 users Like Heir's post:
  • ASOG, Cedar, DaJavoo, Librarian, MinnieTheMoocher, PickleSnout, PresidentElectSquirrel, rikster111, Sami aka Roxi
Like Reply


Forum Jump: