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)

(1 of 2)

>>11012114

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 :

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

1. 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.

1. 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.

2. 76 American Jurisprudence 2d section 15

3. 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.

4. 79 American Jurisprudence 2d Wills, Section 24

(2 of 2)

Jurisdiction Of The 14th Amendment

From the beginning, federal district courts had no jurisdiction to deal with the private individual. They only handled admiralty- maritime issues. There were only circuit courts and the (s)upreme (c)ourt of the united States operating in the United States government that could have jurisdiction over matters involving diversity of citizenship. That is, matters involving citizens from different states. The state courts handled federal questions because they being courts of original jurisdiction in issues that involved contracts. When the 14th Amendment came along, the United States district courts could have jurisdiction in private matters of individuals involved in the trust because the trust and its members now came under admiralty-maritime law outside the Constitution as did all international trade. At that point, the federal courts were given "in rem" jurisdiction over the people. The "res"/72 was with the people, because there was no public debt. The "in personam" jurisdiction did not apply to the average citizen because the government had no direct contact with the people who lived in the states until after 1933. When the fixed gold standard was removed, the people lost their Law. Before 1933, the federal courts could not assume jurisdiction over a person. There had to be some bilateral arrangement (contact/conveyance establishing a res or "thing") that would have given the court jurisdiction over the people in personam.

All the changes from civilian methods result from these changes - the perverted use of "person" and the new concept of "res."/73

The "Law of persons and things" is the "law of Status." "Law of Things" is "Law of Property" - or contract. Any changes in an individual's standing in the law are a result of how he unknowingly allows a res to be formed and thereby becomes subject to another jurisdiction.

There is a difference between "subject matter jurisdiction" and "jurisdiction of the subject matter." The courts have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the trust res under the 14th Amendment. But as a non-14th Amendment citizen, there is no res to which they - the court - can attach jurisdiction. However, there are areas in the law whereby you can re-convey subject matter jurisdiction to the court.

>>11012312

Before 1933, the federal courts did not have in rem jurisdiction to compel performance of the general public because the people had not given up the law (gold). Unless there was some bilateral contract involved in a dispute, the federal courts could not attach jurisdiction over a person. The federal courts only dealt primarily in contractual disputes between citizens of different states. After 1933, the people contracted for more debts than there was gold to back up those debts. Something like $28 billion in debt with only $4 billion in gold to back it. When Congress suspended the gold standard, the nation was thrown into a debtor/creditor relationship because the people are the posterity of the country, they are also the posterity of the debt through the social security system while remaining under the 14th Amendment because it made one primarily a United States (c)itizen and secondarily a citizen of the state. So under the 14th Amendment, you automatically became responsible for servicing the national debt in order to maintain the social security system./74 [Review footnote 24 on constructive trusts].

The public debt then establishes a res in the District of Columbia and since you are primarily a United States (c)itizen under the 14th Amendment, you automatically become a beneficiary of the debt. The res is the debt as well as the subject matter. The public debt operates outside Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States. This is why the whole judicial system operates outside the Constitution in that they operate only under Article I as judicial functions. Every judge then can render decisions based on his own prejudices, not on constitutional law of the Republic. Since the 1938 Erie Railroad decision, justices have been free to render Article I ecclesiastical or legislative court decisions based on their own desires or political pressures, not on the Constitution, and they are immune from suit because it is a judicial function, not a "judicial Power" as Article III, Section 2 courts.

Under the 14th Amendment trust relation, the federal government, in dealings with its citizens, automatically has "in rem" jurisdiction over all 14th Amendment citizens (also called U.S. (c)itizens). When the government has in rem jurisdiction, they automatically receive "in personam" jurisdiction at the same time.

"Jurisdiction in rem depends solely on the physical control of the res by the sovereign exercising jurisdiction [14th Amendment jurisdiction of the public charitable trust of D.C.] … thus where property is carried into a foreign territory [District of Columbia] without the cooperation of consent of the owner, jurisdiction cannot be exercised."/75 [Bracket information added]

General jurisdiction is public municipal law for private purposes, while local jurisdiction, also called "local laws," are private law for public purposes.

When a person expatriates using 15 Statute at Large, his or her whole estate comes back out of the trust. So the state, under "local law" (that is, Washington D.C. and its political subdivisions) loses the in rem jurisdiction and therefore automatically loses in personam jurisdiction. The court can compel you to appear, but cannot attach subject matter jurisdiction because the subject matter, or the trust res, is no longer in Washington D.C. or its political subdivisions. It has been removed back under the Republic by your political Will in fact, and in law.

HJR 192 is mutable by will./76 The insolvency of the government, as declared by suspension of the gold standard, is not something that everyone has to participate in. Not everyone has to be an "insolvent." The people put more demands on the payment of gold than there was gold in the treasury so the gold standard was suspended. But the individual does not have to go along with public policy, especially public policy that was a result of private law, viz., private law for public purposes.

Before June 5, 1933, there was public money for private debts. After June 5th, there was private money for public debts. Now all private credit money operating in the public sector as public policy is all that has been available to discharge (not pay) private debts since June 5, 1933. The individual who is a non-14th Amendment citizen can technically maintain the "gold standard," because all the taxes of compelled performance do not apply to him. Inflation is due to taxes because the taxes support non - producers and thus a sounder dollar results when no taxes are paid.

>>11012319

Since June 5, 1933, everything is predicated on your personal Will. Through public policy and the silence of the individual, it has been assumed that the individual wants to continue the trust relationship and therefore the individual must perform. Performing to the insolvency means that you must contribute to the insolvency. However, the individual does not have to stay bound to the debt of the public policy because it is "mutable by will." That is, the individual must state his or her will or choice and the law will uphold that individual choice to make public policy toward him of no effect. HJR 192 is an Act that is open ended. That is, you can participate in the public policy that HJR 192 established or you can decline to participate.

It must be understood that in order to make public policy mutable by the Will of the individual, very definite legal procedure must be exercised along with the proper statute law. The Statutes must be exercised with the proper legal procedure to accomplish "mutable by will" viz., state Probate Code, along with 15 Statute at Large published legal notice by Declaration. The Declaration is an express testamentary Will when it has been properly signed and witnessed and published.

Hanson v. Denckla/77 deals with the 14th Amendment jurisdiction. The trust in dispute was a private trust set up according to public municipal law for private purposes in the state of Delaware without any third party relationship.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, an exercise of jurisdiction over person or property outside the foreign state was thought to be absolute nullity, but the matter remained a question of state law over which the court exercised no authority. With the adoption of the 14th Amendment, any judgment purporting to bind the person of the defendant over whom the court had not acquired in personam jurisdiction was void within the state as well as without. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 Since the state is forbidden to enter a judgment attempting to bind a person over whom it has no jurisdiction, it has even less right to enter a judgment purporting the interest of such person and property over which the court has no jurisdiction. From Pennoyer v. Neff we come to the more flexible standard of International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310, but it is a mistake to assume that this trend heralds the eventual demise of all restriction on personal jurisdiction of state courts. Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective states. However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal a defendant may not be called on to do so unless he had minimal contacts with that state that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him. This means that Florida had no relationship or contract that tied back to the corpus of the trust in Delaware. Therefore, the 14th Amendment did not apply as to give Florida any jurisdiction. Even before passage of the 14th Amendment, the court of International Shoe Co. sustained the state courts in refusing full faith and credit to judgments entered by courts that were without jurisdiction over a non resident defendant. But it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.

The "forum state," in the case of the non-14th Amendment citizen, is the corporate municipal city of Washington, D.C.. "Full faith and credit" means that we will recognize your laws if you will recognize our laws. So in this particular case, the U.S. (S)upreme (C)ourt was saying that Florida had no legal direct tie to the corpus or body of the trust and therefore they had no full faith and credit under the 14th Amendment to give jurisdiction to act on. The U.S. (S)upreme (C)ourt based their decision on the ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court who had ruled on the corpus of the trust and what the intent of the settler (the person who made the trust) was.

In other words, the 14th Amendment can work in the favor of non-14th Amendment persons because it brings a dividing line down between the Public Laws and the private laws.