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

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.

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.