United States

[jcsmjd]

It appears to me that the Declaration of Independence was in effect a Declaration [of Trust] for the beneficial use of the Signors only. Created by a group called "We the People" to create the State called [the] United States. We the People being those who had the courage to set themselves apart thru their pledges to each other in effort to create a new sovereign state. Did they create sovereign singularities (men or women)? It appears that they created a sovereign State wherein, they would become sovereign, in the newly created State. The State being the sovereign Person.

It appears that the constitution is the bylaws of the Trust and is unsigned. The Declaration [of Trust] was created by the original 56 signors (those who pledged their lives, fortunes, etc.). As such, it appears that the 56 signors were "We the People". If this is indeed the case, then the new State created :" United States" was only for the people who comprised "We the People". Or more plainly stated the original 56 signors and their heirs, successors, etc.

If this is a correct analysis, and I do now beleive it to be so, then if one cannot confirm they are OF "We the People", then nothing in the Constitution applies to them, in terms of Rights. Rights are only given to "We the People".

Since all law is copyrighted, what then of the "Re-Public[ed] peoples = subjects of the new State? Do they have any rights and can they use any of the copyrighted law? It appears that the answer is no and no. It appears that said laws can only be used upon request. Otherwise, to use their law as a subject, would be fraud or trespass. See Attorneys being issued license to use said copyrighted law.

Also, if in fact the original construct is a trust, then if one has EVER taken benefits from the Trust, one can be shown to be a beneficiary or subject to the State. Benefits might include, drivers license, marriage license, bank account, credit cards, pass port, etc.

Since silence yields to acceptance, there is no doubt that the so called nation states have long since accepted the "more perfect union".

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

It appears that the original 56 Trustors = We the People, set the example of how to depart from the system by creating a new system. They did this using International Law. Notice is given in their bylaws as such.

Notice also at the time of the creation of the Trust, the new State was absent any land. It appears that land is not a prerequisite to forming a new state.

For Biblical reference see the split of Israel from Judah. They did NOT leave the land. So the saying Love it or leave it, may not necessarily mean leaving the inheritance, rather just changing one's STAT[e]US.

Regards,

jcsmjd

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The U.S. constitution does not grant any rights. It guarantees certain pre-existing rights, both civil and organic against certain types of infringement by the government. All constitutions apply first and foremost to the government.

[amenmesse]

Very descriptive account of early relationships. Penna was a country.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/53/case.html

[netwrkranger]

Sounds like someone has been listening to the 'Informer'.

=)

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

The U.S. constitution does not grant any rights. It guarantees certain pre-existing rights, both civil and organic against certain types of infringement by the government. All constitutions apply first and foremost to the government.

True FGH, but did the Con-stitution protect the rights of the Citizen? I contend it does not, organic (original) or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Article IV US Con-stitution

Section 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Why were the words entitled and Privileges used here? Give it serious thought. If the Citizen had guaranteed rights would these words have been used? There is a big difference between Citizen and People in the Con-stitution. I do not know about you, but I am no Citizen with entitled Privileges. The Con-stitution has nothing to do with me. I was/am not a signor to it.

I believe this to be one of the traps the PTB uses to enslave us. Many people talk about having Con-stitutional rights. By doing so what have they just admitted? That the Con-stitution gives them the rights they are claiming? And are they those same rights the People enjoy?

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by jcsmjd

Since all law is copyrighted, what then of the "Re-Public[ed] peoples = subjects of the new State? Do they have any rights and can they use any of the copyrighted law? It appears that the answer is no and no. It appears that said laws can only be used upon request. Otherwise, to use their law as a subject, would be fraud or trespass. See Attorneys being issued license to use said copyrighted law.

jcsmjd

This is wrong. Law is not copyrighted. It can't be. Constitutions, statutes written by legislatures, caselaw from appellate courts, and regulations promulgated by executive agencies are all in the public domain. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that major legal publishers, like West, publish annotated versions of statutes and caselaw with material which, because it was prepared by their employees, they do have a copyright on. But the copyright only applies to the annotations, not the statutes, cases, etc. themselves.

Similarly, attorneys do not have a license to "use copyrighted law." We have a license to give legal advice and counsel to others and to represent them before courts and other tribunals.

[netwrkranger]

Define 'public domain', Lawdog.

- netwrkranger

[netwrkranger]

Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Public Domain. Land and water in posession of and owned by the United States and the states individually, as distinguished from lands privately owned by individuals and corporations.

United States. This term has several meanings. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, it my designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S.Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252

So, public domains means owned by the de facto sovereign known as the United States?

[Lawdog]

Same source, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. Second definition given for "public domain":

Copyright law. Public ownership status of writings, documents, or publications that are not protected by copyrights.

Italics in original.

Christ, you can't even use the dictionary properly.

[netwrkranger]

That doesn't answer my question I posed to you, Statutepuppy. Since I know from that past that you have problems answering questions, let me break it down for you, Statutepuppy.

WHO exactly is the PUBLIC DOMAIN?

WHO is included in the PUBLIC ownership?

Try again, Statutepuppy.

Regards,
netwrkranger