did inherently address this issue regardless of whether the actual word trust was used in this reference. If you believe that Mr. Spooner's was ONLY saying that the Contract was applicable to the men who signed it this is not the whole story. Mr. Spooner laid out the mechanics of how the exercise of this contract would be realized under Law. He explained how the contract would first have to be voluntarily accepted and understood by posterity which comes from Common Law elements of a valid contract.
He then explained IF this contract was accepted as valid by posterity then the mechanics of the lawful execution of the contract services would require that those acting in service to the contract would have to be a representative agent working on the behalf of the man or woman who invoked the services. This comes from the Common Law right to face your accuser. The Constitutional agent would only be operating as an agent for an accuser who was the one accepting liability for the accusation against the accused. I like to often describe this concept as the liability hot potato. Nobody wants the liability but it must be passed around to invoke any limited liability service activities. A limited liability entity can only be limited in liability of their actions IF those actions are on behalf of those who do accept liability for the requested actions AND if those actions are constrained to the regulated bounds of the capacity which the agent is operating.
The Contract Trust is mostly irrelevant here. Yes, as a trust it can be passed onto posterity but NO ENTITY CAN FORCE ANOTHER ENTITY INTO CONTRACT! One can offer the contract to posterity but posterity still has to have all elements of valid contract for it be a contract regardless of what type of contract is.
I think many balk at Mr. Spooner's logic because of the provocation of thought that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to everyone. This is only part of the story with what Spooner was saying. The mechanics he demonstrated of how the contract could be passed onto posterity and then how the resulting realization of lawful activities stemming from that contract would be carried out by the agents acting on behalf of the Trustee, is by far the most important lesson of his work. Don't get hung up on the fact the contract has no bearing on one who has no understanding or acceptance of the contract the more important point IMHO is the mechanics of how lawful operation of the contract would actually be carried out. Once we realize this we can realize that we can contract with any representative agent we want because the only point of the representative agent is to carry out service of subpoenas for attendance to a Common Law venue for dispute resolution/Justice or for defense of life, liberty and property when needed. Even the accused answering to a subpoena is voluntary but not appearing to answer before a Jury resulted in Jury declaring that the individual was an outlaw- one who voluntarily stepped out of the protections of Law. This outlaw status was dangerous for anyone who chose such a path to not answer to a Jury because it would destroy the outlaws reputation and in some cases if they were really bad a posse would just go hunt them down and kill them. These individuals would step out of the protections of law and hence had zero access to lawful protections so killing an outlaw was no interest to lawful affairs because the outlaw voluntarily made their own decision.
So in my understanding of Law whether the contract is a trust or not is COMPLETELY irrelevant here. Also I think calling rights "Personal Property" is dangerous at this point. This is property related to the legal person. If we don't own the person then we don't own it's property. You should read everything you can in Codes and Statutes regarding Personal property and Real property. Here in CA and everywhere else in the US personal property is defined in code as evidences of debt among other things related to this.
The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions