Arbitration services protecting constitutionally secured property rights through the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, operating under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 883 (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16).
Facts and Conclusions of Law Establishing the Absolute Requirement of Due Process Before Deprivation of Property
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declares: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The Supreme Court in Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. 627, 657 (1829) declared: "That government can scarcely be deemed to be free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require, that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held SACRED."
This holding establishes as a conclusion of law that the rights of personal liberty and private property are held SACRED and cannot be lawfully interfered with absent due process of law.
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, declares: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, secured to all citizens "the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property." This Act was reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment and further secured by the Enforcement Act of 1870, 16 Stat. 140 (42 U.S.C. § 1981).
The Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) declared: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."
This establishes that sovereignty remains with the People, and the rights secured by the Constitution — including the right to be secure in person and property — are attributes of that sovereignty which government agencies cannot lawfully violate.
The Supreme Court in Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 164 (1980) declared: "A State, by ipse dixit, may not transform private property into public property without compensation."
The Supreme Court in Loan Association v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 664 (1874) declared: "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation."
These holdings establish that the State cannot unilaterally recharacterize, seize, or interfere with property interests absent due process of law and just compensation.
The Supreme Court in Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972) expressly declared: "The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a 'personal' right... In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other."
The Supreme Court in Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972) defined property interests as extending beyond mere physical possessions: "Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits."
The Supreme Court in United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 378 (1945) declared: "The constitutional provision is addressed to every sort of interest the citizen may possess."
Constitutional rights secured to individuals constitute property interests belonging to the individual. The right to be secure in one's person, papers, and effects is a property interest protected by due process.
The individual possesses the constitutional right to place property interests, including identity and constitutionally secured rights, into trust arrangements for their protection.
The Supreme Court in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75 (1906) declared: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him."
When an individual exercises this unlimited power to contract by placing constitutionally secured property rights into a trust, such property becomes the trust res — the subject matter of the trust — which the trustee has a fiduciary duty to protect.
The trust agreement contains an arbitration clause requiring all disputes concerning the trust res to be resolved through binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 883 (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16).
Any person who utilizes the constitutional property of another for commercial business without consent and without approval, especially after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, can be held liable for interference with trust property.
A party need not be a signatory to the trust agreement or a member of any contract to be held liable for interference with trust property. The issue is not the party but the PROPERTY — the RIGHT is the subject matter, not the person.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (42 U.S.C. § 1983), provides remedy for any person who "subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."
Individuals whose property interests are held in trust may petition the arbitrator for disposition of controversies arising from interference with trust property or deprivation of due process.
The EEON Foundation Arbitration Association provides arbitration services for individuals whose constitutionally secured property rights have been interfered with without due process of law.
The arbitration is conducted pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 883 (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16), which establishes that written arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable."
The trustee, whose duty it is to protect the trust res, may petition the arbitrator on behalf of the beneficiary for disposition of the controversy and determination of liability for interference with trust property.
Any presumption that due process requirements do not apply to interference with trust property or that an individual lacks standing to place constitutional rights in trust is rebutted by the Supreme Court's express holdings that constitutional rights ARE property interests (Lynch, 405 U.S. at 552), that the individual's power to contract is unlimited (Hale, 201 U.S. at 74-75), and that the rights of personal liberty and private property are held SACRED (Wilkinson, 27 U.S. at 657).
support@tcaa.online
24-hour response time
304 S. Jones Blvd. #Void-Eeon
Las Vegas, Nevada 89107