HOW THE CULTURAL CREATIVES, CHANGEMAKERS, CONSCIOUS WEALTH MANAGERS, AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE GOLDEN AGE ARE QUIETLY TRANSACTING SACRED COMMERCE THROUGH AN ADVANCED ASSET PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ~ ~ PREVIOUSLY A BEST KEPT SECRET OF THE SUPER RICH
The Natural Law Trust
State of the Art Asset Protection for Peaceful People
Copyright © 2017 by Brilliance in Commerce Revised 8-22-18 brillianceincommerce.com
Disclaimer: This eBook does not provide legal or tax advice, and nothing in this document should be taken as such. In addition, the author and associates do not represent any foreign government nor are agents of any foreign government. Before undertaking any action, be sure to discuss your options with a qualified advisor.
Perpetual Longevity Beyond the Present Global Changes
More and more people today know that a worldwide financial reset is underway, and as such, many have wondered if an offshore trust, LLC, foundation, domestic corporation, IBC, or statutory trust will be made extinct or redundant after the restoration of a Basel III-mandated asset-based world economic system has become ubiquitous and made widely known. World changes are causing experts to question what types of legal structures, what types of banking, what types of commercial arrangements, and which economic instruments will flourish in longevity long after the global transformations have taken effect. This centuries-old, little-known, and time-tested asset protection instrument is ideal, because it will continue to be valid even after a Golden Age has dawned worldwide. It is non-statutory. So, such a trust can go on being renewed generation after generation, and go on enduring through whatever changes may take place in the statutes.
- It not only is nontaxable, but has no tax FILING requirements.
- Individuals can reduce personal income tax by transferring much of their commerce into the trust.
- Has no attorney or state public registration requirements.
- Has no annual fees and no professional maintenance expenses.
- Allows one to immediately move all business, investment, and free discretionary income into nontaxable status.
- Non-statutory, sovereign, irrevocable, pure, impenetrable.
- The same bullet-proof kind that the Kennedys, Mellons, Carnegies, Rockefellers, Hunts, and other rich families use. Those of the LIGHT may use the same trusts the super rich use.
- Yet avoids legalese and is written in plain simple high school English that anyone can understand.
- Has had a 100% success rate since the 1980s — meaning never penetrated or invalidated.
- Congresses and parliaments will not legislate against it because the elite themselves use it.
- Works equally well in most countries worldwide.
- International in effectiveness because it embraces the best of all the greatest forms of human law — Kingdom Law, Canon Law, common law, the Uniform Commercial Code, and domestic state law. That is why it synthesizes them all into one: Natural Law.
- Ideal for holding foreign currencies expected to exponentially revalue.
- Can be a personal trust, family trust, holding company, spiritual organization, humanitarian project, charity, much more.
- Fabulous flexibility allows for unlimited options for the noble fulfillment of peaceful and life-supporting purposes.
- Creator has the choice as to whether to be settlor, beneficiary, and manager; or trustee.
- The trust can hold accounts at banks, credit unions, securities brokerages, etc. —
Favored by Some of the World’s Wealthiest Families
anywhere where money is transacted. • And more . . .
This is the type of trust that many of the billionaires have been using. It is time for peaceful people of the light to disseminate beneficial influences in society with the same sovereign legal instruments with which the elite have previously been hiding their assets.
It was known in the early 1990s that the Rockefellers had some 7000 of these trusts. Likewise many of the other wealthiest families quietly use them. When one of the Texas billionaire Hunt brothers died, all they could find in his name was a pickup truck and $5000 in cash. It turns out that the rest of his billions were in one of these trusts. His brother heir instantly inherited control of the trust as successor trustee. There was no probate, no death taxes, and no delay. It was seamless.
Not Taught in Law Schools ~
the Warnings Against Them are Disinformation
Traditionally the elite have monopolized the knowledge of these trusts because they preferred to keep the benefits of them to themselves. The statutory entities taught in law schools tend to benefit the vested interests by giving them more control over the affairs of the world. If everyone had a Natural Law Trust, it would free everyone to be independent and sovereign, thus reducing the tribute to the elite’s coffers. Hence they have had no inclination to approve the faculty and curricula of law schools knowing about these trusts. This means the average attorney is clueless about these trusts and is therefore afraid of them. They are afraid of the unknown. Most Bar licensed attorneys will thus warn against them, and will usually cite inapplicable laws in an effort to dissuade people from using them. They often cite cases where they claim courts have dishonored such trusts. Any so-called “pure” or “common law” trust which has ever been “dishonored” in such a case was most definitely not the kind we are talking about herein. The kind we are talking about herein has never been invalidated, and in fact, cannot be invalidated. Therefore it is advisable to steer clear of Bar licensed attorneys in general, and avoid their counsel on this subject. It is better to connect with the true experts, who may or may not have a Bar license. The true experts are those who, like the counsel that advise the elite, have been quietly operating these trusts for generations and have had no problem with them.
What is a Natural Law Trust?
There are various adjectives that describe aspects of this trust. Some are:
Pure. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a “pure” trust is: “A trust situation that involves three parties. The parties are the creator of the trust, the trustee, and the beneficiary. This is a contractual trust and is different from a statutory trust and is a legal document.”
Irrevocable. Suppose you have a million dollars and someone wants to get it from you. Suppose they were able to file a court case against you and win a judgment against you for a million dollars. Then the court could force you to give it to the winning party. Now suppose you had put the million dollars into a revocable trust. That means you could revoke the transfer at any time. If the court orders you to pay the million dollars, you might say you don’t have it, because it is in the trust. But if the trust is revocable, the court could order you to revoke the transfer – thus retrieving the money back from the trust. In that case too, you will have lost, because you could still be forced to pay. But if the trust were irrevocable, then that means even if you order the trust to give the money back to you, it has no obligation to do so. The trustee could say that it is irrevocable, and it can refuse to return the money. Then even the court cannot force you to pay the million dollars. You truly have it no more. And the court cannot order the trust to pay it, because the trust is not you – the trust is a legal separate entity. If the trustee has a private arrangement with you whereby he allows the trust funds to take care of your expenses, or fulfills your wishes to distribute monies to various parties, then you can still benefit from the trust . . . but the court has no power to force the trust to honor the judgment against you personally. That is called “bullet proof asset protection”.
Common Law. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “common law” is synonymous with “contract law”. Common Law: “Contract law regulates everything from buying a coffee to trading on the stock exchange. A contract is an agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits.”
Common law is the end result of thousands of years of human experience, culminating in countless case precedents. All American courts were common law until the early 1900s, when admiralty, maritime, commercial, and statutory legal procedures began taking precedent. However, even today, common law is still respected in the courts, and is often sufficient to prevail.
COLATO A “COLATO” is an acronym for “Common Law Trust Organization”.
UBO A “UBO” is an “Unincorporated Business Organization”. This term could apply to our Natural
Law Trust because it is not incorporated under any statutory jurisdiction.
Sovereign The term “sovereign” can apply to a Natural Law Trust for the simple reason that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of any particular legal body and is not subject to the authority of any
particular government. Therefore, it is not domiciled in any particular state or province. On the other hand, this does not mean that it rules over people. It is a “sovereign without subjects”. If a dispute were ever to arise regarding a Natural Law Trust, its trustees could voluntarily grant limited jurisdiction to a mediator or mutually agreed upon court of law, upon which the findings of the mediating body could be enforceable only upon the specific actions of the trust officers in question. But the trust itself – the structure, the design, the assets, and the actions outside the context of the dispute in question, would remain beyond the scope and authority of the mediating body. Hence it can only ever be certain actions of the officers of the trust that could be subject to any enforcing authority. Otherwise no enforcing body can ever have general authority over the trust itself, and thus can never have the right to pass judgment on the validity of the trust.
International The Natural Law Trust can thus operate internationally and equally in all countries worldwide for the reason of its sovereignty as explained above.
Kingdom Law Kingdom Law is the tradition of law by which royal heads of state have derived their authority. By reason of the monarchial doctrine of “because I say so”, a king or queen assumes authority. It is in this same spirit that individuals forming a Natural Law Trust freely choose to enter into the trust contract together, without consulting any higher human authority for the permission to do so.
Canon Law Canon Law is similar to the “because I say so” doctrine, with the difference that the speaker attributes his or her authority to God, or a Divine Source, as the reason for assuming a certain position. Here once again, a Natural Law Trust is believed by many of its creators worldwide to be operating according to divine guidance, as preeminent over any kind of human authority.
UCC The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) became the highest body of law actually in force in trade, banking, and commerce worldwide, transcending national governments and treaties in the 1900s. It was the natural outgrowth of the practical need for an international set of agreements on which merchants could operate in trade that would be common to all exporters, importers, and commerce in general. It evolved over thousands of years and culminated in the codification in 1954 of a set of principles that came to govern trade and contract law equilaterally throughout the world. Thus it became a kind of distillation of the principles of common law in actual practice equally in all countries. Because a Natural Law Trust is a contract, it naturally operates according to principles elucidated in the UCC, even though doing so cedes nothing to the UCC in the way of jurisdiction or authority.
Natural Law The term “Natural Law” came to be used to describe the trust contracts that incorporate the best of all the above bodies of principles of law, while leaving out the principles that were designed to benefit only the few at the expense of the many, with only certain vested interests in mind. Natural Law is embedded in the Unified Field and operates evenly throughout the universe, with the most basic principle of it being that the vibration that one entity sends out always and invariably comes back to that entity. This is the law of karma or “as you sow, so shall you reap”. In physics it is the law of cause and
effect, action and reaction. It is perfect and infallible. It is beyond human authority to oppose or mute, and no being in existence is exempt from it.
Statutory Law Statutory Law is any body of law passed by statutes deriving from legislation of governments. They typically change from year to year and are tremendously complicated. Admiralty and maritime are types of statutory law, which have been largely prevalent in the last century, due mainly to the massive influence of special interests stemming from the banking cartel and the large corporations. Bar licensed attorneys are trained in statutory law and often believe that it is the only law worth considering as authoritative. There are millions and millions of statutory laws that keep changing. Thus no one human being can possibly keep up with all of them. That is why the attorney
profession has become such a huge industry. Statutory laws are almost invariably written to benefit certain interests over others, and only very rarely benefit everyone equally all the time.
Therefore, a Natural Law Trust incorporates the best of all the above systems of law and leaves out the impure and unfair elements.
Natural law is generally more attuned to common law and universal law. It has been around a whole lot longer and is more agreeable to more people, hence the word “natural”. Statutory law, on the other hand, which is what LLCs and corporations are based on, is legislated by politicians and changes from time to time — often every year. It can be outrageously complex and has too often been engineered to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
In the USA, a 501(c)3 foundation or nonprofit corporation is a statutory entity that is tax exempt, but it has to file reports to the IRS each year to continually re-justify its tax exempt status. Its status can be revoked or challenged at any time.
Some people are accustomed to using Limited Liability Companies (LLCs). Those who already have an LLC and a bank account for it can greatly reduce and minimize the taxes that it owes by establishing a natural law trust and having the trust be 98% owner of the LLC.
A trust is a unique legal relationship. According to Scott on Trusts, it is established the moment that legal and equitable titles are separated. A trust has some corporate characteristics, but it is not
treated as a corporation. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a trust as a “right of property . . . held by one party for the benefit of another.”
A trust is a contract based on the confidence that one person (the Creator), places in another (the Trustee), for the benefit of a third person (the Beneficiary), with respect to property (Corpus), that has been placed in trust. The Trustees assume a fiduciary responsibility to the Beneficiary, and as such, have a special duty to perform their obligations on behalf of the trust, for the benefit of the Beneficiary.
The gift of the properly designed natural law trust is that it is not subject to the millions of statutory laws. It is only subject to the natural law, which does not change. It stays the same, generation after generation, and so the trust set up properly under it can be renewed forever, without ever being subject to the changing whims of legislatures.
Passed the Test of Experience
We say that Natural Law Trusts have enjoyed a 100% success rate “since the 1980s” because that is how far back we have been able to measure. Certainly there are individual cases of Natural Law Trusts that have been successful and impenetrable far longer ago than that, but at the very least, we know that the ones designed according to these principles have never been penetrated or invalidated since the 1980s. They quietly operate, keep their constituents out of trouble, and go on benefitting the world with their coherent and harmonizing influence. In these decades of trust writing, we are not aware of any Natural Law Trust ever having had any penetration, loss of assets, or legal problems due to the structure or design of the trusts. This is rare in the asset protection field.
A Financially Sovereign Estate
It controls its taxing process. By giving up ownership and maintaining the right to enjoy the property, it benefits without the legal responsibilities. If your estate is in trust, it is free from probate and avoids inheritance tax. When you die, there is nothing to probate, nothing to tax, nothing for the government, or outsiders, to control.
Since a trust is a right and not a privilege, the government does not have the ability to have the same type of control over your estate as it does with a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship. The public is generally excluded from the affairs of a trust.
When you don’t own anything, you can’t lose
anything. By having your estate in a properly managed trust, you can increase your ability to become judgment proof. The Sovereign knows that by letting go and giving up ownership he is giving up liability, yet keeping the benefits.
A Sovereign is King or Queen
A King or Queen knows how to keep his or her financial estate in order, and how to keep it productive, protected, and private.
Your Right to Sovereignty
Know that you are Sovereign. Your Unalienable Right of Sovereignty simply exists. You were born a Sovereign; however, there has been an attempt to keep that knowledge from you. This information will give you an understanding of that knowledge. It is yours, you just need to understand the concept and realize that the kings and the wealthy have held this concept to themselves so they could be on top.
The Founding Fathers of America possessed this consciousness, and gave expression to many aspects of it in their writings of the 1700s. They
defined an American Citizen as a “sovereign without subjects”. We find that designation in no less than six (6) U.S. Supreme Court cases. One of them, for example, is Chisholm versus Georgia, 2 Dallas, 1791.
Sovereignty up until then had been understood as the position of rulership over subjects. The Founding Fathers re-defined it to mean the same power, but with a different application: instead of using one’s sovereignty to try to control others; one can use one’s sovereignty to simply live free, and voluntarily allow everyone else to live free as well. Live and let live. They respected the freedom of all people.
A typical myth is that people and organizations that dominate, such as those masquerading under the name “government”, are sovereigns. “These (so-called) ‘governments’ possess sovereignty”, people think. That’s exactly what the imposters want everyone to think.
However, true sovereignty doesn’t rule; it serves. It earns its respect by providing valuable goods and/or services. We can very easily tell who is a true sovereign. Are they respecting the freedom of others, and are they producing something of value to everyone, especially things like harmony and happiness?
From scientist David Hudson: “Our experience with kings has been severely altered due to our European background of military leaders and/or political powers becoming kings. Four thousand years BC, the term ‘king’ was actually that of a person who had god-like attributes.
“The king knew all truth, he could discern good and evil, and he could not be lied to for that reason. The king did not command troops or fight wars and he did not have any authority to tax or spend. No one in the country questioned the king’s wisdom and knowledge because he was thought of as a god. Some of the best documented texts, of course, are about the pharoahs in Old Kingdom Egypt.
How unusual this sounds in this era of government filled with excuses, apologies, explanations and other justifications for political actions.” — Science of the Spirit Foundation newsletter, May/June 1997
The false sovereigns are those who put on a disguise of authority and rulership, who practice coercion, force, theft, and exploitation, and who thus produce damage, not benefits. False sovereigns are takers, not givers. They believe in “taxes”, not purchases made with free choice on the open market. They believe in “necessary evils”. They are really beggars.
True sovereigns are benevolent emperors. They need nothing from others that isn’t offered. In turn, they have much to give, much to offer. They respect the freedom and property of others. They see these as intrinsic rights of all humans. While they may not agree with everyone’s ideas, they respect the freedom of others to have those ideas. They regard the attempt to exercise mind control over others as ridiculous, absurd, retarded, and wasteful. On the individual level, sovereignty consciousness reduces conflict between loved ones. Harmony flowers in relationships, because one gets all the love and happiness one needs from within, and doesn’t need to beg for it from others.
Perhaps you have heard the story about the bugs in the jar. Or perhaps you actually conducted this experiment when you were a child. You catch some flying insects in a jar, and put the lid on. The lid is a screen lid, so they can breathe, but they cannot get out. You can even put a little food and water in there, and they have air to breathe, so they stay alive.
Naturally the bugs fly around incessantly, batting and banging against the lid and the sides of the jar, trying to get out. They do this for hours. Then after a while, they give up and just sit there.
They are still alive, but they have become conditioned into believing that there is no way to get out. Now you can take the lid off, and they won’t leave. They may still crawl around, they may even fly a little bit, but they won’t go out of the jar. Even though the lid is off and they are perfectly free to leave, they will not. They will stay, and stay, and stay. They will never leave.
Such is the conditioning of human beings. After years, generations, centuries, of habitual thinking in terms of limitations, subjection, submission, enslavement . . . most people came to think of themselves as boxed-in, even though it is just a fantasy. It is just a hallucination, a mirage.
Hence, the spectacularly good news is that the power is within the hands of each of us to simply realize it, and start living free. Part of that awakening is realizing how much abundance is already around us. So many people say they can’t do this or that because “I don’t have the money”. And yet they are swimming, unconsciously, in an ocean of abundance. All that is needed is to wake up and start distributing what is already here, into more useful manifestations.
Why the Natural Law Trust is Nontaxable
This knowledge is supported by examples from the USA, but it is equally applicable worldwide, because natural law goes everywhere. Common law goes everywhere. The UCC operates everywhere. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, perhaps millions, have been operating with this kind of trust very quietly without filing tax returns, without paying income tax, without trust vulnerability or penetration, without loss of assets, and without legal problems.
The reason the tax agencies don’t consider the trust to be taxable is that they view it as a pass- through to the individuals or entities that are taxable. The question of whether those individuals or entities are then liable for the income tax varies from case to case. It is not the scope of this book to address the taxability of entities other than the trust. It is likewise not the purpose or the intent of this book to give tax advice. If you need tax advice, seek out a competent tax professional. The sole point here is that the trust itself is a nontaxable entity.
This superior type of pure natural law sovereign irrevocable trust not only has no obligation to pay income tax, but also has no tax return filing requirements. This is most significant. The reason is that it is non-statutory. It does not fall under any of the statutory categories that are subject to filing requirements. Letters to various inquirers from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have stated:
There are some statutory entities that are tax exempt. The difference with a properly designed Natural Law Trust is that not only does it have no tax paying liability, but it also has no filing requirements. A statutory non-profit corporation may be exempt from paying, but it is not exempt from filing. It has to report all its income in, all its expenditures out, and re-justify its exempt status every year. The tax people can revoke it at any time. The good and well designed Natural Law Trust, by contrast, has no filing requirements.
“If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you”. – – Gary Makovski, Special IRS Agent, testifying under oath in US. v. Lloyd
When a tax ID number (EIN – Employer Identification Number) is applied for, for banking purposes only, for a Natural Law Trust, the online letter that comes from the IRS providing the EIN states that “form 1041 must be filed”. But that instruction is inapplicable to a Natural Law Trust, because it is non-statutory. When the EIN is applied for, no information is requested by the IRS about exactly what kind of trust it is. The only adjective indicated about the trust on the IRS online form is “irrevocable”. The term “irrevocable” can apply both to statutory and to non-statutory trusts. The IRS is only concerned with statutory trusts. Hence it will naturally say “form 1041 must be filed”. It keeps silent about non-statutory trusts. Naturally, the IRS wants to make as much money as possible, so it is not going to comment on trusts that are outside its purview, venue, and jurisdiction. It has no category for “non-statutory”. The trust officer applying for the EIN (or tax ID in any country) must therefore simply be silently aware of these facts. The following wisdoms apply:
“According to our National Office a Pure Trust Organization (an Unincorporated Business Trust) is an organization that has no return filing requirements and is a nontaxable organization.”
“Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
“The only rights you have, are the rights you know you have.”
Thus, a better word than “exempt” would be “exception”. Technically, the tax agencies don’t recognize Natural Law Trusts as exempt, for the reasons stated above. But, they constitute an exception, in the sense that the statutory filing requirements don’t apply to them.
The right of three or four human beings to enter into a private contract with each other, without interference from any outside authority, is universal. This is supported, for example, by a U.S. Supreme Court case called Hale vs. Henkle, 1905 – one of the most quoted court cases in history. It has never been overturned. It stated, in summary, basically that people have the unlimited right to enter into contract with each other without interference from the government, as long as they aren’t harming anyone else. A Natural Law Trust is one such contract, and this principle extends globally. No government in any country has the right to interfere with the universal divine right of human beings to create private contracts with each other and operate accordingly.
Again, for those in other countries, kindly understand that these same principles are universal – they are not limited to the USA. Similar laws and rulings exist in all countries.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10.1: “No state shall…. pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts….”
Burnett v. Smith, 240 SW 1007 (1922) (US. Supreme Court): “A Pure Trust is established by contract and any law or procedure in its operation, denying or obstructing contract rights impairs contract obligation and is therefore, in violation of the United States Constitution.
It is very important to understand that one is engaging in legal tax avoidance, NOT tax “evasion”. As Judge Learned Hand once said, you can cross the river via the toll-free road or you can cross via the toll bridge. If you go via the toll bridge, you must pay the toll. But if you don’t wish to pay the toll, then simply don’t go that way – – choose to go the other route, which crosses the river at a different location where there is simply no toll. That is the principle of legal tax avoidance, and numerous court cases have confirmed that everyone has the complete right to choose such avenues.
“. . . the key question is: can we define ‘income’ in a fair and reasonably straightforward manner? Unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in doing so”.
– – Shirley Peterson, former IRS Commissioner, April 1993
“One hundred percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt and by Federal transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.”
— President Ronald Reagan, 1984, Grace Commission Report
For those who operate a ministry or a church, there is also the privilege of using a sole corporation. Sole corporations are similar to Natural Law Trusts in one respect, in that they are tax exempt and have no filing requirements. The difference is that they are statutory, and are ONLY to be used for bona fide religious or spiritual organizations that really have actual congregations, services, ministries, etc. Otherwise, a Natural Law Trust is more appropriate for most purposes.
“Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint”. – – United States Supreme Court, in Flora v. United States
“Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance”. – – Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)
“The United States has a system of taxation by confession”.
– – Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice, in U.S.A. Kahriger
“Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to IRS agents . . . Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights”.
– – Judge Cummings, U.S. Federal Judge, in US. v. Dickerson (7th Circuit 1969)
“Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply . . .”. – – Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in 1953
Using Nontaxable Business Entities
Pure Natural Law Trusts, sole corporations, business corporations in tax havens around the world, and trusts in tax havens, have been used successfully for centuries for protection from all kinds of things. Regardless of where one lives and works, one can make use of these entities.
Pure Natural Law Trusts, tax haven corporations, sole corporations, unincorporated business organizations, asset protection trusts, secret trusts, COLATOS, business trust organizations, sovereign trusts . . . what are they? What do they all have in common? What are their benefits? How do they
compare? All this education and more is available through thousands of books, websites, and seminars worldwide. Suffice it to say here, that millions and millions of businesses are already operating totally legally with absolutely no tax liability whatsoever.
Wealthy families and businesses have been using these trusts for tax benefits as well as protection from lawsuits, probate, and all kinds of other things for centuries. No new changes in the laws in recent years have changed this, and it is extremely unlikely to change in the future either, because the elite who ultimately influence the lawmaking use these very same entities themselves. They won’t “shoot themselves in the foot”.
Sovereign Natural Law Trusts are not “offshore” trusts in the usual sense of the word, although they can be operated anywhere in the world. The one thing defining them is that they are not “statutory” entities (like so-called “living” trusts) deriving their legitimacy and permission to exist from some government. They are sovereign, deriving their authority from the universal and unlimited private right to voluntarily enter into contract. Is this status being honored in the courts? Yes.
Ideal Qualities to Look for in a Natural Law Trust
* SIMPLICITY. Most trust writers, whether statutory or natural law, make them unnecessarily complicated. This necessitates having to pay them, or other professionals, big bucks and ongoing fees to interpret the complicated and verbose legalese. Not so with
good well-written Natural Law Trusts. They are bullet-proof in
strength, but simple and easy for anyone to understand. This saves having to hire professionals to interpret them. There are no extra costs due to needing to hire lawyers or professionals to interpret complicated legalese. There are no extra costs due to needing to create ongoing extra documents, unless you are running a large and complex organization. The conceptual content in these trusts is elegant, simple, straightforward, and effective. Very simply, they work.
* POLITENESS. Many natural law trusts written by patriots have such strong anti-government language in them that banks are reluctant to touch them. By contrast, a good Natural Law Trust is written in a polite and courteous manner. It concentrates the best asset protection secrets of the super rich into the fewest words, and simplifies the language so as to minimize legalese and maximizes common politeness and understandability. It is elegant. The same objective of strength and imperviousness is reached through a more refined language.
Uses and Applications of the Natural Law Trust
A trust has many advantages. A trust can perform legal acts. It can save money by saving on taxes, probate, attorney fees, and other related expenses. A trust can avoid unnecessary delays, manage personal and business affairs more efficiently, protect loved ones against others, protect property against unnecessary liability, provide for better documentation and bookkeeping, protect privacy, and accomplish many important objectives during one’s life and beyond, in a most efficient manner.
The Natural Law Trust is infinitely flexible, and can be adapted to any ethical, lawful, and noble purpose. This trust can do a lot more things than most people have realized. This type of trust can be a foundation . . . either to receive grants or make grants. It can be a business. It can be a scientific institute; it can be a religious or spiritual organization; it can be a holding company; it can be a family estate planning instrument; it can be a personal vehicle for commerce; and it can be a tax shelter. It is infinitely flexible. It can be styled, modified, and adapted to serve any noble purpose . . . virtually anything that is life-supporting, ethical and lawful.
Forms of Asset Protection in a Natural Law Trust 1. Assets are protected from litigation.
- Protection from
- Protection from
- Protection from
- Protection from
- Protection from
- Protection from
- Avoids probate.
- Avoids inheritance tax.
- Avoids estate taxes.
- Avoids court actions.
- Eliminates attorney fees.
- Eliminates or reduces Accountant fees.
- Eliminates Executor’s fees.
personal bankruptcy. excessive divorce settlements.
- Eliminates income taxes.
- Frees tax dollars for capital appreciation.
- Provides complete control over your assets through trustees.
- No public record.
- Ownership and title can be passed to heirs in complete secrecy.
- Trust can be renewed every 25 years.
- Heirs cannot change, challenge, or contest any wishes at your death.
- The Trust is easy to maintain and very inexpensive.
The Natural Law Trust can hold bank accounts, it can pay all the bills of the trustees and beneficiaries, it can hold real estate, and it can protect just about any kind of asset. It is not understood by most attorneys, because it is not taught in law school, but it has been quietly used by many of the world’s wealthiest families for centuries.
The Origin and Uses of Trusts
From 5000 BC until about 1250 AD, the King or Emperor was considered to be the only Sovereign individual, with divine rights bestowed upon him. The common man was considered to be a slave to satisfy the King’s needs. During this era of strong centralized authority, creative people conceived the trust instrument, formulated it, and secured legal status for it at an early date. Plato, for example, used a trust to create a Sovereign University in Greece around 400 BC. Trusts were a part of Roman law as well.
In England, trusts were used as early as the eleventh century, and by the fifteenth century, were being enforced by the Courts of Chancery. Around 1200 AD, the knights who had been fighting for the King resented him taking their land when they went off to war. In 1215 they wrote the Magna Carta, a trust, that for the first time would give man Sovereignty and ownership over his lands. King John objected, wanting to know why he should sign such a document, since he felt he was the only sovereign. His objections soon subsided when he was told that if he did not sign the Magna Carta, the knights would cut off his head later that day, as pre-arranged. Realizing his options were limited, the King agreed.
Today, the Magna Carta is regarded as the first contract recognizing Man as Sovereign. Of course, the Magna Carta was limited in scope, as only the knights and land barons were considered Sovereign, and not the common man or serf. However, it was a step in the right direction toward greater Sovereignty for larger groups of people.
The second step toward Sovereignty for all persons was the creation of what we now regard as “Common Law Trusts.” Knights would have their estates held by the church, or often selecting a friend to be Trustee. The church or friend would hold the property in trust for the benefit of the knight and his family. If the knight did not come back from battle, his family still had the benefit of the estate, because the trust as a separate entity could not die.
Trusts, as we know them today, came to us from England around the 16th century. During this time the kings still did not recognize individual property rights. People were not allowed to will their property to others, and they could not give their property to charity. Individuals wanted greater freedom – to give their land to others during their lifetime, and leave that property as an inheritance to those whom they loved. To bypass the King’s imposed control over their personal property; the idea of entering into a simple contract with a friend emerged. The concept was simple; the King could not take away property which a person did not “own.” The friend would agree to use the property under certain terms set forth. These “uses,” as they were then known, came to be called “trusts,” because the friend was trusted to do those things upon which they had agreed. These devices worked, because the property
had been given away. In this manner, many people insulated their estates from their personal and civil liabilities.
In the early 1600s, pilgrims who came to the New World further expanded the Sovereignty concept. They formulated the Mayflower Compact, which declared all men to be Sovereign, with unalienable, God-given Rights. These pilgrims also brought the knowledge of trusts with them, and the wealthy ones among them immediately began to establish land trusts to protect their estates. In fact, in the 1700’s, Robert Morris, Governor of the Virginia Colony and a prominent financier of the American Revolution, had Patrick Henry establish a trust for his property.
At the time, King George, III was taxing property owned by any
English subject, but could not tax land owned by a Sovereign.
The trust that Morris created, The North American Land
Company, is still in existence today.
Since those early colonial days, the use of trusts has
been kept intact by the United States Constitution, Article 1,
Section 10, which states: “No state shall…. pass any law
impairing the obligation of contracts”. Common law pure equity trusts have been used since that time by the knowledgeable and wealthy who knew how to be Sovereign in their estate.
Roles of creator, trustee, and beneficiary
The required trust participants are:
- 1) Creator (also known as Settlor or Grantor)
- 2) Beneficiary [s]
- 3) Trustee (cannot be family-related to the Creator)
- 4) Second current Trustee or Successor Trustee [The 2 trustees can be 2 friends or 1 friend and1 family member]
Optional additional officers can be:
- 1) Manager [if settlor, you would be executive manager]
- 2) Protector [non-related to settlor or trustee]
- 3) Other titles (if lots of resources and people are involved)
You, the client setting up the trust, can be EITHER:
- 1) Creator/Settlor, Beneficiary, and Manager, OR
- 2) Trustee
In both cases, you need other people for the other roles. That’s very standard in all trusts. You cannot play all of those roles. That would make the trust invalid and totally vulnerable, which would defeat the purpose.
In both cases, you can end up with practical command and total asset protection. In both cases, you can satisfy all of your, business, commercial, investment, social, humanitarian, professional, and other affairs via the trust, with far greater freedom than in your personal name and with far greater freedom than with statutory entities or inferior common law trusts.
Benefits of Being the Creator (Settlor or Grantor), Beneficiary, and Manager
If you choose this option, you are choosing to wear three hats simultaneously. As settlor, you are relinquishing control. Otherwise it is not a valid trust, and offers no protection. Now you can also play other roles at the same time. As beneficiary, you have some say in the trust’s affairs. And especially as manager, you have some control, with trustees’ approval, over the assets in, assets out, and other day to day functions of the trust.
The benefit of the first option (Creator (Settlor), Beneficiary, and Manager) is that the structure is stronger and harder to challenge by potential would-be attackers. This is because you, the person setting up the trust, are clearly NOT the trustee, and thus you have irrevocably turned over your assets legally to the trustee(s). There is then an invincible wall shielding the assets in the trust from any personal liabilities or judgments that may ever occur against you. This arrangement is better for people who have little or no experience with common law trusts and who do not possess expertise in asset protection.
It is necessary here to distinguish between legal control and practical control. Let’s use an automobile as an example. Let’s say you give the title of your car to your friend, but your friend allows you to continue using the car. Thus you have practical control – you have the keys, you know where the car is kept, you take care of it, and so on. Your friend only has legal control, but if your friend is a true friend, s/he would never try to use that legal control against you.
Like that, you as settlor, beneficiary, and manager of the trust, have practical command of it. Your friend, the person you appoint as trustee, has legal control, via title, but would never actually exercise that control unless you ask him or her to do so.
The disadvantage with this option is that if you wish to operate a bank account for the trust and be signatory on it, whoever you choose to be trustee will also have to be signatory. This can be an inconvenience if you don’t live near each other, because most banks require that signatories physically appear in the bank to sign on the account opening documents.
However, you need not worry that the other person you appoint as trustee “needs to be trusted” with your money, because depending on the bank’s policies, with many banks you can arrange for yourself to be co-signatory on any bank accounts as manager of the trust. You can arrange to be in
control of that. So, the trustee can have a minimal involvement, with minimal practical influence, even though the trustee would have legal control.
The reason you WANT them to have legal control is to make it a valid trust, and to remove from yourself the ability of any court to force you to turn over the trust’s assets based on any personal liabilities or judgments against you. If any such attacker were to try to make you give up the trust’s assets to satisfy some claim against you, you could honestly show that you have no legal control over the trust. The trustee does, and the trustee is most certainly not going to turn over the trust’s assets. That is called “bullet proof asset protection”.
You might ask, could claimants against the trustee, if any exist, make the trust pay for personal liabilities against the trustee? The answer is no, because the trustee too, is simply performing a job as trustee. The trust is not owned by anyone or anything . . . it is sovereign, and stands on its own, as an independent lawful entity. So, even the trustee cannot be compelled to give the trust’s assets to satisfy his or her personal liabilities, as long as he has not created a breach of trust.
By the same token, the trustee personally cannot be compelled to pay for any liabilities that the trust may incur.
The other disadvantage to this arrangement is that any time there is an important document to sign for the trust, such as when a major asset is transferred into or out of the trust, you will need to get the trustee’s signature. But this is not a big deal if the trust doesn’t engage in major transactions very often.
So those are the main benefits and disadvantages of being settlor, beneficiary, and manager, and appointing someone else as trustee. We have considered your role as settlor and manager. Now
let’s look at your role as beneficiary.
The beneficiary is the person on whose behalf the assets are being held, but whether the assets are ever actually distributed to the beneficiary is once again dependent upon the best judgment of the trustee. The criteria for managing the role of the beneficiary are all discussed in the trust itself, and in the manual. If you are both the settlor and the beneficiary, then it is up to the rules of the document and the trustees’ discretion. Thus it is best for you to clearly and completely communicate your wishes to the trustee when you first open the trust and irrevocably turn over control of the assets to the trustee(s).
The only other important role is the second trustee. All trusts must have more than one trustee, in case something happens to the first one. This is especially required by banks, if you open a bank account for the trust. Many banks are satisfied with a successor trustee as the backup trustee. The bank will want a backup trustee in case anything happens to the primary trustee, because the bank is liable for having the responsible party signing on bank documents. The manager can be signatory as well, if the trustee authorizes it, but the bank legally looks to the trustee as the lawful authority on the account.
Whether you appoint a second current trustee or a successor trustee is up to you. If it is a small trust, meaning it doesn’t have much in the way of assets or activity, then perhaps a second current trustee is not needed. A second current trustee may be more merited if the trust has a lot of activity and
needs more officers to assist. Or a second current trustee could be desirable if the primary trustee has a colleague, business partner, or friend with whom he or she wishes to work and share control. The second trustee has to be non-family-related to the primary trustee.
If you have children or others whom you would like to inherit control of the trust when you are gone, then you can appoint one or more of them as successor
trustee(s). Then he/she/they would instantly inherit legal
control of the trust when the primary trustee dies, leaves,
disappears, resigns, or otherwise becomes unavailable or unreachable.
Please note that if you are settlor, beneficiary, and manager, then the trustee that you choose cannot be a spouse or close blood relation, because if the trust were ever challenged, that would be deemed by the court as insufficient separation of interests and influence.
Benefits of Being the Trustee
The main benefit of being the trustee is that you would not have the disadvantages listed above. You would not have to share signatory control of the bank account, and you would not have to seek the trustee’s signature every time you engage in a significant transaction. If you are the primary trustee, you could function as the manager as well, whether you give yourself the title “managing trustee” or just “trustee”. This means you would have both legal and practical control of the trust. It means you wouldn’t have to “trust” anyone else with the assets in the trust, although you are still under fiduciary responsibility to responsibly administer the assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries, as contractually agreed in the trust corpus.
The disadvantage of this arrangement is that it requires more of a learning curve. To have this level of control, you really have to know what you are doing, in order to maintain the asset protection strength of the trust. It is best if you have an education in non-statutory trust law, common law, and asset protection. If you have the role of trustee and the control that it gives, and don’t have the knowledge of common law asset protection, then a mistake could cost you the assets in the trust.
Why then wouldn’t your friend whom you appoint as trustee in the first arrangement described above, where you are settlor, beneficiary, and manager, need to have a similar education? The reason is that in that arrangement, the control is separated between two people. In that arrangement, you have practical command and the trustee has legal control. Hence the risk is diversified. In this second arrangement, where you are trustee, you have both legal and practical control, in which case the risk is all concentrated in one person. The knowledge required by the person who has both legal and practical control is a lot greater. In the case of you being the manager and someone else being the trustee, the practical and legal types of control are separated, and no one person has much risk. In that case, the asset protection remains invincible without having any background in trusts or common law education.
It’s really very simple . . . in these trusts, the creator is also known as the grantor or settlor. That has to be someone different from, and not related to, the trustee. So if you are trustee, someone
unrelated to you has to be the settlor. Or, if you have a second unrelated trustee, then your settlor could be a spouse or family member. Since the settlor is normally the person who puts assets into the trust to hold on behalf of the beneficiary, then if you are the trustee, the question arises as to how someone else can be named as settlor if he or she doesn’t put any assets into the trust.
Here it will help to think for a moment about what is really meant by the ownership of assets. The question of “ownership” is something of which the unenlightened and the dark age government- oriented people are ignorant. Witness the famous statement of Chief Seattle:
“The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.” – – (www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html)
Therefore who really “owns” the assets you are putting into the trust? It is this higher sense of stewardship of resources that has come to justify the appointment of a nominee settlor (creator). Since the settlor and the trustee cannot be the same person, you select and appoint a settlor, and that person signs that certain assets are granted into the trust. You and the settlor understand very well that you are simply the divine steward of the assets which have been previously entrusted to you. He or she signs that these assets are now bequeathed to the trust, and actually, from that point onward, he or she really has no further role. From that point on, the trustee herself or himself can legitimately put additional assets into the trust, but a second trustee is needed, if the first trustee is also a beneficiary.
If you are putting assets into the trust and would thus normally be called the settlor (grantor), but if you also prefer to be the trustee, then you can appoint someone to play the “nominee” role of settlor. This means “in name only”. This is done by big corporations in business every day all over the world. Nominee positions are often used to protect the privacy and the powers of the actual person in control. Since a trustee cannot also be a settlor officially, you can be trustee and must appoint someone else as nominee settlor.
Which role(s) you play depends upon what kind of friends and family relationships you have, what purposes you have in mind for the trust, what role(s) you would most enjoy playing, what seems easiest and best for you and your fellow chosen trust officers, and perhaps other factors.
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
Q: How long does it take to set up a Natural Law Trust?
A: Usually one or two business days, from the time that the
trust writer receives the order. Typically it can be one business
day, but it depends upon questions he will ask you, your
answers, his work load, how fast you respond, what special
documents may be needed, customizations, unique
arrangements, etc. For example, he might make you settlor
(grantor) and beneficiary, or he might make you trustee,
depending on your particular use of the trust, intended
relationship, and availability of friends or family members to fill
any of those roles. Sometimes a client is asked to find someone
who is willing and qualified to play the role of trustee, and sometimes clients can take longer than expected to negotiate that arrangement with their friend or family member. So that timing depends upon the client, not upon our trust writer. If the client plays the role of trustee, then a decision has to be made as to who will fill the roles of settler and beneficiary. This is all arrived at in one-on-one discussions with the trust writer, and then it is up to the client to decide. Once all this is clear, the trust writer can basically produce the trust documents within one day.
Q: What is the difference between trusts and other legal entities based on natural law, and ones based on statutory law?
A: Statutory law consists of millions of laws. They change every year and are so numerous and complicated that they require well paid lawyers to keep up with them. They have created a whole industry of lawyers that parasite off society because of it. Such laws are generally designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many — the lawyers, the politicians, the big corporations, and the cabal’s favored interests. Legal entities set up under statutory law are subject to those millions of laws, and require expensive and complicated legal expertise to defend them.
Common law, by contrast, has been around for millions of years, and will continue to be around for millions of years. It rarely changes. It’s basically, “Don’t lie, don’t steal, and don’t violate the rights of others.” It is the closest thing to natural law, or universal law, that is active in human affairs. It was the basis of the US court system until 1938. It is still the underlying authority, and is now returning in force.
Trusts and legal instruments that are created under natural law have far greater freedoms. They are subject only to the natural law, and are thus sovereign and immune from the ever-changing statutory laws. They can go on generation after generation, well into the Golden Age, and flourish, because they’re based on what is timeless.
Q: Please explain what is the Protector, Creator, Trustee, Beneficiary?
A: The words Creator, Grantor, and Settlor refer to the same person . . . the person who has the trust created and who places assets into it. The Trustee is the person in whose care and stewardship the trust is placed . . . who assumes the responsibility for the safety and proper administration of the trust’s assets. The Beneficiary is the person (or entity) for whom the assets are being held, for distribution at a later time. The Protector is the person appointed by the Creator and/or the Beneficiary to hire and fire trustees. Not every trust has a Protector; whether one is appointed is the sole choice of the Creator and/or the Beneficiary.
Q: You said I don’t own the trust; therefore I don’t have to pay taxes. So who owns the trust?
A: No one owns it — it owns itself. That’s the whole point — to remove “ownership” (and therefore liability) from the individuals. And we’re not saying “you don’t have to pay taxes”. We are saying the trust is nontaxable. And if you don’t own it, then of course even if you pay personal taxes on other income and assets, it is true that you would not be liable for income tax on the trust’s assets. Natural law trusts don’t have “income” as defined by tax agencies; they have “assets” and “increase”.
Q: I have heard that the U.S. Supreme Court case Hale vs. Henkel provides confirmation of the lawful basis for contract trusts such as the Natural Law Trust. Can you elaborate on this?
A: First you must understand that the U.S. Constitution in Art. I, Sect. 10, affirms our unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. That is the basis of all trust law worldwide — not just in America. The Hale vs. Henkel case merely affirmed this. So first the Constitution says it; then what many call the “Most Important Supreme Court Case” further confirms it. The relevant quote from it is:
“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 such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.” (See https://www.scribd.com/document/88506878/Most- Important-Supreme-Court-Case-Hale-v-Henkel)
Q: Do I get an EIN for the natural law trust? How long would it take to get that #?
A: [The EIN is for those who wish to open a bank account for the trust in the United States of America. It stands for Employer Identification Number, and even if you have no employees, the trust still needs to get the number from the IRS, for banking purposes only.]
For those living or banking in other countries, each country may have its own national business entity identification number that may need to be acquired to open a bank account in that country.
You only need the EIN, or equivalent number in whatever country you are in, if you are going to open a bank account for the trust. The EIN is “for banking purposes only” — not for filing tax returns. The EIN is required by the banks in the USA for opening accounts, as an identifier number only.
The EIN is very simple, easy, and quick to get, and it is free. It is done online on the IRS website and the trust writer can show you how to do it. It takes 15-20 minutes. Once the form is filled out, it just takes a few minutes or seconds for the system to generate it.
Q: One thing that concerns me, is simply that, as you mentioned, this trust is not understood by lawyers. It sounds like if there is ever some problem, the only person that could deal with it is the trust writer. I wonder if he goes away, where that leaves me. What or how would a situation like this be
handled with this setup? In other words, I am concerned that only one person understands this and handles this type of trust.
A: It is incorrect to think that it is understood by only one person. There are hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of people throughout America and the world who use such trusts and understand them. While it is true that the science and art of such trusts have not been taught in the cabal-influenced law schools, and thus perhaps less than 1% of 1% of the Bar-licensed attorneys
understand them, there are a few. There are vastly more non-Bar member common law lawyers and paralegals that are educated in them.
In essence, it’s a simple contract between the settlor/creator and the trustees. It is handled like any other contract between two or three people. Bar-licensed attorneys want you to use theirs, so most of them give the natural law trusts a bad rap, yet many of them sell their versions online, as “asset protection trusts”, “irrevocable trusts”, etc. There are many thousands of natural law professionals around the world who understand this this category of trust.
Q: The Natural Law Trust sounds very good to me, although all the setup sounds like a total life makeover for me.
A: No, it is not a “total life makeover”. All it is, is acquiring a wonderful instrument with which you can do many things. It is not as complicated as you seem to be imagining. It’s really very simple. You could just continue doing everything you were doing before. The only difference is, now you could be doing it in the name of the trust.
Q: Can I put my IRA [retirement pension] into the trust without triggering a taxable event?
A: If you take an IRA out of your name, it will trigger a taxable event, even though the trust may be nontaxable. So, the taxes would occur before you can put the assets into the trust. A better way would be for you to make the trust the beneficiary of the IRA. Then, that would be a non-taxable event. It would be an exchange for beneficial interest in the trust. So, you can name the trust as beneficiary of the IRA, and use the trust to hold other assets as well.
Q: I would like to see what a Natural Law Trust looks like. Is an example visible on any website?
A: Your trust will be emailed as a Microsoft Word document attachment. Then it is recommended for you to print it on paper, if you wish, and insert it into a 3-ring binder notebook. This is because over time, many of the documents being added to the trust will have original wet ink signatures, and sometimes notarizations on them. In addition, it is always
good to have a hard copy, in case anything happens to your computer. The trust writer would only post-mail something to you if his signature is needed on anything. The main corpus consists of about 30 pages, but many more pages will be added as the trust develops over time. Plus the manual is about 15 pages.
Bigger is not necessarily better. If the trust had
100 or 300 pages, as many do, it might contain a lot of
unnecessary stuff that would make it more complicated
than it needs to be. In this case, a trust with shorter text
and lesser pages is actually more powerful and beneficial,
because the essence of the best legal and asset protection principles has been distilled down into the most concentrated and user-friendly form.
These materials are proprietary and are not published on any website anywhere. If you find any on a website, it would be very advisable to avoid using them, because the writers of good Natural Law Trusts have decades of experience in eliminating so much of the nonsense out there and retaining only the trust documents and language that are most essential, correct, up-to-date, and beneficial for everyone concerned.
Further, you wouldn’t want to use anything that has been exposed to the public. The corpus of the trust is very private. It is never to be shared with anyone except your closest family and friends and/or whomever you may bring into the trust as any kind of officer or partner. Only a few pages are to be shared with the bank — the minimum necessary to get an account open. The trust writer will show you which pages. All the rest of the trust is never to be shown to any institution or agency, without the consent of the trustees. The privacy of it is one of its protections. That’s why you really don’t want to be asking for a website where you could “see” the trust.
A good Natural Law Trust writer can send you an attachment of a trust indenture generic title page and first page, if you wish, so you can see what they look like. Otherwise, know that it is in your interest to keep the rest of the trust private.
Q: I have some concern about doing business over the phone and email to the trust writer.
A: Why? Most people shop online from around the world. You are not doing anything illegal, unethical, or that would need to be
hidden. Other than not showing most of the actual trust contents to most outside parties, the fact of setting the trust up and having a trust is no secret. After all, if you’re going to bank with it, you make its existence known to the IRS, to get an EIN. (Or for those in other countries, the equivalent business identification number from your tax agency).
The IRS (or tax agency in your country) will have the trust name, your name, your Social Security Number (if you are going to be the trustee and signatory), and other pertinent details. The trust writer will provide the directions and instructions for you to make the application. It only takes a few minutes to get the EIN. The EIN is “for banking purposes only”, NOT for filing tax returns. The IRS will never ask you for a tax return on the trust. So don’t volunteer it.
So if the IRS knows all about your trust, who else would you wish to hide your communications about it from? Do you think the National Security Agency will be listening to the phone calls or intercepting your emails? Who cares? Let them listen! It may bore them to death. There is absolutely nothing of any great interest to them in your getting involved with this.
We have much to protect, but nothing to hide. We walk into the bank with a few pages from the trust and open a bank account. We provide our SSN as the signatory, and the EIN for the trust. The bank has all the info about the trust in their computer records.
So this is all done in the full sunshine of daylight. The trust writer and his clients talk openly all the time on the phone about every intimate detail of the trusts and related business affairs. We email such details back and forth likewise, without encryption. We have been involved with these trusts this way since 1993, and our trust writer since sometime in the 1980s. So have countless other people worldwide. We’ve had no problems. So what are you worried about?
Q: This Natural Law Trust seems to be designed specifically for US citizens.
A: It wasn’t “designed for US citizens”. It existed long before the USA ever came into being. It is ancient. It was simply adopted and utilized a lot in America. Since more people from the USA seem to use it than other countries, more US laws have been located to authenticate it, but it can be equally authenticated in any country. It is used throughout the world. Everywhere, the natural law exists, and has pre-dated statutory law. It is the right of all human beings everywhere to enter into private contracts with each other . . . as long as doing so doesn’t violate the rights of anyone else. This is surely verified by numerous Supreme Court cases in most countries.
Also, although natural law instruments are better than statutory ones, in general, a good trust writer can usually also arrange for statutory entities to be set up if you need them — whether they be corporations, foundations, IBCs, statutory trusts, or whatever, in any jurisdiction in the world. And he should also be able to help you structure asset protection layering between them, if you wish.
Q: But I am a Canadian citizen and most of my close family are EU – European Union citizens (German citizens) and not US citizens.
A: That’s absolutely fine. It is equally applicable to all countries. That is the appeal of it. Natural law is universal; and therefore any trust based on it is more simple, more flexible, and more international than statutory entities.
Q: US banks are obligated to inform the Canadian revenue agency about all my assets held in the US banks. [This question applies to readers anywhere in the world, outside the USA.]
A: The assets in the trust will not show up anywhere as being “your” assets. They will belong to the trust, not to you.
Q: Since we are not able to meet the trust writer in person and his proven records of successful practice are private, how can we be sure that our assets, properties and a business would be safe in the trust that he designs?
A: Meeting the trust writer in person is indeed possible, so saying it isn’t possible is incorrect. However, meeting him would not guarantee that the trust he sets up for you would protect you. If our trust writer disclosed his records of success, those too could be misleading, as many documents are. It is not the meeting or the documents that give credibility. The trust will protect you. To understand how, consider the following important points.
One, no government anywhere has any right to prevent you from entrusting your assets to anyone else, including a trust.
Two, if you transfer ownership of your assets to another entity, you no longer own them. If you no longer own them, no one can take them from you.
Three, the trust that a good Natural Law Trust writer sets up for you is written in plain, simple, easy-to-understand English. It is not complicated and it does not require a law-school-educated attorney to understand. You can understand it yourself, just by reading it. In reading it, you can see very plainly that it protects you, it protects your assets, it gives you control, removes liability, and allows for nearly infinite flexibility.
Four, this flexibility allows you to structure it and operate it just about any way you want to . . . as long as you aren’t violating the rights of anyone else. This means that you are in the driver’s seat . . . and you won’t need to trust the trust writer, or anyone else. If you can trust yourself, you will see in the trust document that it will give you whatever arrangements you want.
Q: Would the trust writer help us to understand how payouts for our employees will be taken care of, in a precise, timely and safe way?
A: Yes, the trust writer will be available for ongoing consultation, however, you don’t really need him to answer a thing like that, because you would administer your affairs pretty much the same as you would without the trust. The only difference is you are doing it in the name of the trust. Otherwise the rest of your individual, business, commercial, and investment affairs are the same. The only time you would need to consult him is if it specifically pertains to any aspects of the trust that are perhaps not already covered in the trust manual.
Q: How can we be sure that unauthorized people will not be able to access our trust bank accounts?
A: Most of the answer to that question would come from other sources, because the issue would not be with the trust . . . it would be with other policies of security at the bank or mechanisms of security on your computer. The trust itself only authorizes the people to have access to the bank account whom you designate. If you designate no one other than yourself, then that is the way it will be. You can be the sole authorized signatory on the bank account for the trust if you wish to be. If anyone else were to access the bank account without your permission, it would not be the fault of the trust . . . it would be the fault of insufficient bank security or insufficient security on your computer, your identity, etc.
This writer has been using this type of trust since 1993 and banking with it since 1996. So have many of our friends. We have done commerce with them, investments, business, banking, international transactions, all kinds of things. We have never had a problem with them. If they are designed and operated correctly, you will have no problem. And they have gotten better and better. The version our trust writer is providing now has improved and evolved, year after year. He keeps adding refinements, adjustments, and improvements.
Q: We would most likely need to attend a special introductory workshop in order to get a deeper understanding about what are the benefits of the Natural Law Trust.
A: This question arises precisely because of the 99% of the trusts and legal entities out there that are not good and well written Natural Law Trusts. We define “well written” as including the feature of
less words, less text, less pages, less legalese, and less complicated language. The good ones are written in plain simple high school English. Therefore large learning curves are not necessary.
Most of the world is accustomed to corporations, foundations, trusts, and other legal entities as requiring lots of education and studying to master. Most of these entities are riddled with landmines and pitfalls, costing severe consequences if one makes one small mistake. Therefore the questioner can be forgiven for assuming that a Natural Law Trust also requires huge learning curves. Not so.
Believe it or not, we don’t conduct workshops. You are overcomplicating things. You need to relax! It is really simpler and better than you seem to be imagining. We think companies that run big promotions of trusts or other legal entities with seminars and so on actually do less good for their clients than the really good Natural Law Trust writers are doing. Precisely because they have much fewer numbers of clientele, they are able to act more like a friend and give more personal attention. Companies that run workshops, on the other hand, are less personal, and will be less caring, with less personal concern or attention.
Good Natural Law Trust writers have an excellent history of avoiding trouble, and their clients have generally avoided problems with the trusts as well, due to the proper design of the trusts, and the recommendations they provide for proper operation of the trusts.
You are more fortunate than you may realize, to have the offer to be introduced to a Natural Law Trust writer. They are not famous or high profile and they want to keep it that way.
(The question below adds more to this thought about learning, so please read that too.)
Q: I would like to learn more about the whole philosophy of this trust.
A: Thank you for showing so much interest, and we are glad you wish to learn. However, the really good Natural Law Trust writers have chosen to go a different way than most trust purveyors. Where many of them get overly wordy and complicated and develop it into a business and almost an academic institution, the better ones have preferred to take more the spiritual approach, which is to keep it simple, concentrate the best of all approaches into a shorter form, free up the user’s time, and leave more time free for spiritual practices and quality time with the family.
After all, money, possessions, asset protection, physical things, and all the concerns about them, are not everything. You know that the meaning of life is much deeper.
There are complicated websites and extensive natural law seminars, books, and verbose speakers who will hold forth for hours about all manner of trust philosophy and so on. In the end, we observe that they end up providing no more real benefit than we do, by keeping it simple. In fact, simplicity can be more effective than complexity and time-consuming learning curves.
Q: I would like to know which banks in my area will open accounts for these trusts.
A: The willingness to open the accounts for these trusts is not determined by which institution it is. Since natural law instruments have not been as uniformly understood by banks as statutory entities, it often more depends upon which employee you are speaking with in the bank, and what mood they happen to be in that day. It is really that subjective.
One of the best ways to have a higher likelihood that the bank will open your account, is if you have already banked at that institution for years, in your personal name or some business name. If the institution knows you . . . if they have long since done their “KYC” – Know Your Customer – on you . . . if they consider you to be an upstanding citizen and bank customer, and especially if you have developed a bit of a friendship with any of the bankers working there, then they may be willing to open the account for the trust, even if they are unfamiliar with such trusts and wouldn’t do so otherwise for someone walking in off the street. They may open the account because they know you will be the signatory, and they are comfortable with who you are.
Further, if you have been following the global reset news, you know that there are powerful developments moving the entire world more towards a natural law banking system. Therefore, it is increasingly likely that more and more banks will be more than happy to accommodate customers with natural law instruments.
In the meantime, if you need to approach an institution where you don’t already have an existing relationship, then just walk in with the pages from the trust that the trust writer will have indicated you should take (and no more), and ask them. If they say no, then they have probably done you a favor . . . because their very unwillingness to welcome such a virtuous relationship shows that there is something questionable about their own policies and practices. So, go down the street and try another institution.
It only takes trying a few, to find one that will say yes. We have never heard of anyone not being able to find an institution that will open the account.
Remember as well that you can have checking accounts at other types of institutions, such as investment houses, securities brokerages, online payment processors, and credit unions. They too are known to have opened accounts for these trusts. Hence, you have other viable options besides just banks.
Q: I need to know that the trust will work in other countries; otherwise it is no good for me.
A: Your words evidence a kind of fear, hesitation, nervousness, apprehension, as if you have been taken advantage of in the past, and you are wary. If so, we are sorry. We quite understand . . . we too have been burned many times. Been there and done that. But don’t let it lose your faith in humanity, in divinity, or in existence. The world is not so bad as it may seem sometimes.
No, a good trust writer is not going to give you any “guarantees”. He has no need to do that. This is what trusts are all about. It is saying to the government, “We trust each other more than we trust you.” It is getting the government out of the picture. It is saying that we don’t need the government to protect us. In fact, we need to be protected FROM the government.
The truth is that hundreds of thousands of Canadians, millions
of Americans, and people all over the world, have been using this type
of trust for decades, for centuries. It will not serve you, dear one, to challenge one of America’s best trust writers to “guarantee” you something. He will just walk away and wish you a nice day. He will realize you are not ready for this.
The good trust writer will extend the friendship to you by simply assuring you, as one divine being to another, that the trust will work just fine where you are, and if you choose to go with it, you will find integrity, happiness, peace, harmony, and gratitude in your relationship with our trust writer, and with other Natural Law Trust users . . . more and more so as the years pass. You will find that the price of it will seem smaller and smaller as the years pass. Most good Natural Law Trusts involve only a one- time lifetime fee. They involve no annual fees or any other kind of further ongoing fees. The benefits of the trust will go on showering upon you and your descendents generation after generation, long after the initial fee for it will have been forgotten or seemed like peanuts.
Q: Are there any other costs or fees besides the setup cost?
A: No. There are no annual fees or further costs or fees to be paid to a good trust writer’s trust, unless you engage him for any special consulting needs that are above and beyond the normal consulting he provides that is directly related to the creation of the trust and the commencement of your operation of it.
Q: I am very interested in this and wonder whether a single trust could be set up for both my wife and myself?
A: Yes, the great thing about these trusts, is not being subject to the millions of ever-changing statutes, but rather only to the everlasting and ever-the-same natural law, you basically have limitless freedom and flexibility to design, adapt, modify, and operate the trust any way you like, as long as you don’t use it to violate the rights of anyone else, or the basic rules of good trust construction.
A spouse can be one of the trustees, but not First Trustee or Protector. And a couple cannot be co-trustees. A spouse can be one of the trustees as long as the other trustee is not a family relation of any kind. You and a relative who is not a part of your household can be co-trustees, as long as that relative is no closer than a first cousin. No lineal antecedents or descendants.
Not every trust has a protector – they are not always deemed necessary. A protector has the power to hire and fire trustees. It depends upon the objectives of each trust creator and the relationships he or she has available. But if one is appointed, the protector must not be related to the settlor or any of the trustees or beneficiaries.
Assuming these conditions are fulfilled, you can make the powers, responsibilities, and privileges of each of you as specific or as general as you wish. You can also make her manager, successor trustee, or beneficiary. Or, if you really want to give her complete freedom, you can set up an entirely separate trust for her, and encourage her to be manager or trustee of it. There are lots of ways you can go. Further details on the “how” of it, specific to your situation, are better discussed with the trust writer.
Q: Can I put all my assets into one trust?
A: You could, but it is not recommended, if your assets are substantial. The traditional cardinal rule among all wealthy people who use trusts is, have a different trust for each different asset. “Never put all your eggs in one basket”. Have one for each house, one for each car, one for each business, one for each investment, etc. etc. In the early 1990s it was rumored that the Rockefellers had as many as 7000 of these trusts. The reason is, what if you were to put all your assets into one trust, and then some problem were to arise with it? All the assets might be at risk.
It is rare and unlikely that the trust would ever be successfully attacked, legally, or that it would be penetrated. In fact, we have NEVER ONCE heard of that happening with a good Natural Law Trust. But what if you had made the mistake of appointing co-trustees who later became disagreeable with you? If a conflict between trust officers were to arise, could they take your assets from it?
Again, these trusts are set up so ingeniously and so beautifully, that their very design minimizes the chances of problems. The design is fabulous, and so if the trust is operated according to the guidelines suggested, and if you are not using the trust in dangerous or questionable activities, then it is extremely unlikely that the assets in it would ever be at risk. But the whole point of asset protection is to maximize the security of the assets. Thus, the traditional cardinal principle is, “have a different trust for each different asset”.
Q: What is your feeling towards a Private Interest Foundation as opposed to a Trust?
A: We have no particular opinion other than we generally prefer natural law entities over statutory ones. In addition, please be aware that good Natural Law Trusts can operate as foundations. The only possible disadvantage we can think of is that if you are accepting donations and you want the donors to be able to write off their donations on their tax returns as tax deductible, then your foundation may have to be a statutory entity. We are assuming that’s what you are referring to in Canada, as a Private Interest Foundation. In the US, a 501(3)(c) can operate as a foundation and be tax exempt, but it is a statutory entity and thus is subject to a long list of regulations. It does, however, offer the benefit that donors to it can have their donations be tax deductible.
If your foundation is philanthropic and will be giving donations rather than receiving them, then a good Natural Law Trust could be set up that way and would be far superior, in our opinion, because it would have no tax agency or government filing requirements and would therefore be subject only to natural laws — i.e. don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t violate the basic rights of others, etc. It would be free of the millions of ever-changing statutes legislated by politicians and lawyers every year.
Or, if your foundation will be receiving donations, but you don’t care whether the donations will be tax deductible for the donors, then too, the Natural Law Trust would be superior.
Q: Does the setup include bylaws and shares setup of the corporation?
A: The bylaws of the trust are in the indenture, in the corpus of it. They’re not termed “bylaws”, but that’s basically what they are. Shares of the trust are called “units”. These are all explained in the indenture and in the manual. However, the trust is not properly called a “corporation”. A corporation is a public entity that is generally statutory. That’s why these trusts are sometimes called “unincorporated business organizations”.
Q: Is there an ongoing process as growth of the trust/foundation needs?
A: Absolutely. That’s the whole purpose of it. If there were no ongoing process and growth, expansion, then it would just be a dormant entity and have little or no purpose. Most users of these trusts add documents to the trust on an ongoing basis, recording every significant transaction in a 3-ring paper binder notebook and in the computer files. Guidelines for all this are included in the indenture and in the manual that come with the trust.
Q: After the trusts are set up can we move most of our money into the trusts from the RV [ReValuation of currencies]?
A: Yes. It is best to have the trust set up prior to the RV and also the currencies
exchanged into the trusts prior to the RV. If you have a good trust writer set the trusts up
for you, then upon your request, he can also provide you a template document you can adapt for your trust called “Addendum to Schedule “A” Personal Property – [Foreign] Currency exchanged into the trust”. As you know, there is not supposed to be any capital gains tax imposed on ANY Dinar or Dong holders anywhere, but it is to be designated as a “currency exchange” and not an “investment”. However, even if the taxman does try to impose a capital gains tax, it would be totally inapplicable to exchanges conducted for currencies owned by these trusts, because they are nontaxable. That is, providing the exchange has been documented PRIOR TO the RV. That’s why we recommend that the “Addendum to Schedule “A” Personal Property – [Foreign] Currency exchanged into the trust” be notarized, to prove that the date of execution was prior to the RV date.
for each different asset.
Q: Can one trust have the money in several different banks or will we have to divide the money up into different banks and have a trust for each bank? (FDIC has been bankrupt since 2008 and is no protection)
A: One trust can have as many bank accounts as you want, in as many banks as you want. However, it is also recommended to have a different trust
A separate note unrelated to the trusts, though, is that a much safer banking system is coming. Some say it is already here. The RV is just a part of this new worldwide system which is asset-backed and which would make FDIC much stronger, or even redundant and unnecessary.
Q: Can the trust invest and not have to pay taxes on the profits?
A: Yes. Exempt statutory entities like 501(3)(c)s don’t have to pay taxes either, but the difference with a good design of Natural Law Trust is that such trusts file no returns.
Q: After the RV the US Treasury will be closely monitoring where every dollar goes; will this cause a problem?
A: BEFORE the RV, the cabal has already been “closely monitoring where every dollar goes”, and has ALREADY caused countless problems for peaceful, harmless, and life-supporting people everywhere! People think reports are only issued for transactions $10K and above, but FINCEN, Echelon, and other systems have been tracking every dollar down to the penny in REAL TIME for YEARS.
The DIFFERENCE with the NEW system is that the tracking may continue, but the world monetary system will be in new hands . . . hands that are more compassionate, more interested in alleviating suffering than causing it, more interested in letting people live free, and more in tune with universal law.
So . . . everyone who is harmless, who has the best interests of all life at heart, and who isn’t planning to use their money to dominate, exploit, divide, conquer, parasite, violate, or abuse . . . will THRIVE and FLOURISH in the new system, uninterfered with . . . in complete freedom. We would say the only people who should be concerned about the tracking are those who plan to violate the ethics of the universe with their funds.
Whether the funds are in a good Natural Law Trust or not, makes no difference in that respect. A good Natural Law Trust is among the best on the planet . . . but even so, it’s like having the best computer. It’s still a neutral device. What is done with it depends upon the consciousness and the ethics of the user. One can have the best trust and still commit evil acts with it. That is exactly what members of the dark elite have been doing. They have been using these very same trusts. That’s why they have not legislated against them, and will not do so. But the effects of their use of such wonderful instruments have been harmful to society, as you know. It is time for those of the Light to use these very same instruments, of such advanced powers of asset protection, for spreading the Light and the Good.
Therefore, anyone using these trusts in that way, should have absolutely no problem being tracked, being watched, and being recorded as to what they do with their funds. They can be PROUD of what they are doing, and HAPPY to be seen in the full sunshine of broad daylight! You will find with these trusts and with the educational orientation from which they come, that we stand with such strength in the law, and in our decades of successful experience with these trusts, we have nothing to hide and are not very interested in trying to be unseen. The only thing that we keep unseen, really, is the corpus of the trust. That is never given to any agency or any bank or institution. Only certain pages from it are shown to open bank accounts, as necessary, and no more. The trust is NOT publicly recorded
anywhere. It is this privacy of its content that is part of the reason for its strength of protection. But other than that, we do everything in the full sunshine of broad daylight, and have no worries about any “tracking” or “monitoring”.
Q: How would you put a sole proprietorship business into a trust?
A: Step 1: follow the instructions in the trust manual for adding assets into the trust. Transfer the assets of the sole proprietorship into the trust via documents that you create and add into the trust notebook. In most cases, there is no wisdom in posting or recording these documents publicly. It is a private transaction.
Step 2: begin having all monies that were previously paid to the sole proprietorship, now being paid to the trust.
Step 3: likewise, begin paying all expenses and expenditures that were previously being paid by the sole proprietorship, now from the trust.
Q: Is it possible to have only one trustee or is it required to have at least two?
A: It is generally required to have two. They don’t both have to be current; one can be current and the other can be successor, if you prefer. Sometimes you can function for a while with only one, but it isn’t recommended. The trust would be orphaned, adrift at sea without a rudder, if anything were to happen to the one and only trustee. For that reason, most banks will not open an account for a trust unless it has two current trustees, OR one current trustee and
one successor trustee.
Q: What if I don’t know two people I can absolutely trust to be good trustees?
A: Then you can appoint a protector, in addition to the other trust officers. The creator may, through the protector, as set forth in the trust instrument, remove a trustee. The cause for removing a trustee is not required to be disclosed. The power to remove a trustee may cause various problems if not done properly. The safest way to avoid these problems is for the creator to appoint a protector, who can replace a non-related trustee with another non-related trustee.
Q: Don’t trustees need a lot of education? Colleges, academies, and institutes exist to train trustees.
A: This depends upon whether it is a public or private trust, and whether it involves just a few people or large numbers of people. If it is public, or large numbers of people are involved, then of course trustees would have to be professionally trained. But most Natural Law Trusts are small private family
trusts involving very few people. In the vast majority of cases, Natural Law Trustees serve their settlors just fine with four easily available qualifications:
- 1) Considered friendly, harmonious, agreeable, and trustworthy by the settlor (creator);
- 2) Has read this explanatory text thoroughly;
- 3) Has read the entire trust document and the trust manual that comes with it; and
- 4) Has consulted with the trust writer whenever any question arises.
With these qualifications, all of the Natural Law Trusts we have been involved with (or heard about) have fared very well. In fact, any kind of institutional trustee training could be counterproductive, as most such training is for public statutory trusts. That kind of education would actually prove to be a great disadvantage, because it would create a bias towards complicated statutory thinking. It would create a mindset which fails to appreciate the simpler and more natural approach to trusteeship quietly enjoyed by the vast majority of Natural Law Trusts.
Q: I have gone over the information you sent me about the Natural Law Trust. I also looked it up on Google and it seems great but also somewhat complicated, so I’ll have to look it over again and see what questions I have.
A: It is good for you to know that via Google you will encounter a sea of websites with all kinds of opinions all over the map about trusts. Very few of them are even discussing the exact TYPE of trust that we consider to be a “good” Natural Law Trust. Very few of them know about the superior legal simplicity, purity, and style of the good ones.
If you like absorbing a vast variety of opposing opinions, many of which contain disinformation or misinformation, because your intellect is huge and you can handle the controversies with ease, then fine — survey the Google landscape. But if your intent is more practical, and you simply want to have the very best and most user-friendly protection, with the lowest likelihood of any problems, it would be good to simply be grateful that you have already found the best. Don’t confuse yourself by the others.
Q: Would we need an attorney?
You would almost never want to consult an attorney regarding the content or the functions of these trusts, because they are written under natural law, whereas attorneys, by definition, usually specialize in statutory law. They are dangerous because they are brainwashed by it and will not only fail to be of help regarding Natural Law Trusts, but they can actually cause harm by their misunderstanding of them and disinformation about them. Therefore it would be rare that you would ever want to consult an attorney regarding any trust business. If you do, it should focus on the transaction, whatever is the subject of the consultation, and NOT the content or design of the trust. Very little information about the structure of the trust should be given to any attorney — as little as possible.
Q: Have many Natural Law Trusts been created for residents / citizens of: (a) Canada, (b) United Kingdom, (c) countries in Africa, (d) Central- and South American countries, (e) Caribbean countries?
A: Your question stems from a statutory mentality, because statutes are country-specific. Natural Law Trusts, by contrast, are universal. If the trust were a statutory one, then it would be relevant to find out specifically for clients in which countries such trusts have been created. But the fact that it is NOT statutory, but rather is operating on the higher and more evolved plane of natural law, meaning that it this is not a necessary question for you to ask. Suffice it to say, good Natural Law Trust writers are world travelers and have clients in many countries. Natural law goes everywhere. Hence it is not necessary to determine whether the trust is applicable to any country in particular.
Q: When assets such as currencies, a bank account, a business, real estate, or other valuables are put into a trust, you refer to it as an “exchange” rather than a “gift” or a “transfer”. Why is this, and what does the trust give in exchange?
A: The trust gives Units of Beneficial Interest. These are like shares of stock in the trust. A settlor (or anyone) can certainly “donate” valuables to a trust, without any units being received in exchange, but that sets up the donor for being questioned later. If any liability were ever to come against the donor, the claimant could challenge the gift as an avoidance of obligation. But if the giver receives Units of Beneficial Interest from the trust in exchange for the asset transferred into it, then it is perceived as a lot more normal and acceptable to others. Exchange transactions take place by the millions every day all over the world. That is ordinary commerce.
Q: Would the receipt of Units of Beneficial Interest by the settlor (or whoever transferred title of an asset to the trust) be considered income for tax purposes?
A: No, because the units are not traded on any public exchanges, and thus have no publicly determinable monetary value. The value is given to them by the officers of the trust, within the boundary of the private trust contract. It can therefore not be questioned or interfered with by any outside party. It is private and confidential information. When the value can thus not be determined by an outside party, there is no way for that outside party to make an intelligent claim to it.
And finally, the very fact of having received the units in the first place is private. There is no need for the settlor or whoever transferred assets to the trust to disclose the receipt of the Units of Beneficial Interest to any public agency or any outside party. It is private knowledge protected within the trust contract relationship. This bestows an even more significant protection to the transferor. If no one knows that someone has received Units of Beneficial Interest, how can anyone even contemplate claiming them?
Q: From the info about the trusts, it seems that nothing on the trust documents is treated as being confidential. It is accessible to whoever, while it is on the internet.
A: All of the information in the trust is intended to be private and confidential, with the exception of certain pages which need to be presented to a bank to open a bank account for it. The list of those
documents comes with the trust. Otherwise, none of the rest of the trust is ever to be presented to attorneys, government agencies, or other institutions. None of it is to be recorded publicly. Nevertheless, we are also not fanatical about secrecy or encryption on the Internet. While it is true that trust documents emailed back and forth could be intercepted, we have never heard of that causing a problem for anyone. Part of the reason for this is that only the initial setup documents are emailed. Later, whatever documents the client may adapt for placing assets in the trust and conducting other trust business, are done by the client according to guidelines and templates our trust writer will have provided. Those documents would be never seen by our trust writer and never sent over the Internet unless the client wishes to do so, for some reason. Therefore they can, and should, remain private.
Nevertheless, good Natural Law Trust writers do provide venues for encrypted email communication for clients who desire it.
In conclusion, we have been very impressed over the past three decades to see how good Natural Law Trust writers have distilled the crème de la crème of much more complicated and verbose trusts into the minimum simplicity that is most potent and effective — as well as easily understood by non-lawyers. In fact, most lawyers overcomplicate things. That’s how they make their living . . . by people paying them to figure out the vast complexities of the laws, when in fact the truth, when stated eloquently, is really very simple. Good Natural Law Trust writers have bequeathed that precious golden elixir of simplicity to us.
Q: I live in France and would like to know how to find here the banks who accept it if they don’t have a clue what it’s all about?
A: It is beautiful to hear from you. The most institutions we have ever had to apply to within a two week period, to find one that would say “yes”, was five. Many people interview more banks than that just to see which one they prefer. In the decades we have been gaining experience with these trusts, not once have we ever heard of anyone, anywhere in the world, who was not able to find a financial institution that would open an account for it.
Q: I would like to use only so called “Cooperative” Banks (would correspond to Credit Union type in US). What questions should I ask them, for me to know if they can or would be willing to open an account?
A: Let them see certain of the documents. See the list of pages to take to the bank, in the instructions included with the trust. Bring copies of each of those documents on the list to the institution at which you wish to open the account. Don’t bring any other parts of the trust, even if they ask for them. If they are not satisfied with the items on the list, then thank them politely and go to a different institution.
If the institution at which you are applying is at a significant distance from you, then you could fax or email the documents. If you can physically visit the institution, then simply walk in and bring the papers. Ask any questions you wish to ask, but the main request is to have their legal department or trust department look over the papers you have brought, and tell you whether they would be happy to
open an account for that trust. They may have some questions they wish to ask you. It is usually nice to politely provide the answers, if the questions are reasonable.
As to credit unions in the USA and their equivalents in other countries, we have found in the USA that they are willing to open the account only if the signatory’s credit rating is at a certain level — we believe it was in the 600s. Since they are a credit union, they care more about the credit score of the personal signatory than they do about the structure of the trust or what kind of laws it is based on. The same kind of priority might exist at equivalent institutions in other countries as well.
Q: Is there some special reason why some banks accept and others do not? Or is the possible refusal due only to the fact that they just don’t know how the Private Natural Law Trust works?
A: It is the latter — as you have said — they are usually not educated in natural law.
Q: In this case, would there be any document to show in order to educate them on that subject?
A: One of the best is the book “The Creature from Jekyll Island”, by G. Edward Griffin, which tells the true story of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, and other banking families in Europe and America, from the 1700s to the present . . . and the monetary system that took over the world as a result. It explains the central banking system, the largest of which is the Federal Reserve in the U.S. Once a reader understands what is in that book, he or she will appreciate the wisdom of basing the design of a trust on the natural law . . . and he or she will understand why the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and other banking families have used these very types of trusts for their own asset protection.
Whether you wish to bother educating your prospective banker, or whether it is easier and more desirable to simply go to a different institution where perhaps they already understand some of these things . . . depends upon how much you like the particular institution in question. We have never had to bother educating any bankers, because all we do was apply at two, three, or four institutions, and one would always say “yes”. We didn’t think it was important for us to take the time to find out WHY they said “yes”. They may or may not have much education in natural law or the history of banking, but if they said “yes” to opening the account, who cares what their educational background is? You would then perhaps only care about that if you were to develop a friendship or a close working business relationship with that banker.
Q: You explain that it’s recommended to have a different trust for each different asset. If I buy a house or whatever and have some personal assets, this should then be in one trust. Then should I have another Trust for my donations and fundings (free energy, eco-housing, new technology projects etc) or is it necessary to separate these 2 as well?
A: This is an adjustable concept depending upon your asset protection comfort level. In the early 1990s, it was rumored that the Rockefellers had over 7000 of these trusts. And who knows how many sub-trusts they had under those . . . and sub-sub-trusts, etc.
The point is, “never put all your eggs in one basket”. The more your assets are spread around in different entities, the greater the protection. But each individual has to decide for himself or herself, how safe or how dangerous one’s life is,
what level of divine protection one’s estate
may have, and therefore how many
potential enemies or thieves one’s estate
may be facing . . . or not facing. If the threat
is low, then less trusts are needed. It’s that
Q: If I need several trusts, is the price cheaper?
A: Yes, usually good Natural Law Trust writers give quantity discounts.
Q: As the Trust documents will be written in English, do I need to get them translated into French by an official or sworn translator or is there a way to get the document accepted worldwide in English by the banks in order to open an account for the trust?
A: This depends upon how English-speaking your prospective bank or financial institution is. That will vary on a case by case basis.
Q: Whoever is placed into a trustee position will be able to know exactly how much the Grantor has in assets, correct? So if that’s correct, how does one protect their assets from being publicly exposed by these trustee friends? A non-disclosure agreement? It seems even if they’re bound by an NDA, most people gossip, and now and then the story gets out regardless.
A: No, your trustee only has whatever information you give him or her. If you are manager of the trust, that role includes the ability to bank, be the signatory on bank accounts, add assets into the trust, take assets out, and you can organize it so that the trustee is informed of, and signs on, only those transactions on which you wish to include him. If that is “none”, then it will be “none”. It’s up to you.
This is much stronger than an NDA. A trustee or trust officer can only take what he knows exists. If he doesn’t know it exists, there is no way he can even have the thought of taking it.
For example, we have a friend as co-trustee with us on a couple of trusts, but he hasn’t the foggiest idea what these trusts have. Nor does he have access to those assets, because he lacks the information about them. And we would trust him with our lives . . . but after all, he wouldn’t even WANT to know what the trusts have . . . or otherwise, if he did, and if anything were to happen to those assets, he could be erroneously suspected. So he doesn’t even KNOW about them.
Normally a trustee is signatory on trust bank accounts, but as manager you can organize it so that the trust only authorizes you, not the trustee(s), to be signatory.
Q: You wrote there are a plenty of non-Bar member natural law lawyers and paralegals all over the world who are educated in Natural law Trusts in case of need. Do you have any connections in France in case I would need some help later on with my trust(s)?
A: Every important question that any client of a good Natural Law Trust has had, has always been answered to the full satisfaction of the client, one way or the other. The worldwide network of a good Natural Law Trust writer is rich enough to allow him to follow many different leads to get to any type of expertise you may need anywhere. However, the good news is also that the need for complex expertise pertaining to these trusts is very rare. Most of the time, the trusts are simple enough to operate anywhere that no extra special expertise is needed.
Q: I read that it only takes from a couple of days to max one week to put up the Trust, no matter in which country it is going to operate.
A: A good trust writer can create it in one day . . . but he asks the client who you want as beneficiary, who you want as trustee, and other officers and so on. Usually it is the client who takes a few days figuring out the answers to these questions. As soon as the client has given the trust writer all the answers he needs, he can generally have the trust produced in one day.
Q: You recommend having it ready before the RV. What problem might there be if the RV happens before I get my trust set up?
A: It would only be a problem if a capital gains tax is imposed on the CE (Currency Exchange). Many experts don’t believe there will be one, but others say there will be. The trust eliminates that risk. If the trust isn’t in place and the CE is done in one’s personal name, or in the name of a statutory business entity, then the capital gains tax may apply. If the CE is allowed to proceed without any tax on ANY of the currency holders, then it is not an issue. Then the trust is just an excellent instrument for other types of asset protection, for prevention of future tax filings on income, for efficiency in organization and distribution, and for the best in estate planning.
Q: I understood there wouldn’t be any capital gain taxes on the CE, as it’s just a Currency Exchange and not an investment.
A: We hope that turns out to be correct. There has certainly been a lot of controversy on this issue. The Golden Age is in the process of dawning, as you know. This will be a time when forced and involuntary taxes will no longer exist on this planet. Powerful forces are at this very moment overhauling the central monetary and banking structures on this planet, as you know, in preparation for a universally prosperous, debt-free, slave-free, and tax-free system globally. But whether the tax will have ended by the time of the RV and the GCR, only time will tell.
Q: If I move my house ownership into a PST [Pure Sovereign Trust], will it trigger a due on sale clause in the mortgage?
A: Not typically. You might check with the banker/mortgage contract. The exchange of a house into a trust where you are the settlor and beneficiary is a non-taxable event. We never had a client who received a due on sale demand, because you are not selling the house; you are exchanging into trust.
Q: I currently have a hard money loan for a mortgage and will need to refinance in 6 months. Will banks or credit unions or mortgage brokers be able to get me refinanced with the house ownership being a PST?
A: Yes. The banks will look at the value of the property, and who can carry the note, not who owns it. The house would now have a lien on it, under the name of trust.
Q: Doesn’t the PST (Pure Sovereign Trust) exist outside of the statutory foreclosure laws and they would not be able to foreclose and thus they would not want to refinance me?
A: Just because the trust is outside of statutory laws doesn’t mean its transactions are. The subject here is not the trust or its structure that is the concern of the statute. The subject is the mortgage transaction. If there is a default on the loan, they will attempt to foreclose on property, no matter who owns it. So, regardless of whether the trust or you personally own it, one must still stand up to the fraudulent bank, and say,
1) prove to me [under penalties of perjury] that real money actually came out of your pocket, and you have a valid loss;
- 2) show me the original note and chain of title; and
- 3) who has the note now…. ???
Q: Would having my house owned by an LLC which is controlled by the PST be a solution, but the LLC would need income to justify the mortgage loan?
A: We would suggest exchanging the house into the trust. It’s much safer and more private. Use an LLC just for business and public view, if at all. The trust can also be a member of the LLC, and own 98% of it. The mortgage lender wouldn’t care whether the trust or the LLC is the source of the payments. If the LLC is the entity that can show the income, the let the LLC qualify for the loan and make the payments on behalf of the trust. But the house would be much more protected if the trust is the owner of it.
Q: Does the second trustee know what assets are in the trust?
A: Yes, if you wish. If you appoint a second trustee, when setting up the trust they will get full disclosure of the assets in the trust. They will also have to be part of the decision making with future assets. If it is a small trust, meaning it doesn’t have much in the way of assets or activity, then perhaps a second current trustee is not even needed. A second current trustee may be more merited if the trust has a lot of activity and needs more officers to assist. Or a second current trustee could be desirable if the primary trustee has a colleague, business partner, or friend with whom he or she wishes to work and share control. The second trustee has to be non-family-related to the primary trustee.
But, if there is no second current trustee, then there absolutely MUST be a successor trustee. Having a successor trustee is a good idea anyway, sometime . . . because what would happen if the existing trustees leave this Earth or otherwise resign or become unavailable? Then the trust is orphaned and left adrift upon the sea. So, whenever convenient, each current trustee should have a successor trustee appointed . . . a trustee to take over if and when the current trustee is no longer serving the role.
If there are two current trustees, then it is not as urgent to have a successor trustee. But if there is only one current trustee, then it is mandatory to have a successor trustee appointed immediately. The banks will require this, if a bank account is to be opened for the trust.
Q: Does the protector know what the assets are?
A: Yes, because the idea behind the Protector is to have somebody who can watch over the Trustee, and terminate the Trustee for any misconduct. So if you choose to have a Protector (optional), then they must know about the assets in the trust in order to make sure the Trustees do not misuse them.
Q: Besides opening accounts, when does the trustee have to sign? Do they have to sign in person? Does the second trustee have to sign in person?
A: The trustee needs to sign whenever there will be changes made to the trust. If your question is does the second trustee have to sign in person at the bank while opening a bank account, it will depend on the bank. So you need to ask the bank you will open the account at if the second trustee needs to sign in
person. However, our experience is that most banks will allow for sole signatory control.
As to signing other types of trust documents, no, signing them in person is not required. It can
be done via paper post or electronically — whatever is acceptable to the trust officers involved.
Q: What is the sovereign domicile of the trust? Can it be registered outside of my home country?
A: If you open a bank account in your home country then the sovereign domicile of the trust is still your home country, because you will get an identification number from whatever authority the banks
require in your country. It can be registered in other countries following each country’s own national business entity identification number that may need to be acquired to open a bank account in that country. You will need the identification number equivalent in the particular country in which you are opening a bank account. Otherwise, there is no registration of any kind required, anywhere.
Q: Is there a limit to the number of bank accounts or locations of accounts you can open under one trust?
A: NO, as long as the bank is willing to open an account for you, then you can open as many accounts at different banks as you wish.
Q: Can a Natural Law Trust be sued?
A: Yes it can, hypothetically, just like any other trust. However, we have never heard of the really good ones having been sued. There is an understanding of natural law arising and reawakening on the planet. It may have its local applications in regional statutes, common law, and the UCC, but its central domicile is in the universal natural law.
As a result, we are aware of no good quality Natural Law Trust that has ever been sued. One of the reasons is that the trust officers keep most of its documents private, and never give copies of most of the trust to any agency or institution. It is not a public trust and it is not registered anywhere. Therefore if a would-be attacker wants to sue it, how is it going to make the suit intelligent? It won’t have enough information about the trust’s officers and activities to structure the suit intelligently. While this may not guarantee that the trust will never be sued, it does vastly reduce the likelihood of it. And it further reduces the likelihood that any such suit, if it were initiated, would be successful for the attacker.
Q: As far as appointing a trustee, do you recommend choosing a trusted friend or a hired “trustee”?
A: The answer varies, depending upon the situation. If the trust is designed mainly to transfer assets to children or grandchildren, a relative or close family friend would seem the logical choice. If the trust consists primarily of real estate, family businesses or other assets that require ongoing, active maintenance, a family member or close relative probably makes the most sense too. The good things choosing family and friends as trustees bring to the table are knowledge of the family history and circumstances. The bad are the biases, unsettled feuds and biased emotions. A hired trustee brings experience, objectivity, and professional resources to help ensure
that the trust is administered according to the appropriate terms. The risk with hiring a trustee is entrusting an outside entity with permanent powers over the management of your assets. In practice, this may mean that a hired trustee is stricter in making distribution decisions than you might wish.
You yourself can also arrange the trust to make yourself trustee, but you should only do this if you have an instinctive high
confidence in your experience and knowledge of how these trusts work. For considerations on this topic, read the section entitled “Roles of creator, trustee, and beneficiary”.
Q: Is the list of assets the only proof you need that the asset is indeed under the trust’s name?
A: This would be the case only if the asset does not have any accompanying document. However if there are documents you can include like a notarized Exchange to Trust Minute, it would be more satisfying to an outside party as proof. Separate trusts can also hold auto and mortgage titles for cars and houses. (Never put high-liability items like cars, trucks, boats, planes, or trains into the same trust with other valuable assets. Keep them all separate. “Never put all your eggs in one basket”.) Always include copies of what documents you have and can include per asset. If it is some purchased item and you still have the proof of purchase, that would be good to be included to show its value.
Q: Does the creator/manager/beneficiary have the ability to use checks, cards and pull cash from the account without the signature of the trustee?
A: Yes, if the trustee has signed a minute giving the manager that power. But keep in mind, one person can wear different hats. If the creator, beneficiary, and manager are the same person, it would be in the role of manager that this person would be exercising that power. This is because the creator will have relinquished authority at the beginning of the creation of the trust, and the beneficiary role is a passive one, not an active one. So regardless of whether it is the same person, it is only as manager that one would be executing banking transactions and other trust business. Or if the individual who set up the trust has arranged it so that someone else is the creator and the individual who set it up is the managing trustee, then that is the person who can be the signatory on the account.
Q: What are ALL the ways in which the creator can protect the trust from misconduct from the trustee?
A: You can write an agreement of fiduciary duty which will outline what are the trustee’s responsibilities and capabilities. You can also have a Protector who can watch over the Trustee, and terminate the Trustee for any misconduct. While it is a good question, the good news is that we have never heard of a Natural Law Trust creator or protector who has had to fire a trustee. Therefore this may not be “ALL the ways”, as you say, but it is a question you can revisit later with our trust writer, to see what more he wishes to add. For now, it is not an issue that is likely to be a problem for you.
Q: Can the settlor/manager make changes to the trust at any time? If not, who can?
A: Good quality and properly written Natural Law Trusts are irrevocable. This means the settlor relinquishes all further control of the trust at its inception. However, the same person can play the role of the manager. The manager can make changes and perform actions in that role, assuming s/he has determined the rules written into the trust and follows them. If you want to give a certain role independent powers, then you can also write that into the trust. You can administer the trust any way you want, as long as it maintains certain basic structural principles.
Q: Who holds the debit card for the bank account in the trusts name? In other words who has access to the assets of the trust?
A: The trustees have the legal access, but in practice, the manager can have the practical access, if that is the desire of the manager and the trustees. This means that the trustees would have basically signed a minute authorizing the manager to have such access, and then the manager would handle the day to day practical business of the trust according to the agreement s/he will have signed with the trustees. The terms and conditions of that agreement are entirely up to the preferences and the discretion of the manager and the trustees.
Q: Doesn’t the creator co-signing on documents put the entire trust at risk?
A: To think that the creator co-signs on the trust documents is a mistake. This is not the case. Remember, as we have said, the creator (settlor) relinquishes authority at the beginning of the trust. Yes, you are right — if the creator were to have signatory power over the whole trust, it would place its assets at great risk. In fact, that would transform it from an irrevocable trust into a revocable one. That is precisely why good Natural Law Trusts are irrevocable. By having the creator relinquish control at the beginning, it makes the assets irrevocably protected within the trust.
A funny story about this occurred in 2013, when a trustee went to a branch of Chase Bank to open an account. The bank refused to open the account on the basis that the trust gave the settlor no signatory authority over the entire trust. When we communicated this to our trust writer, he laughed and said “Of course that is what they would like! By giving the creator signatory power over the whole trust, it makes it a ‘grantor trust’ — and it is thus revocable. It makes it a lot easier to penetrate and get at its assets.” So, that is why the good Natural Law Trusts are irrevocable.
Q: Can the creator act as “witness” to the trustee? Do you have to have a witness to the trustee and is this referred to as an executive secretary?
A: Yes, the creator can act as “witness” to the trustee. And YES you do have to have a witness to the trustee. We refer to it as executive manager. But remember, the creator relinquished its control at the beginning, so any use of the act of witnessing would only be in another capacity, such as manager.
Q: Can you recommend a wealth manager or trust lawyer that I can hire to discuss ongoing questions?
A: You may be assuming that the trust is complicated, as are most other trusts out there — including both statutory trusts and common law trusts. By contrast, the really good Natural Law Trusts are simple enough that it has been very rare that anyone has had to hire a professional to provide assistance for them. Should such a professional be needed, then yes, of course, such professionals are available.
Q: Can a layperson act as trustee or do they have to have extensive knowledge of the law?
A: A trustee does not need to know the law well. It is to your advantage to find somebody you know you will always get along with, and with whom it is easy to communicate. It is more important that the trustee be willing to follow your wishes without questioning them, than to have a trustee that is knowledgeable. Then that means if there is any particular type of legal knowledge you need, it would be more your responsibility to learn it. This way, you are still the one calling the shots, even though you have willingly and purposefully turned over the “legal” control of the trust to the trustees.
On the other hand, the reason we say it requires more understanding for the person who sets the trust up to be knowledgeable if he or she wants to be the trustee, is that then that person has both legal and practical control of the trust. That person should then really have a firm understanding of what he or she is doing. By playing the role of manager instead, and letting someone else be trustee, the two types of power are separated into two people – the legal control in the trustee and the practical control in the manager. Then the burden of responsibility is less on each person, and therefore the need for comprehensive trust understanding is less.
Q: In what instances would the trustee be ordered to go to court?
A: The only instance is if the trust is sued or somebody within the trust wants to sue the trustee. We have never heard of this happening with any well designed Natural Law Trusts.
Q: In the case of wanting to secure and protect a large sum of money (large lump inheritance) into a trust, would it benefit the owner of the assets to become the creator/manager/beneficiary or to be the trustee?
A: The answer to this is depends upon one’s level of understanding, but it is not a critical question, because in both cases, the original owner of the assets can enjoy impervious protection of them in the trust. As to whether the asset owner elects to be creator/beneficiary/manager — OR — trustee, depends upon the various factors discussed in the “Roles of Creator, Beneficiary, and Trustee” section herein. It is based on the criteria given therein that one would decide which role(s) one wishes to play.
Q: The person I have most favored to be the trustee on my trust has doubts and resistance about it. She has been doing research and is about to back out of helping me, due to her worrying about being liable should
assets be transferred wrong, etc. etc. I was told that there is no liability of the trustees, if they carry out their duties. My trustee is very concerned that people could come after her, or that she would be liable for taxes, etc. I really need to get educated on this otherwise I can’t go forward as I can’t put anyone in a position of liability.
A: In essence, this is a very fortunate and evolutionary development which allows you to get really clear about the actual nature of your relationships. This trust business has given this benefit to thousands of people. Friends and family members whom we thought were really like-minded and trustworthy were not so much; and others whom we doubted were actually more like-minded and more trustworthy than we thought. It reveals who your true friends are.
The best kind of person to fulfill your trustee role is one who is both spiritually harmonious and intellectually comfortable with the role. Gaining a degree of comfort is not necessarily dependent upon having a lot of knowledge about how to be a trustee. It really has more to do with how much that person trusts you, and likewise, how much he or she trusts himself or herself. Hence if you really wanted someone to be trustee but she has doubts and fears about it, it may be that no amount of discussion and reasoning about it would change her mind . . . because perhaps there is something fundamentally lacking in her spiritual harmony with you or her own trust of herself.
Hopefully that perspective about her is incorrect, and it is simply a matter of her not having sufficient information about the role. She really needs to know that there is hardly any work to do, and there is really no liability and no risk to her. But the fact that she is expressing doubts and resistance without even asking more detailed questions about the risk, and the fact that she wasn’t even willing to discuss it, is what indicates that no amount of discussion or favorable information would change her mind.
It also means that even if you were able to persuade her to say “yes”, she might turn out to be not such a good trustee, because she may continue to suffer from unreasonable paranoias, no matter how much you try to show her that they are unreal.
That is where the universe is giving you an evolutionary experience . . . in gently influencing you to reconsider. Perhaps there are other people in your sphere of friends and acquaintances whose virtues and compatibility for the trustee role might be more than you had considered at first.
Q: I understand that if I am a signatory for the trust on a bank account, my Social Security Number will have to be given to the bank. My issue with having the SSN associated with the name I thought was mine [your personal name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS] on a bank account for the trust is a litigant got a judgment against me in small claims court and last week the bank withdrew $1,500 from my account unbeknownst to me for this judgment. So if the SSN were not attached to the account, this could not have happened. So I am studying how to do banking without any SSN whatsoever.
A: That’s a simple misunderstanding. The trust is NEVER held liable for the debts or obligations of any trust officer — and that will include you. Regardless of whether you are the trustee and your SSN is on the bank account as the trustee, or you are playing some other role, no agency has ever penetrated any good Natural Law Trust for the debts and obligations of its officers. Trust money is legally separate money. That is part of what “asset protection” means. If the trust couldn’t do that, it wouldn’t be worth the paper it is written on.
With all the extreme corruption out there in most fields of commerce and legal affairs, of which everyone is aware, we never cease to be amazed at how religiously the system consistently honors the rights of these trusts. It is, no doubt, because the elite themselves use them . . . and they don’t want their sanctity disturbed. If your money had been in one of these trusts, they could not and would not have levied the account, even if your SSN had been on the account as a trust officer.
Q: When we as beneficiary of a Natural Law Trust, want to make a purchase – say a car – what does the actual transaction look like?
1) We have our trustee make a deposit into our personal bank account and then we go to the dealership with funds in hand to make a down payment to a loan or make a purchase. Then there is no evidence of a trust and the entire transaction is done in our name. Title to the car is in our name too, but then we convey title into the trust so that it is protect as res.
2) We go into the dealership with a check from the trust to put a down payment to a loan or purchase a car. We put our name down for the transaction and our name goes on title, but the trust makes the payment. We then convey title to the trust on the backend to protect it as res.
3) We send our trustee in to complete the whole transaction in the name of the trust. Our name appears nowhere – title is then held right off in the name of the Trust.
A: The good news is that the answer is very simple. It is entirely up to the choice of the creator and the trustees. The creator, also known as the settlor, grantor, and exchanger, is the one who set the trust up. It is the responsibility of the trustees to follow the wishes of this individual, even though as settlor, s/he will have irrevocably signed off any further legal control over the trust at the beginning. As you may know from reading the eBook, that is one of the secrets of asset protection – – to entrust the assets to the trustees and relinquish all further legal control.
Control still exists, but it is based more on natural law – – ethics – – morals – – karma. It is a brotherhood/sisterhood of trust, wherein we trust each other more than we do the government, the attorneys, the police, the courts, and the violent military industrial complex. We trust each other. So, the trustees always follow the creator’s wishes, even though they are – – by design – – not legally bound to do so. On the other hand, if the trustees were to act in violation of the covenants in the corpus of the trust, that would be called a breach, and that
can be litigated in court. We are not aware of any instance where that has ever happened with any of our trusts, but that kind of enforcement is available.
Nevertheless, in answer to your question, which of the three options you listed would be decided between the creator-settlor (now signed off), and the trustees. Whichever of the three methods, or perhaps other alternatives, they decide upon, they can do. In all cases, it must be consistent with any rules that the creator may have instituted in the trust in the beginning of its creation.
For example, if one of the beneficiaries is ten years old, and the creator has specified in the trust indenture that the trustees will handle the welfare of the child until he is eighteen, without giving any purchases or monies directly to the child from the trust until then, it would be a breach to suddenly do so prior to the specified age. It is also possible that the creator could have given no such specifications. Many trusts are written with very few rules, or no rules other than those minimum ones that our trust writer writes into them that are generic to ALL trusts – – in order to make them stand up in integrity.
If the creator had not given any detailed specifications as to if, when, and how assets would be distributed to the beneficiaries, then decisions could be made between the creator and the trustees along the way pertaining to distributions that would not have to refer to any rules for compliance. But if the creator had specified rules, then s/he would be obliged to follow them, unless s/he makes a Letter of Wishes to the trustees to change the rules.
Bottom line – – it is all up to the creator and the advisement of the trustees to work together to decide if, how, and when distributions will be made . . . not just to the beneficiaries, but also to other trust officers, including the trustees, or even to a former trust officer – – the creator – – as well as outside parties. There is no prohibition against the trust making distributions to any party as long as it doesn’t violate the simple standards that come with the trust, and as long as it doesn’t violate the protocols laid down in the trust by the creator at creation.
Q: I wanted to create a natural law trust that I shall use to form a foundation. Trying to research online how a foundation can be registered in my country, I got this article stating the process:
Establishment of charity foundations in Kenya:
Under Kenyan law a charitable foundations can be established either as:
A company limited by guarantee, or
A charitable trust.
For registration of a charitable trust in Kenya you have to follow a few steps. They include:
[etc. etc. etc. – – the statute goes on to describe the requirements.]
So my question is, will following this process convert my natural law trust into a statutory law
A: Yes. Therefore please understand that there is a brotherhood of sovereign trust users around the world – – some of whom are the super rich elite, but many of whom are now average people like us. A sovereign trust honors the divine right that all human beings have from their Creator to voluntarily enter into private contracts with each other, without requesting permission from the government and without registering the trust with the government.
Because of this perspective, you can understand that this is a transnational, global, planetary consciousness. It does not matter what country someone is in. The universal right of three or four human beings to go into private contract with each other without interference from “big brother” is ancient and eternal. It is not under any manmade jurisdiction.
The only time when law enforcement becomes necessary is if the parties to that contract actually commit harm against others – – the type of harm that constitutes a crime under worldwide common law – – the kind of crime that any human being in history, from ancient times to the present, would agree is a crime. It would have to be a violation of that other person’s rights that actually creates a victim. But then the prosecution of that crime would have nothing to do with the trust contract. It would only have to do with the actions of the individuals who went into the contract. So being, the trust itself remains aloof, transcendent, and irrelevant to the statutes.
Depending on your philosophy and persuasion, this gives you the choice of whether to use the registration procedures of the statutory system, or use instead the sovereign approach which honors your privacy and frees you from the obligations of registration, taxation, licensing, regulations, compliance, fees, and
Q: Can one of my trustees be the nominal grantor?
Some people are more comfortable with the statutory system. We wish them well. Others feel much more at home with the Natural Law Trust approach. That is what we specialize in. If that is what interests you, we are happy to help.
A: The word is “nominee”, not “nominal”. The answer is no. A trustee is a stand-alone position. He or she cannot also be grantor, nominee or otherwise.
Q: If I get sued, who will represent me in court since there appears to be a lack of Common Law attorneys.
A: In the many years we have been selling our natural law trust and thousands sold, we have never had one customer’s trust get sued. In the rare case you are sued we do have a network of law coaches who can prepare your court documents and coach you on what to say in court.
Our law coaches are far superior to statutory attorneys in effectiveness. And, there is no such thing as a “common law attorney”. That is an oxymoron. Either he is an attorney, which is statutory, or he deals with common law – – which makes it impossible for him to play the role of an attorney and be a member of the Bar. The word “Bar” derives from “British Accredited Registry”, and the word “attorney” means “an agent of the court who attorns (turns over) the assets to the court”. It is well known that in order to pass the Bar, attorneys must confess their loyalty – – NOT to the paying client – – but rather to the court.
The world’s legal systems are infamous for being corrupted by design. But the international brotherhood of people quietly using common law trusts, and at the highest level, Natural Law Trusts, have been peacefully enjoying their low profile and their freedom to live outside the whole circus of courts and their dog-and-pony-show litigation systems. It almost feels like we are giving asylum to refugees who have been abused and made fearful by the statutory systems – – thus resulting in questions like yours – – worrying about who will defend your trust – – when the truth is, once you are inside the brave new world of private sovereign trusts, you discover that it is a peaceful and harmonious world that simply doesn’t suffer from the attacks and conflicts that the “normal” world does.
At the same time, yes,
absolutely, precisely because we
DO understand the many types of
law out there – – admiralty,
maritime, statutory, common law,
the UCC, commercial remedy, the
science of personal status,
kingdom law, canon law, and so
forth, we have a network of some
of the most invincible and
formidable experts in legal
remedy. While it is extremely
unlikely you would need them to defend the trust, they are available. Check out our partner the
Lighthouse Law Club, for example, at bic-lighthouse.com. If you want to review some of what we have available, please see these links:
For additional insight, please read the answers to the other related questions herein:
- “Can a Natural Law Trust be sued?”
- “In what instances would the trustee be ordered to go to court?”
- “One thing that concerns me, is simply that, as you mentioned, this trust is not understood by lawyers. It sounds like if there is ever some problem, the only person that could deal with it is the trust writer. I wonder if he goes away, where that leaves me. What or how would a situation like this be handled with this setup? In other words, I am concerned that only one person understands this and handles this type of trust.”
“Would we need an attorney?”
Would a Statutory Judge refuse to hear a case with a Common Law Trust?
trust and the type of law that it is based on is irrelevant to the courts, and therefore unquestionable. That is one of the reasons these trusts have never been penetrated or invalidated, and in fact cannot be invalidated.
Rather, what would be brought in a case to the court would be either claims against specific assets in the trust or claims against specific actions by the trust officers. In all such cases, the type of law on which the trust is based is not something that need be ever mentioned in the case. It is irrelevant. The type of law on which the trust is based is of no concern.
The trust itself is never subject to the jurisdiction of any court or any government. That is why it is referred to as “sovereign”. However, the actions of its officers can most certainly be brought under whatever local jurisdiction they may be involved with, or whatever jurisdiction a claimant may be in. Nevertheless, even so, a trustee is never personally liable for
any claims against the trust.
Q: How does a nominee grantor work and do they have to sign the trust?
A: Some trust clients want to be trustee. If so, you can’t be both trustee and grantor. Therefore you need to appoint
No, because the case would not be about the trust itself. The integrity of the structure of the
someone else as the grantor. That other person is referred to as “nominee” because he didn’t originate the idea of starting the trust. He simply agrees to the proposal of playing a temporary role. He receives no remuneration for doing so, and has no responsibilities. He signs on as grantor, and then signs off. As you know, grantors in these trusts always sign off at the beginning as relinquishing all further involvement or control. Therefore a nominee grantor is the easiest role to fill. There are further details in the documents that make it lawful and proper, but that’s the essence of it.
Q: Is the need for a second trustee bank-related or is it necessary for the trust to work?
A: Yes to both. It is necessary for the trust to work because people die every day. People become incapacitated every day. People disappear every day. People go away or change their minds or get lost or get busy or whatever. For endless reasons, at least one additional trustee – – either current or successor – – is required to make a trust stand up. It’s like a square table. In order to stand up, it must have four legs. The trust must have a grantor, a beneficiary, and two trustees, at the absolute minimum. The bank also requires a second trustee if the creators of the trust wish to open a bank account for it, because the bank feels liable. What if the bank is holding significant assets for the trust and the single trustee disappears? The bank needs someone else to turn to.
Q: Can Brilliance in Commerce be the Grantor?
A: Our preference is to never be named on the trusts of any of our customers. However, for your benefit, please know that not a single BIC trust customer has ever had a problem filling this role. If you can’t find anyone in your friends, family, and associates, you are welcome to discuss the matter with our trust writer after your purchase. He will be happy to be creative and give you ideas. But it’s nothing to worry about. As I said, it has never been a problem for any of our other customers.
And, we do have a partner
organization called Management Services,
services, for customers who need that. For information about that, go to https://mmg.world/services and scroll down to the last item, “Trustee Services”.
Q: Isn’t getting an identification number from the tax office for the trust subjecting it to statutory laws and thus putting it at risk of getting audited?
A: This question is very important, but it results from statutory thinking. It assumes that somehow the agency that would audit the trust, or try to make it liable for taxes, has full information about it.
Monaco which trustee
Statutory trusts that are attorney-created and registered with the state do in fact disclose full information to the state, but House of Freedom International Natural Law Trusts are not attorney created, and they are not registered with the state. Therefore they remain private, and the information about their assets and officers remains private.
This information is relevant in all countries, even though we will use the United States as an example. The “EIN” means “Employee Identification Number” in the U.S., issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It is basically the business equivalent of the Social Security Number (SSN) which is issued to individuals. In other countries, there is an equivalent – – a business identification number issued by the national tax office.
Normally this number is used for filing tax returns and paying income taxes. In their clever way, they made it double as an entity identification number for banking. So pretty much worldwide, the traditional banking systems have cooperated with their national tax agencies by making the number for taxes and the number for banking one and the same number.
For understandable reasons, hundreds of millions of people worldwide have found ways to operate outside their respective tax systems, to be independent, private, and free from such requirements. Thus it is equally understandable that when newcomers to our House of Freedom International Natural Law Trust (NLT) discover that it too must get a tax ID number to open a bank account, newcomers to this topic often feel concerned.
Their concern is that by getting the number, it is returning to the tax system and putting the entity on the radar for tax inquiries, filing tax returns, and audits – – involving penalties if one does not file. But this is a simple misunderstanding. There are different uses for these numbers. On the individual level, those who have learned how to redocument themselves with a higher status in the government databases, learn how to use the SSN as one’s vehicle in commerce, rather than as a tax identification number for oneself. Likewise, for trust contracts, the business number assigned to it can be used simply as an ID number “for banking purposes only”.
This is not mere theory. It is proven in practice by millions of people. Personally known to us are several thousand people who have been acquiring and operating our NLT since the 1990s, and to this day we have never heard of a single instance – – in any country – – where an NLT was coerced by any tax agency into disclosing its records or paying income tax. One of the reasons for this is that the tax agencies see it – – if
they see it at all – – merely as a “pass through” entity to the ultimate taxpayer.
For American Citizens, there are a few methods for being 100% tax exempt on the individual level. One of these is called the Revocation of Election (ROE). Many people did it incorrectly and failed. But the perfectly correct way of doing it has seen a 100% success rate. At Brilliance in Commerce we refer anyone who is interested to one of the best consultants in America, who has a private service that provides the correct version of the ROE to individuals. Thus far, not a single one of his clients have seen it fail.
So, American Citizens who have completed the correct ROE would not be contacted by the IRS for tax liabilities period – – whether because they are the ultimate pass-through recipient of trust proceeds, or whether they had income from other sources. But even if they had not done the ROE, the trust is still an exception to the filing and paying laws. The IRS might hold the beneficiaries or other trust officers liable for taxes individually, but it will not deem the trust itself as taxable, as they see it as just a pass-through entity, like an LLC.
This gives the operators of an NLT the choice of what to do tax-wise on an individual level, while at the same time giving them a vehicle that has no tax requirements itself.
The fact that real life experiences amongst thousands of people in various countries have successfully demonstrated the complete absence of tax problems with NLTs should indicate to all newcomers that their fears are unfounded.
One of the reasons for this absence of problems, though, has to do with the precision with which we guide our clients in the trust setup and operation, and the acquisition of the ID number. For example, for those who wish to bank in the United States, we provide exact instructions for precisely how to apply for the ID number. Each box has to be checked correctly. Incorrect words must be avoided, and correct words must be given. Thus it is imperative that trust clients wait until they receive their trust with these instructions before attempting to apply for the number . . . and it is critical that the instructions be followed exactly.
The instructions are almost the same for all countries, with just minor variations. The basic idea is to avoid the wrong words and to use the right words. Once the number is obtained, then a similar protocol must be followed for opening the bank account. Wrong words are to be avoided; correct words are to be used. Then the ongoing operation of the trust must follow certain rules.
These rules are a tiny percentage of the number of rules that statutory entities must follow. It’s like driving a car – – you can go anywhere you want, as long as you stay within the traffic lanes and follow basic driving rules. With statutory trusts, not only do you have to follow traffic rules, but you also are very limited as to where you are allowed to go . . . and you have long lists of regulations to follow and fees to pay.
Understanding all this, newcomers must be crystal clear that merely obtaining an identification number from a tax agency does NOT “make the trust subject to statutory laws and risk being audited”. The mere acquisition of the number changes nothing about the jurisdiction or the sovereignty of the trust. It is merely a number for banking only; nothing else.
Further, the information about the trust that is given to the tax agency is extremely minimal. The name and individual tax number of only one human being needs to be given as the “responsible party”, and NLTs allow anyone to play that role. Even if the trust creator himself or herself plays this role, there is no tax consequence by giving this number, because the trust is nontaxable and the individual responsible party is only an officer of it.
No disclosure is given as to what type of trust it is, except “irrevocable”. Thus other than that, no information is given to the tax agency as to the structure of the trust, the laws on which it is based, who the trust officers are, what its assets are, on whose behalf the assets are being held, or any other information. For all they know, this trust entity might be one created by a member of the elite. Therefore, the tax agencies generally remain quiet, hands-off, and noninvasive.
If a would-be attacker were to contemplate attacking such a trust, how would it do so without having full information about exactly whom it is attacking? Without knowing everything about the trust, it could not mount an intelligent attack. That is one of the reasons these trusts are safe. They operate under the international and universal right of private contract, and they exercise their right to keep most of their information private.
Q: Where can I find a good Natural Law Trust writer?
A: Visit the folks at brillianceincommerce.com, and they will connect you with one of the best ones.
The Grantor and the Trustee by The Benefactor
Once upon a time,
In verses and rhyme,
A Grantor and Trustee were One. Helping to bring the new paradigm, On which world peace is won.
Many people they did bless,
With the wealth of Pure Consciousness,
And Peace and Happiness they did spread.
With the Natural Law Trust and the Wisdom of Oneness, They banished bondage and brought freedom instead.
From where, from whence,
Did such a Oneness commence?
Those who are curious may query.
For it was long before hence, I do sense, Far in the past of mystery.
The answer be,
It seems to me,
That the match was made in Infinity. They came from on high, you see,
To meet on Earth with Affinity.
Innocent as the Dove,
And delayed for a spell by the forces of hell;
They hail from The One High Above,
Whose Truth they did tell . . . via the Freedom Bell.
And so it was not strange,
For The One to arrange,
Liberation from this dark age.
The decree was made, across the range:
“Empower the Trusts to Open the Way!”
So from then and thereafter,
There was rejoicing and laughter,
And the forces of hell gave way – –
To a Golden Age in the now and hereafter, With the Dawning on Earth a New Day.