Yes, your original assumption was correct.  At BIC we chose this “fancy name” because there are so many inferior common law trusts out there that are written poorly and incorrectly, and have gotten their operators in trouble.  We wanted to distinguish our common law trust clearly from theirs.


The way ours are written is so far superior that not a single one of our clients over five decades has ever had a problem due to the trust design.  None of them have lost any assets due to the trust being penetrated, and the trust has never been invalidated.  In fact, it really cannot be invalidated.


In a way, it’s not a different kind of law on which it is based.  It is still common law.  It’s just that it has faithfully adhered to all the best common principles so well, and the language has been simplified with such skill, that it has become far more powerful as a result. It says more in fewer words, so it is very concentrated and potent.


We have distilled the essence of the best practices in the arena of common law, harmonized it with the global UCC, and achieved an instrument that works globally, without subjecting itself as an entity to any jurisdiction.  The only thing that could be subjected to certain jurisdictions would be the specific actions or transactions, which means it would be limited jurisdiction – – but the trust itself is not able to be so subjected.


There are many other reasons why it is superior to “common” common law trusts, which are explained in the eBook.  Did you read that?  If not, here is the link:


Because common law is humanity’s best effort to emulated natural law, we simply decided to call it “natural law”.  Thank you for your question.