Find the answers to your questions, regarding trusts, below
Naturl Law Trusts
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between trusts and other legal entities based on natural law, and ones based on statutory law?
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.
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.
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”.
[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.
The Natural Law Trust sounds very good to me, although all the setup sounds like a total life makeover for me.
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.
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.
But I am a Canadian citizen and most of my close family are EU – European Union citizens (German citizens) and not US citizens.
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.
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.]
The assets in the trust will not show up anywhere as being "your" assets. They will belong to the trust, not to you.
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?
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.
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.
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! Really, it is 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 was 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”.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
After the RV the US Treasury will be closely monitoring where every dollar goes; will this cause a problem?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
It is the latter -- as you have said -- they are usually not educated in natural law.
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.
Yes, usually good Natural Law Trust writers give quantity discounts.
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?
This depends upon how English-speaking your prospective bank or financial institution is. That will vary on a case by case basis.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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 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.
You recommend having it ready before the RV. What problem might there be if the RV happens before I get my trust set up?
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.
I understood there wouldn’t be any capital gain taxes on the CE, as it’s just a Currency Exchange and not an investment.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.... ???
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there a limit to the number of bank accounts or locations of accounts you can open under one trust?
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.
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.
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.
Does the creator/manager/beneficiary have the ability to use checks, cards and pull cash from the account without the signature of the trustee?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some trust clients want to be trustee. If so, you can’t be both trustee and grantor. Therefore, you need to appoint 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.
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.
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?
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. 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.
No, because the case would not be about the trust itself. The integrity of the structure of the 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.
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 foundation 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 trust?
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 bureaucracy.
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.
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. OR 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. OR 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.
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.
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?
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.
What are ALL the ways in which the creator can protect the trust from misconduct from the trustee?
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.
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”.
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?
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.
If I move my house ownership into a PST [Pure Sovereign Trust], will it trigger a due on sale clause in the mortgage?
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.
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?
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 simple.
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.
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.
Don’t trustees need a lot of education? Colleges, academies, and institutes exist to train trustees.
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.
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.
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)
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 for each different asset.
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.
After the trusts are set up can we move most of our money into the trusts from the RV [ReValuation of currencies]?
Yes. It is best to have the trust set up prior to the RV and 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.
I am very interested in this and wonder whether a single trust could be set up for both my wife and I?
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.
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 descendants generation after generation, long after the initial fee for it will have been forgotten or seemed like peanuts.
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, and 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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 are 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
Yes, on the condition that the other trustee is non-related. This follows the cardinal rule that a trustee can be related to the grantor only if the other trustee is not related, regardless of whether the trustee referred to is current or successor, and regardless of whether the grantor is nominee or original.
Can the Nominee Grantor and the Successor Trustee, as well as me (Managing Trustee), also be Beneficiaries?
Yes, on the condition that there are also other beneficiaries who are non-related and who are not trust officers.
Yes, as long as the number doesn’t go below 1. 1 is the minimum. There is no maximum.
If I create more than one Trust, do I need different officers for each Trust?… Or can I use the same people I chose for the first Trust?
No, there is no requirement for you to appoint different officers. The same people can create as many different trusts as they want. It was rumored in the early 1990s that the Rockefeller family had some 7000 of these trusts.
What would be the best way for us to set up the BIC Trust so that my three business partners and I can receive 25% of our company’s profits each, in equal annual disbursements?
This can be done in several ways. From one perspective, you can know that it is not necessary to figure all this out before you obtain your trust. Once you are a paid trust client, you have carte blanche unlimited private consulting with our trust writer and the rest of us at BIC on many more details in your trust setup, arrangements, layering, structuring, operations, estate engineering, financial planning, and deal making.
Nevertheless, suffice it to say for now, the recipients of the disbursements can either be made beneficiaries, or play no role whatsoever in the trust itself, other than contractors. The trust can contract with outside parties and do deals with them without making them trust beneficiaries. The choice of making them beneficiaries might be favored if paying them is the main reason, or one of the main reasons, for setting the trust up . . . and if it is anticipated that the distributions to them will continue for a long enough period - - and will constitute a large enough percentage of the trust’s assets - - that it would make sense to dignify them with the title of trust beneficiaries. It is your choice.
Getting into greater details than this would be better addressed to your BIC trust writer, after you have become a paid trust client.
Yes, as long as they are not the only beneficiaries. Whenever one person is both a trustee and a beneficiary, it is necessary to have at least one other beneficiary as well, who is not a trustee.
We want to run all this through a Private Membership Club, with a PMA. Will that complicate the use of the Trust?
It is possible that in your discussions with our trust writer, you may discover that the features of the trust make the club redundant and unnecessary. But if reasons exist to continue anyway with the club idea, it need not be prohibitively complicated. The club could be made an asset of the trust, and its fees could be payable to the trust. Plus there are other possible arrangements that could be made. People work with LLCs, and make the trust own up to 98% of them. People work with foundations, and discover they can operate the trust as a foundation, thus making a statutory foundation unnecessary. So the same could occur with your club and your PMA. Greater details can be discussed with our trust writer after you become a trust client.
I heard that if the Trust pays the taxes on the profits earned, then when it is dispersed, it is not taxed again. Is this true? We don’t want any issues with the IRS.
Ah well, this indicates that you have not read the trust eBook. The seriousness, sincerity, and thoroughness of your questions show that you are determined to create a perfect arrangement . . . and so if you are that dedicated and that determined, you should at least take a few hours and read the eBook. It is available in the trust section of the website for download as a pdf.
You will not have any issues with the IRS (and for clients in other countries, this applies to your tax agencies too) if you understand the Natural Law Trust (NLT) correctly and if you set it up and operate it correctly. One of the biggest mistakes you could make is to get a Natural Law Trust and engage even in one communication with the IRS about it. The only exception is the application for the EIN, which is for banking purposes only. So the IRS will know of the existence of the name, and one or two facts, but nothing more. Most of the information about who the officers are, what the assets are, and what is being done with them, is unavailable to the IRS and is never disclosed to them.
So whatever you have heard, did not apply to the NLT. It must have been some other trust you were referring to. The NLT has no paying or filing requirements, as clearly explained in the eBook. “The only rights you have, are the rights you know you have.” Let that sink in until it is crystal clear.
If you were to file a return for an NLT and pay, even once, then you are stuck with that relationship for the rest of the life of the trust. Observe this truth and guide your actions accordingly.
Again, read the eBook, and especially read the tax section and the FAQs. Then hopefully both your confusion and your worries will completely evaporate. We’ve been involved with these trusts since the 1980s, so we have over three decades of proven experience, with thousands of clients. Not one single problem with the IRS has occurred, ever, with any of these trusts - - but again, on the condition that the client using and operating the trust understands the trust’s right to privacy - - and operates it accordingly. The good news is, “operating it accordingly” is actually about 100 times easier than operating it in compliance with the overwhelming myriad of statutory regulations and tax rules.
[The preceding Q&A were published in the 10-04-18 and the 11-02-18 BIC newsletters]
I see that the trust can be set up as an Irrevocable trust, can it be set up as a Discretionary trust for the purpose of family planning like Belize where the beneficiaries can be named at a future time when? Thank you.
Yes, orienting the trust as discretionary is one of the many flexibilities afforded the superior Natural Law Trust design. In fact the standard theme is already discretionary in the way they are written.
Just please understand that at least one beneficiary must be named, to make the trust valid. That does not obligate you to make distributions to that beneficiary at any particular time, if at all. It just has to be named. It could be a charity or humanitarian project, and its directors do not even have to be notified that you have named them as a beneficiary. Or if you name a family member, that is fine too, but as I said, distributions are optional. The only time distributions would be mandatory is when you have written it into the trust as a commitment accordingly. This means you call the shots - - you make the decisions as to if and when distributions are made.
Belize is a friendly jurisdiction and members of our BIC administration have done business and held trusts there in the past, but trust arrangements there are inferior to the International Natural Law Trust (NLT) offered by BIC, because no matter how friendly the laws may be in Belize, trusts set up under those laws still make them statutory. The laws could always change next year, due to new legislation. By contrast, no law can ever change the freedom enjoyed by a NLT, because it isn’t subject to legislated statutes.
Can a protector only fire trustees? If so, that means to appoint a new trustee, an existing trustee has to be the one to do it, yes?
No, a protector can fire and then hire the replacement trustee. He must follow the rules: if he fires a related trustee then he can hire a related trustee. But if un-related, he must replace with non-related trustee.
I wish to be the Executive Manager and Protector. I wish to be the main signatory. Will this work?
No, a protector cannot be related to an executive manager or trustees or beneficiaries. If you wish to be main signatory, you need to be one of the trustees, and choose someone else as a protector. You cannot be both a trustee and a protector. A protector can only fire and hire trustees, only upon good cause, such as fiduciary malfeasance. A protector cannot be signatory on the bank account. So, if you wish to be main signatory, assign a trustee role to yourself. Select a nominee grantor and someone else as protector, and you can be a trustee with a co-trustee or successor trustee, as long as you are not the sole beneficiary.
If I understand you correctly, the equity jurisdiction of the trust also places it under the jurisdiction of the territorial and municipal courts, n’est-ce pas?
First, where did you get the idea that the Natural Law Trust is under any jurisdiction? Wouldn't it be rather contradictory for us to refer to it as "sovereign" and at the same time say it is under some manmade governmental jurisdiction? Let's analyze the only sentence in the indenture that applies to this:
"Its existence, validity, and authority are from the unalienable right to contract, under the common law as it exists in the , protected by the 1789 Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section.10, and needs no permission or franchise from the state to exist or function."
The first thing you need to know about this is you can replace that sentence with any jurisdictional statement that you wish. The point is to satisfy the requirement to state under what kind of body of law it exists. The above sentence basically avoids placing the trust under ANY particular body of law, because the "unalienable right to contract" is pretty much universal. In 1954, the Uniform Commercial Code became the international standard umbrella under which all other laws operate, and the UCC is basically contract law. In addition, the unalienable right to contract is affirmed in numerous US Supreme Court cases. The most famous of these is Hale vs. Henkle of 1905 - - one of the most quoted court cases in history, which has never been overturned.
Our partner Mark Emery of Lighthouse Law Club has a trust almost identical to our Natural Law Trust, and one of its only differences is that it states its authority is the British Common Law as practiced in the country of Anguilla, and flies the flag of Anguilla on its cover. So you can see that any geographic location that the trust operator considers to be harmonious with its purposes can be cited. But in all cases, the indenture sentence says that the trust "needs no permission or franchise from the state to exist or function."
So being, the only thing that could ever be litigated in any jurisdiction would be the actions of the trust officers - - not the trust itself. The trust itself has never been penetrated or invalidated anywhere, and in fact cannot be invalidated. Only the actions of its officers could be challenged in litigation. While we are not aware of any of our trust clients ever having had that happen either, the point is, only the actions of the officers could be subject to a court action - - not the validity of the trust itself.
[The preceding Q&A were published in the 3-08-19 and the 3-12-19 BIC newsletters]
What can one of these trusts do for me that a Wyoming LLC cannot, or, why do they compliment each other?
As with all statutory entities, a Wyoming LLC carries with it all the limitations and responsibilities of any statutory entity. Even though Wyoming, New Mexico, and Nevada are three of the best states in which to incorporate, to maximize privacy and minimize taxes, they still nevertheless are subject to the whims of the legislature. Are you thinking short term or long term? If you want to leave a legacy for future generations, how do you know the state in which you have incorporated will not have changed all its laws by then?
With a NLT, it goes on generation after generation. It can be renewed every 21 years. It transcends the changing whims of governmental legislation. It is impervious to the changing policies of congresses and parliaments. It is based on principles that are timeless and can never become extinct. This is the very best of long-term thinking.
In addition, an LLC owes fees once a year. What if those fees are not paid? The LLC can be shut down. Not so with the NLT. The NLT never owes any fees for its existence to anyone or anything.
Further, LLCs have to file tax returns. They may or may not owe any taxes, but they have to report. Even tax exempt 501(c)3s have to file. It's like they're saying, "O dear Mr. Taxman, I hereby bow at your feet. Here is every penny that came in and every penny that went out. Is that okay? Can I be approved to exist another year?"
Any statutory entity, no matter how friendly the jurisdiction may be, can be interfered with or terminated by the state that sponsored it, for any reason at any time. And you are asking "What can one of these trusts do for me that a Wyoming LLC cannot?"
We have never heard of this happening to any of thousands of clients in three decades. Nor is there any logical reason why it should happen.
They have not been attacked because thus far, knock on wood, we have been fortunate enough to attract intelligent clients who follow some basic simple rules of trust conduct. But in case they ever are attacked, suffice it to say that we have an international network of powerful legal counsel who understand these instruments very well and know superior methods of defense, invincibility, and counter-attack if necessary.
[The preceding Q&A were published in the 4-11-19 and the 4-16-19 BIC newsletters]
From what I’ve seen so far you guys still recommend to get a TIN but only to get a bank account. I also read that you do not have to use a TIN or an SS number if you open a non-interested checking account. Though it may be harder to obtain a bank account is it not better not to have a TIN so the Trust cannot be tracked? For example I hear that it’s the number one way the IRS can find your checking account.. Basically, by tracking the TIN or SS number.
We appreciate that you are expressing your concerns and we appreciate your interest in the Natural Law Trust (NLT). However, you are obviously speaking from inexperience and basing your concerns on fear, rumors and hearsay which are totally inaccurate. Let us clear up the matter once and for all for you.
Your statement about a “non-interested checking account” is strange, because ALL checking accounts are non-interest bearing. We have never heard of a checking account that DOES pay interest. The only accounts that most banks have that are non-interest bearing are savings accounts. And even those require some kind of tax ID number.
Have you ever opened a bank account, savings or checking, interest bearing or otherwise, without an SSN or EIN - - some kind of IRS tax ID number? You see, it would be your experience that would prove or disprove the rumors you are hearing.
We base our trust procedures on experience - - three decades of it, and four or five decades if you include our mentors and teachers. That’s up to 50 years of direct experience, which to this day has overwhelmingly disproven your concerns.
The truth that you need to understand right now, very clearly, is that not once in these 50 years have ANY of us ever had a problem with the IRS with these trusts. A few people were stupid and foolish enough to run to an IRS agent and ask about their policies towards them, and of course were given the standard B.S. from their international crime syndicate bosses. But the vast majority, 99.9%, who kept quiet, have done just fine, thank you.
Hence our approach is to simply remain silent about them. We don’t ask and we don’t tell. They don’t ask and they pretend they don’t exist. If you are wise, you will simply learn from the successful experience of others and keep quiet about these trusts when it comes to accountants, attorneys, and IRS agents. Just keep quiet.
When an EIN is applied for, the only details furnished to the IRS are its name, that the trust is “irrevocable”, who is the “responsible party”, and the SSN of the responsible party. That’s it. The responsible party doesn’t have to be you. It can be anyone that you appoint. And besides, we have never heard, in 50 years, of ANY responsible party ever being made responsible for the taxes or liabilities of one of these NLTs.
By the above you can see that precious little information about the trust is given to the IRS. The IRS doesn’t know whether it is statutory or nonstatutory, so it merely assumes that it is statutory . . . but we don’t want to get into the argument with them by asserting that it isn’t. We just let them think what they want to think . . . and we keep quiet because we know our rights. You have to know your rights too.
You have the Supreme Court-confirmed right to enter into private contract without interference by the government, and without being compelled to disclose that contract’s private details, unless there is evidence that one of the signatories has committed a major crime - - a crime with a victim - - where harm was done. Absent of that, the government cannot compel anyone to disclose anything about the trust.
Nor have we ever heard of one of these NLTs being audited. It is impossible to audit something whose information is private, which has no filing requirements, and for all practical purposes is almost invisible. For all the IRS knows, this trust might be the private contract of someone connected to the Rockefeller family, or the Rothschilds, or some other elite family. They use them. So they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing their collection agency to go nosing around into these entities.
Yes, the name of the trust is in the government and banking databases. Yes, the bank account deposit amounts are visible to these databases. So what? That means nothing. It doesn’t mean they have any information from anywhere about what kind of trust it is (other than irrevocable). And it doesn’t mean they have any information from anywhere about who the real signatories are behind the trust.
And they have no right to ask, unless they get a court order, and the court order cannot be issued unless there is solid evidence of a real crime having been committed. Generally they won’t bother, because they risk upsetting some of their own elite people, if they accidentally stumble upon the discovery that elite family members are behind it. So they leave them alone. Our five decades of experience has proven this.
Do you understand? So stop worrying, and have some peace of mind that people with far more experience than you in these things have already long since proven the absence of such concerns. We would not be publishing our website, our eBook, and our webinars, if the problem you have imagined were a real one.
I’ve been thinking to do a will to pass my possessions to others after I pass on. I’ve read that a living trust is better for that (as compared to your NLT), easier and less probate. It can be done with or without the last will. Do you agree?
Thank you for your inquiry, but you have heard very incorrectly and you have been misguided. Have you read our trust eBook? It doesn’t sound like it. If you are comparing estate planning entities, it is fairly necessary for you to have the knowledge provided in the trust eBook before knowing what is best for you.
A will is inferior and unnecessary when you have an NLT. And who told you that “a living trust is better for that (as compared to your NLT), easier and less probate”? I’d like to know what they were smoking. It is well known, even in the statutory asset protection world, that a living trust isn’t worth the paper it is written on when it comes to asset protection. About the only thing that it can do is avoid probate, but so can the NLT. A living trust is full of statutory requirements, fees, and complicated legalese that can only be interpreted by an attorney.
Attorneys make their livelihood on statutory legalese. That is why they hate the common law and natural law. And that is why they will steer you away from the NLT. Therefore, that is why it is foolish to ask them about the NLT. They don’t make their living from it, and furthermore, both their law schools and their peer groups have brainwashed them against the very instruments that their own elite puppet masters in the Bilderbergers and Committee of 300 have used for generations. Talk about ignorant!
So, we quietly use the same advanced trust technology that the elite have used, but we use it to free people and make the world a better place. It is part of a new dawn of human civilization that is happening.
Do you know the difference between statutory law, common law, and natural law? Once again, it is very highly recommended that you read the trust eBook, including the section on the different types of law and the FAQ section. We expect that once you understand the knowledge there, you will see the nearly infinite advantages of the NLT over any other kind of estate planning or asset protection instrument.
May your studies go well!
Well, that is why many NLT clients become their own trustees. If you are your own trustee, then you do all the signing on your own expenditures. Or the other way you do it is you have yourself appointed as the manager. You either have yourself appointed as the trustee or the manager. If you are the manager, then the trustee authorizes you to take care of the daily operation of the trust, which includes holding the checkbook, the password login, the debit cards, and the authority to send bank wires, etc.
The less involved way that it is done is to give the trustees a Letter of Wishes every time you want money to be sent out or transactions done. Since that is inconvenient, it is usually done infrequently by those who have that arrangement. For example, you could have the trust turn over certain amounts of money to you periodically via a Letter of Wishes, and then you make your expenditures and transactions. You could even have the trustees approve an ongoing automatic transfer of money monthly or quarterly to you. Hence they could put it on autopilot - - in fulfillment of your Letter of Wishes only once - - but the autopilot would generate the transfers on a regular basis whenever you have specified.
But the more direct way is for you to be the trustee, or for you to be the manager appointed by the trustees to manage the daily affairs of the banking and so on for the trust. It all depends upon how hands-on you want to be, how active you want to be, and how frequently you believe you will be creating transactions.
Absolutely, of course, yes. Have you read the Natural Law Trust eBook? As you can see in there, the NLT is the best template in the world from which to create a foundation, a family trust, a pure trust, and a common law trust.
Some would actually call our NLT a “common law trust”, as the trust itself is based on common law. We only use the words Natural Law because our perfection of the application of the common law synthesizes all the highest relevant laws in the world when it comes to contracts, including the Uniform Commercial Code, Kingdom Law, Canon Law, and the common sense ethics of human relationships codified in centuries of tradition via common law in the international brotherhood of trust experience. Thus it is closer to universal Natural Law than the sometimes imperfect manmade common law.
In the eBook you will see that it is infinitely flexible. Our Brilliance in Commerce House of Freedom International Natural Law Trust is the apex, the quintessence, and the epitome of generations of evolving perfection in the science and art of world-class asset protection - - stemming from what the super rich elite originally had, and raised to levels of purity that minimize the chances of misuse.
As long as the basic protocols outlined in the trust itself and its manual are followed, which are much simpler than any statutory foundation or trust, it can be structured to achieve any noble purpose - - whether to be a foundation that makes philanthropic grants, a foundation that receives donations, or a family holding trust, a business trust, a facilitator of humanitarian projects, a charity, a scientific institute, an educational institute, a spiritual center, or any other worthy cause.
It is sovereign, in that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of any manmade principality on Earth, and thus does not derive its permission to exist or its authenticity from any government. It has a 100% success rate, in that it has never been penetrated or invalidated, and in fact cannot be invalidated. No NLT has ever lost its assets due to its design. It has no weaknesses or vulnerabilities. It is intrinsically invincible.
It can be multi-layered, with additional NLTs serving as trustees or beneficiaries, and it can be the holder of the assets of statutory entities like LLCs, corporations, and IBCs. There is really no limit to what can be done with it, as long as the basic guidelines set out in it are followed. So yes, we believe you will be infinitely happier with the NLT experience for decades and centuries to come . . . and your heirs . . . than you would be if you had merely a limited foundation created under some governmental statutes that could change next year with some new legislation. The NLT can go on generation after generation, because no congressional or parliamentary legislation will ever make any difference to its existence and the enjoyment of its welfare.
Is the Trust the same as the Private Asset Management System. If they are not the same then what is the difference?
Mark Emery’s Private Asset Management System is fully described at https://vimeo.com/ondemand/pams. It includes his version of BIC’s Natural Law Trust. His is called the COLATO, which stands for Common Law Trust Organization.
The main difference between Mark’s COLATO and BIC’s NLT is that the COLATO is jurisdiction-specific. It is domiciled in Anguilla and flies the flag of Anguilla on its cover. The reason Anguilla was chosen is that it is under British Common Law, so the common law trust could have an actual national government to look to for its authority. This is useful especially for foreign business, offshore activities, and international asset protection.
By contrast, the NLT has elected to have no domicile or jurisdiction. The trust contract may cite the common laws of an American state, or any location in the world, but the trust itself operates under the inviolable universal right of private contract. Rules of contract law are governed by the UCC, which is global, but the trust is sovereign in the sense that its right to exist is not dependent upon the permission of any authority. Only the specific actions of its officers may be subjected to limited jurisdictions if needed.
The other main difference is the COLATO provides no choice in who is designated as the trustee. It provides a Panama foundation as the trustee.
With BIC’s NLT, the client himself can be the trustee if he chooses, and if he learns how. Or he can appoint a friend as trustee. He can even name a family member as trustee if he appoints a nominee grantor, and is not grantor himself. Further, BIC’s NLT can also provide a professional trustee service, like the COLATO, if the client desires. So there are more choices.
I’ve come across some research from another individual that suggests the corporation sole for families and what they call a religious trust. Is this similar to the Natural Law Trust, or is it a more complicated way of “owning nothing, control everything”?
Our BIC trust writer, whom you may have seen in our trust webinars, also writes corporations sole. However, we do not recommend them for most people, because they are statutory. We have heard horrendous stories of people who had them shut down and their assets confiscated because they were using them as tax shelters. Those were NOT our clients; they were simply people about whom we have heard.
The only way a corporation sole works successfully is if the creator of it is actually running a real religious or spiritual organization, with real meetings, a real brick and mortar building, real community participation, community service, and so on - - all the things you would see in an active church, mosque, temple, or synagogue.
Even then a Natural Law Trust can own that kind of organization and protect it just as well as a corporation sole can . . . and an NLT cannot be shut down, because it isn’t statutory and isn’t issued by any governmental authority. We have a 100% success rate with the NLT going back many decades, in that not a single one of them has ever been invalidated or penetrated - - and in fact cannot be invalidated.
I have a question in regards to jurisdiction of the trusts that are available through Brilliance in Commerce. I would like to know if the decision by the Supreme Court in 2011 to allow judges to suspend the Constitution in the court room has any adverse effect on the soundness of the common law trust. In other words; does it compromise the strength of the trust at all?
Well, our first question is, did you read the trust eBook? In particular, did you read the section on the different types of law on pages 5 through 7?
In there, we tried to make it very plain that the trust is not subject to the jurisdiction of any government or any body of law - - including the Constitution or the Supreme Court. While we do sometimes cite US Supreme Court cases to show the agreement of the court with the universal right to contract, such as Hale v. Henkle, it in no way suggests that the trust derives its authority to exist from the court.
Therefore it is irrelevant whether the court can set aside the Constitution or not. For two or more individuals to enter into a private contract with each other, without the obstruction or interference by any government, is a universal right - - as long as the actions emanating from that contract are not violating the rights of others.
One of the reasons we say our NLT has a 100% success rate is that it has never been invalidated. In fact, it cannot be invalidated by any authority, because its right to exist derives from Natural Law, which transcends any individual human body of law. Furthermore, it has never been penetrated.
We say it is sovereign because its right to exist is not subject to any jurisdiction. The problem of trust officers potentially committing crimes is solved by the fact that their individual actions CAN be subjected to limited jurisdiction - - specifically to address those actions - - and those actions only. The trust itself transcends any jurisdiction.
Your question is a good one . . . and thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify; but that is why we have tried to make it very plain in the eBook that nothing any government does and nothing any court does has any effect on the trust’s right to exist.
Well, think about it for a minute. In the eyes of all the world, a trust is supposed to be an arrangement whereby someone entrusts assets with someone else to be held in safekeeping for some future purpose. If the grantor were also the trustee, that means someone is entrusting those assets with himself or herself. It is just common sense that anyone anywhere would see that as absurd and meaningless. Thus indeed, it is considered to be a sham in the trust world. It is not really a trust. If someone were to create an entity like that, it could fall apart very easily with the very slightest wind of challenge blowing by.
Our Natural Law Trusts are invincible and bullet-proof precisely because they adhere to the commonly recognized universal protocols of trust integrity.
The only way the trust could stand up strong with an arrangement like that is if there is also another trustee unrelated to those three, and also if none of them are related to the grantor.
Why, if this is a Natural Law Trust/Common Law Trust that is not statutory that we cannot choose as Grantors who we want for First Acting Trustee, even if it is ourselves? seems to me the control should be in our hands, not in the hands of the fiction.
If you hold an apple in your hand and drop it to the floor, it will follow the law of gravity without being subject to any statutory law. If you always speak kind words to people, the good vibrations you are sending out will inevitably return to you because it is the law of karma. This too has nothing to do with statutory law or any manmade law.
In the same way, there are universal principles that operate in the trust world that have nothing to do with any bodies of statutes or governmental jurisdictions. These are what developed into what is known as “common law” - - meaning don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t harm others. These are basic ABCs that are universally accepted everywhere, regardless of the legal system or jurisdiction.
The NLT has derived its basic modus operandi from a consensus distillation of all the most essential requirements for anyone anywhere to view the trust as legitimate, regardless of legal system or jurisdiction. In that sense, it can be called a “common law” trust, because it is based on the conclusions of centuries of human experience that have culminated in a set of unavoidable timeless principles.
We simply prefer the term “natural law” because there are so many inferior so-called common law trusts out there that we wanted to distinguish ours from the weak ones and the ones that are incorrectly designed. We respect natural law as being totally perfect, absolutely universal, and eternally immutable. What people call common law is man’s best attempt at emulating universal natural law.
This awareness of law recognizes that everyone can do anything he or she pleases, as long as such actions do not violate the rights of any other sentient being. It also recognizes that one should always keep one’s word - - one’s contracts; one’s agreements.
The question you have raised of a grantor also being a trustee is not a question of one’s freedom from statutes. It is a question of how to make a logical arrangement in contract between two or more human beings that makes sense and that would hold up in a court in case it were ever challenged. It makes no sense to anyone that one would entrust an asset only to oneself. That is exactly the same as simply keeping the asset and not having a trust at all, as stated inter alia.
There is an international brotherhood-sisterhood of common law trusts. It is not a body of government-enforced statutory law. Rather, it is a loose and decentralized global community of like-minded people who would rather trust each other than big brother and its brute force mechanisms.
This global community has distilled the essence of commonly agreed-upon principles over centuries of life experience. One of these principles is that in order for a trust to be respected and recognized as legitimate, its trustees must be separate and different from the grantor, and must be unrelated to the grantor.
If you are concerned about having legal and practical control of the trust, then perhaps you should consider being the trustee. In that case, then simply find someone else to sign on as the grantor. That could be a friend or really anyone. That is what is called a “nominee grantor”, because in an irrevocable trust, the grantor signs on at the beginning and also signs off at the beginning - - right after signing on.
He or she signs off as relinquishing all further control and all further involvement with the trust, except as perhaps the issuer of letters of wishes. But if you are the one setting up the trust and you wish to be trustee, then the nominee grantor you appoint would rightfully not be expected to issue letters of wishes. That person would simply sign off and disappear and have nothing further to do with the trust.
The assets can be contributed by anyone. The assets put into the trust don’t need to come just from the grantor. They can also come from the trustees. So the grantor need not be seen as the only contributor. If it is a nominee grantor, you could:
- give the nominee grantor $21;
- have yourself written into the trust as one of the trustees;
- have the grantor give the $21 back to you now in your new role as trustee, but that exchange would not be to you personally - - it would be to the trust, and you are simply the fiduciary accepting it on behalf of the trust;
- record the minutes accordingly;
- and now the grantor signs the page resigning from his position and relinquishing all further involvement.
That makes the trust properly set up according to what we call trust law - - the international tradition of commonly accepted requirements to make any trust integral and legitimate. Then as trustee, there is nothing to stop you from adding an endless stream of additional assets into the trust.
Another way you can go is to be grantor, beneficiary, and manager . . . and as manager, you can also have practical control of the trust and its assets. It’s just that then you would have to appoint at least two other unrelated people as primary trustee and second current trustee OR successor trustee. All of this is reviewed in the Natural Law Trust eBook in the section entitled “18 - Roles of the creator, trustee, and beneficiary”. Have you read that?
No. Your question arises from statutory thinking, so if our trust were statutory, you might be correct - - that changing domicile might cause complications that would require re-doing the paperwork. But in the case of our Natural Law Trusts, the fact that they are non-statutory makes them non-attached to any particular jurisdiction. That frees its officers to move, travel, and operate anywhere in the world, without any changes needed to the trust at all. That is why we call them “international”. The only thing that might change is where one’s bank account for the trust is.
The word is “nominee”, not “nominal”. The answer is yes. Sometimes the client will be grantor and trustee, but not a beneficiary. The client can wear two hats. Sometimes there is a nominee grantor, and client is a co-trustee. The other trustee must be non-related to primary trustee or beneficiary. And, client [co-trustee] has some beneficial interest [2 hats]. As grantor/settlor you have relinquished all control; therefore you are away from the picture, as grantor. As a co-trustee and not beneficiary, you are in a professional trustee role to provide service to the trust and beneficiaries.
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.
If I get sued, who will represent me in court since there appears to be a lack of Common Law attorneys.
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.
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?"
My husband and I have had a long history in the finance world and have set up many trusts and private foundations in the past – none of which we want to use now as they all have a history and we feel do not offer the level of protection we are looking for. We have been researching Corporation Soles for some time and talking to people who have successfully set them up and using them – but all are in USA so we have been a little stumped as to how we might go in Oz setting one up. Then we started researching starting a ministry, charitable trusts etc. Then we stumbled across your videos & website. My biggest concern with a Natural Law Trust is how we enforce it in this totally corrupt CaBAAL operated Statute Law system (albeit, not for much longer). If we place a high value asset e.g.: a home in it – will it be recognized as a protected trust asset in the eyes of the law as it stands today or are we potentially setting up a big problem for our children down the track as part of our succession planning?
Your wisdom, intelligence, and good fortune are appreciated for having come so far in your wonderful diversity of experience, knowledge, and study. To have arrived at Brilliance in Commerce is more beneficial for you than you may have realized.
We too have long experience and study in all of the varied types of asset protection you mentioned. In fact, our trust writer also knows how to set up Corporations Sole, but 99% of the time, even for Americans, it is inferior to the Natural Law Trust. The NLT can do everything that the CS can do, and more, without the disadvantages and limitations.
Your concern about enforcement is appreciated and we sympathize with the perspective you have on the corruption of the cabal-controlled courts. The good news is that our clients have stayed completely out of trouble and not a single one of them has ever lost an asset out of the NLT due to its design. If they purchased shares of stock and the price went down, of course that is beyond the control of the trust and is not the NLT’s fault. Same with real estate. But no NLT has ever been penetrated or invalidated, and thus no asset has ever been lost due to any weakness of the NLT. That’s a 100% success rate, spanning five decades - - three decades for those of us at BIC and two more decades for our mentors.
If enforcement of the rights of an NLT were ever to become necessary, it would be easy to achieve, even in today’s courts, by providing limited jurisdiction - - not over the trust itself, but only over the actions or transactions of its members. Actually, it is more likely that the litigation would focus on the actions of parties outside the trust - - and therefore would never place the trust itself under a microscope. The focus would be on other outside parties and their actions.
Even if enforcement were necessary to protect the assets in a NLT, such enforcement could be achieved under contract law. The global trunk of the legal tree is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which became operational worldwide in 1954. While usually litigation does not cite the UCC laws directly, all the various statutes in federal, state, county, and municipal jurisdictions derive their commercial principles from the UCC. They have to be in harmony with it in order to thrive in the global marketplace.
This means that it is virtually guaranteed that whatever jurisdiction your litigation may be in, will have statutes that could be invoked to protect the right of contract under which the NLT operates. This is the best of both worlds, because the NLT itself still remains sovereign and outside the jurisdiction of any authority for its existence, but its right to asset protection is enforceable under the contract laws of any jurisdiction anywhere in the world . . . as derived ultimately from the UCC.
Further, it is of paramount importance for you to realize that the complete absence of any such litigation or court battles in three decades among our NLT clients - - as well as the total absence of any trust penetration or invalidation - - demonstrates that the proper operation of these trusts, administered according to our guidance, keeps our clients out of the arena of even the need to defend the NLTs.
In military science, that is considered to be the supreme ideal: to achieve victory before war, by preventing the birth of an enemy.
Hence our clients have been quietly enjoying their impervious asset protections and growing prosperity without having to shout it from the rooftops or defend it loudly in the crass and corrupt for-profit casinos and corporations disguised as courts of law.
Your question is excellent and your concern is legitimate. It is equally true that any fears about this unsurpassed form of asset protection have no basis in reality. Congratulations to you for discovering it.
We are also among a very tiny number of trust companies that allow our clients to choose whether:
- to be the trustees, themselves;
- to choose a friend as a trustee; or
- to have us provide a professional trustee.
Since the NLT is irrevocable, if we were to require that we be the trustees, and give no other choice, the prospective client would have a valid reason for concern and suspicion. I myself wouldn’t do business with such a company! But the fact that we offer, and even encourage, the client to be his or her own trustee, shows that one of the reasons for the great success of our clients is the peace of mind they achieve by having both legal and practical control over their trusts. And of course the second best option we provide is for the client to choose a trustworthy friend as trustee.
Certainly there are right and wrong ways to operate as trustee, and certain protocols must be followed to make it work properly, but suffice it to say, it isn’t difficult. We provide ongoing monthly training webinars to furnish all the necessary guidance, as well as a bibliography of recommended books to read, and full one-on-one access to our trust writer at any time via phone, email, and Skype - - after one has become a paid client. There are no further fees for this consultation unless it were to expand beyond the scope of the original trust purchased.
I always assumed that Natural Law Trusts was just a fancy name for common law trusts. If not, what is the difference between Natural Law Trusts and Common Law Trusts? What is the wording that makes them different? Anything else makes them different?
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: https://brillianceincommerce.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-Natural-Law-Trust-eBook.pdf
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.
Have you had people in [a certain country – – this is relevant to ALL countries] easily get an exception for tax payments/lodgement for an NLT?
Yes, but you must understand that the existence of the exception is not something the government gives, and it is not something you ask for. If it were an exemption, then yes, you would apply for it and get it. But an “exception” means there is no requirement to apply for it, and the gov’t is not going to grant it, because it isn’t in their statutes to do so.
On the other hand, millions of people worldwide, including your country, have quietly used these trusts for decades with no problem from the gov’t or the tax agency - - for the simple reason that they observe the tacit “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
It depends upon your knowing your rights. If you know you have the right to the exception, then if the tax office were to ever ask you to register the trust or file a tax return on it, you would just answer politely with a simple question: “What is the law that requires a private contract pure trust to register or be taxable?” Put the question back on them. Invariably, if they do produce a statute, it will not apply to the NLT, because the NLT isn’t under any statutes.
This illustrates that “The only rights you have, are the rights you know you have.” This is because if you have a right but don’t know you have it, your behavior will act in such a way that you may as well not have that right. But if you have a right and know you have it, then you can live accordingly and derive the benefits thereof.
This is what the wealthy around the world have been doing with the NLTs. They know they have the right to not file or pay - - because the NLT is an exception to the statutory requirements. The U.S. is one of the most onerous, aggressive, and abusive countries in the world to its own citizens when it comes to enforcing taxation, but it does not touch the NLTs. It steers clear of them because it knows that the elite use them, and there is no enforceable requirement for them to file. This is the same in England, Australia, and most countries around the world - - especially the English-speaking ones.