Dec 05, 2013 7:48 PM

Me, my brain transform into a JAM pot when it comes to "establishing a trust", so I may not be very helpful in this thread, so I am COUNTING on you !!! :D

Now, I need someone to identify ALL the steps, starting by the no. 1 to whatever... :)

Chris Evan, Blake Gardner, Mackximus Minimus, Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma, Derek Moran, Maximus Legis, Bobis Youruncle, Ceit Butler, Gail Marie, Mike Carparelli, Norah Holloway, Dean Otf Kory, Andrew Lawrence, ChiefRock Sino General, Kent Barrett, Stuart Stone, David Johansen, Daniel J Wentz, Janick Paquette, Lou Manotti, and others......please share your WISDOM :D

I would say that this is what needs to be kept in mind FIRST:

The Registrar General has done his part. He gave the Birth Certificate to our mommy and daddy soon after we were born to INDEMNIFY us, in exchange for the SOLBR. Now he is just sitting around with nothing to do now that he has done HIS OBLIGATION. As of now, he is just a BARE/NAKED/SIMPLE TRUSTEE.

Next, is to remember that Scott said sending the Registrar General an AFFIDAVIT OF AFFIRMATION, would be the next thing to do as part of OUR OBLIGATION.

..you should put the call-out to Rick Carne, and Chip Douglas too, Pierre

OK, now we need....

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 ....

That's where we're at......

I would say is to affirm you are still out there kicking around and acknowledging beneficial interest in the PERSON security...

Sorry, but I will keep this thread as pure as possible :D .....we are at:

IDENTIFYING THE STEPS ON HOW TO ESTABLISH A TRUST

STEP 1. STEP 2 STEP 3. And so on........ :D (no offense please )

Fuck :(

Trust Law is the highest form of Law. It trumps Admiralty Law, it trumps Cannon Law, is the highest Law. So that means this is SERIOUS BUSINESS... the real deal.

Anyone with beliefs, it's incapable of acting in Trust Law.

Ok, in general, a TRUST AGREEMENT is created by a PERSON, also called a SETTLOR/GRANTOR/TRUSTOR/CREATOR, setting up the TRUST with an specific OBJECTIVE/OBJECT, or OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST. Usually HOLDING PROPERTY (called TRUST PROPERTY) in TRUST for a BENEFICIARY. The tasks needed to HOLD that PROPERTY are carried out by a TRUSTEE, under some BY-LAWS, or rules.

So, in a trust we have:

1) A PERSON, a GRANTOR/CREATOR, setting up a TRUST. 2) OBJECTIVE or OBJECT of the TRUST. 3) A specific kind/variety of TRUST. 4) PROPERTY (Trust property) 5) BENEFICIARY 6) TRUSTEE; and 7) BY-LAWS or RULES.

Let's start with that.

Ok, guys, we can make this an AWESOME thread, or we can cause a disaster here.

TRUST is serious business. If we really want to find some answers together, let's keep this simple. Pete Daoust is correct when he advises we go step-by-step.

Can we AGREE on this?

If not, I will not participate in this thread. I have A LOT of reading to do to figure this shit out by myself, and so everyone that wants to get it together.

OK....so....

1) I guess the NAME for the trust ? 1) A PERSON, a GRANTOR/CREATOR, setting up a TRUST. 2) OBJECTIVE or OBJECT of the TRUST. 3) A specific kind/variety of TRUST. 4) PROPERTY (Trust property) 5) BENEFICIARY 6) TRUSTEE; and 7) BY-LAWS or RULES.

Is there ANY legal information we should know about the name we get to choose for the trust ??

Could I name the trust AQUILAE for exemple ???

Scott Duncan: AQUILAE is just the NAME of the trust. "CHAD'S TRUST" would be no different.

AQUILAE means "Of the eagle". Only REALLY SMART people get the true meaning. Give up

Let step 1 be the name of the trust we wish to create Step 2: The purpose of the trust...why create a trust Step 3: The roles: eg: Grantor, Beneficiary, Trustee Step 4: The trust property Step 5: How to structure it...type, held in a corp etc Step 6: The paperwork, charter etc Step 7: Ratifying the trust, proper notice etc...

That is step no. 3 Kent Barrett...

Step One: Daoust Trust.

Great ^^^^

Pete Daoust: "Is there ANY legal information we should know about the name we get to choose for the trust ??

Could I name the trust AQUILAE for exemple ???"

Scott answerd this to YOU a while ago, Pete.

<<Stop letting OTHERS define YOUR trust/claim. Call it Le Trust DuPierre, for all I care. IT'S YOURS and your CORPORATION'S.>> Scott Duncan

Thanks Mackximus Minimus.....I remember that, I just wanted to CLARIFY the issue, so STEP no. 1 is OVER with......lets jump on step no. 2 :D

Step 2: The purpose of the trust...why create a trust

Name: TRUST THE PUPPY :D Purpose: To remove the person from commerce & protect it from pirates/privateers, while using its value as a corporate asset

Is that How you will write it on the LEGAL document ? :D

Can I have an example please on Step 2.

It's a private trust...YOU are the Creator....it can be THE PUPPY MESSIAH!! :D

Can "WE" have an example please on Step 2. ? :D

Step 2 was kinda described in 'purpose' Mike Carparelli

The Objective of the Trust is to HOLD PROPERTY for a BENIFICIARY. That's it. Simple.

WE

Let's use WORDS correctly, the is no PURPOSE on a TRUST, there is OBJECTIVES/OBJECT.

thank you Stuart Stone. For example: We want our HOME to be protected from Pirates. The OBJECTIVE then is to HOLD the HOME for a Beneficiary. correct?

Before the name, we need the CREATOR. Who will be the CREATOR of the TRUST? Which PERSON will be?

The Creator will be a NEW PERSON that we create, in form of a corporation. Are we together on this?

my bad, OBJECTIVE(S):

To remove the person from commerce & protect it from pirates/privateers, while using its value as a corporate asset

The trust may acquire property via grant, gift, transfer, lien or other methods as the board of trustees deem appropriate.

The trust may protect the interest(s) of the beneficiary(ies) and trust property by liening and/or otherwise securing the property of others that may create controversy and/or damages against it (wording a bit hazy, but that's the gist)

The Creator may be a newly created person or an existing person (corporation)...agreed Mackximus Minimus

Step ONe: I go online, I Create a Corporation, pay my 200.00. The name of the corp for example can by Jebus Inc. This is now the PERSON.

So, 123456 Quebec Inc, is the creator let say :)

You're sure Kent ? ^^

Let's go step-by-step, people.

Ok, so we have a CREATOR, we have an OBJECTIVE, we have a name for the TRUST, now we need to identify WHICH KIND of TRUST we will be using. Do we know?

Private one :P

Yes, but which kind of private trust? There is a few, so which one?

Private ?? :D

Scott said that this was bullshit ^^^^^^^^ :P

ok, I'm out for a bit, will rejoin later...GTEN recommend Private Express trust for the extent of protection...but I have not studied their reasoning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeWH2ACm65Y

This may be worth a look...

He said WHY would you choose from THEIR stuff ??....it's a PRIVATE trust :P

So what TYPE of trust would we choose ? :/

I have come to the conclusion that a Private Express Trust is something I can start with. Please share other experiences if you have other knowledge.

I have NONE :(

see above guys...I'm agreed with Private Express Trust but have not yet studied why...back in a while”

What does EXPRESS mean in this ? :/

Carl Weiss advises a Private Express Trust, or Common Law Private Express Trust.

<<What is EXPRESS? Made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or implication.Declared in terms; set forth in words. Manifested by direct and appropriatelanguage, as distinguished from that which is inferred from conduct. The word isusually contrasted with “implied.” State v. Denny, 118 Ind. 449, 21 N. E. 274, 4 L R. A.65.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/express/#ixzz2mdXOdOD>>

<<What is TRUST? 1. An equitable or beneficial right or title to land or other property, held for the beneficiary by another person, in whom resides the legal title or ownership, recognized and enforced by courts of chancery. See Goodwin v. McMinn, 193 Pa. 046, 44 Atl. 1094, 74 Am. St. Rep. 703; Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 613; Seymour v. Freer, 8 Wall. 202, 19 L. Ed. 300. An obligation arising out of a confidence reposed in the trustee or representative, who has the legal title to property conveyed to him, that he will faithfully apply the property according to the confidence reposed, or, in other words, according to the wishes of the grantor of the trust. 4 Kent Comm. 304; Willis, Trustees, 2; Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 613; Thornburg v. Buck, 13 Ind. App. 446, 41 N. E. 85. An equitable obligation, either express or Implied, resting upon a person by reason of a confidence reposed in him, to apply or deal with the property for the benefit of some other person, or for the benefit of himself and another or others, according to such confidence. McCreary v. Gewinner, 103 Ga. 528, 29 S. E. 9G0. A holding of property subject to a duty of employing it or applying its proceeds ac- cording to directions given by the person from whom it was derived. Munroe v. Crouse. 59 Hun. 248, 12 N. Y. Supp. 815.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/trust/#ixzz2mdXdWjnf>>

<<Private That which affects, characterizes, or belongs to an individual person, as opposed to the general public.>>

<<What is PRIVATE LAW? As used in contradistinction to public law. the term means all that part of the law which is administered between citizen and citizeu, or which is concerned with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where both the person in whom the right inheres and the person upon whom the obligation is incident are private Individuals. See PUBLIC LAW.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/private-law/#ixzz2mdXooUHK>>

Express

express adj. direct, unambiguous, distinct language, particularly in a contract, which does not require thought, guessing, inference or implication to determine the meaning.

Are we still together on this?

OK....I am with you: A Private Express Trust.

4) PROPERTY (Trust property)

So, let's worry about having all the ingredients for the recipe FIRST, and THEN we can figure out how we bake the cake.

Yes 4) PROPERTY. Which PROPERTY/PROPERTIES? Have we identified the PROPERTY?

I guess this CREATOR named 123456 Quebec Inc, needs to have SOMETHING to pout in that trust ? :/

Or, maybe a PERSON wants to give SOMETHING to 123456 Quebec Inc ? :/

I have come to the conclusion that THE NAME/PERSON, and ANYTHING bearing that name, once we LIEN the NAME, it's IN FACT TRUST PROPERTY, and needs to be claimed as such.

So ANYTHING baring the NAME, it's considered PRIVATE TRUST PROPERTY once properly CLAIMED.

So, let's identify ALL PROPERTY that would fit the description.

Everything PIERRE DAOUST own's ?? :/

Ha, and what if, there is a marriage license in the picture ??

NO PIERRE! that is NOT what I said. I said anything bearing the NAME (and that you can account for), not anything you OWE (good luck with that! What do YOU OWN, Pete?)

So, I guess the BC is something that bears the NAME, so that is PROPERTY. Correct?

What do YOU OWN, Pete?) NOTHING :D

But I said Everything PIERRE DAOUST own's ??, not me :/

But PIERRE DAOUST own's fuckall anyway, so :D

But what if, a person have something under its name, and that something has no lien on it.....like a house per instance, can that person make a GIFT to the trust ?

rule #1 read everything to learn, know what you need to determine whether that information is proper or dis.

99% of the info you learn will be disinformation. if you are the king you get to make the rules, not follow somonelses.

Can this TRUST receives GIFT from other persons, that is the question :)

I said YOU, Pierre.

What if, there is a marriage license in the picture ?? The State can only intervene in a "marriage" if there is a controversy that the two parties cannot settle privately. I hope you married a good woman. That's all I have to say. Hahaha!

But I digress...

Let's get back to identifying the PROPETY.

Yes, a TRUST may accept gifts. In a TRUST you can do WHATEVER you want, Pete. YOU ARE THE MOTERFUKING CREATOR, Pete! You call the shots.

If you don't get that by know, you are better off keeping on acting as TRUSTEE for the government being the sole administrator for THEIR name. :P

I have married THE BEST ONE... ;)

So, PROPERTY. We know of the BC , but what other PROPERTY? Maybe cars, real estate, boats, etc?

OWE nothing. Control everything. A LIEN is first in line in commerce. If you have a house under the NAME, then that becomes matter of PRIVATE TRUST, don't it? So, who do you want first in line for that PROPERTY?

Didn't YOU create the VALUE?

I'm just asking questions. If I say something that is bullshit, please someone call bullshit. I am just talking about what I have learned, and understood so far.

But if the HOUSE is under the NAME/PERSON that will be liened, what's the big deal ???....the house gets liened automatically ?? n ?? :/

But if the house is under the wife's name/person, she can GIVE that house to the trust ?? :/

Let's say I have a friend who has a Harley Davidson, and wants to make a gift to the trust, is this ok ?? :/

Or does the house needs to be sold for $1 to the corp. and then the corp. places it IN TRUST ???.....how the fuck does these things works ??? :D

I have not established a trust... as yet. But I will be going to. Hopefully soon.

I don't have "answers", Pete. :( I share what I know. I still have questions on HOW and WHY you transfer PROPERTY to a TRUST.

So, maybe someone else can talk about that. So far, I'm concerned about identifying which PROPERTY is going to be held in trust.

But I know a TRUST may receive gifts. That is a fact.

So far, I'm concerned about identifying which PROPERTY is going to be held in trust.: ME TOO, AS YOU CAN SEE !! :D

I think I'll pray on it, a nice prayer to Lou Manotti could fix all these questions :D

Apparently, he is better than JESUS !!!! :D

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Well, at LEAST I know the SECURITY INSTRUMENT/BC is something for SURE that I can identify as PROPERTY. Can we agree, at least on this? Shit, I'm happy just with that, but let's see who else can tell us what else could become PRIVATE TRUST PROPERTY.

Let's go gang, we hold our hands all together and PRAY to Lou :D and sing a song, Ho, and kill a goat and offer it to him :D

you only want to have those things that you owe nothing on inside the trust or you may be opening up the private trust to the public

Where did everybody go? :( This was filled with comments, and when some ORDER started sifting things, silence took over.

I am waiting in front of my screen :/

Ok, Pete, the BC will do for now as PROPERTY. Let's keep this exercise going.

Next is the 5) BENEFICIARY. Who is the BENEFICIARY of the TRUST?

Fuck, I feel it incomplete :( we will get back on this......we have to, ok let's move on :(

I wish it could be Men and Women :(

Pete, we don't have to know all details on HOW to cook the cake. Let's get the basic ingredients going, and we keep working from there.

5) BENEFICIARY... There is NO DOUBT is Motherfucking ME. So that's that.

Pete, we don't have to know all details on HOW to cook the cake: I do :P

Or you will have a very funny cake , :D

Motherfucking ME: who is that "ME" ?

Well, we'll BAKE the cake, we wont cook it. :P

If you don't know who ME is, how can I tell YOU?

What we are doing is changing Master. We are still going to be servants, but WE are the Master behind the curtains, not the government. So, ME, I guess, is both the servant and the Master.

I get it :D

Is that how to become the servant king? (minus all the God crap?) :P

But how will you IDENTIFY the beneficiary on the LEGAL paper ??

I am confused where the corp. lien the PERSON, put that thing IN TRUST, and the beneficiary of that trust is that same PERSON :/

I have not watched the servant king? UNRAVELED

Trust Property....

The BC, driving licence, passport & other entities created from the BC.

Any charges, warrants or other instruments that use the name, thus securing the value from those interests.

Any charges, warrants or other instruments that use the name, thus securing the value from those interests. I don't get this ! :/

The beneficiary becomes the shareholder(s) of the corporation, no?

So the beneficiary of the trust, is the corp. ?? :/

Pete, remember how Scott said lien the case number (for court cases etc)?

This is a privateer/pirate attempting to take value out of the trust by attempting to secure trust property for their own profit...so lien the thing...you have first claim (and highest claim) on trust property (the person), not anyone else, so you lien the case & claim the value to offset against your lien on the person.

Me too...

I think the Corporation becomes the holder of the trust (this is who Scott referred to as the person you can trust...you created them & made yourself sole shareholder and/or director)...the shareholders are the ones who extract value from the trust (beneficiaries)

The Board of Trustees are the same roles as the Board of Directors of a corporation (I think).

The shareholder(s) vote on and instruct the board of Directors/trustees as to the policy of the trust/corporation....but the shareholders carry no liability for the actions of the corporation & the director(s) carry limited liability.

You can wear more than one hat for this process

Stuart is correct. The beneficiaries could be ANYBODY YOU FUCKING WANT (Including, but not limited to, yourself and/or someone you TRUST, like a CORP) (hereinafter, “Beneficiaries”) for the purposes to: identify, accumulate, purchase, and/or hold all Equity and Value that become available; improve the Trust Estate so the Beneficiaries may possess the things of life sufficient to provide for health, growth, protection, education, expansion, welfare, preservation and/or a continuation thereof through a fund to extend credit and funds to the Beneficiaries; and provide for prudent administration and distribution systems for the management thereof."

You don't have to tell the government, or anyone outside the trust, who are the beneficiaries. Is a private matter.

Ok, let's move to 6) TRUSTEE. Who will be executing the tasks to HOLD that PROPERTY? Who will be TRUSTEE to the TRUST?

the corporation

I will be going out for dinner now. Will be back later. Please feel free to complete steps 6 and 7.

THEN we will worry about baking the cake. Later!

I have often closed letters with the following:

'For and on behalf of the board of trustees'...faceless and nameless....just like 'For and on behalf of the Manager' that is often at the end of letters from the bank...or 'For and on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner' from the tax dept.

Ok, bedtime where I am...thanks all, very useful... :D

Ok, we have identified step 6, we have a TRUSTEE. The TRUSTEE happens to be the PERSON we created, a corporation.

Let's go to 7) BY-LAWS or RULES.

What is a BY-LAW? <<Scott Duncan: If it is a TRUST and not a PERSON WHO posts the NOTICE, it is what is known as a BY-LAW. This means that should you choose (of your own free will) to interact with the TRUST, you are subject to the BY-LAWS.>> <<2: Establish a corporation - In the Charter, assign the role of the corporation to HOLD the trust, and establish the "Law" guidelines (You get to make your own up) as regards keeping the trust.>>

So just as the government has Laws (by-laws), hell we get to make our own! For both the TRUST and the CORPORATION.

That's were the part of beliefs make this impossible. We must get rid of any/all beliefs, because it's the end of knowledge, there can't be any TRUST if belief is involved, and because beliefs help maintaining the programming that we are not the absolute AUTHORITY, among many other sick shit. With beliefs, our brain would not be able to move forward, without requiring some kind of OTHER authority approving what we are doing.

Something else that I want to mentioned is the word COVENANT.

<<Covenant An agreement, contract, or written promise between two individuals that frequently constitutes a pledge to do or refrain from doing something.

The individual making the promise or agreement is known as the covenantor, and the individual to whom such promise is made is called the covenantee.

Covenants are really a type of contractual arrangement that, if validly reached, is enforceable by a court. They can be phrased so as to prohibit certain actions and in such cases are sometimes called negative covenants.>>

Could the TRUST AGREEMENT be a COVENANT?

Let me know what you all think.

Shit, I can go wild with these by-laws !! o_O

Tell me about it! :D

But since we don't want to start crazy, we just want some basic by-laws, that we can change/modify as we please. Just like the government does! :D It's our creation, we are the AUTHORS that have the AUTHORITY, and we can change this AT WILL.

So, I say we have identified the 7 ingredients for the cake.

The government just needs a COURTESY NOTICE of the existence of the TRUST, That's it. The rest is up to us. Matters of private trust. They don't get all the details of our business, just like we don't get all the details of their business. I think thanks fair! :D

Meaning, we can get the ball rolling, without having fined tuned all the details of by-laws, and other things, and we can change those as we go along.

I really wish if their is something that is incorrect in all this, that someone would come in and correct it.

That's what I've got so far.

Once we have our trust created, the paper work needs to be notarized I think too? or is the corporate seal all we need?

Notarized, and/or 3 witnesses. We need the seal, as well.

The 3 witnesses, and our signature with a Thumb Print?

I have no notes on thumb prints, Norah. Where do you get that? I guess technically, anything could be our seal. Seal should do the trick. Plus, we keep all originals.

I have never received any documents from the government with thumb prints, and blood. Thumb prints sounds something a free-dumb would use. But, please someone correct me if now we need to share thumb prints, and dna for free.

I saw a document, where I was a witness to an affidavit, and the affidavit needed their signature. Over top of their signature they red inked thumb printed...

Like a "blood seal" I guess, and it was the unique seal to their being. Does that make sense.

I had never heard of it before either, but it was submitted into the court file.

As long as the corporation does business over provincial/state lines, all signing officers can notarize. :D

Technically, I assume since our seal is what we say it is, a thumb print can be a seal. I just don't have anything about thumb prints in my TT4L notes.

The theory basically goes- Do corporations have fingerprints? ;)

A corporation doesn't have fingers, much less thumb prints. But it sure has a SEAL. You are correct, Derek.

So Norah, in Trust Law, stay away from thumb prints. Use a seal.

Finger-prints, blood, your image and voice are signatures not seals.

Post Script: I don't sign documents with any of these. :P

Its not 1776, all though the blood thing may be valid, it will get your documents noticed, all right, under a freeman thing. Those methods are on the watch list and all through the courts.

It is 2013; New tech, use the new tech, it is recognized, Signatures and corporate seal.

Here is my take on things.

My creation, My Law acting under Title. at the wishes of the beneficiary. Also to the benefit of the sole shareholder of the corporation thru a dividend and the corporation only answers to its share holders = one sole shareholder.

Trustee Corporate Seal = Trust Seal

Trust seal = Law

Law = Judge Roy Bean.

2 witness's and Trust seal = Private Law

Private currency in Private law = benefits

Since 1933, when a child is borne, the Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate knowingly and willingly claim the baby as chattel to the Estate. The slave baby contract is then created by honoring the ancient tradition of either having the ink impression of the feet of the baby onto the live birth record, or a drop of its blood as well as tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record. This live birth record as a promissory note is converted into a slave bond sold to the private reserve bank of the estate and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate Cestui Que (Vie) Trust per child owned by the bank. Upon the promissory note reaching maturity and the bank being unable to “seize” the slave child, a maritime lien is lawfully issued to “salvage” the lost property and itself monetized as currency issued in series against the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust.

What is SALVAGE?....blacks law dictionary 2.A product that has more value as scrap than its value as the original product.

is your person scrap of the original? hahahahaa

yes rick, that is correct BUT it also falls under the category of (pierre); FFRREEE DDUUMMMBZEEE with one exception, that it exists and we can LEIN IT so they cant benefit from it anylonger.

a LIEN IS A CLAIM that MUST be paid FIRST. anything they get has to go to the leinholder first. you can enforce a lien.

And you have the highest claim :D

yes joey, thats when you reach for your revolver... um use that claim to declare ownership of the goods when any warrant is issued (warrant is a declaration of a claim, you need superior claim to posession of the goods and you can take it away from them.

habeus corpus and notice of lien.

the lien becomes a useful tool if you are a proper mechanic.

A Courtesy Notice of ones own creation as per: The Director, for educational purposes You may use the name and pick apart at will. It is for the purpose of paying it forward. This Thread Only. :-)

Public Notice:

It is not our wish to create controversy, Having given previous Public Notice: To eliminate the need, We have decided the following is the most prudent course,

We herby declare on this day November 30.2012: The name Jason Fredrick Le Blanc, is Private property Along with ALL Titles, Patents, Letters Patent, Property and Assets including but not limited to; all accounts/contracts derived from said name on any document.

Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION, [ 1732964 ALBERTA LTD.]

By registered mail addressed:

To: Original Trust Attention: Accounting Dept. PMB 206 204-1440-52 ST, NE Calgary, Alberta T2A-4T8

Authorized By: The Board Of Trustees, PRIVATE CORPORATE SEAL 1732964 ALBERTA LTD. All RIGHTS RESERVED

That is the way the Name appears on the BC.

The Lien The Duly Authorized Trustee corp administrates is for JASON FREDRICK LEBLANC which is the way it appears on govt ID, bank cards etc.

Actually One is involved in a thing where one thought specificity was prudent. So ONE created; acting under title.

And they are both in effect.

And now ONE communicates as WE to other entities when contracting.

They are both the same... tenders for law

Yep, it is a nice way of saying fee for service.

"I have come to pay you a courtesy"

I cannot appeal to my rapist so I must create my own court.

So I did. Thanks to Mackximus Minimus and ALL here.

I pulled the trigger on a thing: an action. When upon investigation some new facts came to light. I then became Wrath.

I mean me as beneficiary wishing it so.

Which is a trustee.

All positions in a trust are trustees.

Correct though: specificity and accuracy with the terms is crucial. I need to keep on that, it is a mind set that requires diligence. Programming and such interfere, along with ignorance

when you know who your rapist is and his modus operandi, you can stay back far enough and take him out before he knows your even around.

Proper administrative process has been followed. Ninjas hide the good guys do not. No need they stand in their own law.

Fearless

That is the biggest gift of it all.

Bobis Youruncle, I just want to clear something.

A Trust can be formed, without the BENEFICIARY even knowing he/she/they are the BENEFICIARIES. In a trust, the BENEFICIARY has NO POWER, nor can make any decisions. In a TRUST everything is done per the WISHES of the GRANTOR/CREATOR, which is us.

Do we, as BENEFICIARIES, have any wishes carried-out by the state, of the TRUST our parents help to form? NO! We did not create it, we do not control it, as BENEFICIARIES we have no power within the TRUST. We just take the benefit, nothing else.

So in our position, we technically know we are the beneficiaries, but in a TRUST, things are not done per the wishes of the beneficiary, but rather the wishes of the CREATOR/GRANTOR.

I know what you meant to say, but like you said, we have to be careful about the words we use, and how we use them. I just wanted to mention it. It will look pretty bad if in a communication you, or anyone, expresses "the wishes of the beneficiary" for a trust.

Cheers, mate! You are breaking the ice for many of us!

A security agreement is how you dump titles that are perfected into a trust.

I just finished reading this compilation by Derek Moran, on Scott on Trusts. A must read!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1421310844751664/permalink/1433061843576564/

Got it.

I have always been an explorer. I break trail and sometimes get stuck and need assistance to get out. I take risks based on, well I really do not like it here, So I go over there. I do not want to live like a slave anymore. We cannot go down into common law, that has been changed into what we have today, Legal.

So it makes sense to create a jurisdiction (trust) in which we can operate legally and be immune to trespassers by operating under title.

As per wishes of the Creator and Grantor expressed in a covenant. Which Assigns the roles to play, as expressed in the Corporate charter as per wishes of the shareholders in concordance with the Covenant established at the Birth of the Trust by a simple trust agreement ( covenant).

Not only that but if a historical record is established we have grounds to pursue said adversary. To hold them ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. We cannot appeal to rapists, so we need a court of competent jurisdiction which we are the creator of. To hit a home run.

Value would be a good thing to establish as well... Hmmm.

Nice thread so far !!! :D

So, we have the 7 basic ingredients for the cake. I still have questions concerning BY-LAWS. But I know we can come back to that ingredient.

If there are no shit stains in this thread, we are making good progress. I REALLY WISH that, if there is some bullshit here, for someone to come clean, and correct it. :(

So, maybe next we can talk about 1) what is a LIEN, 2) HOW to place the LIEN, 3) how to perfect the LIEN, 4) how to RATIFY the TRUST, 5) how to perfect the TRUST, and 6) how to SECURE the TRUST?

Just some suggestions.

A side bar on words and their power from first hand experience as to the power of deception:

One came here to learn empower oneself, during my preliminary investigation, I met with the head of the order. To disclose what had happened and find info I was given a name as to whom damaged the vessel as a young fella. The name was spelt different but sounded the same. As a result I came across the offending parties legal name in my investigation, Because I had been given a different Name that sounded the same, I literately did not see the Legal Name, I physically could not see it My mind would get cloudy and I would sink into depression. Long story short, I saw the name when I revisited the investigation. My mind had cleared enough after I had de-programmed myself, with help. I was deliberately misguided, they were counting on the trauma to keep their secret hidden. It is insidious. And brutally effective. So the layers of programming are not an easy thing to break out of, it is all around us The POWER of words ( technology) hides the truth.

A lien is established by creating cause. Cause is created by proper administrative process: By ACCOUNTING; WE CREATE A BILL. To begin a fee schedule included in a

A bill for services or offences committed against trust property. It includes terms and conditions ( statutes) Under a charter ( ACT) The Bill clearly states these terms and adds a value to each of the terms and conditions = fees, First notice is sent via registered mail, important for historical record and proof of receipt.

We are in honour, We give ample time to respond, Time expires, then second notice is given, time to respond, time expires, then 3rd notice all of which give the opportunity to cure the matter.

Notice of default is sent the historical record is established you now have grounds and cause for the lien.

Everything is stamped with corporate seal and witnessed by 2 signatures. Creating Law.

I just noticed that re-reaing my notes, Joey Spirit! You are correct!

Security agreement is an interesting deal. When one filed the lien, operating under title. The monkeys could not find the NAME, so they handed me a 50 page print out of all names with same given last name. Each one already has a security agreement in place, the security created at our birth by the creators and grantors of the trust established between signing parent and govt at birth, when our title is transferred to the trust as property.

TITLE TITLE TITLE TITLE TITLE

The creator and grantor cannot be beneficiary to the corporation but operating under different title Ie: Sole Shareholder as prescribed in the document of ones own creation. The corporate charter in accord with covenant established at formation, creation of trust.

So, the GRANTOR is ME, under a TAKEN NAME. And the TRUSTEE corporation, per the wishes of the CREATOR/GRANTOR, LIENS the name for ME.

Does anyone have a different answer?

<<Scott Duncan: True that. But It's really Admiral Scott (Taken Name) not any family and/or GIVEN name. I hold the AQUILAE trust, and GIVEN names are for COMMERCE.>>

<<Mackximus Minimus: I have a question for Scott Duncan:

1) You had mentioned in a previous post that sending an "Affidavit of Affirmation" to the Register of Demographics Office (that's the name of the agency that issues surety bonds here) claiming the PERSON, would be sufficient to cover "MY" obligation. Would this process be sufficient to place a LIEN on the PERSON?

And if so, who makes the CLAIM, "ME" with my TAKEN NAME as a MAN, and/or a proxy?

Thanks for any time to respond, Admiral.

Scott Duncan: Rogue Support Inc. did it for me.>>

<<Scott Duncan: You need to CLAIM the VALUE you have contributed to the name. Lien the shit out of it, and call yourself something else. No "given" name. Only TAKEN names have power.>>

The name is only taken after proper process, once lien is filed you then have a taken name.

The legal person ( corporation ) the trust administrates thru does everything thru its directors operating under title. You become a role player.

Multiple hats under title.

The grantor is you under given name.

And the government in which the corporation is registered

In order to have a taken name you have to take it first.

Its a mind fuck reach around.

Spinning head syndrome abounds, cause you are just used to playing one role.

My understanding is that GIVEN NAMES are for COMMERCE. You cannot HOLD a TRUST with a GIVEN NAME. So, I can deduce, from my notes, that it's ME, under a TAKEN NAME, that signs as SETTLOR/GRANTOR/CREATOR.

<<Scott Duncan: True that. But It's really Admiral Scott (Taken Name) not any family and/or GIVEN name. I hold the AQUILAE trust, and GIVEN names are for COMMERCE.>>

<<Scott Duncan: You need to CLAIM the VALUE you have contributed to the name. Lien the shit out of it, and call yourself something else. No "given" name. Only TAKEN names have power.>>

Ok, is this correct, or not? : <<So, the GRANTOR is ME, under a TAKEN NAME. And the TRUSTEE corporation, per the wishes of the CREATOR/GRANTOR, LIENS the name for ME.>>

What do you all think? :(

So the GRANTOR should be Joseph-Pierre-Gilles, in my case, which seems to be the BENEFICIARY of the Birth Certificate (Person) ??

If you are getting the NAME out of COMMERCE, how can the NAME be used as the PERSON SETTLOR for the TRUST? I'm confused. :(

On that birth certificate, I AM, the Man, identified as the BENEFICIARY.......it says, Joseph-Pierre-Gilles, which is NOT the person, the PERSON is PIERRE DAOUST.....not Joseph-Pierre-Gilles.....that's how I get it.....

It's like a CERTIFICATE in a corp. minute books, that certificate identifies the BENEFICIARY of that share, NOT THE EPRSON (corp.) itself....

It is an ACT done by ACTORS... operation under title.

Think about that, given names only for commerce. How can you be recognized if you use something outside of commerce? My understanding is that I need to use a recognized form to establish the trust once established it is all private and taken name is just that taken from some one. Is where I am at.

A birth certificate CERTIFIES that a person has been created, and IDENTIFIES the beneficiary....

The TAKEN NAME of Scott is Admiral Scott. The GIVEN NAME of his person is JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN. He said we could use our middle name as a TAKEN NAME (or any other TAKEN name), and must avoid using GIVEN NAME or FAMILY NAME.

So I ask again: If you are getting the NAME out of COMMERCE, how can the NAME be used as the PERSON SETTLOR for the TRUST?

My TAKEN name is Pierre, I could have choose Joseph, Pierre or Gilles......that's what the birth certificate IDENTIFIES as the beneficiary of the PERSON that has been created...

So,

Pierre, the Man, 11852 (Life Birth Registration number)

IS THE FUCKING GRANTOR ?? :D

But the whole point is to KILL the PERSON, take it out of commerce. We are supposed to leave behind "believing" we are "BENEFICIARIES" to some government trust, that evidently we don't control, and create OUR thing.

I am confused, but I will sort this out.

it has a PERSON :P

I HAVE A FUCKING PERSON IN MY POCKET

But that person, that I happen to have in my pocket, CLEARLY identify a MAN, as the BENEFICIARY

Ok, It's a 2 pronged attack:

1)The formation of a trust 2) the formation of the corporation to administer the trust and hold trust property

I thought if we liened it then it was taken, looking for simplicity. The taken name thing I stand corrected, I misunderstood. I have been trying to wrap my cocoanut around that, and it slips. So my taken name is Fredrick ( middle name) if I so choose , but when you go to fill out the forms that is not an identity recognized in their legal system, Once set up in trust we then kill him. Is my thinking. the lien kills him

WE ARE NOT BENEFICIARIES to any TRUST, is all bullshit. The NAME is not OURS!

I want to see ONE fucking BENEFICIARY from a government trust come forward saying "Here are the benefits of the TRUST!". Everything is set-up to only be able to act as trustees for the government.

So, I'm confused.

We are trustees in the current set up. As holders of the document ( person) we are also subject to benefits like jail if we accept surety, We are reassigning surety by accounting.

A person can hold more than one title in trust.

Beneficiary and trustee for example.

WE ARE NOT BENEFICIARIES to any TRUST, is all bullshit. The NAME is not OURS!

I did not said that Mackximus Minimus....

I said, I, the man, I am the BENEFICIARY of the person that is KEPT in trust

copy

Yes, but my question is:

Has ANYONE here been notified that they are the OBJECT of a TRUST, to which one has been declared BENEFICIARY of some PROPERTY being held in TRUST, and have one received that alleged PROPERTY for BENEFIT?

I don't think so.

Now if I start a new world for me, it seems logical to establish it with my NEW NAME, not someone else's property/NAME. I can't get pass the idea.

The Grantor is "ME", the Man, who took Pierre as a name, and have a LIFE BIRTH REGISTRATION that has 11852 as a number :D

I'm talking about the famous government TRUST that some BELIEVE they are BENEFICIARIES to.

Well from my comprehension, the grantor needs to be recognized, the person my back pocket is recognized, thru that account I establish a trust, So the grantor of the trust can be a taken name who's wishes are set up in the Covenant assigning duties to the administrative body who in turn acts under a charter derived from covenant. Assigning the title to given name as a director to to still be recognized in their system and they recognize him as dead and trust property...

And I will CLAIM the person I happen to have in my pocket, by LIEN it.... :P

I am, the Man, beneficiary of the PERSON, not the trust.....

Fuck, it says it on the birth certificate....clearly... !!! :/

my head is going to explode

What, Pete? :(

BENEFICIARY of a PERSON? Really? No TRUST involved?

I think some of us need to take a break. :(

It says on the BC, that "ME", Joseph-Pierre-Gilles, a fucking Man with a penis, is the BENEFICIARY of the person named PIERRE DAOUST

Hellossss !!! :D

<<Beneficiary An organization or a person for whom a trust is created and who thereby receives the benefits of the trust. One who inherits under a will. A person entitled to a beneficial interest or a right to profits, benefit, or advantage from a contract.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

beneficiary n. a broad definition for any person or entity (like a charity) who is to receive assets or profits from an estate, a trust, an insurance policy or any instrument in which there is distribution. There is also an "incidental beneficiary" or a "third party beneficiary" who gets a benefit although not specifically named, such as someone who will make a profit if a piece of property is distributed to another. (See: incidental beneficiary)>>

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beneficiary

Entity

A real being; existence. An organization or being that possesses separate existence for tax purposes. Examples would be corporations, partnerships, estates, and trusts. The accounting entity for which accounting statements are prepared may not be the same as the entity defined by law.

The BC is not my identity it is a thing created by strangers The strangers told me all my life it was mine and I believed them hence the thinking I am the beneficiary. I am not the document is... I am not a document. We operate under title to be recognized it has to be the person created at birth assigned the title of GRANTOR

Fuck... I DID NOT SAID the BC was me, I said it identifies ME, as the beneficiary of the PERSON......

Do you guys have a corp. minute book somewhere ?

:(

Look in a Corporation minute book, you'll find at one point some CERTIFICATES in this, these certificates IDENTIFIES the share holders of that corp., and it's CERTIFIED......

Same thing with the BC, it identifies the SHARE HOLDER (or beneficiary) of that PERSON, thas heas been created.....

A trustee who is not in the role of administrator, but in the role of beneficiary and trustee at same time. We are Transferring titles and therefore surety in to a place where it is administered privately. The trust enables a Catch 22. They are bound to honour by their laws. The Trust needs to be granted by a recognized authority. Which in this case is the title of legal person granting the trust and creating it under title. Enabling the commerce system to recognize the trust, we then utilize a taken name as another title to be boss of Administrative body overseeing the trust.

So the trust is granted and created by the creator and author, ( legal person) the corporation is the holder of trust property and duly authorized to deal with the affairs or trust property. The legal system is bound by the seal of jurisdiction on the articles of incorporation and us acting under title When we form the trust to which the government has no authority, it is a private trust. The authorship of the trust is private as well. So it is multiple roles in the see of commerce to enable recognition in their private system and still be operating under private jurisdiction.

Assign taken name title of first director

And have legal person acting vp or something like that.

Corporate Charter derived from covenant.

Thanks Joey and Mack... Interesting times indeed.

I have good reasons to belive that the government see "ME", the Man, as a CONSIGNOR regarding the PERSON.

Now, by establishing a TRUST, they won't have any other choices to see "ME" as a GRANTOR.

:P

CONSIGNOR, contracts. One who makes a consignment to another.

Boys...the grantor is the one who puts the res into the trust. They also create the indenture. It should of course be a real living man (creditor) as it is a private express trust we are talking about. This is of course to be clearly defined from the person (debtor) in the indenture in which ever way you see fit.

:D

Is it mean I am on the right track ?? :D

Like HE said ?

Private or Common Law trust

So the GRANTOR is:

Pierre, life birth registration no. 11852 :D

Blake Gardner, don't leave!

:D

Yes Blake, put the guitar aside for a few minutes :P

I have the same books he does on this topic but haven't finished reading them.

just as he said, define the grantor (creditor) from the person in the indenture.

It's knobs as opposed to strings at the moment (mixing) and they are beckoning me with intense veracity.....

You got the books Bev:-) they are quite expensive too from memory...there approach is very by the book so to speak, Brandon's is a little more adventurous and Scott's is unto its self:-) oh the variety!!!:-)

Of course depending on your choice of life style one can easily make do with the person alone -

Nessesity is the mother of creativity and invention...

Ok Blake, is you had a TRUST, and you are the GRANTOR, what name would you use for a living man in the indenture document: your taken name, or the given name, or what?

If you can clear this up for me, I would GREATLY appreciate it.

"Anyone with beliefs, it's incapable of acting in Trust Law." "believing" we are "BENEFICIARIES"

"But the whole point is to KILL the PERSON, take it out of commerce. We are supposed to leave behind "believing" we are "BENEFICIARIES" to some government trust, that evidently we don't control, and create OUR thing"

"WE ARE NOT BENEFICIARIES to any TRUST, is all bullshit. The NAME is not OURS! "

Intense outburst BIYU...am I sensing frustration:)

If you are referring to the surname as the taken name and the first or second name as the given names - I may tend to go with the latter and avoid the former.

"Anyone with beliefs, it's incapable of acting in Trust Law." "believing" we are "BENEFICIARIES"

"But the whole point is to KILL the PERSON, take it out of commerce. We are supposed to leave behind "believing" we are "BENEFICIARIES" to some government trust, that evidently we don't control, and create OUR thing"

"WE ARE NOT BENEFICIARIES to any TRUST, is all bullshit. The NAME is not OURS! " Above in thread

The hammer drop: ONE way trip. Just hit home. One needs to leave it. One is tied to it by belief. IN original person, in legal person , in reality.

Trust law trumps Canon Law - GOOD. I must deal with one matter. They Damaged the vessel.

Otherwise = *HUGE FUCKIN FACE PALM*

As far as not being beneficiaries - well look around at the beautiful infrastructure and technology...YOU provided via credit...

You are the bunny and the BC is the Duracell:-D

Bobis Youruncle, WHO said that we are beneficiary of a TRUST ? :/ ....who said that ??

Huh?

I thought it, from another perspective.

Bobis, Blake, Pete, and everyone, I'm trying to make sense of what I have learned from Scott, and what I'm reading here, specifically I'm talking about the name of the Grantor.

How can we start OUR CREATION, using THEIR CREATION?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

What should we make of Scott's information on the TAKEN NAME, that I have posted here?

I was still believing... I have let it go. It was a statement of awakening.

I am, Pierre 11852, a MAN, and I am the BENEFICIARY of a person. Not a trust, the person is NOT A TRUST......it is KEPT IN TRUST....

The name of the grantor, in my case, is : Pierre 11852

Any objections ^^^^ :D

And now, since I am the ONLY one that can give VALUE to that person, I will lien it, using a new person (corp.) and put it in a PRIVATE trust, which I, Pierre 11852, happens to be the GRANTOR :D

I can agree to Pierre! :D

I'm not sure about the numbers. I want to stay away as far away from their shit as I can.

My new programming tells me the name of the GRANTOR must be a/the TAKEN NAME, an not a NAME that does not belong to us.

I determine what my name is. No one else does.

I really like: Pierre 11852 :D

Maybe this name, Pete?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM1P7GMnd38

We are claiming title to the vessel that is named * monkeys are us*, The Vessel with one sole on board is named by others thru deception at berth. The sole on board wishes to trust another sole with the given name. The other ( corporation ) is created, the other is then a legal creation separate completely from the * monkeys are us* Then that separate sole created is entrusted by the vessel by covenant to handle its affairs. It receives benefits that are administrated thur Private Charter to the benefit to the sole on board - taken into trust

:P

The vessel with one sole on board wishes a new name So he takes it, whatever it is. Where the confusion lies with me is that I have modelled My approach after Scott. I programmed myself wrong some how I think I have taken the name so why not use it...

The hammer drop: ONE way trip. Just hit home. One needs to leave it. One is tied to it by belief. IN original person, in legal person , in reality.

Trust law trumps Canon Law - GOOD. I must deal with one matter. They Damaged the vessel.

Otherwise = *HUGE FUCKIN FACE PALM*

I just don 't get the obsession of still wanting to use the GIVEN NAME in some way, shape, or form, like some invisible umbilical chord, or something. :(

But, if a TRUST can be either notarized, or we can use 3 witnesses, if we use the later (3 witnesses we can TRUST), couldn't we use whatever name we want? Who the fuck is going to tell us we are NOT the taken name?

Am I alone on this? :(

No, just working on comprehension. Now it makes sense. I just had to get thru the clutter, and yes there is an umbilical cord, Have been bound to law since birth, it does not want let me go. it was sucking the life out of me. I am learning to deal with it. It is an energy thing, I can sense it. And know it. It is tangible from my perspective. I just discovered it and do not like it. At the risk of ridicule I am bound by law. I can sense its energy.

The overlay programming is very effective. I was trauma programmed. I have documented evidence, it has led me here.

I really like: Pierre 11852 :D

I Like Boobies :-D

I think it's a sexy TAKEN name

I was a casualty of spelling. Really.

From Strangers

It's TRUST LAW, we are KINGS!

What's the obsession with the NAME?

DETACH FROM THE NAME! I am NOT a fucking NAME!

Hell, I am whoever I want to be! And my name it's NONE OF YOUR FUCKIN' BUSINESS!

If I was a free-dumb, I had considered using "Formerly Known as Huge Cock" as my taken name. But times are a changing! :D

It explains all the down time while learning this stuff. I would learn and be drained for weeks.

So I am king and will decide on a new name. Just stating from this end it is a battle to learn.

Mackximus, I think that the GIVEN NAME is the one you put VALUE into (in commerce) to date. It is still attached to you but you do have a private capacity within that entity as well.

Not only drained but would have to ingest all Knowledge learned here over again. Repeatedly, concepts would be here then be gone, unable to access memory. Blocked.

The alice syndrome...too many rabbit holes, fill them in:-)

Pierre 11852 :P

Time to cut the cord, again. It is new day in the kingdom. hmmmm name to take... ah fuck .... zzzzt zzzzt zzztt pop .... spark...overload...

Yes, Beverly! But the questions was/is: Is the GIVEN NAME the one to use in the indenture documents, as the GRANTOR, or is it a TAKEN NAME we must use instead?

Yeah Bev - there is a private and a public dimension in any given situation

What is your dimension of preference in the given situation, sometimes it's public other times it private.

So much possibility, so little appreciation...

Blake, how would you differentiate your private capacity from public in a trust indenture exactly then? I didn't finish the books...

I would avoid an 'exact' rendition of the BC name.

It needs to recognized we need to grant thru legal person as holder in due course, duly authorized by: Legal person, signature of authorized personnel Enabling recognition in the legal world part of the system yet separate it is a catch 22. Once something is granted that's it, it is done. Trust is established: no more need for legal person he can then be killed with the lien transferring all property of legal person to be held in trust, sealing the borders. Once the legal person grants the trust he is finished , kaput done. Grantor has done his thing.

Correction; not holder in due course but Duly authorized by: Only.

The taken name is the only one to use in granting the trust.

We can use a TAKEN NAME. Who is going to rebut that claim? Who will have any OBJECTIONS on the TRUST? The government? :D Haha!

No thank you, I'll use MY SHIT, I don't need any pre-owned name, with a rapist Master attached to it.

Your trust will be tested just as any other administrative remedy you may have used!

The can test, sure. On the terms established in Proper Notice at their expense. In canada the clerk of the court is at the wishes of the lienor it is privatized in Alberta so ppsa is an ACT of a king, they issue the writ of enforcement from the lien. Which is a judgement based on the fee schedule and other terms of lien. They are bound by Proper Public Notice.

It would be the same as an affidavit or any other public document/notice. Authorized representative of..., beneficiary of..., whatever.

There are definitions to ACTS, which designate a specific meaning for words, we can do the same...

No whatever, Specifically assigned by Private Charter.

Authorized by: and Authorized representative are two different things

Define it, however you like... even with a Taken Name.

Any document needs to be recognized by Proper process, Define anything the way you want, but if it is not recognized it is moot.

For the trust to be recognized it needs to use the legally recognized form: the legal person to Grant it Period, that is the question on the table.

It's not so much form Bobby dazzler but substance...

At the end of the day it comes down to a contract and if you hold it! It's private not public, the only people that need to recognize it are those involved - goodness gracious:-)

:D

So Pierre 11852 is the GRANTOR... :P

I can explaine WHY Pierre. And why 11852

:D

Yes but the substance needs to be recognized to be of force and effect is the point. Proper Process needs to be implemented, we need to play in the clubhouse a little to get our trust recognized as private, it is crucial. Yes but you are missing the piont one thinks it is also about private currency. In order to do that you need to be recognized is all. Yes it is a contract substance and intent of course, the form needs to be recognizable is all I am saying. To do that you need to use a form they recognize; the legal person, to grant the trust and then he is finished. No dazzling intended and/or implied :-D

Your still a big bobby dazzler...all intention implied:-)

note; althou I am here, i am reviewing, not just talking for the sake of talking. if you need me i'll be at the laundromat, washing all that dirty debt ridden note money from my stinky shit stained briefs.

two living people acting as persons, created a living man/woman child/infant and then on a registration form committed/ created the name they gave the baby/infant evidenced on the hospital" county of---- " registration form and in turn the hospital sent it to the state....whose the grantor???Hahahaha..did they form a trust? Hahaha if so....who HOLDs the title now of that person? And in what capacity? and who is the beneficial user of that title? ...Hahaha why do you think there are two forms “ne from the hospital (embossed/apostiled stamped from the county) and the finished certificated title from the state. Can you say..conversion or salvage??? The legal words used on the form make the conversion...

Washing all his dirty money, no doubt

Acting as - being the operative words in that rant:-)

Really just doing my best to get this stuff, I am not a wall flower, it is important to me like my life depends on it. I do my best to contribute value and not dazzle, I do not even know what that means...

I thought you were Australian

nope in that place they call canada

Where did you conjure up bobsyauncle from then, that's as Aussie as a bushmansblow

Mackximus Minimus I'm talking about the famous government TRUST that some BELIEVE they are BENEFICIARIES to.

I think that was the point of Scott's AFFIDAVIT OF AFFIRMATION suggestion:

"I AFFIRM, that I AM the OBJECT OF THE TRUST, with regards to the Birth Certificate BOND i have."

Here's a question based on this CLUBHOUSE RULE: Who exactly IS bound to EXECUTE the TRUST, then??

Not bound to execute trusts

59. Her Majesty and a fiscal agent or registrar acting as such are not bound to see to the execution of any express or implied trust to which any securities are subject.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11/page-29.html#docCont

But BEING an object of a trust, don't make that object beneficiary of the trust, it makes it AN OBJECT kept IN TRUST :/

So the PERSON is the object, not "ME"

It is also an expression in canada... | was having fun playing with a name, changed it Bobis Youruncle and now I cannot change it to anything else, facebook will not let me...:-P Blake Gardner it was just for fun. Now it is what it is. A different title to operate under.

Boobies Garfunkle

And humour opens me up to learning and retaining things better.

<<<<<HAHAHAHA!!!! :D

object (ob-jekt), n. (ISc) 1. A person or thing to which ' thought, feeling, or action is directed <the natural object of one's bounty>. See NATURAL OBJECT. object ofa power. A person appointable by a donee. See POWER OF APPOINTMENT. [Cases: Powers 2. Something sought to be attained or accomplished; an end, goal, or purpose <the financial objects of the joint venture>.

I find crisis works well for me:-)

That just keeps me on my toes, trauma is a great way to program, the subconscious is wide open to suggestion, so I use its, counter, humour it also does the same thing opens me up to learning

Bingo! To me, this settles the matter of which name to use as GRANTOR, which not to use, and why. And at the end lies another reason why we MUST not use their fucking names.

<<Chip Douglas: So if my current slavemaster is say CHIP ERNIE DOUGLAS, and i dont like my middle-name ERNIE; im going to change that to BERT...and my new slavemaster will be CHIP BERT DOUGLAS. And its my NEW slavemaster because, im the one who invented CHIP BERT DOUGLAS, instead of The Crown this time around who were the ones who created CHIP ERNIE DOUGLAS?

Scott Duncan: TAKE a name, don't use a GIVEN one, because names are NOT GIFTS in law. They are ACCOUNTS.>>

I havent finisged reading yet, so forgive me if this was said. A Grantor can most certainly be a Trustee if the Grantor wishes, but that Person cannot also be a Beneficiary. Also, Max, a Notary witness is courtesy in my opinion and I think that is a FACT

This is why your PRIVATE TRUST will HOLD your PERSON as PROPERTY... same thing they do...

I'm my own handler and when crisis arose some time back I resisted the cowering and submit programming and digested all I could of commercial remedies and applied them in real time for survival purposes which had a fast tracking effect...

HUGE THING to keep in mind regarding all this talk about TRUSTS > the THREE CERTAINTIES:

looking through a textbook called 'Wills and Estates' 3rd-edition by Derek Fazakas put-out by Emond Montgomery, it has a chapter on TRUSTS and gives a great/simple explanation on the THREE CERTAINTIES:

CERTAINTY OF WORDS OR INTENTION: means that it must be certain from the words in the trust document that the testator or settlor clearly intends to transfer the legal ownership in the property to the trustee and the beneficial ownership to the beneficiary. It is not an absolute requirement that the trust document use the words "trust," "trustee," and "beneficiary" as long as the intention of the testator or settlor is CLEAR.

CERTAINTY OF SUBJECT MATTER: means that it must be certain and clear from the words in the trust document exactly what PROPERTY is being transferred to the trustee.

CERTAINTY OF PURPOSE or OBJECTS: means that it must be certain and clear from the words of the trust document who the BENEFICIARY or Beneficiaries of the Trust are. An individual Beneficiary may be an unascertainable beneficiary, but the rule is satisfied as long as the class of beneficiary itself is certain.

Apart from the three certainties, the trust document SHOULD INDICATE THE RULES under which the trust is administered. These rules, of course, should not undermine the three certainties.

I as well. However new methods have evolved and new information evaluated. Crisis now can be avoided.

I am certain it is private and the rules are none of anyone else's business. :-D

Since you didnt create the person, what is it comprised of? Value that u added and rights to administration.....put the rights into care of a trustee, lien the value you added to the account, done. B-)

Let them keep the only aspect left....SURETY!

Scott Duncan: THE Creator has the SUPREME law. YOU are THE creator. "God" is an invention by the nobility to FILL that "THE CREATOR" spot, so you will think you aren't entitled.

Pete....I like the new name....identity crisis part deux?

Scott Duncan: Look at the date of the birth registration. That's when the Grantor's role is done.

Part Seven, Chris Evan :D

I can tell that you have handled your business on your own, Blake. And you have done things your way.

Before TT4L, I was lost (hell, I'm worse now, hahaha!). I knew EVERYTHING I THOUGHT I KNEW, was wrong. incorrect, a lie. I had NOTHING to start with. Just music, and "farming".

So I have taken VERY seriously learning the program that Scott has been giving us. It has been a struggle, no doubt. But it has been THE BEST thing that has happened to my life, besides my family. I would hate to become the Puerto Rican version of Sir Mika, but with a wife, and 3 kids. That shit is not gonna fly, Hahaha!

So, this is all that I have been feeding my brain since late February of this year. This shit is POWERFUL.

<< Scott Duncan: THE Creator has the SUPREME law. YOU are THE creator. "God" is an invention by the nobility to FILL that "THE CREATOR" spot, so you will think you aren't entitled.>>

Our mother and father were the GRANTORS to the Trust (they just didnt realize it, and we WERE a minor- therefore we had no CAPACITY to CONTRACT, and a Trust is created by way of a CONTRACT)..."HER MAJESTY-in-right-of" is the SETTLOR of the Trust

Boom

Settlor

One who establishes a trustéa right of property, real or personal—held and administered by a trustee for the benefit of another.

settlor n. the person who creates a trust by a written trust declaration, called a "Trustor" in many (particularly western) states and sometimes referred to as the "Donor." The settlor usually transfers the original assets into the trust.

Grantor

An individual who conveys or transfers ownership of property.

In real property law, an individual who sells land is known as the grantor.

So now, WHO the fuck is the SETTLOR of this private trust , we want to establish, and WHO the fuck is the GRANTOR ?? :D

you

Define : "YOU" :D

Sir Mika seems to be more of a pesona non grata to the govt, relying on work without any benefits, still having to slave to survive, he is a slave without title. it would seem.

There is no TRUST there, it's all a FRAUD. But it sure gives "hope" to some, that still BELIEVE that FRAUD and SLAVERY are ok.

In referense to this: <<Our mother and father were the GRANTORS to the Trust (they just didnt realize it, and we WERE a minor- therefore we had no CAPACITY to CONTRACT, and a Trust is created by way of a CONTRACT)..."HER MAJESTY-in-right-of" is the SETTLOR of the Trust>>

Who has rights to administrate the NAME. That is you

No you, titles...

You have no rights, the titles do. You have no benefits the titles do... etc

You have no recognition the titles do.

Grantor must have intent

As set out in the Covenant.

And be expressed thru title of a recognized form ( legal person)

Rick Carne Grantor must have intent > DECLARATION OF INTENT TO EXECUTE A TRUST

WE, now that we have reached the AGE-OF-MAJORITY('MATURITY' of the SECURITY), are now the GRANTOR- but uh-oh, where is he says the Government?...we havent heard from Derek since he was a little-over 7 years old, we dont know if he's still ALIVE or not, thankfully, we have this CESTUI QUE VIE ACT in place for us to look after his PROPERTY/estate should he ever turn-up, wasnt that nice of us? :D

Hows this for intent?

With this Agreement, the parties intend to create a private contract express trust to the benefit of the Settlors’ family, heritors, and heirs (hereinafter, “Beneficiaries”) for the purposes to: identify, accumulate, purchase, and/or hold all Equity and Value that become available; improve the Trust Estate so the Beneficiaries may possess the things of life sufficient to provide for health, growth, protection, education, expansion, welfare, preservation and/or a continuation thereof through a fund to extend credit and funds to the Beneficiaries; and provide for prudent administration and distribution systems for the management thereof.

Bobis....who controls those titles???? that is the property to grant to a Trustee.

Yes, there is no you in the equation, is all. It is all title; including but not limited to the legal person = title Even taken Name is a title. So use the title of legal person to grant the trust and it is done, he is finished, no more. nada. One in his vessel with one sole on board controls the titles thru proper process.

Gail Marie: Thought I would share this for discussion, a friend made a post that they received a trust number from CRA and the declaration/deed of the trust is to govern/control the use of the Canadian citizen by the living man

It seems that that would be at cross purposes with here, leaving them some sort of access to the legal name created and indebted at birth. Some way to account for it.

The whole purpose of creating at trust in this context is to give the legal person a civli death and manage the estate left behind, forever out of govt hands. Forever cut off from benefiting in any manner.

My trust is not with the CRA... seems like a potential rape. We want no business with these guys we are leaving them behind. We are operating outside of the hoopla and corruption in trust that we honour.

We do not need them to benefit for ourselves. We are nobles :-P

Honest ones but ...

I think the trust should be registered with CRA/IRS....heres my logic. There is a box on an ss-4 that says "for banking purposes". I think that is how to lodge a LIEN for the beneficiaries. :-) So, if an account is opened using trust property, the Beneficiary better have Lien on it to secure the 1/10 of the law in its benefit. and I think this is how it is done..thoughts?

See we need just enough clubhouse to take us out of the clubhouse... too much clubhouse disturbs my own clubhouse which has the Kool Aid I like.

My own recipe, once I have left the clubhouse I thought I could be part of, but since I didn't let them paddle my ass and do a bunch of homo erotic weird shit as part of some weird college ritual called frosh, they wont let me play. Which is fined by me.

Like I said, just enough clubhouse to keep me out of theirs.

I do not know, how ever we will need to file corporate taxes... so ... fuck.

if one is smart no taxes...

Private bank private currency, money is only exchanged... and private currency is only accepted for service or any act in commerce so no taxes, Money of exchange to handle expense's and other such line items, is ones way of thinking around this.

Accounting for it all, surety resides with the private entity

No legal tender is held as trust property, it is exchanged only and considered a liquid asset.

legal tender is administered thru directors.

HEllOs..

check test...

Grantor and Settlor, in French, is the same fucking thing :(

CONSTITUANT

Derek Moran wrote this:

Our mother and father were the GRANTORS to the Trust (they just didnt realize it, and we WERE a minor- therefore we had no CAPACITY to CONTRACT, and a Trust is created by way of a CONTRACT)..."HER MAJESTY-in-right-of" is the SETTLOR of the Trust

Pete....they are the same thing for this purpose....

Grant = Gift As a way to think about it, a gift to yourself from YOU :-)

or = action, So Grant-or; the action of giving a gift = Grantor. but in writing

They gave their trust away :-(

You are giving it back to you under title of grantor.

You were wondering about GIFT, Pierre?

"contingent right" as applied to land includes a contingent and executory interest, and a possibility coupled with an interest, whether the object of the GIFT or limitation of such interest or possibility is or is not ascertained, and also a right of entry whether immediate or future, vested or contingent;

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-t23/latest/

And I have found this.... :D

Gift

A voluntary transfer of property or of a property interest from one individual to another, made gratuitously to the recipient. The individual who makes the gift is known as the donor, and the individual to whom the gift is made is called the donee.

If a gratuitous transfer of property is to be effective at some future date, it constitutes a mere promise to make a gift that is unenforceable due to lack of consideration. A present gift of a future interest is, however, valid.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gift

Fun Fact: :D

I know some dudes will have NO PROBLEMS on making some nice gifts to the PRIVATE TRUST, which I have no ideas what it will be the name... :/

But so far, FTP TRUST is in line :D

'Secumdum Consilium'

Thirdum Assholum :P

And it's "Secundum Consilium" :P

Fat Fingers.....my mistake, please forgive me!

And what the fuck is that mean ??? :(

Exactly what it said

call it a private trust for now.

More on GIFT, Pierre:

Disposal of certain interests in land by deed

10. A contingent, an executory, and a future interest, and a possibility coupled with an interest in land, whether the object of the GIFT or limitation of such interest or possibility is or is not ascertained, also a right of entry, whether immediate or future, and whether vested or contingent, into or upon land, may be disposed of by deed, but no such disposition, by force only of this Act, defeats or enlarges an estate tail.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c34_e.htm

Keep it real simple, so intent is clear in all things.

Ceit Butler, is it still in mode "TECHNICALS DIFFICULTIES PLEASE STAND BY"

???? :(

Once the trust is granted the matter is settled Settled = Settlor = Over, fineet-O, done like dinner, THE end of ACT ONE...

Ribbit...

"So, maybe next we can talk about 1) what is a LIEN, 2) HOW to place the LIEN, 3) how to perfect the LIEN, 4) how to RATIFY the TRUST, 5) how to perfect the TRUST, and 6) how to SECURE the TRUST?"

A lien is a transfer of equity thru Proper Process on a titled property.

Ribbit...

Once trust is established, You take the person newly created - Acting under title of As director of the corporation; Along with articles of Incorporation and place a ppsa lien on all assets derived from any document from the NAME and then you can get specific as to what the value is according to established evidence: Value Accounted For. Govt doesn't matter once trust is established. Seal it with Corporate seal, Sign as taken Name, Govt seal = other sig. 2 sigs and a seal = law Law = Act of a king. PUBLIC NOTICE = Perfected Walk away and let the lien take effect.

Ribbit...

"Based on previous teachings, this would indeed appear to resemble a courtesy notice more than a mere public notice, as per the "Proper Notice for Idiots" thread" Joey Spirit

All though each Type of Notice is A Tender For Law. Each is created for a specific purpose.

The Intent and structure are similar the purposes are similar, The Public Notices however represent two different things in the interest of Accuracy.

Ribbit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXn2QVipK2ohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXn2QVipK2o

Addendum in a private matter.

Okay back to the Name thing:

The Following Addendum is to;

All documents Authorized by The Duly Authorized: Trust Corporation hereby Known as: Bob Uncle Ltd. and applies to all correspondence with and authorized by corporate seal.

Upon reflection, due to the Voluminous amount of proof in the historical record:

It is this courts Decision: All Parties involved in the matter expressed in ALL previous and current Evidences, Informations and Proofs related directly to this matter. Are Guitly.

ALL Charges previous and current: added to and or amended as Follows, Apply:

Accessories to the fact.

Sentencing to be determined.

The following Courtesy Notice's Also Apply:

Amended to reflect changes in Previous Notice:

NO COMMERCE EXPECTED AND/OR IMPLIED.

Public Notice:

It is not our wish to create controversy, Having given previous Public Notice: To eliminate the need, We have decided the following is the most prudent course,

We herby declare on this day November 30.2012: The name Jason Fredrick Le Blanc, is Private property Along with ALL Titles, Patents, Letters Patent, Property and Assets including but not limited to; all accounts/contracts derived from said name on any document.

Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION, [ BOB UNCLE LTD.]

By registered mail addressed:

To: BOB UNCLE LID Attention: Accounting Dept. PMB 206 204-1440-52 ST, NE Calgary, Alberta T2A-4T8

Authorized By: The Board Of Trustees, PRIVATE CORPORATE SEAL BOB UNCLE LTD. All RIGHTS RESERVED

Any and all posts, information shared, links posted.... ALL information presented on this private profile is for research and educational purposes only

PUBLIC NOTICE

TAKE NOTICE that the VESSEL known as JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC is now the LAWFUL PROPERTY of a PRIVATE TRUST per the wishes of the CREATOR and GRANTOR.

Therefore: LET IT BE KNOWN THAT AS OF THIS DATE, BEING FEBRUARY 27, 2013, THE VESSEL KNOWN AS JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC MUST BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE VESSEL WITH NO COMMERCE EXPECTED AND/OR IMPLIED.

PARTIES ATTEMPTING TO USE JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES MAY BE FINED AT THE RATE OF TWO HUNDRED And FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER DAY ($250,000.00 PER DAY) OR ANY PART THEREOF, FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE.

Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION, [ BOB UNCLE LTD.] at and by the following method only:

We Reserve All Rights for all transactions unless otherwise expressly presented in writing.

All Correspondence must be received through registered mail addressed exactly as follows:

BOB UNCLE LTD. Attention: Accounting Dept. PMB 206 204-1440-52 ST, NE Calgary, Alberta T2A-4T8

Authorized By: BOB UNCLE LTD Seal. All RIGHTS RESERVED BOB UNCLE LTD.

So, who is the GRANTOR ? :/

That is Private, ;-)

The legal person ( grantor) assigns taken name ( BOB UNCLE LTD.) in the terms established in the founding document of the trust agreement. ( Covenant).

Taken Name Is now Bob Uncle and He is first director, Director=JASON FREDRICK LEBLANC

The person in your back pocket grants the gift of Trust to the new person BOB UNCLE LTD To administer the affairs of the titles, and also granting Bob Uncle ( taken name) the title of First director. IN the trust agreement ( covenant).

And title of director to JASON FREDRICK LEBLANC. Legal person.

I'm not clear why JASON FREDRICK LEBLANC would be a director?:/

In title only. Everything is administrated and or signed either by corporate Seal or acting as first Director with taken name, taken names are the only ones that count , the others are names of accounts, you do not want to be associated with the given name any more, so by parking it it the position, it is around but silent.. it secures your limited liability acting under title. We chose director as a tile Instead of President, CEO for clout purposes; when sealing documents and since all communications: come from the board of directors ( policy) it makes sense to use title of director... it can be defined by the covenant and implemented in corporate charter. This way I trust everyone involved :-D And it secures the limited liability and keeps me safe, Enabling the ability to receive benefits created as set out in proper process.

You need to have the legal person as part of the trust to manage it, to create the positions. To fulfil the criteria needed to make a valid private express trust to establish. Bob's your uncle express card. Bob bucks ( private currency) Make sense?

It is to manage accounts...

<<Scott Duncan: 3: Get ANY accountant to manage the books of the corporation. You direct the corporation as FIRST DIRECTOR, and establish roles (President/CEO Vice President, etc) which is how the UNITED STATES was formed...

... The accountant EXECUTES YOUR TASKS within the framework. To establish a trust, write it down, and have it witnessed and notarized. The end. Only shareholders of your corporation are recognized by the trust.>>

So, the accountant is the one to EXECUTE OUR TASKS within the framework of the corporation, Bobis.

"Pierre Eleveneightfivetwo: Ceit Butler, is it still in mode "TECHNICALS DIFFICULTIES PLEASE STAND BY" Yes, that's still where things stand and will continue to be until further notice.

Pierre Eleveneightfivetwo: "On second thought...its probably best if we just leave Scott alone to concentrate on getting Dean free, and all of Scott's Tender For Law comments he ever posted uploaded onto Thetenderforlaw.com in time for Christmas"

Derek Moran: "I second that!" :D

virtual-Scott Duncan: "Fellas, im tellin'ya...you're gonna want that 'cowbell'"

Yes the Accountant As assigned by charter. Got it One has been doing accounting under title as prescribed by charter.

"On second thought...its probably best if we just leave Scott alone to concentrate on getting Dean free..." Uhh...no.

...ChiefRock's contract-law-books and I puttin' some pieces together:

Derek Moran: "...a DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL is still called a DEED."

Translation? - "...a BIRTH CERTIFICATE is...called a DEED."

..happy i could help

Signed, "ESCHEAT" > Black's Law 9th

Derek Moran: ..from a previous page, from one of Chief's other books:

"...but INSTRUMENTS that are INTENDED to pass an ESTATE-in-LAND, such as DEEDS..., MUST be not only in writing, but UNDER SEAL"

yup, and then they will send in a pawn to assassinate the director. make sure to include a provision in the event of such an occurance.

Dean has not requested any assistance. Besides, what happened to this "two-sentence A-bomb" I've been hearing so much about?

"Never question Bruce DICKENSON" ? - now THATS one way of NOT accepting SURETY...or the ACCOUNTING, for that matter

..i never did hear what the second-sentence was, maybe Norah can chime-in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyV2cPLuFuA

Yeah....why would Dean need Scott's help ? :-D

Ok another revision:

Public Notice:

It is not our wish to create controversy, Having given previous Public Notice: To eliminate the need, We have decided the following is the most prudent course,

We herby declare on this day November 30.2012: The name Jason Fredrick Le Blanc, is Private property Along with ALL Titles, Patents, Letters Patent, Property and Assets including but not limited to; all accounts/contracts derived from said name on any document.

Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION, [ BOB UNCLE LTD.]

By registered mail addressed:

To: BOB UNCLE LTD Attention: Accounting Dept. PMB 206 204-1440-52 ST, NE Calgary, Alberta T2A-4T8

Authorized By: Bob Uncle, President. PRIVATE CORPORATE SEAL BOB UNCLE LTD. All RIGHTS RESERVED

Any and all posts, information shared, links posted.... ALL information presented on this private profile is for research and educational purposes only

PUBLIC NOTICE

TAKE NOTICE that the VESSEL known as JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC is now the LAWFUL PROPERTY of a PRIVATE TRUST per the wishes of the CREATOR and GRANTOR.

Therefore: LET IT BE KNOWN THAT AS OF THIS DATE, BEING FEBRUARY 27, 2013, THE VESSEL KNOWN AS JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC MUST BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE VESSEL WITH NO COMMERCE EXPECTED AND/OR IMPLIED.

PARTIES ATTEMPTING TO USE JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES MAY BE FINED AT THE RATE OF TWO HUNDRED And FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER DAY ($250,000.00 PER DAY) OR ANY PART THEREOF, FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE.

Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION, [ BOB UNCLE LTD.] at and by the following method only:

We Reserve All Rights for all transactions unless otherwise expressly presented in writing.

All Correspondence must be received through registered mail addressed exactly as follows:

BOB UNCLE LTD. Attention: Accounting Dept. PMB 206 204-1440-52 ST, NE Calgary, Alberta T2A-4T8

Authorized By: Bob Uncle, President. Duly Authorized Trustee Corporate Seal. All RIGHTS RESERVED BOB UNCLE LTD.

I confused myself :-P

re-reading...

Done. Next to create a good place.

dean has to ask scott for help, scott cant just do anything he is only the trustee and HAS to wait to be told to do something. meanwhile if anything is going on, i'd bet that dean is trying everything he can and will only go to scott as a last resort.

Scott seems to be the keeper of the trust David Johansen, and RogueSupport seems to be the Trustee....

my statement above (dean HAS to ASK) is a direct quote from scott. he specifically said he has to be told before he can act.

I know David Johansen, I was refering to Scott being a trustee....that's all

"A demand letter, or LOD, i.e. a Letter Of Demand (of payment), is letter stating a legal claim (usually drafted by a lawyer) which makes a demand for restitution or performance of some obligation, owing to the recipients' alleged breach of contract, or for a legal wrong."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_letter

...speaking of setting-up a TRUST:

"...the intention of the creator of the trust..."

Specific non-charitable trusts

16.(1)A trust for a specific non-charitable purpose that creates no enforceable equitable interest in a specific person shall be construed as a power to appoint the income or the capital, as the case may be, and, unless the trust is created for an illegal purpose or a purpose contrary to public policy, the trust is valid so long as and to the extent that it is exercised either by the original trustee or the trustee's successor, within a period of twenty-one years, despite the fact that the limitation creating the trust manifested an intention, either expressly or by implication, that the trust should or might continue for a period in excess of that period, but, in the case of such a trust that is expressed to be of perpetual duration, the court may declare the limitation to be void if the court is of opinion that by so doing the result would more closely approximate the intention of the creator of the trust than the period of validity provided by this section.

Idem

(2)To the extent that the income or capital of a trust for a specific non-charitable purpose is not fully expended within a period of twenty-one years, or within any annual or other recurring period within which the limitation creating the trust provided for the expenditure of all or a specified portion of the income or the capital, the person or persons, or the person or person's successors, who would have been entitled to the property comprised in the trust if the trust had been invalid from the time of its creation, are entitled to such unexpended income or capital.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p09_e.htm

OK, who is the fucking GRANTOR ?? :D

It depends on what is being GRANTED. If it is something MAN can have lawfully, like gold or silver, then MAN. If it is something that only PERSONS can have, then a PERSON. If it is something a corporation has, then a corporation.

Who the fuck in here have established a TRUST and it's a done thing ? :(

Pete, i have established and expressed many trusts as well as collapsed a few (as have many of you ,but are unaware)...Hahaha..not everything is contracts (creditor/debtor) in as much as they are trusts, changing the "situs"of the private trusts has been important as well as the public trusts where i am administrating them for the legal entity. In those instances it is imperative that the roles are played correctly by the actors or there will be hell to pay...much of the time they are "Banking" that you are unaware that it is a trust you are dealing with as many believe they are in a contract relation-ship..

...and a Beneficiary gives INSTRUCTIONS to DIRECT his TRUSTEE

Derek Moran, I am almost certain the beneficiary does not have any ability to instruct anything in a trust, or to a trustee. Also, the Grantor's role is done, once the trust is established. If I am incorrect, let me know.

What if the Trustee is not performing their fiduciary duty and/or obligation owed to the Beneficiary- which is, UTMOST LOYALTY and SELFLESS SERVICE...? ;)

I agree Mackximus Minimus, which is why you want the trustee to be someone you trust. I think the extent of power the beneficiaries holds relates to breach of trust only?

The Trust Indenture must have a procedure to relive and/or change trustee, in the case there is a fail/breach of fiduciary duties.

The Grantor can change the objects of the trust, or function, etc, until he dies.

Yes, Gail, I imagine as long as it has been instructed as such in the Indenture, anything is possible. It's your trust, make your intentions known, and carry on.

Remember..also,..the "proxy" that " acts" for [you] if it is set up that way...

Just so im crystal-clear on this point Rick, the "proxy" in say Scott's case, was ROGUESUPPORT INC. ?

S”'mon...

"Simon?"......ahhhhhhh :/

Means "yes" in mexican...

http://creoharmony.blogspot.ca/search/label/cestui%20que%20vie%20trust#.UrJ60Cd0lC0

Well, at least I have learn something, about you Joey Spirit ??

:-D

Maybe you are too much DISTRACTED by bullshitstains ? :-D

That should be the most important thing you've learned in 2013, which is something....

Anybody have an update on the website Scott talked about I read would be up on Xmas, I just checked and Explorer said it could not connect

he mentioned yesterday it is being uploaded but taking time because of its size

WOW ! I just spent the entire after noon trying to wrap my head around this thread... That stuff's pretty new to me. Now feels like my brains about to explode ! Time to filter it all !

Thanks to all those who contributed to this !

When your skull will spit blood, you'll know you're on the right track :D :D

Great stuff Will Bed !!! :D

Ok, I've gone through this thread about 3 times now, and I still have a couple of questions. I beg for your forgiveness if they are covered in another thread that I have yet to find.

When we have created this TRUST, and have set up a holding corporation to HOLD it, we then move our PERSON into that trust as an asset/object of value. (My wording here might be a little off, but I think I comprehend all of that part.)

Now that we have the corporation and the trust established, we conduct ourselves in all of our business with the new "hat(s)"/"role(s)" that we have set up. (Ok, I can get that part too)

My questions then relate to how our children work into this. I have registered 3 with the government at this time, and the government has provided me with BIRTH CERTIFICATES for each of them. So now we have 3 more PERSONS to work into this trust setup somehow. Since I do not want them to be seen as being abandoned. We also have another one on the way as well.

Can I (and should I) set up a trust for each of them at the same time and have the corporation hold it for them until they are old enough to look after it on their own? They are all under 10 years old.

Are they considered my "property" still? Could I move their persons into the trust the same as with my own?

Since we are expecting another child soon, what could I do differently with this child versus the previous 3? And what sort of implications might those differences have?

If anyone can help with this, or point me in the direction so that I can figure it out on my own, that would be awesome.

Pete Daoust - My skull isn't spitting blood yet, but I have had to go at this thread over a few days, with several long walks, and 2 sleepless nights. My head isn't turning off anymore since joining this group.... I'm guessing that the blood part is still yet to come?

I read in another thread where Scott Duncan had said something along the lines of being sure that one knows what they are doing with the trusts because if it isn't done right, you'll end up in jail, so I want to get this right in my head before I start down that path.

I'm not a big fan of being in a cage.

As always, thank-you all for your insights, and your time spent here. I find lots of value in discovering truth, and seeing truth in action.

Re children:

Instead of creating numerous trusts, why not lien the person relating to each child into the one private trust, along with the one you happen to have?

The holding corporation then acts as Sole Authorised Administrator, following the instruction of the corporate shareholder(s)...You may wish to control the corporation by holding all shares of the corporation.

As the children are considered incompetent to contract prior to age 16, then it is my understanding that you mat act as Sole Authorised Administrator on their behalf (if you are not clear on what to do with respect to liening/securing the persons into the private trust at this time).

That gives you time to learn and study so that you are fully aware of the consequences of your actions, whatever you choose to do.

Act peacefully, honourably, in good faith, and know who you are (that you are a man with a person and it's not your fault) and how to administrate accordingly and you will not have any reason to concern yourself with cages.

Of course, I am not qualified to give advice, so this is for entertainment purposes only ;-)

What might some of the issues to think about be for the yet unborn child? I'm curious if it might be better to NOT register the new child when it arrives.

Unborn are would be covered in a "posterity" clause..covering future offspring/decendants

I'm not sure if you have any standing to lien your children's PERSONs. I would say, have the child at home and don't "sign up"

I think it's not a bad thing to have a person as long as you know WHO you are and WHAT TO DO with IT. That being said, it doesn't mean you need to sign up for a person for your offspring when they are born, HE/SHE can choose to sign up for a person WHEN HE/SHE chooses to. :)

Why making babies should be the FIRST question, any takers on that ? :-D

I remember Scott was away for a while, and we started this, but did not finish.

Don't look at me! I just like the ACT of making babies.

Practicing is my favorite part too

'Adrian Thomson: ... I'm curious if it might be better to NOT register the new child when it arrives.'

It may be worth remembering that you are not registering a child, you are registering an event, which results in the creation of a person.

As the government stands to gain as a result of the creation of that person, they have a vested interest in that person.

In another thread, we looked briefly at the consequences of a civil death. The end result, is whether the person is not created in the first place, or is killed off, it no longer exists in the government jurisdiction.

The child is not recognised as a person and is therefore not subject to, nor protected by the 'law'...in the same way as indigenous Australians were not and suffered atrocities without any legal protection or recourse.

Registering the event and then securing the chattel property into a jurisdiction You control (private trust held by a corporation) or even using the existing system, probably affords more control and protection than not registering the event.

So long as you, acting on the child's behalf (prior to age of majority) know how to navigate the waters and teach them how to do the same, there is a degree of legal protection until the child is old enough to make an informed decision.

If the government is giving/gifting a person for our exclusive use, even if I do not wish to be part of their system most of the time, the person becomes a useful tool in the toolbag, and is becoming more important now that I'm learning how to use it properly.

Those are just my thoughts. I do not have children yet so this is still a theoretical exercise for me.

Stuart Stone has been paying attention in class :D

:D

Always a pleasure reding your stuff, Stuart Stone :-)

Thank you Pete Daoust :D

And to read MY stuff too.. ! :D

HAHAHAHA!!!

Absolutely! :D

Seriously though Pete, I appreciate the way you can cut through the bullshit, focus on key points & ask the questions that get to the heart and the truth of the matter...by doing this you make complex issues simple.

And on top of it, I almost totally grasp everything I write, amazing !!! :D

I should probably read this thread, huh?

*Bumpety Bump Bump Bump

Oh yes......you EXPRESS the fucking TRUST, in front of several witnesses :D

....and then you create some magical parchiaments :/

....and, :D (if you want)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/blockchain-notarization-stampery/

Ohhhhhh! :D

And... Law Dictionary: What is EXPRESS? definition of EXPRESS (Black's Law Dictionary)

Made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or implication.Declared in terms; set forth in words. Manifested by direct and appropriatelanguage, as distinguished from that which is inferred from conduct. The word isusually contrasted with "implied." http://thelawdictionary.org/express/

David-Paul Sip, it's 2016 and they are robbing you....it's not 1892

:/

You quoted Blacks Law 2nd

Well Google returned the result. I quoted the result :P

I used to do that too....then Scott showed me what a bunch of bullshit I fell for. It's been a great learning experience ever since

Fuck...here's another. Same thing :D

"Clear; definite; explicit; plain; direct; unmistakable; not dubious or ambiguous. Declared in terms; set forth in words. Directly and distinctly stated. Made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference. Manifested by direct and appropriate language, as distinguished from that which is inferred from conduct. The word is usually contrasted with implied." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/express

Okay I'm listening...do elaborate please :)

You know that rock thing you found on the internet? Presumably Google? That... :P

Don't get me wrong. I used to believe a bunch of bullshit too. :D

Reiki is one. But I did that to nail a bunch of stupid chicks. I pretended.... :D

Actually "the rocks" wasn't Google. I have Black's Law 10th Edition on my desk and it reads as follows... "express, adj. (14c) Clearly and unmistakably communicated; stated with directness and clarity. Cf. IMPLIED. - expressly, adv."

But Scott presented me with facts and I verified as much as I could. :D

So I don't follow your point as it pertains to EXPRESS :/

Or are you just having a little fun? (I've read the "it's INSERT CURRENT YEAR and they are robbing you....it's not 1892" quote before in the group) :)

I'm sure that definition hasn't changed much, but it's not a good habit to check that site.

Thanks. Noted. I usually start with http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com and then cross reference other sites along with the Black's 10th I have but I don't give much credence to the latter since I found INalienable and UNalienable are defined as SYNONYMOUS.

:D

Me and Nad have ESTABLISHED a "trust" some 22 years ago. We EXPRESSED it. There was witnesses there who brought their SIGNATURE with them :P

Fuck, this shit is so easy :/

I "trust" her, she "trust" me. If I breach that trust, or if she breach that trust, the TRUSTEE (Directeur de l'Etat Civil) will show up :D

When you translate it to French, the meaning of the words become obvious.

There's always the "complicated cul-de-sac" option. Derek Moran :/

He has a few Facebook group on the subject..... :/

I find myself cringing when I discover Derek Moran comments in a zombie-thread. In another thread he commented "...and a Beneficiary gives INSTRUCTIONS to DIRECT his TRUSTEE" :/ HIS trustee? "His" as in the trustee works for the beneficiary? I should introduce Derek to my brother. This kind of stupid can't be fixed.

I recently learned from Scott that a fucking BENEFICIARY has no STANDING. NONE! Any fucking "superior court" justice who states otherwise is accomodating FRAUD. Commencing civil litigation against a TRUSTEE in their INDIVIDUAL capacity in order to undermine, violate, and or breach the trust is FRAUD. TRUST law is the highest law. Hmmm...where did I learn that :D

This should be an interesting thread.

It SHOULD be. :P

It isn't, but it SHOULD be. :D

Learning how to establish a TRUST is like learning how to get to Rome. When you finally arrive, you tell yourself, FUCK, I should have just take the airplane :D

Establishing the trust is pretty simple. It's the administration that gets people confused.

Oh, it was the opposite for me :D

Well, I am Quebecois, we do things backwards. There is that :/

Establishing a TRUST :D

EXPRESS IT !!!! :D

Make sure the TRUSTEE is present when you express it, and that there's at least three persons to witness it. The beneficiaries can stay in bed, fuck them you don't need them around when you EXPRESS it :D

Don't forget about the exchange. Lol expressed terms might be nice too, but something of value should probably be granted to the trustee at some point.

Yes, start with the kitchen table, who cares? :/

Or a camper!

:D

An old box of DVDs, as long as the trust has SOMETHING to hold.

This camper was the 7th or 8th thing that was given to that trust. It was end of august 2014, if I remember good.....the wotnesses remembers these dates more than me :D

I don't know for you, Mathew Wolfe, but here in Quebec the trust OWNS, and the TRUSTEE holds the trust :/

Yeah the trust does own. It also holds interest as well. But the trustee never owns. Lol

And more importantly the grantor never owns. ;-)

Yes, and chocolate is never a refrigerator :/

I would go about the trusts a little differently though. Not that what I've seen here, so far anyway, won't work, but I feel there is probably a better way to protect assets and limit liability than taking my trust into a public Jurisdiction. I don't know about Canada but down here that's how they piece through your trust and attach their claims to its assets.

Oh, I love to receive quetions about that PRIVATE trust :-o

As an agent of 9111-1111 Quebec Inc, who happens to act as trustee for this trust, I always carry this OATH of office...that is serious shit buddy :/

It's pretty simple actually. There's three answers possible to ANY questions.

1. YES 2. NO 3 . I AM NOT AUTHORIZED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

"I would go about trusts a little differently".

I don't get it. :/

"I would go about trusts a little differently".

Who said this? :/

A bit like I go differently with chocolate as opposed to refrigerators :D

Anibal. Mathew Wolfe said it

Is Mathew writing on this thread, Chris Evan?

Yup

"I would go about the trusts a little differently though." - WARNING: It it conflicts with what I say, IT IS WRONG.

Mathew Wolfe, do you have Anibal Jose Baez blocked? :/

Yeah, you don't get to block members of the group.

Mathew Wolfe, how exactly would you go about trusts?

And who in the world would block an adorable little inoffensive Spic like Anibal Jose Baez? :/

What the fuck is wrong with you, Mathew Wolfe? :/

Inoffensive? Hardly. He books rooms at HOWARD FRIGGIN JOHNSONS. I was offended.

The guy literally wanted to sleep in......ok, nevermind :/

I just checked it was me who had Mathew Wolfe blocked. He must had been doing/saying something so off, that I must had blocked him. It must has been a while ago. I haven't block folks for quite some time, unless instructed.

Ok, Mathew Wolfe, unblock Anibal Jose Baez. Thanks :)

HO!!!! :D

You fucking little evil Greasy Spic :D

Anibal Jose Baez doesn't block unless:

1: Serious Free-Dumber 2: Piece-of-Shit Christian

Which are you Mathew Wolfe?

NEITHER of those are welcome here.

How in the fuck a freedumber could ever establish a TRUST? ...EVERYONE knows that these tards don't keep promises, right?

Same with Piece-of-Shit Christians.

It really is the same. EXACTLY actually.

Maybe that's what he meant by "seeing it differently" :D

If he'd just answer the questions posed, we'd know

Suddenly he's silent.

Smell shit, right? :D

Oh fuck, he's gone??!! :D

I can't tag him suddenly!! :D

Mathew Wolfe there is a question still standing. I'll repeat it:

Anibal Jose Baez only blocks Piece-of-shit Christians, and Free-dumbers. Which one are you?

Haha when was I ever blocked? News to me. I actually left this group a long time ago. Just came back because someone told me you guys were talking about private trusts. Just wanted to see what you guys were up to. I've seen all I need. Feel free to "block" me again.

OK! Done.

Yup. Seems like the proper course.

Mathew Wolfe, how would you handle trusts differently? I'm curious

He's gone now. He can't even see the post.

I knew I had most likely blocked him with reason. He just confirmed it. His loss.

My list is filling up rapidly.

I COMPLETELY emptied it

Lol :D

I have 47 on the blocked list

I had over 300

"Just came back because someone told me you guys were talking about private trusts. " = LIE. This post was from back in 2013. NOBODY told him that.

Piece-of-Shit Christians make up fairy tales like this.

ANYONE ELSE HIDING A ZOMBIE-RAPE-BABY-ON-A-STICK?

This little exercise of opening the doors and/or lowering the bar is only revealing how many folks should just DIE! And this Mathew Wolf seemed to come back just so he could show everyone that a sack-of-shit never loses it's stench. Kind of like members of the Law Society.

Correction...EXACTLY like Members of the Law Society.

I tried to help this guy a few years back. Jesse too. He is still in the same place.

Well if they won't learn (it is a choice) then they are better of dead. Fuck! It's really that simple, like On or Off :D