Trust challange ( sounds like a new TV show)

98% of trust in-formation is flawed for the simple reason that:

a. The thinking is that to get it to work USA style, ONE HAS TO GO REGISTER on the ucc ( come on now, think about it)

b. In order for it to work you will have to present yourself in court hoping that the judge will sway with you (seriously) and of course, to even get to that point you will have to forgo your status and accept the jurisdiction of the court.

Pretty much ALL of the trust language and information points people towards submitting themselves to Roman law AND EXPECTING to be treated fairly and with honour. Why are certain peeps being so naive about what is being peddled...is it because they are so desperate to be redeemed, is it because after seeing the flaw in liens and all that stuff that now they think trust can replace all that with trusts.

------------------------------------

What a bout the other 2%.

A trust can be - private, unregistered and between people - as in not between a wo/man and a corporation. (a woman is real a corporation is fiction) it is blatantly obvious that IF YOU buy into the 'government controlled fiat trust law' you will be shooting your self in the foot. Play with fire you will get burned. Fact.

I have asked many times on and offline for someone to come forward with some bonefide fact about all this fiat trust stuff, up to today not one person has come forward - ....why is that...? I think you know why.

Offer : Trusts are completely corrupt when outside of common law. Anything outside common law is Roman law, but then you know that don't you??? Please come here and prove that all of my research is wrong, I am more that happy for anyone to come and do that.

Atleast then, if you feel I am wrong, then let's see it...

--------------------------------

Try here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1987/plain/cukpga_19870014_en_1

here

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

and here

http://www.hcch.net/upload/conventions/txt30en.pdf

The UCC is not a registration, its a public notice - a witness, of which two are required. In fact, you dont even NEED to use the UCC. You can do it different ways.

In order for it to work you will have to present yourself in court hoping that the judge will sway with you (seriously) and of course, to even get to that point you will have to forgo your status and accept the jurisdiction of the court.

A court of equity did you mean? Of course, if your trust is private you'd be an idiot to waive your private rights in public court... why would you do that???

Any why 98%, you sure its not 97%...or are these just guesses?

Many thanks G. Appreciate your post mate. No i'll stick to the 98% its not a guess it's a determination or even an implication.

So we agree that Ucc filing is a public notice then..?

But for the other links you'll have to qualify why you think they are relevant. ( apart from proving that 'fiat trust' law is way outside common law of people.)

A court of equity did you mean? Of course, if your trust is private you'd be an idiot to waive your private rights in public court... why would you do that???

My point exactly.

Glad we agree on some things!

Yes the UCC filing (non-UCC ticked) is a popular way of putting a notice into the public. Thats all it is. You could use any other method to make public notification.
BUT thats all you're doing...just saying that you have an interest in a thing known as "xyz" [whatever you want to label it] but you're NOT saying WHAT it is. Thats private.
All you're doing is building evidence, that should your day in court come, you can show your evidence that there IS a trust. Thats it. You're creating evidence over hearsay. Not what the terms are, nor the law specified (as per my postings per Hauge Convention on recognition of trusts - which specifies the recognition that the law of the trust is as per chosen! - Trust Recognition act says more or less the same as the H.C)

The point about the H.C and trust act is that it provides remedies in the colourable side anyway.

Lets face it, theres more than one way to skin a cat. Why make it hard? If you can get your remedy in a public court, then do it. If you need equity, go there.
If you cant, use a private remedy.
If you cant find it there..move on.

But the further away we have to move from public, the harder we haver to work at it; in a general way, we dont know how to do commerce properly, we dont know how to do governance, we dont know how to operate in the private - yet. We've lost these skills and its why generally, we're so reliant on the state to nanny us. Its just another tool in the box...

BTw,

I have asked many times on and offline for someone to come forward with some bonefide fact about all this fiat trust stuff

Whats the specific question.....? What fact about the 'public' trust 'stuff' are you after? (You mean statute-based trusts?)

Far as i can tell, trusts 'law' if you like is borne in equity. BUT THEY have coloured that too and created the layer of statute trust 'law'.

Public/Private...

Appreacite your posts G.

gepisar wrote:Glad we agree on some things!

Indeed, we agree on lots and many of us do, sometimes I'm amazed at 'our' collective fear of having a good ding-dong, it's good for the works, it flushes out stuff and clear the pipes... ( maybe it the aspertame, or the chemtrails...who knows)

gepisar wrote:Yes the UCC filing (non-UCC ticked) is a popular way of putting a notice into the public. Thats all it is. You could use any other method to make public notification. BUT thats all you're doing...just saying that you have an interest in a thing known as "xyz" [whatever you want to label it] but you're NOT saying WHAT it is. Thats private.

As i understand it, the suggestion is that we believe a government site ( not only that but the US govt!!! FOR CRYING OUT loud) that tells us in order to keep the filing private we must tick a box....erm...does that not throw a signal up? Agreed about the need to establish weight of evidence , but using the roman registration system...surely...??? ( it's public site in the public domain, does that not tell tale something)

gepisar wrote:Lets face it, theres more than one way to skin a cat. Why make it hard? If you can get your remedy in a public court, then do it. If you need equity, go there.
If you cant, use a private remedy.
If you cant find it there..move on.

Suggesting that people will get a remedy in court....?? of equity... Questionable at best.... Still sounds like the suggestion is to 'go to the foreign camp' cap in hand....what can the outcome be??? Has anyone her ever met a professional trust lawyer?

gepisar wrote: Its just another tool in the box...

Yes we need more of those, but real tools, not the tool of the oppressors, and at current levels ( as per the disclaimer) currently a man can really screw his shit up by attemting to use this as a tool. Which means that this trust stuff is quickly turning in to an urban legend.

Just enough info to tempt peple, but not enough to really help people, and attract the hit a hopefull who are looking to settle their so called debt and move to the seaside... how is that different from D/C....where certain gurus charge for this emancipating info and enrich themselves of the back of the stuggling masses...

Whats the specific question.....?

Isn't this trust (fiat) just a way to keep people fiddling about in the dark with a promise of redemption?..........now that D/C is fading is this next big con?

Kenny, you keep saying FIAT and that is not correct, m8

We are discussing private trusts, under private international law here. FIAT is as far away as you can get. The UCC filing, when marked as non-UCC is then classed as a PUBLIC NOTICE, but originating from the private, not the public - this is a big difference, as I am sure you can appreciate.

As for redemption, HA! what a loaded word that is, much worse concept. No, after several hard months of study, it would seem that trusts play an everyday part in our lives without our knowledge. Who would think TPTB could do that? Keeping it hidden by colouring it with admiralty/statute law, while all the time using trust laws!

If you want the ultimate proof, I can give it to you right now. Remember the case of parents, whose child was molested and, instead of reporting the molester, they took money, in exchange for thier silence? What happened at trial? The judge found he could not overturn the private law these people used! Why? (They made a private trust, but the press and judge won't tell you that)

This is the heart of it! The judge admitted he was POWERLESS. Ok, not the use to which I would like to see this used, but a very good example - if a pedo can get away by PAYING parents, with all the media hype and public anger over them, why is the judge unable to do anything?

Your answer lies in private law - you know you can write your own in the trust indenture - you did it, did you not? You ALSO know that it takes precedence in all law forms - the law of the trust is paramount, remember your own posts here?

So, we are in complete agreement, I think - just coming from different directions, to the same place, m8

BBD

So, we are in complete agreement, I think - just coming from different directions, to the same place, m8

Very, very true and well said. Together we can, by seemingly railing against each other ruffle the feathers of adversaries.Respect.

A good example and notable points with regards to private law being used in ENGLAND. Do you think that they had anything o do with a UCC filing to achieve what they did?

The UCC filing, when marked as non-UCC is then classed as a PUBLIC NOTICE, but originating from the private, not the public - this is a big difference, as I am sure you can appreciate.

Duped...? The private arena can not, can not...simply can not be seen from the public, so when such a notice is made it implies that the private asset or whatever is ''Private equity in the public arena' -- vis-vis 'private investor' as in not government money (owned by the public) or 'private company' operating in the public. Key word - operating in the public ( can bee seen from the public) -- 'Let's make them think that this is in the private'

Your answer lies in private law - you know you can write your own in the trust indenture - you did it, did you not? You ALSO know that it takes precedence in all law forms - the law of the trust is paramount, remember your own posts here?

agreed.