Trust challenge

[BaldBeardyDude]

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'

Then how does one notice realmen/women who may have an interest or claim? (by way of/virtue of/through thier realman/woman)

What did you do with your private (common law) realman/woman trust for notice?

BBD

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

Mistakenly, first time around, I made my trust public, thinking that I was being a good boy and making notices. Thinking, that it had to be public to be recognised, but in truth and fact, I had made it liable to intervention and subsequently dissolved that trust.

Noticed (seen)

Implied notice is another thing altogether (): Example H/R's declaration of independace has all the implications that the state is operating privately at trust, that's a close as needs be. Private Trust need only be implied. The word it self need not be formally mentioned.

Further if H/R made a UCC filing about all that he would be announcing the public status of his state... Private law must remain private, by definition.
Un-recorded and unregistered and in the private arena, but known by the people involved. Implied when needs be.

There need only be implied notice.

[BaldBeardyDude]

Private Trust need only be implied. The word it self need not be formally mentioned.
There need only be implied notice.

Exactly! - so, what would I have to do, should I find or suspect myself in an implied, private - and by your own definition - secret trust?

Would I not express that trust, as no-one else has... enabling me to write the indenture for the trust, therefore the LAW of the trust? And how would I express it? Would I not have to make a claim if I thought there were otheres who could be affected?

My point is - from this position, the non-UCC filings make sense, do they not? If not, how would you go about it?

BBD

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

You and I know we are implied in third party trusts all over the place, but I say let them be...

you have already answered that above

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?

There's only one trust, worth knowing about, your own, it declares your status and jurisdiction if needs be, but as for expressing a foreign trust, like making mr CEO trustee, its an accident waiting to happen.

for me that's the 2%

--even then it must be protected because one wrong move and bang it's public!

[gepisar]

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?

Time will tell. We've had 20 years of d/c and a4v and so on. And i HEAR a 10% success rate. Personally i dont know ANYONE whose done an a4v with success or created a money order or set-off/discharge.

Trusts, well, what IF they were the next best thing? Why dismiss them so easily - ive only been learning about them for 4 months. The two years of d/c got me no where. You will notice Ive not plastered trusts on this forum as Im only just compiling paperwork and a strategy that makes sense and logic to me.


What are REAL tools Ken? ITS ALL A GAME. Even language itself is an illusion, nothing more than vibrations of air.
Even then the meaning of the communication is the one received, not sent. And you only have control over [jurisdiction] the one sent. Same old problem.

Still sounds like the suggestion is to 'go to the foreign camp' cap in hand

NO, the opposite. I will be doing what the FREEMAN misses so much. The FREEMAN has tried presenting his b/c as the strawman.
He has consented at every turn, tricked into jurisdiction just by arriving at court.

Under trust, i make my own law. It is MY LAW that will be in court that day. This will be executed in private chambers.

and attract the hit a hopefull who are looking to settle their so called debt

A shame, cos there is so much more: "Those bound by desire see only that which can be held in their hand." - Bruce Leeroy, The Last Dragon.
No one is forcing anyone to pay $$$ for this knowledge. 98% of it is out there available for free. ;-)
Those people who would pay, are used to paying. There still in that mind set. Its a choice, and Im all about choice...We wouldn't want to take away choice would we?

Regarding the UCC thing. If I stated here, on this public forum, that I hold some property designated as "Financial Trust" have i made the contents public? Would the forum owner or the ISP hoster have some jurisdiction over that property? Is there even property there? You dont know. Thats the point. Do you have any idea what that even relates to?

Like I said, you dont have to use the UCC, dont get hung up on that like so many have. Use a different method. Point is, in trusts land, he who claims trust must prove trust. If you want to do that - how do you? LIke the d/c methods of creating evidence, you need two uninterested parties as witnesses. Could you suggest better methods?

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

Under trust, i make my own law. It is MY LAW that will be in court that day. This will be executed in private chambers.

Thats a lovely point G man and worth pointing out to all the happy viewers why private chambers as opposed public hearings are SO IMPORTANT!

What are REAL tools Ken?

That's why we are here bro' to find out together.

Why dismiss them so easily

let it not be said that I am dismissing them. Simply, I seek the truth behind the lies. Just like all of us.

[gepisar]

Ok....so maybe theres remedy maybe not.Far too early to tell. However along the way im learning more all the time about governance, law in general, private law, so maybe its the journey thats important...?

[BaldBeardyDude]

To find the truth, we look at everything with an open mind, do we not? I have seen no evidence that if I suspect or find myself in an implied trust, leaving it be will help me at all. Usually, I am implied as trustee and end up in economic slavery, with my realman having to give sweat-equity.

In the case of mortgages, houses are lost... with Birth registration, CHILDREN are lost and adopted out! These are the very things I want to stop - not try to get at some bloody mythical, Unicorn-like 'BOND' How do we do this at present? Where are the successes with houses and children? I have seen none and I believe it is for one reason alone - the implied trust which is in operation. I am sure you can see a way of doing this, Kenny - so, come on - let's nail it for the benefit (oops!) of all of us.

If I could find a way to express and claim the trust, it would be under MY law, yes? In which case, I would consider that a slight advantage for starters. If I could collapse or change the trust, would that not be better still?

Do I have a fully-tested, all-singing-all-dancing solution? No, but that doesn't stop me looking and learning, probing and trying does it?

Also - if I did, would you use it? I know I would if the situation warranted it. I have not seen one mortgage stopped, one child saved/returned using our established ways, so this says there must be more to it. I am looking into trusts as one possible answer, one extra tool in my toolkit.

BBD

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

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)

Maybe its under our nose, we should examine this case more closely.

let's nail it for the benefit (oops!) of all of us.

I couldn't agree more, all hands on deck really. If a few of us agree to disagree and keep at it its a case of the law of probability will reveal all. I'm confident we have some great minds at it here.

[BaldBeardyDude]

Maybe its under our nose, we should examine this case more closely.

I agree - it is here

Interesting to read the judges comments - Judge Ian Alexander QC said Raffell had effectively already been fined and punished for his crime and the unusual circumstances had made sentencing difficult.

Private law in action! Although the scum got a three year therapy order, it is all the judge could do as the claim, the hearing/trial and the punishment had already been done, decided and dealt with. An indenture is no different to this - if anything it is stronger, due to it's written form, purpose and the backing of all law forms.

BBD