Trust challenge

The nature, history and formation of Trusts.

Re: Trust challenge

Postby mark1963 » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:36 pm

) you never 'hold' assets, you have use of stuff, period;


You own nothing, all this talk of placing property (res) in trusts, puts you in dishonour and they will crucify you for it as you are not a member of the club.


Forgive me if this sounds simple.

No-one on this planet can "own" anything because when we cease, we cannot take our things with us. We leave naked.

But trusts still exist, don't they.

If we say that the Creator is settlor in everything then it would be easy to say we are beneficiaries in everything including our Estate, lands, countries and anything else that can be placed into trust. Additionally, we can create a private trust with anything (res) as we are equal to anyone else in that we own as much as they do - nothing.

My question is, how can we be in dishonour if we "own" as much as everyone else by creating a trust?

I'm probably off course here as I'm a few months behind you lot.
mark1963
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:50 am

Re: Trust challenge

Postby sosii » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:00 pm

mark1963 wrote:No-one on this planet can "own" anything because when we cease, we cannot take our things with us. We leave naked.

But trusts still exist, don't they.

If we say that the Creator is settlor in everything then it would be easy to say we are beneficiaries in everything including our Estate, lands, countries and anything else that can be placed into trust. Additionally, we can create a private trust with anything (res) as we are equal to anyone else in that we own as much as they do - nothing.

My question is, how can we be in dishonour if we "own" as much as everyone else by creating a trust?

I'm probably off course here as I'm a few months behind you lot.



* sigh * This is why I had been reluctant to answer this post when I seen it resurface.

A private trust is you exercising your indefeasible right to contract, you do it every day; an agreement to do the hoovering... you do it because if you say NO, your better half might not be so amenable to a bit of the other next time you feel like it... It's an understanding between private individuals.

Name or label a trust, it becomes public and thus statutory, I'm reluctant to go into too much on this because it's a bottomless pit of needless complication. You live where you are, you hold what you can carry or defend, be it intellectually or physically. Just remember, the State has bigger guns than you. And just remember to watch mixing your magics there too, to 'OWN' land they create public title deeds, so in the private side how exactly do you 'own' that land you never created. Anything done in the public goes back to their NAME trust, in the public world system you have no choice as it is, so by using their property to claim ownership of anything... Do you see where I'm going here?

:puzz:
I declare that I, being a sovereign free man on the land, am a living soul and that I am the only power and authority within my life.
User avatar
sosii
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:41 am
Location: Where I am

Re: Trust challenge

Postby Freeman Stephen » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:14 pm

Land is owned by long term occupation of land. Alternatively land can be owned by asking the crown ... you then need to occupy the land long term after that. A deed is only neccessary in scotland because of the old practice of selling land then going back to live on it again so stealing it back from the guy you sold it to - thats why theres an older scots land register - sasines. In england, its simply a matter of going to live it a place. It becomes public when you register it but the state only needs you to register land in certain circumstances, for example if theres a building or if you aqcuired it through trading for it with cash or something valuable.

While scots law is clearly roman, the english law also has roots in this, and you will even find ireland has a similar view on land as well.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Trust challenge

Postby sosii » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:45 pm

Freeman Stephen wrote:Land is owned by long term occupation of land. Alternatively land can be owned by asking the crown ... you then need to occupy the land long term after that. A deed is only neccessary in scotland because of the old practice of selling land then going back to live on it again so stealing it back from the guy you sold it to - thats why theres an older scots land register - sasines. In england, its simply a matter of going to live it a place. It becomes public when you register it but the state only needs you to register land in certain circumstances, for example if theres a building or if you aqcuired it through trading for it with cash or something valuable.

While scots law is clearly roman, the english law also has roots in this, and you will even find ireland has a similar view on land as well.


You've done more on this side than me Stephan, a couple of queries though...

1) do you not differentiate between ownership and occupation, you say "land is owned by long term occupation", surely though this is just your claim of right and use thereof?

2) pleading to the Crown, by the terms of that relationship you'd surely be merely a tenant, as is the case already in most cases?

A warning to those others reading this who think trust law is your trump card remedy, we're looking at trust relationships in the public, statutory, sure we'd have a legal claim... But if there is (as we've hypothesised) a prior (evidenced) claim on the public NAME trust, then ownership can only ever be held by the grantor/settlor who gives over usage only to the trustee(s) but may also retain the position of co-beneficiary. You may say we were party to the creation of the trust, our land-print is on the document held by the GRO as evidenced by the birth certificate... But proving it... If you express that as your truth and claim to be Grantor of that trust, and you cannot back it up... Your going to jail. The trustee always pays.

And this is all the bollocks that lead to V going postal (no offence V) over all this trust talk in the first place. I do not want anything to do with the creation of any public trusts, it's mental really and hellishly complicated, and above all extremely dangerous.

But I digress, so my question to anyone who thinks they can do this, can we actually prove/evidence OWNERSHIP of any land? We the private sovereign men and women ON the land, if we say OF the land we fall under the law of nations and we are back to square one. Out of the private, you are not sovereign.
I declare that I, being a sovereign free man on the land, am a living soul and that I am the only power and authority within my life.
User avatar
sosii
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:41 am
Location: Where I am

Re: Trust challenge

Postby Freeman Stephen » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:28 pm

Ownership is a set of rights in property - the right to do what you damn please with your stuff. Occupation is a method of aquiring a particular right to land - the right to occupy the land. You go and occupy it and if no one complains then you have the right. If youve been doing it for a long time, no one has any right to complain. You can see the difference between an owner of land and someone else because the owner either lives there or has contracted with someone else so that they might live there.

As for real ownership, like owning a bike or combine harvester - no one manufactured the land so that anyone could buy it from them, but there is some compensation you could give if the land has been cultivated and developed by a former owner.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Trust challenge

Postby montana » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:09 am

sosii many thanks for your posts. I didnt realise that trusts were so, ermm, confrontational?

With all due respect to V, the title of this section is trusts, that's why im asking questions about it here. I'd certainly appreciate anyone's candid opinions and experiences on any and all matters. The reasons trusts seemed appealing is because i "thought" i could protect my family (estranged) and family to be (hope) without them having to go through the trials all the good people on this forum have gone through and i will have to face. A trust can live forever, sovereignty is flesh & bone?

To clarify further, i really know FUCK ALL but i was aware that mixing magic can create an explosive cocktail.

I'll reread your posts tomorrow when i have a fresh head ... im just trying to find my path, im "new" to all this and appreciate ANY and ALL opinions and experience .. i am getting confused by all these different magics as they all stem from similar places and crossover in many ways , at least im way past the WTF moments :-) (at least for now!)
montana
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:18 am

Re: Trust challenge

Postby montana » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:17 am

sosii wrote:
1) do you not differentiate between ownership and occupation, you say "land is owned by long term occupation", surely though this is just your claim of right and use thereof?

2) pleading to the Crown, by the terms of that relationship you'd surely be merely a tenant, as is the case already in most cases?


My uneducated 2p before bed:

1.
Ownership : the bricks and mortar on the land?
Occupation: The right to hold title to the land?

2. The crown owns all land and all money whether you're sovereign/trust or tramp?

[please read my previous disclaimers]
montana
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:18 am

Previous

Return to Trusts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron