The Natural Law Trust

Asset Protection for Peaceful

People

by
The Benefactor

How the cultural creatives, changemakers, conscious wealth

managers, and contributors to the golden age are quietly transacting
sacred commerce through an advanced asset protection instrument.

~ Previously A Best Kept Secret Of The Super-Rich ~

brillianceincommerce.com
The Natural Law Trust
State of the Art Asset Protection

for Peaceful People

Copyright © 2017 by Brilliance in Commerce

Revised 10-14-20

brillianceincommerce.com
 Table of Contents
(Click any title to go to that chapter)

3 - Perpetual Longevity Beyond the Present Global Changes

4 - Favored by Some of the World's Wealthiest Families

4 - Not Taught in Law Schools

5 - What is a Natural Law Trust?

8 - Passed the Test of Experience

8 - A Financially Sovereign Estate

9 - Your Right to Sovereignty

11 - Why the Natural Law Trust is Nontaxable

15 - Using Nontaxable Business Entities

16 - Ideal Qualities to Look for in a Natural Law Trust

18 - Uses and Applications of the Natural Law Trust

19 - The Origin and Uses of Trusts

20 - Roles of creator, trustee, and beneficiary

26 - Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Disclaimer: This eBook does not provide legal or tax advice, and nothing in this document should be taken as such.
In addition, the author and associates do not represent any foreign government nor are agents of any foreign
government. Before undertaking any action, be sure to discuss your options with a qualified advisor.

2
Perpetual Longevity
Beyond the Present Global Changes
More and more people today know that a worldwide financial reset is underway, and as such, many
have wondered if an offshore trust, LLC, foundation, domestic corporation, IBC, or statutory trust will be
made extinct or redundant after the restoration of a Basel III-mandated asset-based world economic
system has become ubiquitous and made widely known. World changes are causing experts to question
what types of legal structures, what types of banking, what types of commercial arrangements, and
which economic instruments will flourish in longevity long after the global transformations have taken
effect. This centuries-old, little-known, and time-tested asset protection instrument is ideal, because it
will continue to be valid even after a Golden Age has dawned worldwide. It is non-statutory. So, such a
trust can go on being renewed generation after generation and go on enduring through whatever
changes may take place in the statutes.

 It not only is nontaxable but has no tax FILING requirements.

 Individuals can reduce personal income tax by transferring much of their commerce into the
trust.
 Has no attorney or state public registration requirements.
 Has no annual fees and no professional maintenance expenses.
 Allows one to immediately move all business, investment, and free discretionary income
into nontaxable status.
 Non-statutory, sovereign, irrevocable, pure, impenetrable.
 The same bullet-proof kind that the Kennedys, Mellons, Carnegies, Rockefellers, Hunts, and
other rich families use. Those of the LIGHT may use the same trusts the super rich use.
 Yet avoids legalese and is written in plain simple high school English that anyone can
understand.
 Has had a 100% success rate since the 1980s -- meaning never penetrated or invalidated.
 Congresses and parliaments will not legislate against it because the elite themselves use it.
 Works equally well in most countries worldwide.
 International in effectiveness because it embraces the best of all the greatest forms of
human law -- Kingdom Law, Canon Law, common law, the Uniform Commercial Code, and
domestic state law. That is why it synthesizes them all into one: Natural Law.
 Ideal for holding foreign currencies expected to exponentially revalue.
 Can be a personal trust, family trust, holding company, spiritual organization, humanitarian
project, charity, much more.

3
  Fabulous flexibility allows for unlimited options for the noble fulfillment of peaceful and
life-supporting purposes.
 Creator has the choice as to whether to be settlor, beneficiary, and manager, or trustee.
 The trust can hold accounts at banks, credit unions, securities brokerages, etc. -- anywhere
where money is transacted. d more . . .

Favored by Some of the World’s Wealthiest Families

This is the type of trust that many of the billionaires have been using. It is time for peaceful people of
the light to disseminate beneficial influences in society with the same sovereign legal instruments with
which the elite have previously been hiding their assets.

It was known in the early 1990s that the Rockefellers had some 7000 of these trusts. Likewise many of
the other wealthiest families quietly use them. When one of the Texas billionaire Hunt brothers died, all
they could find in his name was a pickup truck and $5000 in cash. It turns out that the rest of his billions
were in one of these trusts. His brother heir instantly inherited control of the trust as successor trustee.
There was no probate, no death taxes, and no delay. It was seamless.

Not Taught in Law Schools ~

the Warnings Against Them are Disinformation
Traditionally the elite have monopolized the knowledge of these trusts because they preferred to keep
the benefits of them to themselves. The statutory entities taught in law schools tend to benefit the
vested interests by giving them more control over the affairs of the world. If everyone had a Natural
Law Trust, it would free everyone to be independent and sovereign, thus reducing the tribute to the
elite’s coffers. Hence they have had no inclination to approve the faculty and curricula of law schools
knowing about these trusts. This means the average attorney is clueless about these trusts and is
therefore afraid of them. They are afraid of the unknown. Most Bar licensed attorneys will thus warn
against them, and will usually cite inapplicable laws in an effort to dissuade people from using them.
They often cite cases where they claim courts have dishonored such trusts. Any so-called “pure” or
“common law” trust which has ever been “dishonored” in such a case was most definitely not the kind
we are talking about herein. The kind we are talking about herein has never been invalidated, and in
fact, cannot be invalidated. Therefore it is advisable to steer clear of Bar licensed attorneys in general,
and avoid their counsel on this subject. It is better to connect with the true experts, who may or may not
have a Bar license. The true experts are those who, like the counsel that advise the elite, have been
quietly operating these trusts for generations and have had no problem with them.

4
What is a Natural Law Trust?
There are various adjectives that describe aspects of this trust. Some are:

Pure. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a “pure” trust is: “A trust situation that involves three
parties. The parties are the creator of the trust, the trustee, and the beneficiary. This is a contractual
trust and is different from a statutory trust and is a legal document.”

Irrevocable. Suppose you have a million dollars and someone wants to get it from you. Suppose they
were able to file a court case against you and win a judgment against you for a million dollars. Then the
court could force you to give it to the winning party. Now suppose you had put the million dollars into a
revocable trust. That means you could revoke the transfer at any time. If the court orders you to pay the
million dollars, you might say you don’t have it, because it is in the trust. But if the trust is revocable, the
court could order you to revoke the transfer – thus retrieving the money back from the trust. In that
case too, you will have lost, because you could still be forced to pay. But if the trust were irrevocable,
then that means even if you order the trust to give the money back to you, it has no obligation to do so.
The trustee could say that it is irrevocable, and it can refuse to return the money. Then even the court
cannot force you to pay the million dollars. You truly have it no more. And the court cannot order the
trust to pay it, because the trust is not you – the trust is a legal separate entity. If the trustee has a
private arrangement with you whereby he allows the trust funds to take care of your expenses, or fulfills
your wishes to distribute monies to various parties, then you can still benefit from the trust . . . but the
court has no power to force the trust to honor the judgment against you personally. That is called
“bullet proof asset protection”.

Common Law. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “common law” is synonymous with “contract law”.
Common Law: “Contract law regulates everything from buying a coffee to trading on the stock exchange.
A contract is an agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and
accepted, and each party benefits.”

Common law is the end result of thousands of years of human experience, culminating in countless case
precedents. All American courts were common law until the early 1900s, when admiralty, maritime,
commercial, and statutory legal procedures began taking precedent. However, even today, common law
is still respected in the courts, and is often sufficient to prevail.

COLATO A “COLATO” is an acronym for “Common Law Trust Organization”.

UBO A “UBO” is an “Unincorporated Business Organization”. This term could apply to our Natural
Law Trust because it is not incorporated under any statutory jurisdiction.

Sovereign The term “sovereign” can apply to a Natural Law Trust for the simple reason that it is not
subject to the jurisdiction of any particular legal body and is not subject to the authority of any
particular government. Therefore, it is not domiciled in any particular state or province. On the other

5
hand, this does not mean that it rules over people. It is a “sovereign without subjects”. If a dispute were
ever to arise regarding a Natural Law Trust, its trustees could voluntarily grant limited jurisdiction to a
mediator or mutually agreed upon court of law, upon which the findings of the mediating body could be
enforceable only upon the specific actions of the trust officers in question. But the trust itself – the
structure, the design, the assets, and the actions outside the context of the dispute in question, would
remain beyond the scope and authority of the mediating body. Hence it can only ever be certain actions
of the officers of the trust that could be subject to any enforcing authority. Otherwise no enforcing body
can ever have general authority over the trust itself, and thus can never have the right to pass judgment
on the validity of the trust.

International The Natural Law Trust can thus operate internationally and equally in all countries
worldwide for the reason of its sovereignty as explained above.

Kingdom Law Kingdom Law is the tradition of law by which royal heads of state have derived their
authority. By reason of the monarchial doctrine of “because I say so”, a king or queen assumes authority.
It is in this same spirit that individuals forming a Natural Law Trust freely choose to enter into the trust
contract together, without consulting any higher human authority for the permission to do so.

Canon Law Canon Law is similar to the “because I say so” doctrine, with the difference that the
speaker attributes his or her authority to God, or a Divine Source, as the reason for assuming a certain
position. Here once again, a Natural Law Trust is believed by many of its creators worldwide to be
operating according to divine guidance, as preeminent over any kind of human authority.

UCC The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) became the highest body of law actually in force in trade,
banking, and commerce worldwide, transcending national governments and treaties in the 1900s. It
was the natural outgrowth of the practical need for an international set of agreements on which
merchants could operate in trade that would be common to all exporters, importers, and commerce in
general. It evolved over thousands of years and culminated in the codification in 1954 of a set of
principles that came to govern trade and contract law equilaterally throughout the world. Thus it
became a kind of distillation of the principles of common law in actual practice equally in all countries.
Because a Natural Law Trust is a contract, it naturally operates according to principles elucidated in the
UCC, even though doing so cedes nothing to the UCC in the way of jurisdiction or authority.

Natural Law The term “Natural Law” came to be used to describe the trust contracts that incorporate
the best of all the above bodies of principles of law, while leaving out the principles that were designed
to benefit only the few at the expense of the many, with only certain vested interests in mind. Natural
Law is embedded in the Unified Field and operates evenly throughout the universe, with the most basic
principle of it being that the vibration that one entity sends out always and invariably comes back to that
entity. This is the law of karma or “as you sow, so shall you reap”. In physics it is the law of cause and
effect, action and reaction. It is perfect and infallible. It is beyond human authority to oppose or mute,
and no being in existence is exempt from it.

6
Statutory Law Statutory Law is any body of law passed by statutes deriving from legislation of
governments. They typically change from year to year and are tremendously complicated. Admiralty
and maritime are types of statutory law, which have been largely prevalent in the last century, due
mainly to the massive influence of special interests stemming from the banking cartel and the large
corporations. Bar licensed attorneys are trained in statutory law and often believe that it is the only law
worth considering as authoritative. There are millions and millions of statutory laws that keep
changing. Thus no one human being can possibly keep up with all of them. That is why the attorney
profession has become such a huge industry. Statutory laws are almost invariably written to benefit
certain interests over others, and only very rarely benefit everyone equally all the time.

Therefore, a Natural Law Trust incorporates the best of all the above systems of law and leaves out the
impure and unfair elements.

Natural law is generally more attuned to common law and universal law. It has been around a whole lot
longer and is more agreeable to more people, hence the word "natural". Statutory law, on the other
hand, which is what LLCs and corporations are based on, is legislated by politicians and changes from
time to time -- often every year. It can be outrageously complex and has too often been engineered to
benefit the few at the expense of the many.

In the USA, a 501(c)3 foundation or nonprofit corporation is a statutory entity that is tax exempt, but it
has to file reports to the IRS each year to continually re-justify its tax exempt status. Its status can be
revoked or challenged at any time.

Some people are accustomed to using Limited Liability Companies (LLCs). Those who already have an
LLC and a bank account for it can greatly reduce and minimize the taxes that it owes by establishing a
natural law trust and having the trust be 98% owner of the LLC.

A trust is a unique legal relationship. According to Scott on Trusts, it is established the moment that legal
and equitable titles are separated. A trust has some corporate characteristics, but it is not treated as a

7
corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines a trust as a "right of property . . . held by one party for the
benefit of another.”

A trust is a contract based on the confidence that one person (the Creator), places in another (the
Trustee), for the benefit of a third person (the Beneficiary), with respect to property (Corpus), that has
been placed in trust. The Trustees assume a fiduciary responsibility to the Beneficiary, and as such, have
a special duty to perform their obligations on behalf of the trust, for the benefit of the Beneficiary.

The gift of the properly designed natural law trust is that it is not subject to the millions of statutory
laws. It is only subject to the natural law, which does not change. It stays the same, generation after
generation, and so the trust set up properly under it can be renewed forever, without ever being subject
to the changing whims of legislatures.

Passed the Test of Experience

We say that Natural Law Trusts have enjoyed a 100% success rate “since the 1980s” because that is how
far back we have been able to measure. Certainly there are individual cases of Natural Law Trusts that
have been successful and impenetrable far longer ago than that, but at the very least, we know that the
ones designed according to these principles have never been penetrated or invalidated since the 1980s.
They quietly operate, keep their constituents out of trouble, and go on benefitting the world with their
coherent and harmonizing influence. In these decades of trust writing, we are not aware of any Natural
Law Trust ever having had any penetration, loss of assets, or legal problems due to the structure or
design of the trusts. This is rare in the asset protection field.

A Financially Sovereign Estate

It controls its taxing process. By giving up ownership and
maintaining the right to enjoy the property, it benefits
without the legal responsibilities. If your estate is in trust,
it is free from probate and avoids inheritance tax. When
you die, there is nothing to probate, nothing to tax,
nothing for the government, or outsiders, to control.

Since a trust is a right and not a privilege, the

government does not have the ability to have the same
type of control over your estate as it does with a
corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship. The
public is generally excluded from the affairs of a trust.

8
When you don’t own anything, you can’t lose anything. By having your estate in a properly managed
trust, you can increase your ability to become judgment proof. The Sovereign knows that by letting go
and giving up ownership he is giving up liability yet keeping the benefits.

Your Right to Sovereignty

Know that you are Sovereign. Your Unalienable Right of
A Sovereign is King or Queen
Sovereignty simply exists. You were born a Sovereign;
A King or Queen knows how to keep his or her however, there has been an attempt to keep that
financial estate in order, and how to keep it knowledge from you. This information will give you an
productive, protected, and private. understanding of that knowledge. It is yours, you just need
to understand the concept and realize that the kings and
CREATOR
the wealthy have held this concept to themselves so they
MAN could be on top.

COMMON LAW The Founding Fathers of America possessed this

consciousness, and gave expression to many aspects of it
GOVERNMENT in their writings of the 1700s. They defined an American
Citizen as a "sovereign without subjects". We find that
STATUTE LAW
designation in no less than six (6) U.S. Supreme Court
cases. One of them, for example, is Chisholm versus
Georgia, 2 Dallas, 1791.

Sovereignty up until then had been understood as the position of rulership over subjects. The Founding
Fathers re-defined it to mean the same power, but with a different application: instead of using one's
sovereignty to try to control others; one can use one's sovereignty to simply live free, and voluntarily
allow everyone else to live free as well. Live and let live. They respected the freedom of all people.

A typical myth is that people and organizations that dominate, such as those masquerading under the
name "government", are sovereigns. "These (so-called) 'governments' possess sovereignty", people
think. That's exactly what the imposters want everyone to think.

However, true sovereignty doesn't rule; it serves. It earns its respect by providing valuable goods
and/or services. We can very easily tell who is a true sovereign. Are they respecting the freedom of
others, and are they producing something of value to everyone, especially things like harmony and
happiness?

From scientist David Hudson: "Our experience with kings has been severely altered due to our European
background of military leaders and/or political powers becoming kings. Four thousand years BC, the
term 'king' was actually that of a person who had god-like attributes.

9
"The king knew all truth, he could discern good and evil, and he could not be lied to for that reason. The
king did not command troops or fight wars and he did not have any authority to tax or spend. No one in
the country questioned the king's wisdom and knowledge because he was thought of as a god. Some of
the best documented texts, of course, are about the pharoahs in Old Kingdom Egypt. How unusual this
sounds in this era of government filled with excuses, apologies, explanations and other justifications for
political actions." -- Science of the Spirit Foundation newsletter, May/June 1997

The false sovereigns are those who put on a disguise of authority and rulership, who practice coercion,
force, theft, and exploitation, and who thus produce damage, not benefits. False sovereigns are takers,
not givers. They believe in "taxes", not purchases made with free choice on the open market. They
believe in "necessary evils". They are really beggars.

True sovereigns are benevolent emperors. They need nothing from others that isn't offered. In turn,
they have much to give, much to offer. They respect the freedom and property of others. They see these
as intrinsic rights of all humans. While they may not agree with everyone's ideas, they respect the
freedom of others to have those ideas. They regard the attempt to exercise mind control over others as
ridiculous, absurd, retarded, and wasteful. On the individual level, sovereignty consciousness reduces
conflict between loved ones. Harmony flowers in relationships, because one gets all the love and
happiness one needs from within, and doesn't need to beg for it from others.

Perhaps you have heard the story about the bugs in the jar. Or perhaps you actually conducted this
experiment when you were a child. You catch some flying insects in a jar, and put the lid on. The lid is a
screen lid, so they can breathe, but they cannot get out. You can even put a little food and water in there,
and they have air to breathe, so they stay alive.

Naturally the bugs fly around incessantly, batting and banging against the lid and the sides of the jar,
trying to get out. They do this for hours. Then after a while, they give up and just sit there.

They are still alive, but they have become conditioned into believing that there is no way to get out. Now
you can take the lid off, and they won't leave. They may still crawl around, they may even fly a little bit,
but they won't go out of the jar. Even though the lid is off and they are perfectly free to leave, they will
not. They will stay, and stay, and stay. They will never leave.

Such is the conditioning of human beings. After years, generations, centuries, of habitual thinking in
terms of limitations, subjection, submission, enslavement . . . most people came to think of themselves as
boxed-in, even though it is just a fantasy. It is just a hallucination, a mirage.

Hence, the spectacularly good news is that the power is within the hands of each of us to simply realize it
and start living free. Part of that awakening is realizing how much abundance is already around us. So
many people say they can't do this or that because "I don't have the money". And yet they are
swimming, unconsciously, in an ocean of abundance. All that is needed is to wake up and start
distributing what is already here, into more useful manifestations.

10
Why the Natural Law Trust is Nontaxable
This knowledge is supported by examples from the USA, but it is equally applicable worldwide, because
natural law goes everywhere. Common law goes everywhere. The UCC operates everywhere. Hundreds
of thousands of people worldwide, perhaps millions, have been operating with this kind of trust very
quietly without filing tax returns, without paying income tax, without trust vulnerability or penetration,
without loss of assets, and without legal problems.

The reason the tax agencies don’t consider the trust to be taxable is that they view it as a pass-through to
the individuals or entities that are taxable. The question of whether those individuals or entities are
then liable for the income tax varies from case to case. It is not the scope of this book to address the
taxability of entities other than the trust. It is likewise not the purpose or the intent of this book to give
tax advice. If you need tax advice, seek out a competent tax professional. The sole point here is that the
trust itself is a nontaxable entity.

This superior type of pure natural law sovereign irrevocable trust not only has no obligation to pay
income tax, but also has no tax return filing requirements. This is most significant. The reason is that it
is non-statutory. It does not fall under any of the statutory categories that are subject to filing
requirements. Letters to various inquirers from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have stated:

"According to our National Office a Pure Trust Organization (an Unincorporated

Business Trust) is an organization that has no return filing requirements and is a
nontaxable organization."

There are some statutory entities that are tax exempt. The difference with a properly designed Natural
Law Trust is that not only does it have no tax paying liability, but it also has no filing requirements. A
statutory non-profit corporation may be exempt from paying, but it is not exempt from filing. It has to
report all its income in, all its expenditures out, and re-justify its exempt status every year. The tax
people can revoke it at any time. The good and well designed Natural Law Trust, by contrast, has no
filing requirements.

"If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you".
Gary Makovski, Special IRS Agent, testifying under oath in US. v. Lloyd

When a tax ID number (EIN – Employer Identification Number) is applied for, for banking purposes
only, for a Natural Law Trust, the online letter that comes from the IRS providing the EIN states that

11
“form 1041 must be filed”. But that instruction is inapplicable to a Natural Law Trust, because it is non-
statutory. When the EIN is applied for, no information is requested by the IRS about exactly what kind
of trust it is. The only adjective indicated about the trust on the IRS online form is “irrevocable”. The
term “irrevocable” can apply both to statutory and to non-statutory trusts. The IRS is only concerned
with statutory trusts. Hence it will naturally say “form 1041 must be filed”. It keeps silent about non-
statutory trusts. Naturally, the IRS wants to make as much money as possible, so it is not going to

comment on trusts that are outside its purview, venue, and jurisdiction. It has no category for “non-
statutory”. The trust officer applying for the EIN (or tax ID in any country) must therefore simply be
silently aware of these facts. The following wisdoms apply:

“Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Thus, a better word than “exempt” would be “exception”. Technically, the tax agencies don’t recognize
Natural Law Trusts as exempt, for the reasons stated above. But, they constitute an exception, in the
sense that the statutory filing requirements don’t apply to them.

The right of three or four human beings to enter into a private contract with each other, without
interference from any outside authority, is universal. This is supported, for example, by a U.S. Supreme
Court case called Hale vs. Henkle, 1905 – one of the most quoted court cases in history. It has never
been overturned. It stated, in summary, basically that people have the unlimited right to enter into
contract with each other without interference from the government, as long as they aren’t harming
anyone else. A Natural Law Trust is one such contract, and this principle extends globally. No
government in any country has the right to interfere with the universal divine right of human beings to
create private contracts with each other and operate accordingly.

Again, for those in other countries, kindly understand that these same principles are universal – they are
not limited to the USA. Similar laws and rulings exist in all countries.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10.1: “No state shall....

pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts....”

Burnett v. Smith, 240 SW 1007 (1922) (US. Supreme Court):

“A Pure Trust is established by contract and any law or procedure in

its operation, denying or obstructing contract rights impairs contract
obligation and is therefore, in violation of the United States
Constitution. 12
 It is very important to
understand that one is engaging in
"One hundred percent of what is collected is
legal tax avoidance, NOT tax
absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt
“evasion”. As Judge Learned Hand
and by Federal transfer payments. In other
once said, you can cross the river
words, all individual income tax revenues are via the toll-free road or you can
gone before one nickel is spent on the services cross via the toll bridge. If you go
taxpayers expect from government." via the toll bridge, you must pay the
toll. But if you don’t wish to pay the
-- President Ronald Reagan,
toll, then simply don’t go that way -
1984, Grace Commission Report - choose to go the other route,
which crosses the river at a
different location where there is
simply no toll. That is the principle
of legal tax avoidance, and numerous court cases have confirmed that everyone has the complete right
to choose such avenues.

. . . the key question is: can we define 'income' in a fair and

reasonably straightforward manner? Unfortunately, we have not yet
succeeded in doing so.

~ Shirley Peterson, former IRS Commissioner, April 1993

13
14
For those who operate a ministry or a church, there is also the privilege of using a sole corporation.
Sole corporations are similar to Natural Law Trusts in one respect, in that they are tax exempt and have
no filing requirements. The difference is that they are statutory, and are ONLY to be used for bona fide
religious or spiritual organizations that really have actual congregations, services, ministries, etc.
Otherwise, a Natural Law Trust is more appropriate for most purposes.

"Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint".
- - United States Supreme Court, in Flora v. United States

"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance".

- - Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)

"The United States has a system of taxation by confession".

- - Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice, in U.S.A. Kahriger

"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to IRS
agents . . . Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the
individual who relies upon his constitutional rights".
- - Judge Cummings, U.S. Federal Judge, in US. v. Dickerson (7th Circuit 1969)

"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100
percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules
just will not apply . . .". - - Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the
IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in 1953

Using Nontaxable Business Entities

Pure Natural Law Trusts, sole corporations, business corporations in tax havens around the world, and
trusts in tax havens, have been used successfully for centuries for protection from all kinds of things.
Regardless of where one lives and works, one can make use of these entities.

Pure Natural Law Trusts, tax haven corporations, sole corporations, unincorporated business
organizations, asset protection trusts, secret trusts, COLATOS, business trust organizations, sovereign
trusts . . . what are they? What do they all have in common? What are their benefits? How do they

15
compare? All this education and more is available through thousands of books, websites, and seminars
worldwide. Suffice it to say here, that millions and millions of businesses are already operating totally
legally with absolutely no tax liability whatsoever.

Wealthy families and businesses have been using these trusts for tax benefits as well as protection from
lawsuits, probate, and all kinds of other things for centuries. No new changes in the laws in recent years
have changed this, and it is extremely unlikely to change in the future either, because the elite who
ultimately influence the lawmaking use these very same entities themselves. They won’t “shoot
themselves in the foot”.

Sovereign Natural Law Trusts are not “offshore” trusts in the usual sense of the word, although they can
be operated anywhere in the world. The one thing defining them is that they are not “statutory” entities
(like so-called “living” trusts) deriving their legitimacy and permission to exist from some government.
They are sovereign, deriving their authority from the universal and unlimited private right to voluntarily
enter into contract. Is this status being honored in the courts? Yes.

Ideal Qualities to Look for

in a Natural Law Trust
* SIMPLICITY. Most trust writers, whether statutory or natural
law, make them unnecessarily complicated. This necessitates
having to pay them, or other professionals, big bucks and
ongoing fees to interpret the complicated and verbose legalese.
Not so with good well-written Natural Law Trusts. They are
bullet-proof in strength, but simple and easy for anyone to
understand. This saves having to hire professionals to interpret
them. There are no extra costs due to needing to hire lawyers
or professionals to interpret complicated legalese. There are no
extra costs due to needing to create ongoing extra documents,
unless you are running a large and complex organization. The conceptual content in these trusts is
elegant, simple, straightforward, and effective. Very simply, they work.

16
 * POLITENESS. Many natural law trusts written by patriots
have such strong anti-government language in them that
banks are reluctant to touch them. By contrast, a good
Natural Law Trust is written in a polite and courteous
manner. It concentrates the best asset protection secrets of
the super rich into the fewest words, and simplifies the
language so as to minimize legalese and maximizes common
politeness and understandability. It is elegant. The same
objective of strength and imperviousness is reached through
a more refined language.

Uses and Applications

of the Natural Law Trust
A trust has many advantages. A trust can perform legal acts. It can save money by saving on taxes,
probate, attorney fees, and other related expenses. A trust can avoid unnecessary delays, manage
personal and business affairs more efficiently, protect loved ones against others, protect property
against unnecessary liability, provide for better documentation and bookkeeping, protect privacy, and
accomplish many important objectives during one's life and beyond, in a most efficient manner.

The Natural Law Trust is infinitely flexible, and can be adapted to any ethical, lawful, and noble purpose.
This trust can do a lot more things than most people have realized. This type of trust can be a
foundation . . . either to receive grants or make grants. It can be a business. It can be a scientific
institute; it can be a religious or spiritual organization; it can be a holding company; it can be a family
estate planning instrument; it can be a personal vehicle for commerce; and it can be a tax shelter. It is
infinitely flexible. It can be styled, modified, and adapted to serve any noble purpose . . . virtually
anything that is life-supporting, ethical and lawful.

17
 Forms of Asset Protection in a Natural Law Trust

1. Assets are protected from litigation.

2. Protection from creditors.
3. Protection from liability suits.
4. Protection from malpractice suits.
5. Protection from employees.
6. Protection from personal bankruptcy.
7. Protection from excessive divorce settlements.
8. Avoids probate.
9. Avoids inheritance tax.
10. Avoids estate taxes.
11. Avoids court actions.
12. Eliminates attorney fees.
13. Eliminates or reduces Accountant fees.
14. Eliminates Executor’s fees.
15. Eliminates income taxes.
16. Frees tax dollars for capital appreciation.
17. Provides complete control over your assets through trustees.
18. No public record.
19. Ownership and title can be passed to heirs in complete secrecy.
20. Trust can be renewed every 25 years.
21. Heirs cannot change, challenge, or contest any wishes at your death.
22. The Trust is easy to maintain and very inexpensive.

The Natural Law Trust can hold bank accounts, it can pay all the bills of the trustees and beneficiaries, it
can hold real estate, and it can protect just about any kind of asset. It is not understood by most
attorneys, because it is not taught in law school, but it has been quietly used by many of the world's
wealthiest families for centuries.

18
The Origin and Uses of Trusts
From 5000 BC until about 1250 AD, the King or Emperor was considered to be the only Sovereign
individual, with divine rights bestowed upon him. The common man was considered to be a slave to
satisfy the King’s needs. During this era of strong centralized authority, creative people conceived the
trust instrument, formulated it, and secured legal status for it at an early date. Plato, for example, used a
trust to create a Sovereign University in Greece around 400 BC. Trusts were a part of Roman law as well.

In England, trusts were used as early as the eleventh century, and by the fifteenth century, were being
enforced by the Courts of Chancery. Around 1200 AD, the knights who had been fighting for the King
resented him taking their land when they went off to war. In 1215 they wrote the Magna Carta, a trust,
that for the first time would give man Sovereignty and ownership over his lands. King John objected,
wanting to know why he should sign such a document, since he felt he was the only sovereign. His
objections soon subsided when he was told that if he did not sign the Magna Carta, the knights would cut
off his head later that day, as pre-arranged. Realizing his options were limited, the King agreed.

Today, the Magna Carta is regarded as the first contract recognizing Man as Sovereign. Of course, the
Magna Carta was limited in scope, as only the knights and land barons were considered Sovereign, and
not the common man or serf. However, it was a step in the right direction toward greater Sovereignty
for larger groups of people.

The second step toward Sovereignty for all persons was the creation of what we now regard as
"Common Law Trusts." Knights would have their estates held by the church, or often selecting a friend to
be Trustee. The church or friend would hold the property in trust for the benefit of the knight and his
family. If the knight did not come back from battle, his family still had the benefit of the estate, because
the trust as a separate entity could not die.

Trusts, as we know them today, came to us from England around the 16th century. During this time the
kings still did not recognize individual property rights. People were not allowed to will their property to
others, and they could not give their property to charity. Individuals wanted greater freedom - to give
their land to others during their lifetime, and leave that property as an inheritance to those whom they
loved. To bypass the King's imposed control over their personal property; the idea of entering into a
simple contract with a friend emerged. The concept was simple; the King could not take away property
which a person did not "own." The friend would agree to use the property under certain terms set forth.
These "uses," as they were then known, came to be called "trusts,” because the friend was trusted to do
those things upon which they had agreed. These devices worked, because the property had been given
away. In this manner, many people insulated their estates from their personal and civil liabilities.

19
In the early 1600s, pilgrims who came to the New World further expanded the Sovereignty concept.
They formulated the Mayflower Compact, which declared all men to be Sovereign, with unalienable,
God-given Rights. These pilgrims also brought the knowledge of trusts with them, and the wealthy ones
among them immediately began to establish land trusts to protect their estates. In fact, in the 1700's,
Robert Morris, Governor of the Virginia Colony and a prominent financier of the American Revolution,
had Patrick Henry establish a trust for his property. At the time, King George, III was taxing property
owned by any English subject, but could not tax land owned by a Sovereign. The trust that Morris
created, The North American Land Company, is still in existence today.

Since those early colonial days, the use of trusts has been kept
intact by the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10,
which states: "No state shall.... pass any law impairing the
obligation of contracts". Common law pure equity trusts have
been used since that time by the knowledgeable and wealthy
who knew how to be Sovereign in their estate.

Roles of creator, trustee, and beneficiary

The required trust participants are:

1) Creator (also known as Settlor or Grantor)

2) Beneficiary [s]
3) Trustee (cannot be family-related to the Creator)
4) Second current Trustee or Successor Trustee
[The 2 trustees can be 2 friends
or 1 friend and1 family member]

Optional additional officers can be:

1) Manager [if settlor, you would be executive manager]

2) Protector [non-related to settlor or trustee]
3) Other titles (if lots of resources and people are involved)

20
You, the client setting up the trust, can be EITHER:

1) Creator/Settlor, Beneficiary, and Manager, OR

2) Trustee

In both cases, you need other people for the other roles. That's very standard in all trusts. You cannot
play all of those roles. That would make the trust invalid and totally vulnerable, which would defeat the
purpose.

In both cases, you can end up with practical command and total asset protection. In both cases, you can
satisfy all of your, business, commercial, investment, social, humanitarian, professional, and other affairs
via the trust, with far greater freedom than in your personal name and with far greater freedom than
with statutory entities or inferior common law trusts.

Benefits of Being the Creator (Settlor or Grantor), Beneficiary, and Manager

If you choose this option, you are choosing to wear three hats simultaneously. As settlor, you are
relinquishing control. Otherwise it is not a valid trust, and offers no protection. Now you can also play
other roles at the same time. As beneficiary, you have some say in the trust's affairs. And especially as
manager, you have some control, with trustees’ approval, over the assets in, assets out, and other day to
day functions of the trust.

The benefit of the first option (Creator (Settlor), Beneficiary, and Manager) is that the structure is
stronger and harder to challenge by potential would-be attackers. This is because you, the person
setting up the trust, are clearly NOT the trustee, and thus you have irrevocably turned over your assets
legally to the trustee(s). There is then an invincible wall shielding the assets in the trust from any
personal liabilities or judgments that may ever occur against you. This arrangement is better for people
who have little or no experience with common law trusts and who do not possess expertise in asset
protection.

It is necessary here to distinguish between legal control and

practical control. Let’s use an automobile as an example. Let’s say
you give the title of your car to your friend, but your friend allows
you to continue using the car. Thus you have practical control –
you have the keys, you know where the car is kept, you take care
of it, and so on. Your friend only has legal control, but if your
friend is a true friend, s/he would never try to use that legal
control against you.

21
Like that, you as settlor, beneficiary, and manager of the trust, have practical command of it. Your
friend, the person you appoint as trustee, has legal control, via title, but would never actually exercise
that control unless you ask him or her to do so.

The disadvantage with this option is that if you wish to operate a bank account for the trust and be
signatory on it, whoever you choose to be trustee will also have to be signatory. This can be an
inconvenience if you don’t live near each other, because most banks require that signatories physically
appear in the bank to sign on the account opening documents.

However, you need not worry that the other person you appoint as trustee "needs to be trusted" with
your money, because depending on the bank’s policies, with many banks you can arrange for yourself to
be co-signatory on any bank accounts as manager of the trust. You can arrange to be in control of that.
So, the trustee can have a minimal involvement, with minimal practical influence, even though the
trustee would have legal control.

The reason you WANT them to have legal control is to make it a valid trust, and to remove from yourself
the ability of any court to force you to turn over the trust’s assets based on any personal liabilities or
judgments against you. If any such attacker were to try to make you give up the trust’s assets to satisfy
some claim against you, you could honestly show that you have no legal control over the trust. The
trustee does, and the trustee is most certainly not going to turn over the trust’s assets. That is called
“bullet proof asset protection”.

You might ask, could claimants against the trustee, if any exist, make the trust pay for personal liabilities
against the trustee? The answer is no, because the trustee too, is simply performing a job as trustee. The
trust is not owned by anyone or anything . . . it is sovereign, and stands on its own, as an independent
lawful entity. So, even the trustee cannot be compelled to give the trust’s assets to satisfy his or her
personal liabilities, as long as he has not created a breach of trust.

By the same token, the trustee personally cannot be compelled to pay for any liabilities that the trust
may incur.

The other disadvantage to this arrangement is that any time there is

an important document to sign for the trust, such as when a major
asset is transferred into or out of the trust, you will need to get the
trustee’s signature. But this is not a big deal if the trust doesn’t engage
in major transactions very often.

So those are the main benefits and disadvantages of being settlor,

beneficiary, and manager, and appointing someone else as trustee. We have considered your role as
settlor and manager. Now let’s look at your role as beneficiary.

The beneficiary is the person on whose behalf the assets are being held, but whether the assets are ever
actually distributed to the beneficiary is once again dependent upon the best judgment of the trustee.

22
The criteria for managing the role of the beneficiary are all discussed in the trust itself, and in the
manual. If you are both the settlor and the beneficiary, then it is up to the rules of the document and the
trustees’ discretion. Thus it is best for you to clearly and completely communicate your wishes to the
trustee when you first open the trust and irrevocably turn over control of the assets to the trustee(s).

The only other important role is the second trustee. All trusts must have more than one trustee, in case
something happens to the first one. This is especially required by banks, if you open a bank account for
the trust. Many banks are satisfied with a successor trustee as the backup trustee. The bank will want a
backup trustee in case anything happens to the primary trustee, because the bank is liable for having the
responsible party signing on bank documents. The manager can be signatory as well, if the trustee
authorizes it, but the bank legally looks to the trustee as the lawful authority on the account.

Whether you appoint a second current trustee or a successor trustee is up to you. If it is a small trust,
meaning it doesn’t have much in the way of assets or activity, then perhaps a second current trustee is
not needed. A second current trustee may be more merited if the trust has a lot of activity and needs
more officers to assist. Or a second current trustee could be desirable if the primary trustee has a
colleague, business partner, or friend with whom he or she wishes to work and share control. The
second trustee has to be non-family-related to the primary trustee.

If you have children or others whom you would like to inherit

control of the trust when you are gone, then you can appoint
one or more of them as successor trustee(s). Then
he/she/they would instantly inherit legal control of the trust
when the primary trustee dies, leaves, disappears, resigns, or
otherwise becomes unavailable or unreachable.

Please note that if you are settlor, beneficiary, and manager,

then the trustee that you choose cannot be a spouse or close
blood relation, because if the trust were ever challenged, that would be deemed by the court as
insufficient separation of interests and influence.

Benefits of Being the Trustee

The main benefit of being the trustee is that you would not have the disadvantages listed above. You
would not have to share signatory control of the bank account, and you would not have to seek the
trustee’s signature every time you engage in a significant transaction. If you are the primary trustee, you
could function as the manager as well, whether you give yourself the title “managing trustee” or just
“trustee”. This means you would have both legal and practical control of the trust. It means you
wouldn’t have to “trust” anyone else with the assets in the trust, although you are still under fiduciary

23
responsibility to responsibly administer the assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries, as contractually
agreed in the trust corpus.

The disadvantage of this arrangement is that it requires more of a learning curve. To have this level of
control, you really have to know what you are doing, in order to maintain the asset protection strength
of the trust. It is best if you have an education in non-statutory trust law, common law, and asset
protection. If you have the role of trustee and the control that it gives, and don’t have the knowledge of
common law asset protection, then a mistake could cost you the assets in the trust.

Why then wouldn’t your friend whom you appoint as trustee in the first arrangement described above,
where you are settlor, beneficiary, and manager, need to have a similar education? The reason is that in
that arrangement, the control is separated between two people. In that arrangement, you have practical
command and the trustee has legal control. Hence the risk is diversified. In this second arrangement,
where you are trustee, you have both legal and practical control, in which case the risk is all
concentrated in one person. The knowledge required by the person who has both legal and practical
control is a lot greater. In the case of you being the manager and someone else being the trustee, the
practical and legal types of control are separated, and no one person has much risk. In that case, the
asset protection remains invincible without having any background in trusts or common law education.

It's really very simple . . . in these trusts, the creator is also known as the grantor or settlor. That has to
be someone different from, and not related to, the trustee. So if you are trustee, someone unrelated to
you has to be the settlor. Or, if you have a second unrelated trustee, then your settlor could be a spouse
or family member. Since the settlor is normally the person who puts assets into the trust to hold on
behalf of the beneficiary, then if you are the trustee, the question arises as to how someone else can be
named as settlor if he or she doesn’t put any assets into the trust.

Here it will help to think for a moment about what is really meant by the ownership of assets. The
question of "ownership" is something of which the unenlightened and the dark age government-
oriented people are ignorant. Witness the famous statement of Chief Seattle:

"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell
the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of
the water, how can you buy them? Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine
needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are
holy in the memory and experience of my people." - - (www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html)

Therefore who really "owns" the assets you are putting into the trust? It is this higher sense of
stewardship of resources that has come to justify the appointment of a nominee settlor (creator). Since
the settlor and the trustee cannot be the same person, you select and appoint a settlor, and that person
signs that certain assets are granted into the trust. You and the settlor understand very well that you are
simply the divine steward of the assets which have been previously entrusted to you. He or she signs
that these assets are now bequeathed to the trust, and actually, from that point onward, he or she really

24
has no further role. From that point on, the trustee herself or himself can legitimately put additional
assets into the trust, but a second trustee is needed, if the first trustee is also a beneficiary.

If you are putting assets into the trust and would thus normally be called the settlor (grantor), but if you
also prefer to be the trustee, then you can appoint someone to play the "nominee" role of settlor. This
means "in name only". This is done by big corporations in business every day all over the world.
Nominee positions are often used to protect the privacy and the powers of the actual person in control.
Since a trustee cannot also be a settlor officially, you can be trustee and must appoint someone else as
nominee settlor.

Which role(s) you play depends upon what kind of friends and family relationships you have, what
purposes you have in mind for the trust, what role(s) you would most enjoy playing, what seems easiest
and best for you and your fellow chosen trust officers, and perhaps other factors.

25
Frequently Asked Questions
and Answers

Q: How long does it take to set up a Natural Law Trust?

A: Usually one or two business days, from the time that

the trust writer receives the order. Typically it can be one
business day, but it depends upon questions he will ask you,
your answers, his work load, how fast you respond, what
special documents may be needed, customizations, unique
arrangements, etc. For example, he might make you settlor
(grantor) and beneficiary, or he might make you trustee,
depending on your particular use of the trust, intended
relationship, and availability of friends or family members to
fill any of those roles. Sometimes a client is asked to find
someone who is willing and qualified to play the role of trustee, and sometimes clients can take longer
than expected to negotiate that arrangement with their friend or family member. So that timing
depends upon the client, not upon our trust writer. If the client plays the role of trustee, then a decision
has to be made as to who will fill the roles of settler and beneficiary. This is all arrived at in one-on-one
discussions with the trust writer, and then it is up to the client to decide. Once all this is clear, the trust
writer can basically produce the trust documents within one day.

Q: What is the difference between trusts and other legal entities based on natural law, and ones
based on statutory law?

A: Statutory law consists of millions of laws. They change every year and are so numerous and
complicated that they require well paid lawyers to keep up with them. They have created a whole
industry of lawyers that parasite off society because of it. Such laws are generally designed to benefit
the few at the expense of the many -- the lawyers, the politicians, the big corporations, and the cabal's
favored interests. Legal entities set up under statutory law are subject to those millions of laws, and
require expensive and complicated legal expertise to defend them.

Common law, by contrast, has been around for millions of years, and will continue to be around for
millions of years. It rarely changes. It's basically, "Don't lie, don't steal, and don't violate the rights of
others." It is the closest thing to natural law, or universal law, that is active in human affairs. It was the
basis of the US court system until 1938. It is still the underlying authority, and is now returning in force.

Trusts and legal instruments that are created under natural law have far greater freedoms. They are
subject only to the natural law, and are thus sovereign and immune from the ever-changing statutory

26
laws. They can go on generation after generation, well into the Golden Age, and flourish, because they're
based on what is timeless.

Q: Please explain what is the Protector, Creator, Trustee, Beneficiary?

A: The words Creator, Grantor, and Settlor refer to the same person . . . the person who has the
trust created and who places assets into it. The Trustee is the person in whose care and stewardship the
trust is placed . . . who assumes the responsibility for the safety and proper administration of the trust's
assets. The Beneficiary is the person (or entity) for whom the assets are being held, for distribution at a
later time. The Protector is the person appointed by the Creator and/or the Beneficiary to hire and fire
trustees. Not every trust has a Protector; whether one is appointed is the sole choice of the Creator
and/or the Beneficiary.

Q: You said I don't own the trust; therefore I don't have to pay taxes. So who owns the trust?

A: No one owns it -- it owns itself. That's the whole point -- to remove "ownership" (and therefore
liability) from the individuals. And we’re not saying “you don’t have to pay taxes”. We are saying the
trust is nontaxable. And if you don’t own it, then of course even if you pay personal taxes on other
income and assets, it is true that you would not be liable for income tax on the trust’s assets. Natural law
trusts don’t have “income” as defined by tax agencies; they have “assets” and “increase”.

Q: I have heard that the U.S. Supreme Court case Hale vs. Henkel provides confirmation of the
lawful basis for contract trusts such as the Natural Law Trust. Can you elaborate on this?

A: First you must understand that the U.S. Constitution in Art. I, Sect. 10, affirms our unlimited right
to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. That is the
basis of all trust law worldwide -- not just in America. The Hale vs. Henkel case merely affirmed this. So
first the Constitution says it; then what many call the "Most Important Supreme Court Case" further
confirms it. The relevant quote from it is:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his
private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his
books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the
protection of his life and property." (See https://www.scribd.com/document/88506878/Most-
Important-Supreme-Court-Case-Hale-v-Henkel)

Q: Do I get an EIN for the natural law trust? How long would it take to get that #?

A: [The EIN is for those who wish to open a bank account for the trust in the United States of
America. It stands for Employer Identification Number, and even if you have no employees, the trust
still needs to get the number from the IRS, for banking purposes only.]

For those living or banking in other countries, each country may have its own national business entity
identification number that may need to be acquired to open a bank account in that country.

27
You only need the EIN, or equivalent number in whatever country you are in, if you are going to open a
bank account for the trust. The EIN is "for banking purposes only" -- not for filing tax returns. The EIN
is required by the banks in the USA for opening accounts, as an identifier number only.

The EIN is very simple, easy, and quick to get, and it is free. It is done online on the IRS website and the
trust writer can show you how to do it. It takes 15-20 minutes. Once the form is filled out, it just takes a
few minutes or seconds for the system to generate it.

Q: One thing that concerns me, is simply that, as you mentioned,

this trust is not understood by lawyers. It sounds like if there is
ever some problem, the only person that could deal with it is the
trust writer. I wonder if he goes away, where that leaves me.
What or how would a situation like this be handled with this
setup? In other words, I am concerned that only one person
understands this and handles this type of trust.

A: It is incorrect to think that it is understood by only one person. There are hundreds of
thousands and perhaps millions of people throughout America and the world who use such trusts and
understand them. While it is true that the science and art of such trusts have not been taught in the
cabal-influenced law schools, and thus perhaps less than 1% of 1% of the Bar-licensed attorneys
understand them, there are a few. There are vastly more non-Bar member common law lawyers and
paralegals that are educated in them.

In essence, it's a simple contract between the settlor/creator and the trustees. It is handled like any
other contract between two or three people. Bar-licensed attorneys want you to use theirs, so most of
them give the natural law trusts a bad rap, yet many of them sell their versions online, as "asset
protection trusts", "irrevocable trusts", etc. There are many thousands of natural law professionals
around the world who understand this this category of trust.

Q: The Natural Law Trust sounds very good to me, although all the setup sounds like a total life
makeover for me.

A: No, it is not a "total life makeover". All it is, is acquiring a wonderful instrument with which you
can do many things. It is not as complicated as you seem to be imagining. It's really very simple. You
could just continue doing everything you were doing before. The only difference is, now you could be
doing it in the name of the trust.

Q: Can I put my IRA [retirement pension] into the trust without triggering a taxable event?

A: If you take an IRA out of your name, it will trigger a taxable event, even though the trust may be
nontaxable. So, the taxes would occur before you can put the assets into the trust. A better way would

28
be for you to make the trust the beneficiary of the IRA. Then, that would be a non-taxable event. It would
be an exchange for beneficial interest in the trust. So, you can name the trust as beneficiary of the IRA,
and use the trust to hold other assets as well.

Q: I would like to see what a Natural Law Trust looks like. Is an example visible on any website?

A: Your trust will be emailed as a Microsoft Word document attachment. Then it is recommended
for you to print it on paper, if you wish, and insert it into a 3-ring binder notebook. This is because over
time, many of the documents being added to the trust will have original wet ink signatures, and
sometimes notarizations on them. In addition, it is
always good to have a hard copy, in case anything
happens to your computer. The trust writer would only
post-mail something to you if his signature is needed on
anything. The main corpus consists of about 30 pages,
but many more pages will be added as the trust
develops over time. Plus the manual is about 15 pages.

Bigger is not necessarily better. If the trust had 100 or

300 pages, as many do, it might contain a lot of
unnecessary stuff that would make it more complicated
than it needs to be. In this case, a trust with shorter text
and lesser pages is actually more powerful and
beneficial, because the essence of the best legal and asset protection principles has been distilled down
into the most concentrated and user-friendly form.

These materials are proprietary and are not published on any website anywhere. If you find any on a
website, it would be very advisable to avoid using them, because the writers of good Natural Law Trusts
have decades of experience in eliminating so much of the nonsense out there and retaining only the trust
documents and language that are most essential, correct, up-to-date, and beneficial for everyone
concerned.

Further, you wouldn't want to use anything that has been exposed to the public. The corpus of the trust
is very private. It is never to be shared with anyone except your closest family and friends and/or
whomever you may bring into the trust as any kind of officer or partner. Only a few pages are to be
shared with the bank -- the minimum necessary to get an account open. The trust writer will show you
which pages. All the rest of the trust is never to be shown to any institution or agency, without the
consent of the trustees. The privacy of it is one of its protections. That's why you really don't want to
be asking for a website where you could "see" the trust.

A good Natural Law Trust writer can send you an attachment of a trust indenture generic title page and
first page, if you wish, so you can see what they look like. Otherwise, know that it is in your interest to
keep the rest of the trust private.

29
 Q: I have some concern about doing
business over the phone and email to the
trust writer.

A: Why? Most people shop online from

around the world. You are not doing anything
illegal, unethical, or that would need to be
hidden. Other than not showing most of the
actual trust contents to most outside parties,
the fact of setting the trust up and having a
trust is no secret. After all, if you're going to bank with it, you make its existence known to the IRS, to get
an EIN. (Or for those in other countries, the equivalent business identification number from your tax
agency).

The IRS (or tax agency in your country) will have the trust name, your name, your Social Security
Number (if you are going to be the trustee and signatory), and other pertinent details. The trust writer
will provide the directions and instructions for you to make the application. It only takes a few minutes
to get the EIN. The EIN is "for banking purposes only", NOT for filing tax returns. The IRS will never ask
you for a tax return on the trust. So don't volunteer it.

So if the IRS knows all about your trust, who else would you wish to hide your communications about it
from? Do you think the National Security Agency will be listening to the phone calls or intercepting your
emails? Who cares? Let them listen! It may bore them to death. There is absolutely nothing of any
great interest to them in your getting involved with this.

We have much to protect, but nothing to hide. We walk into the bank with a few pages from the trust
and open a bank account. We provide our SSN as the signatory, and the EIN for the trust. The bank has
all the info about the trust in their computer records.

So this is all done in the full sunshine of daylight. The trust writer and his clients talk openly all the time
on the phone about every intimate detail of the trusts and related business affairs. We email such details
back and forth likewise, without encryption. We have been involved with these trusts this way since
1993, and our trust writer since sometime in the 1980s. So have countless other people worldwide.
We've had no problems. So what are you worried about?

Q: This Natural Law Trust seems to be designed specifically for US citizens.

A: It wasn't "designed for US citizens". It existed long before the USA ever came into being. It is
ancient. It was simply adopted and utilized a lot in America. Since more people from the USA seem to
use it than other countries, more US laws have been located to authenticate it, but it can be equally
authenticated in any country. It is used throughout the world. Everywhere, the natural law exists, and
has pre-dated statutory law. It is the right of all human beings everywhere to enter into private

30
contracts with each other . . . as long as doing so doesn't violate the rights of anyone else. This is surely
verified by numerous Supreme Court cases in most countries.

Also, although natural law instruments are

better than statutory ones, in general, a
good trust writer can usually also arrange
for statutory entities to be set up if you need
them -- whether they be corporations,
foundations, IBCs, statutory trusts, or
whatever, in any jurisdiction in the world.
And he should also be able to help you
structure asset protection layering between
them, if you wish.

Q: But I am a Canadian citizen and most of my close family are EU - European Union citizens
(German citizens) and not US citizens.

A: That's absolutely fine. It is equally applicable to all countries. That is the appeal of it. Natural
law is universal; and therefore any trust based on it is more simple, more flexible, and more
international than statutory entities.

Q: US banks are obligated to inform the Canadian revenue agency about all my assets held in the US
banks. [This question applies to readers anywhere in the world, outside the USA.]

A: The assets in the trust will not show up anywhere as being "your" assets. They will belong to the
trust, not to you.

Q: Since we are not able to meet the trust writer in person and his proven records of successful
practice are private, how can we be sure that our assets, properties and a business would be safe in the
trust that he designs?

A: Meeting the trust writer in person is indeed possible, so saying it isn’t possible is incorrect.
However, meeting him would not guarantee that the trust he sets up for you would protect you. If our
trust writer disclosed his records of success, those too could be misleading, as many documents are. It is
not the meeting or the documents that give credibility. The trust will protect you. To understand how,
consider the following important points.

One, no government anywhere has any right to prevent you from entrusting your assets to anyone else,
including a trust.

Two, if you transfer ownership of your assets to another entity, you no longer own them. If you no
longer own them, no one can take them from you.

31
Three, the trust that a good Natural Law Trust writer sets up for you is written in plain, simple, easy-to-
understand English. It is not complicated and it does not require a law-school-educated attorney to
understand. You can understand it yourself, just by reading it. In reading it, you can see very plainly
that it protects you, it protects your assets, it gives you control, removes liability, and allows for nearly
infinite flexibility.

Four, this flexibility allows you to structure it and operate it

just about any way you want to . . . as long as you aren't
violating the rights of anyone else. This means that you are in
the driver's seat . . . and you won't need to trust the trust
writer, or anyone else. If you can trust yourself, you will see
in the trust document that it will give you whatever
arrangements you want.

Q: Would the trust writer help us to understand how payouts for our employees will be taken care
of, in a precise, timely and safe way?

A: Yes, the trust writer will be available for ongoing consultation, however, you don't really need
him to answer a thing like that, because you would administer your affairs pretty much the same as you
would without the trust. The only difference is you are doing it in the name of the trust. Otherwise the
rest of your individual, business, commercial, and investment affairs are the same. The only time you
would need to consult him is if it specifically pertains to any aspects of the trust that are perhaps not
already covered in the trust manual.

Q: How can we be sure that unauthorized people will not be able to access our trust bank accounts?

A: Most of the answer to that question would come from other sources, because the issue would
not be with the trust . . . it would be with other policies of security at the bank or mechanisms of security
on your computer. The trust itself only authorizes the people to have access to the bank account whom
you designate. If you designate no one other than yourself, then that is the way it will be. You can be the
sole authorized signatory on the bank account for the trust if you wish to be. If anyone else were to
access the bank account without your permission, it would not be the fault of the trust . . . it would be the
fault of insufficient bank security or insufficient security on your computer, your identity, etc.

This writer has been using this type of trust since 1993 and banking with it since 1996. So have many of
our friends. We have done commerce with them, investments, business, banking, international
transactions, all kinds of things. We have never had a problem with them. If they are designed and
operated correctly, you will have no problem. And they have gotten better and better. The version our
trust writer is providing now has improved and evolved, year after year. He keeps adding refinements,
adjustments, and improvements.

32
Q: We would most likely need to attend a special introductory workshop in order to get a deeper
understanding about what are the benefits of the Natural Law Trust.

A: This question arises precisely because of the 99% of the trusts and legal entities out there that
are not good and well written Natural Law Trusts. We define “well written” as including the feature of
less words, less text, less pages, less legalese, and less complicated language. The good ones are written
in plain simple high school English. Therefore large learning curves are not necessary.

Most of the world is accustomed to corporations, foundations, trusts, and other legal entities as
requiring lots of education and studying to master. Most of these entities are riddled with landmines
and pitfalls, costing severe consequences if one makes one small mistake. Therefore the questioner can
be forgiven for assuming that a Natural Law Trust also requires huge learning curves. Not so.

Believe it or not, we don't conduct workshops. You are overcomplicating things. You need to relax! It is
really simpler and better than you seem to be imagining. We think companies that run big promotions
of trusts or other legal entities with seminars and so on actually do less good for their clients than the
really good Natural Law Trust writers are doing. Precisely because they have much fewer numbers of
clientele, they are able to act more like a friend and give more personal attention. Companies that run
workshops, on the other hand, are less personal, and will be less caring, with less personal concern or
attention.

Good Natural Law Trust writers have an excellent history of avoiding trouble, and their clients have
generally avoided problems with the trusts as well, due to the proper design of the trusts, and the
recommendations they provide for proper operation of the trusts.

You are more fortunate than you may realize, to have the offer to be introduced to a Natural Law Trust
writer. They are not famous or high profile and they want to keep it that way.

(The question below adds more to this thought about learning, so please read that too.)

Q: I would like to learn more about the whole philosophy of this trust.

33
A: Thank you for showing so much interest, and we are glad you wish to learn. However, the really
good Natural Law Trust writers have chosen to go a different way than most trust purveyors. Where
many of them get overly wordy and complicated and develop it into a business and almost an academic
institution, the better ones have preferred to take more the spiritual approach, which is to keep it
simple, concentrate the best of all approaches into a shorter form, free up the user's time, and leave
more time free for spiritual practices and quality time with the family.

After all, money, possessions, asset protection, physical things, and all the concerns about them, are not
everything. You know that the meaning of life is much deeper.

There are complicated websites and extensive natural law seminars, books, and verbose speakers who
will hold forth for hours about all manner of trust philosophy and so on. In the end, we observe that
they end up providing no more real benefit than we do, by keeping it simple. In fact, simplicity can be
more effective than complexity and time-consuming learning curves.

Q: I would like to know which banks in my area will open accounts for these trusts.

A: The willingness to open the accounts for these trusts is not determined by which institution it is.
Since natural law instruments have not been as uniformly understood by banks as statutory entities, it
often more depends upon which employee you are speaking with in the bank, and what mood they
happen to be in that day. It is really that subjective.

One of the best ways to have a higher likelihood that the bank will open your account, is if you have
already banked at that institution for years, in your personal name or some business name. If the
institution knows you . . . if they have long since done their “KYC” – Know Your Customer – on you . . . if
they consider you to be an upstanding citizen and bank customer, and especially if you have developed a
bit of a friendship with any of the bankers working there, then they may be willing to open the account
for the trust, even if they are unfamiliar with such trusts and wouldn’t do so otherwise for someone
walking in off the street. They may open the account because they know you will be the signatory, and
they are comfortable with who you are.

Further, if you have been following the global reset news, you know that there are powerful
developments moving the entire world more towards a natural law banking system. Therefore, it is
increasingly likely that more and more banks will be more than happy to accommodate customers with
natural law instruments.

In the meantime, if you need to approach an institution where you don’t already have an existing
relationship, then just walk in with the pages from the trust that the trust writer will have indicated you
should take (and no more), and ask them. If they say no, then they have probably done you a favor . . .
because their very unwillingness to welcome such a virtuous relationship shows that there is something
questionable about their own policies and practices. So, go down the street and try another institution.

34
It only takes trying a few, to find one that will say yes. We have never heard of anyone not being able to
find an institution that will open the account.

Remember as well that you can have checking accounts at other types of institutions, such as investment
houses, securities brokerages, online payment processors, and credit unions. They too are known to
have opened accounts for these trusts. Hence, you have other viable options besides just banks.

Q: I need to know that the trust will work in other countries; otherwise it is no good for me.

A: Your words evidence a kind of fear, hesitation, nervousness, apprehension, as if you have been
taken advantage of in the past, and you are wary. If so, we are sorry. We quite understand . . . we too
have been burned many times. Been there and done that. But don't let it lose your faith in humanity, in
divinity, or in existence. The world is not so bad as it may seem sometimes.

No, a good trust writer is not going to give you any "guarantees". He
has no need to do that. This is what trusts are all about. It is saying to
the government, "We trust each other more than we trust you." It is
getting the government out of the picture. It is saying that we don't
need the government to protect us. In fact, we need to be protected
FROM the government.

The truth is that hundreds of thousands of Canadians, millions of

Americans, and people all over the world, have been using this type of trust for decades, for centuries. It
will not serve you, dear one, to challenge one of America's best trust writers to "guarantee" you
something. He will just walk away and wish you a nice day. He will realize you are not ready for this.

The good trust writer will extend the friendship to you by simply assuring you, as one divine being to
another, that the trust will work just fine where you are, and if you choose to go with it, you will find
integrity, happiness, peace, harmony, and gratitude in your relationship with our trust writer, and with
other Natural Law Trust users . . . more and more so as the years pass. You will find that the price of it
will seem smaller and smaller as the years pass. Most good Natural Law Trusts involve only a one-time
lifetime fee. They involve no annual fees or any other kind of further ongoing fees. The benefits of the
trust will go on showering upon you and your descendents generation after generation, long after the
initial fee for it will have been forgotten or seemed like peanuts.

Q: Are there any other costs or fees besides the setup cost?

A: No. There are no annual fees or further costs or fees to be paid to a good trust writer’s trust,
unless you engage him for any special consulting needs that are above and beyond the normal
consulting he provides that is directly related to the creation of the trust and the commencement of your
operation of it.

35
Q: I am very interested in this and wonder whether a single trust could be set up for both my wife
and myself?

A: Yes, the great thing about these trusts, is not being subject to the millions of ever-changing
statutes, but rather only to the everlasting and ever-the-same natural law, you basically have limitless
freedom and flexibility to design, adapt, modify, and operate the trust any way you like, as long as you
don't use it to violate the rights of anyone else, or the basic rules of good trust construction.

A spouse can be one of the trustees, but not First Trustee or Protector. And a couple cannot be co-
trustees. A spouse can be one of the trustees as long as the other trustee is not a family relation of any
kind. You and a relative who is not a part of your household can be co-trustees, as long as that relative is
no closer than a first cousin. No lineal antecedents or descendants.

Not every trust has a protector – they are not always deemed necessary. A protector has the power to
hire and fire trustees. It depends upon the objectives of each trust creator and the relationships he or
she has available. But if one is appointed, the protector must not be related to the settlor or any of the
trustees or beneficiaries.

Assuming these conditions are fulfilled, you can make the powers, responsibilities, and privileges of each
of you as specific or as general as you wish. You can also make her manager, successor trustee, or
beneficiary. Or, if you really want to give her complete freedom, you can set up an entirely separate
trust for her, and encourage her to be manager or trustee of it. There are lots of ways you can go.
Further details on the "how" of it, specific to your situation, are better discussed with the trust
writer.

Q: Can I put all my assets into one trust?

A: You could, but it is not recommended, if your assets are substantial. The traditional cardinal
rule among all wealthy people who use trusts is, have a different trust for each different asset. “Never
put all your eggs in one basket”. Have one for each house, one for each car, one for each business, one
for each investment, etc. etc. In the early 1990s it was rumored that the Rockefellers had as many as
7000 of these trusts. The reason is, what if you were to put all your assets into one trust, and then some
problem were to arise with it? All the assets might be at risk.

36
It is rare and unlikely that the trust would ever be successfully attacked, legally, or that it would be
penetrated. In fact, we have NEVER ONCE heard of that happening with a good Natural Law Trust. But
what if you had made the mistake of appointing co-trustees who later became disagreeable with you? If
a conflict between trust officers were to arise, could they take your assets from it?

Again, these trusts are set up so ingeniously and so beautifully, that their very design minimizes the
chances of problems. The design is fabulous, and so if the trust is operated according to the guidelines
suggested, and if you are not using the trust in dangerous or questionable activities, then it is extremely
unlikely that the assets in it would ever be at risk. But the whole point of asset protection is to maximize
the security of the assets. Thus, the traditional cardinal principle is, “have a different trust for each
different asset”.

Q: What is your feeling towards a Private Interest Foundation as opposed to a Trust?

A: We have no particular opinion other than we generally prefer natural law entities over statutory
ones. In addition, please be aware that good Natural Law Trusts can operate as foundations. The only
possible disadvantage we can think of is that if you are accepting donations and you want the donors to
be able to write off their donations on their tax returns as tax deductible, then your foundation may have
to be a statutory entity. We are assuming that's what you are referring to in Canada, as a Private
Interest Foundation. In the US, a 501(3)(c) can operate as a foundation and be tax exempt, but it is a
statutory entity and thus is subject to a long list of regulations. It does, however, offer the benefit that
donors to it can have their donations be tax deductible.

If your foundation is philanthropic and will be giving donations rather than receiving them, then a good
Natural Law Trust could be set up that way and would be far superior, in our opinion, because it would
have no tax agency or government filing requirements and would therefore be subject only to natural
laws -- i.e. don't lie, don't steal, don't violate the basic rights of others, etc. It would be free of the
millions of ever-changing statutes legislated by politicians and lawyers every year.

Or, if your foundation will be receiving donations, but you don't care whether the donations will be tax
deductible for the donors, then too, the Natural Law Trust would be superior.

Q: Does the setup include bylaws and shares setup of the corporation?

A: The bylaws of the trust are in the indenture, in the corpus of it. They’re not termed “bylaws”,
but that’s basically what they are. Shares of the trust are called “units”. These are all explained in the
indenture and in the manual. However, the trust is not properly called a “corporation”. A corporation is
a public entity that is generally statutory. That’s why these trusts are sometimes called “unincorporated
business organizations”.

37
Q: Is there an ongoing process as growth of the trust/foundation needs?

A: Absolutely. That’s the whole purpose of it. If there were no ongoing process and growth,
expansion, then it would just be a dormant entity and have little or no purpose. Most users of these
trusts add documents to the trust on an ongoing basis, recording every significant transaction in a 3-ring
paper binder notebook and in the computer files. Guidelines for all this are included in the indenture
and in the manual that come with the trust.

Q: After the trusts are set up can we move most of our money into the trusts from the RV
[ReValuation of currencies]?

A: Yes. It is best to have the trust set up prior to the RV and also the currencies
exchanged into the trusts prior to the RV. If you have a good trust writer set the trusts up
for you, then upon your request, he can also provide you a template document you can
adapt for your trust called "Addendum to Schedule "A" Personal Property - [Foreign]
Currency exchanged into the trust". As you know, there is not supposed to be any capital gains tax
imposed on ANY Dinar or Dong holders anywhere, but it is to be designated as a "currency exchange"
and not an "investment". However, even if the taxman does try to impose a capital gains tax, it would be
totally inapplicable to exchanges conducted for currencies owned by these trusts, because they are
nontaxable. That is, providing the exchange has been documented PRIOR TO the RV. That's why we
recommend that the "Addendum to Schedule "A" Personal Property - [Foreign] Currency exchanged into
the trust" be notarized, to prove that the date of execution was prior to the RV date.

Q: Can one trust have the money in several different banks or will we have
to divide the money up into different banks and have a trust for each bank?
(FDIC has been bankrupt since 2008 and is no protection)

A: One trust can have as many bank accounts as you want, in as many banks as you want.
However, it is also recommended to have a different trust for each different asset.

A separate note unrelated to the trusts, though, is that a much safer banking system is coming. Some say
it is already here. The RV is just a part of this new worldwide system which is asset-backed and which
would make FDIC much stronger, or even redundant and unnecessary.

Q: Can the trust invest and not have to pay taxes on the profits?

A: Yes. Exempt statutory entities like 501(3)(c)s don't have to pay taxes either, but the difference
with a good design of Natural Law Trust is that such trusts file no returns.

38
Q: After the RV the US Treasury will be closely monitoring where every dollar goes; will this cause
a problem?

A: BEFORE the RV, the cabal has already been "closely monitoring where every dollar goes", and
has ALREADY caused countless problems for peaceful, harmless, and life-supporting people
everywhere! People think reports are only issued for transactions $10K and above, but FINCEN,
Echelon, and other systems have been tracking every dollar down to the penny in REAL TIME for YEARS.

The DIFFERENCE with the NEW system is that the tracking may continue, but the world monetary
system will be in new hands . . . hands that are more compassionate, more interested in alleviating
suffering than causing it, more interested in letting people live free, and more in tune with universal law.

So . . . everyone who is harmless, who has the best interests of all life at heart, and who isn't planning to
use their money to dominate, exploit, divide, conquer, parasite, violate, or abuse . . . will THRIVE and
FLOURISH in the new system, uninterfered with . . . in complete freedom. We would say the only people
who should be concerned about the tracking are those who plan to violate the ethics of the universe
with their funds.

Whether the funds are in a good Natural Law Trust or not, makes no difference in that respect. A good
Natural Law Trust is among the best on the planet . . . but even so, it's like having the best computer. It's
still a neutral device. What is done with it depends upon the consciousness and the ethics of the user.
One can have the best trust and still commit evil acts with it. That is exactly what members of the dark
elite have been doing. They have been using these very same trusts. That's why they have not legislated
against them, and will not do so. But the effects of their use of such wonderful instruments have been
harmful to society, as you know. It is time for those of the Light to use these very same instruments, of
such advanced powers of asset protection, for spreading the Light and the Good.

Therefore, anyone using these trusts in that way, should have absolutely no problem being tracked,
being watched, and being recorded as to what they do with their funds. They can be PROUD of what
they are doing, and HAPPY to be seen in the full sunshine of broad daylight! You will find with these
trusts and with the educational orientation from which they come, that we stand with such strength in
the law, and in our decades of successful experience with these trusts, we have nothing to hide and are
not very interested in trying to be unseen. The only thing that we keep unseen, really, is the corpus of
the trust. That is never given to any agency or any bank or institution. Only certain pages from it are
shown to open bank accounts, as necessary, and no more. The trust is NOT publicly recorded anywhere.
It is this privacy of its content that is part of the reason for its strength of protection. But other than that,
we do everything in the full sunshine of broad daylight, and have no worries about any "tracking" or
"monitoring".

39
Q: How would you put a sole proprietorship business into a trust?

A: Step 1: follow the instructions in the trust manual for adding assets into the trust. Transfer the
assets of the sole proprietorship into the trust via documents that you create and add into the trust
notebook. In most cases, there is no wisdom in posting or recording these documents publicly. It is a
private transaction.

Step 2: begin having all monies that were previously paid to the sole proprietorship, now being paid to
the trust.

Step 3: likewise, begin paying all expenses and expenditures that were previously being paid by the sole
proprietorship, now from the trust.

Q: Is it possible to have only one trustee or is it required to have at least two?

A: It is generally required to have two. They don't both have to be current; one can be current and
the other can be successor, if you prefer. Sometimes you can function for a while with only one, but it
isn't recommended. The trust would be orphaned, adrift at sea without a rudder, if anything were to
happen to the one and only trustee. For that reason, most banks will not open an account for a trust
unless it has two current trustees, OR one current trustee and
one successor trustee.

Q: What if I don’t know two people I can absolutely trust to

be good trustees?

A: Then you can appoint a protector, in addition to the

other trust officers. The creator may, through the protector,
as set forth in the trust instrument, remove a trustee. The
cause for removing a trustee is not required to be disclosed. The power to remove a trustee may cause
various problems if not done properly. The safest way to avoid these problems is for the creator to
appoint a protector, who can replace a non-related trustee with another non-related trustee.

Q: Don’t trustees need a lot of education? Colleges, academies, and

institutes exist to train trustees.

A: This depends upon whether it is a public or private trust, and whether

it involves just a few people or large numbers of people. If it is public, or large
numbers of people are involved, then of course trustees would have to be
professionally trained. But most Natural Law Trusts are small private family
trusts involving very few people. In the vast majority of cases, Natural Law Trustees serve their settlors
just fine with four easily available qualifications:

1) Considered friendly, harmonious, agreeable, and trustworthy by the settlor (creator);

40
 2) Has read this explanatory text thoroughly;

3) Has read the entire trust document and the trust manual that comes with it; and

4) Has consulted with the trust writer whenever any question arises.

With these qualifications, all of the Natural Law Trusts we have been involved with (or heard about)
have fared very well. In fact, any kind of institutional trustee training could be counterproductive, as
most such training is for public statutory trusts. That kind of education would actually prove to be a
great disadvantage, because it would create a bias towards complicated statutory thinking. It would
create a mindset which fails to appreciate the simpler and more natural approach to trusteeship quietly
enjoyed by the vast majority of Natural Law Trusts.

Q: I have gone over the information you sent me about the Natural Law Trust. I also looked it up on
Google and it seems great but also somewhat complicated, so I'll have to look it over again and see what
questions I have.

A: It is good for you to know that via Google you will encounter a sea of websites with all kinds of
opinions all over the map about trusts. Very few of them are even discussing the exact TYPE of trust that
we consider to be a “good” Natural Law Trust. Very few of them know about the superior legal
simplicity, purity, and style of the good ones.

If you like absorbing a vast variety of opposing opinions, many of which contain disinformation or
misinformation, because your intellect is huge and you can handle the controversies with ease, then fine
-- survey the Google landscape. But if your intent is more practical, and you simply want to have the
very best and most user-friendly protection, with the lowest likelihood of any problems, it would be
good to simply be grateful that you have already found the best. Don’t confuse yourself by the others.

Q: Would we need an attorney?

You would almost never want to consult an attorney regarding the content or the functions of these
trusts, because they are written under natural law, whereas attorneys, by definition, usually specialize in
statutory law. They are dangerous because they are brainwashed by it and will not only fail to be of help
regarding Natural Law Trusts, but they can actually cause harm by their misunderstanding of them and
disinformation about them. Therefore it would be rare that you would ever want to consult an attorney
regarding any trust business. If you do, it should focus on the transaction, whatever is the subject of the
consultation, and NOT the content or design of the trust. Very little information about the structure of
the trust should be given to any attorney -- as little as possible.

41
Q: Have many Natural Law Trusts been created for residents / citizens of: (a) Canada, (b) United
Kingdom, (c) countries in Africa, (d) Central- and South American countries, (e) Caribbean countries?

A: Your question stems from a statutory mentality, because statutes are country-specific. Natural
Law Trusts, by contrast, are universal. If the trust were a statutory one, then it would be relevant to find
out specifically for clients in which countries such trusts have been created. But the fact that it is NOT
statutory, but rather is operating on the higher and more evolved plane of natural law, meaning that it
this is not a necessary question for you to ask. Suffice it to say, good Natural Law Trust writers are
world travelers and have clients in many countries. Natural law goes everywhere. Hence it is not
necessary to determine whether the trust is applicable to any country in particular.

Q: When assets such as currencies, a bank account, a business, real estate, or other valuables are
put into a trust, you refer to it as an “exchange” rather than a “gift” or a “transfer”. Why is this, and what
does the trust give in exchange?

A: The trust gives Units of Beneficial Interest. These are like shares of stock in the trust. A settlor
(or anyone) can certainly “donate” valuables to a trust, without any units being received in exchange, but
that sets up the donor for being questioned later. If any liability were ever to come against the donor,
the claimant could challenge the gift as an avoidance of obligation. But if the giver receives Units of
Beneficial Interest from the trust in exchange for the asset transferred into it, then it is perceived as a lot
more normal and acceptable to others. Exchange transactions take place by the millions every day all
over the world. That is ordinary commerce.

Q: Would the receipt of Units of Beneficial Interest by the settlor (or whoever transferred title of an
asset to the trust) be considered income for tax purposes?

A: No, because the units are not traded on any public exchanges, and thus have no publicly
determinable monetary value. The value is given to them by the officers of the trust, within the
boundary of the private trust contract. It can therefore not be questioned or interfered with by any
outside party. It is private and confidential information. When the value can thus not be determined by
an outside party, there is no way for that outside party to make an intelligent claim to it.

And finally, the very fact of having received the units in the first place is private. There is no need for the
settlor or whoever transferred assets to the trust to disclose the receipt of the Units of Beneficial
Interest to any public agency or any outside party. It is private knowledge protected within the trust
contract relationship. This bestows an even more significant protection to the transferor. If no one
knows that someone has received Units of Beneficial Interest, how can anyone even contemplate
claiming them?

42
Q: From the info about the trusts, it seems that nothing on the trust documents is treated as being
confidential. It is accessible to whoever, while it is on the internet.

A: All of the information in the trust is intended to be private and

confidential, with the exception of certain pages which need to be
presented to a bank to open a bank account for it. The list of those
documents comes with the trust. Otherwise, none of the rest of the trust
is ever to be presented to attorneys, government agencies, or other
institutions. None of it is to be recorded publicly. Nevertheless, we are
also not fanatical about secrecy or encryption on the Internet. While it is true that trust documents
emailed back and forth could be intercepted, we have never heard of that causing a problem for anyone.
Part of the reason for this is that only the initial setup documents are emailed. Later, whatever
documents the client may adapt for placing assets in the trust and conducting other trust business, are
done by the client according to guidelines and templates our trust writer will have provided. Those
documents would be never seen by our trust writer and never sent over the Internet unless the client
wishes to do so, for some reason. Therefore they can, and should, remain private.

Nevertheless, good Natural Law Trust writers do provide venues for encrypted email communication for
clients who desire it.

In conclusion, we have been very impressed over the past three decades to see how good Natural Law
Trust writers have distilled the crème de la crème of much more complicated and verbose trusts into the
minimum simplicity that is most potent and effective -- as well as easily understood by non-lawyers. In
fact, most lawyers overcomplicate things. That's how they make their living . . . by people paying them
to figure out the vast complexities of the laws, when in fact the truth, when stated eloquently, is really
very simple. Good Natural Law Trust writers have bequeathed that precious golden elixir of simplicity
to us.

Q: I live in France and would like to know how to find here the banks who accept it if they don't
have a clue what it's all about?

A: It is beautiful to hear from you. The most institutions we have ever had to apply to within a two
week period, to find one that would say "yes", was five. Many people interview more banks than that
just to see which one they prefer. In the decades we have been gaining experience with these trusts, not
once have we ever heard of anyone, anywhere in the world, who was not able to find a financial
institution that would open an account for it.

43
Q: I would like to use only so called "Cooperative" Banks (would correspond to Credit Union type in
US). What questions should I ask them, for me to know if they can or would be willing to open an
account?

A: Let them see certain of the documents. See the list of pages to take to the bank, in the
instructions included with the trust. Bring copies of each of those documents on the list to the
institution at which you wish to open the account. Don't bring any other parts of the trust, even if they
ask for them. If they are not satisfied with the items on the list, then thank them politely and go to a
different institution.

If the institution at which you are applying is at a significant distance from you, then you could fax or
email the documents. If you can physically visit the institution, then simply walk in and bring the
papers. Ask any questions you wish to ask, but the main request is to have their legal department or
trust department look over the papers you have brought, and tell you whether they would be happy to
open an account for that trust. They may have some questions they wish to ask you. It is usually nice to
politely provide the answers, if the questions are reasonable.

As to credit unions in the USA and their equivalents in other countries, we have found in the USA that
they are willing to open the account only if the signatory's credit rating is at a certain level -- we believe
it was in the 600s. Since they are a credit union, they care more about the credit score of the personal
signatory than they do about the structure of the trust or what kind of laws it is based on. The same
kind of priority might exist at equivalent institutions in other countries as well.

Q: Is there some special reason why some banks accept and others do not? Or is the possible
refusal due only to the fact that they just don't know how the Private Natural Law Trust works?

A: It is the latter -- as you have said -- they are usually not educated in natural law.

Q: In this case, would there be any document to show in order to educate them on that subject?

A: One of the best is the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island", by G. Edward Griffin, which tells
the true story of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, and other banking families in Europe and
America, from the 1700s to the present . . . and the monetary system that took over the world as a result.
It explains the central banking system, the largest of which is the Federal Reserve in the U.S. Once a
reader understands what is in that book, he or she will appreciate the wisdom of basing the design of a
trust on the natural law . . . and he or she will understand why the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and other
banking families have used these very types of trusts for their own asset protection.

Whether you wish to bother educating your prospective banker, or whether it is easier and more
desirable to simply go to a different institution where perhaps they already understand some of these
things . . . depends upon how much you like the particular institution in question. We have never had to
bother educating any bankers, because all we do was apply at two, three, or four institutions, and one
would always say "yes". We didn't think it was important for us to take the time to find out WHY they

44
said "yes". They may or may not have much education in natural law or the history of banking, but if
they said "yes" to opening the account, who cares what their educational background is? You would
then perhaps only care about that if you were to develop a friendship or a close working business
relationship with that banker.

Q: You explain that it's recommended to have a different trust for each different asset. If I buy a
house or whatever and have some personal assets, this should then be in one trust. Then should I have
another Trust for my donations and fundings (free energy, eco-housing, new technology projects etc) or
is it necessary to separate these 2 as well?

A: This is an adjustable concept depending upon your asset protection comfort level. In the early
1990s, it was rumored that the Rockefellers had over 7000 of these trusts. And who knows how many
sub-trusts they had under those . . . and sub-sub-trusts, etc.

The point is, "never put all your eggs in

one basket". The more your assets are
spread around in different entities, the
greater the protection. But each
individual has to decide for himself or
herself, how safe or how dangerous
one's life is, what level of divine
protection one's estate may have, and
therefore how many potential enemies
or thieves one's estate may be facing . .
. or not facing. If the threat is low, then
less trusts are needed. It's that simple.

Q: If I need several trusts, is the

price cheaper?

A: Yes, usually good Natural Law Trust writers give quantity discounts.

Q: As the Trust documents will be written in English, do I need to get them translated into French
by an official or sworn translator or is there a way to get the document accepted worldwide in English
by the banks in order to open an account for the trust?

A: This depends upon how English-speaking your prospective bank or financial institution is. That
will vary on a case by case basis.

Q: Whoever is placed into a trustee position will be able to know exactly how much the Grantor has
in assets, correct? So if that's correct, how does one protect their assets from being publicly exposed by
these trustee friends? A non-disclosure agreement? It seems even if they're bound by an NDA, most
people gossip, and now and then the story gets out regardless.

45
A: No, your trustee only has whatever information you give him or her. If you are manager of the
trust, that role includes the ability to bank, be the signatory on bank accounts, add assets into the trust,
take assets out, and you can organize it so that the trustee is informed of, and signs on, only those
transactions on which you wish to include him. If that is "none", then it will be "none". It's up to you.

This is much stronger than an NDA. A trustee or trust officer can only take what he knows exists. If he
doesn't know it exists, there is no way he can even have the thought of taking it.

For example, we have a friend as co-trustee with us on a couple of trusts, but he hasn't the foggiest idea
what these trusts have. Nor does he have access to those assets, because he lacks the information about
them. And we would trust him with our lives . . . but after all, he wouldn't even WANT to know what the
trusts have . . . or otherwise, if he did, and if anything were to happen to those assets, he could be
erroneously suspected. So he doesn't even KNOW about them.

Normally a trustee is signatory on trust bank accounts, but as manager you can organize it so that the
trust only authorizes you, not the trustee(s), to be signatory.

Q: You wrote there are a plenty of non-Bar member natural law lawyers and paralegals all over the
world who are educated in Natural law Trusts in case of need. Do you have any connections in France in
case I would need some help later on with my trust(s)?

A: Every important question that any client of a good Natural Law Trust has had, has always been
answered to the full satisfaction of the client, one way or the other. The worldwide network of a good
Natural Law Trust writer is rich enough to allow him to follow many different leads to get to any type of
expertise you may need anywhere. However, the good news is also that the need for complex expertise
pertaining to these trusts is very rare. Most of the time, the trusts are simple enough to operate
anywhere that no extra special expertise is needed.

Q: I read that it only takes from a couple of days to max one week to put up the Trust, no matter in
which country it is going to operate.

A: A good trust writer can create it in one day . . . but he asks the client who you want as
beneficiary, who you want as trustee, and other officers and so on. Usually it is the client who takes a
few days figuring out the answers to these questions. As soon as the client has given the trust writer all
the answers he needs, he can generally have the trust produced in one day.

Q: You recommend having it ready before the RV. What problem might there be if the RV happens
before I get my trust set up?

A: It would only be a problem if a capital gains tax is imposed on the CE (Currency Exchange).
Many experts don't believe there will be one, but others say there will be. The trust eliminates that risk.
If the trust isn't in place and the CE is done in one's personal name, or in the name of a statutory
business entity, then the capital gains tax may apply. If the CE is allowed to proceed without any tax on

46
ANY of the currency holders, then it is not an issue. Then the trust is just an excellent instrument for
other types of asset protection, for prevention of future tax filings on income, for efficiency in
organization and distribution, and for the best in estate planning.

Q: I understood there wouldn't be any capital gain taxes on the CE, as it's just a Currency Exchange
and not an investment.

A: We hope that turns out to be correct. There has certainly been a lot of controversy on this issue.
The Golden Age is in the process of dawning, as you know. This will be a time when forced and
involuntary taxes will no longer exist on this planet. Powerful forces are at this very moment
overhauling the central monetary and banking structures on this planet, as you know, in preparation for
a universally prosperous, debt-free, slave-free, and tax-free system globally. But whether the tax will
have ended by the time of the RV and the GCR, only time will tell.

Q: If I move my house ownership into a PST [Pure Sovereign Trust], will it trigger a due on sale
clause in the mortgage?

A: Not typically. You might check with the

banker/mortgage contract. The exchange of a house into a
trust where you are the settlor and beneficiary is a non-taxable
event. We never had a client who received a due on sale
demand, because you are not selling the house; you are
exchanging into trust.

Q: I currently have a hard money loan for a mortgage and will need to refinance in 6 months. Will
banks or credit unions or mortgage brokers be able to get me refinanced with the house ownership
being a PST?

A: Yes. The banks will look at the value of the property, and who can carry the note, not who owns
it. The house would now have a lien on it, under the name of trust.

Q: Doesn't the PST (Pure Sovereign Trust) exist outside of the statutory foreclosure laws and they
would not be able to foreclose and thus they would not want to refinance me?

A: Just because the trust is outside of statutory laws doesn’t mean its transactions are. The subject
here is not the trust or its structure that is the concern of the statute. The subject is the mortgage
transaction. If there is a default on the loan, they will attempt to foreclose on property, no matter who
owns it. So, regardless of whether the trust or you personally own it, one must still stand up to the
fraudulent bank, and say,

1) prove to me [under penalties of perjury] that real money actually came out of your pocket, and
you have a valid loss;
2) show me the original note and chain of title; and

47
 3) who has the note now.... ???
Q: Would having my house owned by an LLC which is controlled by the PST be a solution, but the
LLC would need income to justify the mortgage loan?

A: We would suggest exchanging the house into the trust. It’s much safer and more private. Use an
LLC just for business and public view, if at all. The trust can also be a member of the LLC, and own 98%
of it. The mortgage lender wouldn’t care whether the trust or the LLC is the source of the payments. If
the LLC is the entity that can show the income, the let the LLC qualify for the loan and make the
payments on behalf of the trust. But the house would be much more protected if the trust is the owner
of it.

Q: Does the second trustee know what assets are in the trust?

A: Yes, if you wish. If you appoint a second trustee, when setting up the trust they will get full
disclosure of the assets in the trust. They will also have to be part of the decision making with future
assets. If it is a small trust, meaning it doesn't have much in the way of assets or activity, then perhaps a
second current trustee is not even needed. A second current trustee may be more merited if the trust
has a lot of activity and needs more officers to assist. Or a second current trustee could be desirable if
the primary trustee has a colleague, business partner, or friend with whom he or she wishes to work and
share control. The second trustee has to be non-family-related to the primary trustee.

But, if there is no second current trustee, then there absolutely MUST be a successor trustee. Having a
successor trustee is a good idea anyway, sometime . . . because what would happen if the existing
trustees leave this Earth or otherwise resign or become unavailable? Then the trust is orphaned and left
adrift upon the sea. So, whenever convenient, each current trustee should have a successor trustee
appointed . . . a trustee to take over if and when the current trustee is no longer serving the role.

If there are two current trustees, then it is not as urgent to have a successor trustee. But if there is only
one current trustee, then it is mandatory to have a successor trustee appointed immediately. The banks
will require this, if a bank account is to be opened for the trust.

Q: Does the protector know what the assets are?

A: Yes, because the idea behind the Protector is to have somebody who can watch over the Trustee,
and terminate the Trustee for any misconduct. So if you choose to have a Protector (optional), then they
must know about the assets in the trust in order to make sure the Trustees do not misuse them.

48
 Q: Besides opening accounts, when does the
trustee have to sign? Do they have to sign in person?
Does the second trustee have to sign in person?

A: The trustee needs to sign whenever there will

be changes made to the trust. If your question is does
the second trustee have to sign in person at the bank
while opening a bank account, it will depend on the
bank. So you need to ask the bank you will open the
account at if the second trustee needs to sign in
person. However, our experience is that most banks will allow for sole signatory control.

As to signing other types of trust documents, no, signing them in person is not required. It can be done
via paper post or electronically -- whatever is acceptable to the trust officers involved.

Q: What is the sovereign domicile of the trust? Can it be registered outside of my home country?

A: If you open a bank account in your home country then the sovereign domicile of the trust is still
your home country, because you will get an identification number from whatever authority the banks
require in your country. It can be registered in other countries following each country’s own national
business entity identification number that may need to be acquired to open a bank account in that
country. You will need the identification number equivalent in the particular country in which you are
opening a bank account. Otherwise, there is no registration of any kind required, anywhere.

Q: Is there a limit to the number of bank accounts or locations of accounts you can open under one
trust?

A: NO, as long as the bank is willing to open an account for you, then you can open as many
accounts at different banks as you wish.

Q: Can a Natural Law Trust be sued?

A: Yes it can, hypothetically, just like any other trust. However, we have never heard of the really
good ones having been sued. There is an understanding of natural law arising and reawakening on the
planet. It may have its local applications in regional statutes, common law, and the UCC, but its central
domicile is in the universal natural law.

As a result, we are aware of no good quality Natural Law Trust that has ever been sued. One of the
reasons is that the trust officers keep most of its documents private, and never give copies of most of the
trust to any agency or institution. It is not a public trust and it is not registered anywhere. Therefore if a
would-be attacker wants to sue it, how is it going to make the suit intelligent? It won't have enough
information about the trust's officers and activities to structure the suit intelligently. While this may not

49
guarantee that the trust will never be sued, it does vastly reduce the likelihood of it. And it further
reduces the likelihood that any such suit, if it were initiated, would be successful for the attacker.

Q: As far as appointing a trustee, do you recommend choosing a trusted friend or a hired "trustee"?

A: The answer varies, depending upon the situation. If the trust is designed mainly to transfer
assets to children or grandchildren, a relative or close family friend
would seem the logical choice. If the trust consists primarily of
real estate, family businesses or other assets that require ongoing,
active maintenance, a family member or close relative probably
makes the most sense too. The good things choosing family and
friends as trustees bring to the table are knowledge of the family
history and circumstances. The bad are the biases, unsettled feuds
and biased emotions. A hired trustee brings experience,
objectivity, and professional resources to help ensure that the trust
is administered according to the appropriate terms. The risk with
hiring a trustee is entrusting an outside entity with permanent powers over the management of your
assets. In practice, this may mean that a hired trustee is stricter in making distribution decisions than
you might wish.

You yourself can also arrange the trust to make yourself trustee, but you should only do this if you have
an instinctive high confidence in your experience and knowledge of how these trusts work. For
considerations on this topic, read the section entitled “Roles of creator, trustee, and beneficiary”.

Q: Is the list of assets the only proof you need that the asset is indeed under the trust’s name?

A: This would be the case only if the asset does not have any accompanying document. However if
there are documents you can include like a notarized Exchange to Trust Minute, it would be more
satisfying to an outside party as proof. Separate trusts can also hold auto and mortgage titles for cars
and houses. (Never put high-liability items like cars, trucks, boats, planes, or trains into the same trust
with other valuable assets. Keep them all separate. “Never put all your eggs in one basket”.) Always
include copies of what documents you have and can include per asset. If it is some purchased item and
you still have the proof of purchase, that would be good to be included to show its value.

Q: Does the creator/manager/beneficiary have the ability to use checks, cards and pull cash from
the account without the signature of the trustee?

A: Yes, if the trustee has signed a minute giving the manager that power. But keep in mind, one
person can wear different hats. If the creator, beneficiary, and manager are the same person, it would be
in the role of manager that this person would be exercising that power. This is because the creator will
have relinquished authority at the beginning of the creation of the trust, and the beneficiary role is a
passive one, not an active one. So regardless of whether it is the same person, it is only as manager that

50
one would be executing banking transactions and other trust business. Or if the individual who set up
the trust has arranged it so that someone else is the creator and the individual who set it up is the
managing trustee, then that is the person who can be the signatory on the account.

Q: What are ALL the ways in which the creator can protect the trust from misconduct from the
trustee?

A: You can write an agreement of fiduciary duty which will outline

what are the trustee's responsibilities and capabilities. You can also have
a Protector who can watch over the Trustee, and terminate the Trustee
for any misconduct. While it is a good question, the good news is that we
have never heard of a Natural Law Trust creator or protector who has
had to fire a trustee. Therefore this may not be "ALL the ways", as you
say, but it is a question you can revisit later with our trust writer, to see
what more he wishes to add. For now, it is not an issue that is likely to be
a problem for you.

Q: Can the settlor/manager make changes to the trust at any time? If not, who can?

A: Good quality and properly written Natural Law Trusts are irrevocable. This means the settlor
relinquishes all further control of the trust at its inception. However, the same person can play the role
of the manager. The manager can make changes and perform actions in that role, assuming s/he has
determined the rules written into the trust and follows them. If you want to give a certain role
independent powers, then you can also write that into the trust. You can administer the trust any way
you want, as long as it maintains certain basic structural principles.

Q: Who holds the debit card for the bank account in the trusts name? In other words who has
access to the assets of the trust?

A: The trustees have the legal access, but in practice, the manager can have the practical access, if
that is the desire of the manager and the trustees. This means that the trustees would have basically
signed a minute authorizing the manager to have such access, and then the manager would handle the
day to day practical business of the trust according to the agreement s/he will have signed with the
trustees. The terms and conditions of that agreement are entirely up to the preferences and the
discretion of the manager and the trustees.

Q: Doesn't the creator co-signing on documents put the entire trust at risk?

A: To think that the creator co-signs on the trust documents is a mistake. This is not the case.
Remember, as we have said, the creator (settlor) relinquishes authority at the beginning of the trust.
Yes, you are right -- if the creator were to have signatory power over the whole trust, it would place its
assets at great risk. In fact, that would transform it from an irrevocable trust into a revocable one. That

51
is precisely why good Natural Law Trusts are irrevocable. By having the creator relinquish control at
the beginning, it makes the assets irrevocably protected within the trust.

A funny story about this occurred in 2013, when a trustee went to a branch of Chase Bank to open an
account. The bank refused to open the account on the basis that the trust gave the settlor no signatory
authority over the entire trust. When we communicated this to our trust writer, he laughed and said "Of
course that is what they would like! By giving the creator signatory power over the whole trust, it
makes it a 'grantor trust' -- and it is thus revocable. It makes it a lot easier to penetrate and get at its
assets." So, that is why the good Natural Law Trusts are irrevocable.

Q: Can the creator act as "witness" to the trustee? Do you have to have a witness to the trustee and
is this referred to as an executive secretary?

A: Yes, the creator can act as "witness" to the trustee. And YES you do have to have a witness to the
trustee. We refer to it as executive manager. But remember, the creator relinquished its control at the
beginning, so any use of the act of witnessing would only be in another capacity, such as manager.

Q: Can you recommend a wealth manager or trust lawyer that I can hire to discuss ongoing
questions?

A: You may be assuming that the trust is complicated, as are most other trusts out there --
including both statutory trusts and common law trusts. By contrast, the really good Natural Law Trusts
are simple enough that it has been very rare that anyone has had to hire a professional to provide
assistance for them. Should such a professional be needed, then yes, of course, such professionals are
available.

Q: Can a layperson act as trustee or do they have to have extensive knowledge of the law?

A: A trustee does not need to know the law well. It is to your advantage to find somebody you know you
will always get along with, and with whom it is easy to communicate. It is more important that the trustee be
willing to follow your wishes without questioning them, than to have a trustee that is knowledgeable. Then
that means if there is any particular type of legal knowledge you need, it would be more your responsibility to
learn it. This way, you are still the one calling the shots, even though you have willingly and purposefully
turned over the "legal" control of the trust to the trustees.

On the other hand, the reason we say it requires more understanding for the person who sets the trust up to
be knowledgeable if he or she wants to be the trustee, is that then that person has both legal and practical
control of the trust. That person should then really have a firm understanding of what he or she is doing. By
playing the role of manager instead, and letting someone else be trustee, the two types of power are
separated into two people – the legal control in the trustee and the practical control in the manager. Then the
burden of responsibility is less on each person, and therefore the need for comprehensive trust
understanding is less.

52
Q: In what instances would the trustee be ordered to go to court?

A: The only instance is if the trust is sued or somebody within the trust wants to sue the trustee. We
have never heard of this happening with any well designed Natural Law Trusts.

Q: In the case of wanting to secure and protect a large sum of money (large lump inheritance) into a
trust, would it benefit the owner of the assets to become the creator/manager/beneficiary or to be the
trustee?

A: The answer to this is depends upon one’s level of understanding, but it is

not a critical question, because in both cases, the original owner of the assets
can enjoy impervious protection of them in the trust. As to whether the asset
owner elects to be creator/beneficiary/manager -- OR -- trustee, depends upon
the various factors discussed in the "Roles of Creator, Beneficiary, and Trustee"
section herein. It is based on the criteria given therein that one would decide
which role(s) one wishes to play.

Q: The person I have most favored to be the trustee on my trust has doubts and resistance about it. She
has been doing research and is about to back out of helping me, due to her worrying about being liable should
assets be transferred wrong, etc. etc. I was told that there is no liability of the trustees, if they carry out their
duties. My trustee is very concerned that people could come after her, or that she would be liable for taxes,
etc. I really need to get educated on this otherwise I can't go forward as I can't put anyone in a position of
liability.

A: In essence, this is a very fortunate and evolutionary development which allows you to get really clear
about the actual nature of your relationships. This trust business has given this benefit to thousands of
people. Friends and family members whom we thought were really like-minded and trustworthy were not so
much; and others whom we doubted were actually more like-minded and more trustworthy than we thought.
It reveals who your true friends are.

The best kind of person to fulfill your trustee role is one who is both spiritually harmonious and intellectually
comfortable with the role. Gaining a degree of comfort is not necessarily dependent upon having a lot of
knowledge about how to be a trustee. It really has more to do with how much that person trusts you, and
likewise, how much he or she trusts himself or herself. Hence if you really wanted someone to be trustee but
she has doubts and fears about it, it may be that no amount of discussion and reasoning about it would
change her mind . . . because perhaps there is something fundamentally lacking in her spiritual harmony with
you or her own trust of herself.

Hopefully that perspective about her is incorrect, and it is simply a matter of her not having sufficient
information about the role. She really needs to know that there is hardly any work to do, and there is really
no liability and no risk to her. But the fact that she is expressing doubts and resistance without even asking
more detailed questions about the risk, and the fact that she wasn't even willing to discuss it, is what indicates
that no amount of discussion or favorable information would change her mind.

53
It also means that even if you were able to persuade her to say “yes”, she might turn out to be not such a good
trustee, because she may continue to suffer from unreasonable paranoias, no matter how much you try to
show her that they are unreal.

That is where the universe is giving you an evolutionary experience . . . in gently influencing you to
reconsider. Perhaps there are other people in your sphere of friends and acquaintances whose virtues and
compatibility for the trustee role might be more than you had considered at first.

Q: I understand that if I am a signatory for the trust on a bank account, my Social Security Number will have
to be given to the bank. My issue with having the SSN associated with the name I thought was mine [your
personal name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS] on a bank account for the trust is a litigant got a judgment against
me in small claims court and last week the bank withdrew $1,500 from my account unbeknownst to me for
this judgment. So if the SSN were not attached to the account, this could not have happened. So I am
studying how to do banking without any SSN whatsoever.

A: That's a simple misunderstanding. The trust is NEVER held liable for the debts or obligations of any
trust officer -- and that will include you. Regardless of whether you are the trustee and your SSN is on the
bank account as the trustee, or you are playing some other role, no agency has ever penetrated any good
Natural Law Trust for the debts and obligations of its officers. Trust money is legally separate money. That is
part of what "asset protection" means. If the trust couldn't do that, it wouldn't be worth the paper it is
written on.

With all the extreme corruption out there in most fields of commerce and legal affairs, of which everyone is
aware, we never cease to be amazed at how religiously the system consistently honors the rights of these
trusts. It is, no doubt, because the elite themselves use them . . . and they don't want their sanctity disturbed.
If your money had been in one of these trusts, they could not and would not have levied the account, even if
your SSN had been on the account as a trust officer.

Q: When we as beneficiary of a Natural Law Trust, want to make a purchase - say a car - what does the
actual transaction look like?

1) We have our trustee make a deposit into our personal bank account and then we go to the dealership
with funds in hand to make a down payment to a loan or make a purchase. Then there is no evidence of
a trust and the entire transaction is done in our name. Title to the car is in our name too, but then we
convey title into the trust so that it is protect as res.

OR

2) We go into the dealership with a check from the trust to put a down payment to a loan or purchase a
car. We put our name down for the transaction and our name goes on title, but the trust makes the
payment. We then convey title to the trust on the backend to protect it as res.

OR

54
3) We send our trustee in to complete the whole transaction in the name of the trust. Our name appears
nowhere - title is then held right off in the name of the Trust.

A: The good news is that the answer is very simple. It is entirely up to the choice of the creator and the
trustees. The creator, also known as the settlor, grantor, and exchanger, is the one who set the trust up.
It is the responsibility of the trustees to follow the wishes of this individual, even though as settlor, s/he
will have irrevocably signed off any further legal control over the trust at the beginning. As you may
know from reading the eBook, that is one of the secrets of asset protection - - to entrust the assets to the
trustees and relinquish all further legal control.

Control still exists, but it is based more on natural law - - ethics -

- morals - - karma. It is a brotherhood/sisterhood of trust,
wherein we trust each other more than we do the government,
the attorneys, the police, the courts, and the violent military
industrial complex. We trust each other. So, the trustees always
follow the creator's wishes, even though they are - - by design - -
not legally bound to do so. On the other hand, if the trustees
were to act in violation of the covenants in the corpus of the
trust, that would be called a breach, and that can be litigated in
court. We are not aware of any instance where that has ever happened with any of our trusts, but that
kind of enforcement is available.

Nevertheless, in answer to your question, which of the three options you listed would be decided
between the creator-settlor (now signed off), and the trustees. Whichever of the three methods, or
perhaps other alternatives, they decide upon, they can do. In all cases, it must be consistent with any
rules that the creator may have instituted in the trust in the beginning of its creation.

For example, if one of the beneficiaries is ten years old, and the creator has specified in the trust
indenture that the trustees will handle the welfare of the child until he is eighteen, without giving any
purchases or monies directly to the child from the trust until then, it would be a breach to suddenly do
so prior to the specified age. It is also possible that the creator could have given no such specifications.
Many trusts are written with very few rules, or no rules other than those minimum ones that our trust
writer writes into them that are generic to ALL trusts - - in order to make them stand up in integrity.

If the creator had not given any detailed specifications as to if, when, and how assets would be
distributed to the beneficiaries, then decisions could be made between the creator and the trustees
along the way pertaining to distributions that would not have to refer to any rules for compliance. But if
the creator had specified rules, then s/he would be obliged to follow them, unless s/he makes a Letter of
Wishes to the trustees to change the rules.

Bottom line - - it is all up to the creator and the advisement of the trustees to work together to decide if,
how, and when distributions will be made . . . not just to the beneficiaries, but also to other trust officers,

55
including the trustees, or even to a former trust officer - - the creator - - as well as outside parties. There
is no prohibition against the trust making distributions to any party as long as it doesn't violate the
simple standards that come with the trust, and as long as it doesn't violate the protocols laid down in the
trust by the creator at creation.

Q: I wanted to create a natural law trust that I shall use to form a foundation. Trying to research online
how a foundation can be registered in my country, I got this article stating the process:

Establishment of charity foundations in Kenya:

Under Kenyan law a charitable foundations can be established either as:

A company limited by guarantee, or

A charitable trust.

For registration of a charitable trust in Kenya you have to follow a few steps. They include:

[etc. etc. etc. - - the statute goes on to describe the requirements.]

So my question is, will following this process convert my natural law trust into a statutory law
trust?

A: Yes. Therefore please understand that

there is a brotherhood of sovereign trust
users around the world - - some of whom
are the super rich elite, but many of whom
are now average people like us. A sovereign
trust honors the divine right that all human
beings have from their Creator to
voluntarily enter into private contracts with
each other, without requesting permission
from the government and without
registering the trust with the government.

Because of this perspective, you can understand that this is a transnational, global, planetary
consciousness. It does not matter what country someone is in. The universal right of three or four
human beings to go into private contract with each other without interference from “big brother” is
ancient and eternal. It is not under any manmade jurisdiction.

The only time when law enforcement becomes necessary is if the parties to that contract actually
commit harm against others - - the type of harm that constitutes a crime under worldwide common law -
- the kind of crime that any human being in history, from ancient times to the present, would agree is a
crime. It would have to be a violation of that other person’s rights that actually creates a victim. But
then the prosecution of that crime would have nothing to do with the trust contract. It would only have

56
to do with the actions of the individuals who went into the contract. So being, the trust itself remains
aloof, transcendent, and irrelevant to the statutes.

Depending on your philosophy and persuasion, this

gives you the choice of whether to use the registration
procedures of the statutory system, or use instead the
sovereign approach which honors your privacy and
frees you from the obligations of registration,
taxation, licensing, regulations, compliance, fees, and
bureaucracy.

Some people are more comfortable with the statutory system. We wish them well. Others feel much
more at home with the Natural Law Trust approach. That is what we specialize in. If that is what
interests you, we are happy to help.

Q: Can one of my trustees be the nominal grantor?

A: The word is “nominee”, not “nominal”. The answer is yes. Sometimes the client will be grantor and
trustee, but not a beneficiary. The client can wear two hats. Sometimes there is a nominee grantor, and
client is a co-trustee. The other trustee must be non-related to primary trustee or beneficiary. And,
client [co-trustee] has some beneficial interest [2 hats]. As grantor/settlor you have relinquished all
control; therefore you are away from the picture, as grantor. As a co-trustee and not beneficiary, you are
in a professional trustee role to provide service to the trust and beneficiaries.

Q: If I get sued, who will represent me in court since there appears to be a lack of Common Law
attorneys.

A: In the many years we have been selling our natural law trust and thousands sold, we have never had
one customer’s trust get sued. In the rare case you are sued we do have a network of law coaches who
can prepare your court documents and coach you on what to say in court.

Our law coaches are far superior to statutory attorneys in effectiveness. And, there is no such thing as a
“common law attorney”. That is an oxymoron. Either he is an attorney, which is statutory, or he deals
with common law - - which makes it impossible for him to play the role of an attorney and be a member
of the Bar. The word “Bar” derives from “British Accredited Registry”, and the word “attorney” means
“an agent of the court who attorns (turns over) the assets to the court”. It is well known that in order to
pass the Bar, attorneys must confess their loyalty - - NOT to the paying client - - but rather to the court.

The world’s legal systems are infamous for being corrupted by design. But the international
brotherhood of people quietly using common law trusts, and at the highest level, Natural Law Trusts,
have been peacefully enjoying their low profile and their freedom to live outside the whole circus of

57
courts and their dog-and-pony-show litigation systems. It almost feels like we are giving asylum to
refugees who have been abused and made fearful by the statutory systems - - thus resulting in questions
like yours - - worrying about who will defend your trust - - when the truth is, once you are inside the
brave new world of private sovereign trusts, you discover that it is a peaceful and harmonious world
that simply doesn’t suffer from the attacks and conflicts that the “normal” world does.

At the same time, yes, absolutely,

precisely because we DO
understand the many types of
law out there - - admiralty,
maritime, statutory, common
law, the UCC, commercial
remedy, the science of personal
status, kingdom law, canon law,
and so forth, we have a network
of some of the most invincible
and formidable experts in legal
remedy. While it is extremely unlikely you would need them to defend the trust, they are available.

For additional insight, please read the answers to the other related questions herein:

• “Can a Natural Law Trust be sued?”

• “In what instances would the trustee be ordered to go to court?”

• “One thing that concerns me, is simply that, as you mentioned, this trust is not understood by
lawyers. It sounds like if there is ever some problem, the only person that could deal with it is
the trust writer. I wonder if he goes away, where that leaves me. What or how would a situation
like this be handled with this setup? In other words, I am concerned that only one person
understands this and handles this type of trust.”

• “Would we need an attorney?"

Q: Would a Statutory Judge refuse to hear a case with a Common Law Trust?

A: No, because the case would not be about the trust itself. The integrity of the structure of the
trust and the type of law that it is based on is irrelevant to the courts, and therefore unquestionable.
That is one of the reasons these trusts have never been penetrated or invalidated, and in fact cannot be
invalidated.

58
Rather, what would be brought in a case to the court would be either claims against specific assets in the
trust or claims against specific actions by the trust officers. In all such cases, the type of law on which
the trust is based is not something that need be ever mentioned in the case. It is irrelevant. The type of
law on which the trust is based is of no concern.

The trust itself is never subject to the

jurisdiction of any court or any
government. That is why it is referred to
as “sovereign”. However, the actions of
its officers can most certainly be brought
under whatever local jurisdiction they
may be involved with, or whatever
jurisdiction a claimant may be in.
Nevertheless, even so, a trustee is never
personally liable for any claims against
the trust.

Q: How does a nominee grantor work and do they have to sign the trust?

A: Some trust clients want to be trustee. If so, you can’t be both trustee and grantor. Therefore you
need to appoint someone else as the grantor. That other person is referred to as “nominee” because he
didn’t originate the idea of starting the trust. He simply agrees to the proposal of playing a temporary
role. He receives no remuneration for doing so, and has no responsibilities. He signs on as grantor, and
then signs off. As you know, grantors in these trusts always sign off at the beginning as relinquishing all
further involvement or control. Therefore a nominee grantor is the easiest role to fill. There are further
details in the documents that make it lawful and proper, but that’s the essence of it.

Q: Is the need for a second trustee bank-related or is it necessary for the trust to work?

A: Yes to both. It is necessary for the trust to work because people die every day. People become
incapacitated every day. People disappear every day. People go away or change their minds or get lost
or get busy or whatever. For endless reasons, at least one additional trustee - - either current or
successor - - is required to make a trust stand up. It’s like a square table. In order to stand up, it must
have four legs. The trust must have a grantor, a beneficiary, and two trustees, at the absolute minimum.
The bank also requires a second trustee if the creators of the trust wish to open a bank account for it,
because the bank feels liable. What if the bank is holding significant assets for the trust and the single
trustee disappears? The bank needs someone else to turn to.

Q: Can Brilliance in Commerce be the Grantor?

59
A: Our preference is to never be named on the trusts of any of our customers. However, for your
benefit, please know that not a single BIC trust customer has ever had a problem filling this role. If you
can’t find anyone in your friends, family, and associates, you are welcome to discuss the matter with our
trust writer after your purchase. He will be happy to be creative and give you ideas. But it’s nothing to
worry about. As I said, it has never been a problem for any of our other customers.

For clients who need a primary trustee or co-trustee and

absolutely cannot find that person among their circle of
contacts, we do have a partner of BIC who provides
professional trustee services, professional nominee
grantor services, and a monthly webinar training series
for trust clients.

Q: Isn’t getting an identification number from the tax office for the trust subjecting it to statutory
laws and thus putting it at risk of getting audited?

A: This question is very important, but it results from statutory thinking. It assumes that somehow
the agency that would audit the trust, or try to make it liable for taxes, has full information about it.
Statutory trusts that are attorney-created and registered with the state do in fact disclose full
information to the state, but House of Freedom International Natural Law Trusts are not attorney
created, and they are not registered with the state. Therefore they remain private, and the information
about their assets and officers remains private.

This information is relevant in all countries, even though we will use the United States as an example.
The “EIN” means “Employee Identification Number” in the U.S., issued by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS). It is basically the business equivalent of the Social Security Number (SSN) which is issued to
individuals. In other countries, there is an equivalent - - a business identification number issued by the
national tax office.

Normally this number is used for filing tax returns and paying income taxes. In their clever way, they
made it double as an entity identification number for banking. So pretty much worldwide, the
traditional banking systems have cooperated with their national tax agencies by making the number for
taxes and the number for banking one and the same number.

For understandable reasons, hundreds of millions of people worldwide have found ways to operate
outside their respective tax systems, to be independent, private, and free from such requirements. Thus
it is equally understandable that when newcomers to our House of Freedom International Natural Law
Trust (NLT) discover that it too must get a tax ID number to open a bank account, newcomers to this
topic often feel concerned.

60
Their concern is that by getting the number, it is returning to the tax system and putting the entity on
the radar for tax inquiries, filing tax returns, and audits - - involving penalties if one does not file. But
this is a simple misunderstanding. There are different uses for these numbers. On the individual level,
those who have learned how to redocument themselves with a higher status in the government
databases, learn how to use the SSN as one’s vehicle in commerce, rather than as a tax identification
number for oneself. Likewise, for trust contracts, the business number assigned to it can be used simply
as an ID number “for banking purposes only”.

This is not mere theory. It is proven in

practice by millions of people. Personally
known to us are several thousand people
who have been acquiring and operating
our NLT since the 1990s, and to this day
we have never heard of a single instance -
- in any country - - where an NLT was
coerced by any tax agency into disclosing
its records or paying income tax. One of
the reasons for this is that the tax
agencies see it - - if they see it at all - -
merely as a “pass through” entity to the
ultimate taxpayer.

For American Citizens, there are a few methods for being 100% tax exempt on the individual level. One
of these is called the Revocation of Election (ROE). Many people did it incorrectly and failed. But the
perfectly correct way of doing it has seen a 100% success rate. At Brilliance in Commerce we refer
anyone who is interested to one of the best consultants in America, who has a private service that
provides the correct version of the ROE to individuals. Thus far, not a single one of his clients have seen
it fail.

So, American Citizens who have completed the correct ROE would not be contacted by the IRS for tax
liabilities period - - whether because they are the ultimate pass-through recipient of trust proceeds, or
whether they had income from other sources. But even if they had not done the ROE, the trust is still an
exception to the filing and paying laws. The IRS might hold the beneficiaries or other trust officers liable
for taxes individually, but it will not deem the trust itself as taxable, as they see it as just a pass-through
entity, like an LLC.

This gives the operators of an NLT the choice of what to do tax-wise on an individual level, while at the
same time giving them a vehicle that has no tax requirements itself.

The fact that real life experiences amongst thousands of people in various countries have successfully
demonstrated the complete absence of tax problems with NLTs should indicate to all newcomers that
their fears are unfounded.

61
One of the reasons for this absence of problems, though, has to do with the precision with which we
guide our clients in the trust setup and operation, and the acquisition of the ID number. For example, for
those who wish to bank in the United States, we provide exact instructions for precisely how to apply for
the ID number. Each box has to be checked correctly. Incorrect words must be avoided, and correct
words must be given. Thus it is imperative that trust clients wait until they receive their trust with these
instructions before attempting to apply for the number . . . and it is critical that the instructions be
followed exactly.

The instructions are almost the same for all countries, with just minor variations. The basic idea is to
avoid the wrong words and to use the right words. Once the number is obtained, then a similar protocol
must be followed for opening the bank account. Wrong words are to be avoided; correct words are to be
used. Then the ongoing operation of the trust must follow certain rules.

These rules are a tiny percentage of the number of rules that statutory entities must follow. It’s like
driving a car - - you can go anywhere you want, as long as you stay within the traffic lanes and follow
basic driving rules. With statutory trusts, not only do you have to follow traffic rules, but you also are
very limited as to where you are allowed to go . . . and you have long lists of regulations to follow and
fees to pay.

Understanding all this, newcomers must be

crystal clear that merely obtaining an
identification number from a tax agency does
NOT “make the trust subject to statutory laws and
risk being audited”. The mere acquisition of the
number changes nothing about the jurisdiction or
the sovereignty of the trust. It is merely a
number for banking only; nothing else.

Further, the information about the trust that is

given to the tax agency is extremely minimal. The name and individual tax number of only one human
being needs to be given as the “responsible party”, and NLTs allow anyone to play that role. Even if the
trust creator himself or herself plays this role, there is no tax consequence by giving this number,
because the trust is nontaxable and the individual responsible party is only an officer of it.

No disclosure is given as to what type of trust it is, except “irrevocable”. Thus other than that, no
information is given to the tax agency as to the structure of the trust, the laws on which it is based, who
the trust officers are, what its assets are, on whose behalf the assets are being held, or any other
information. For all they know, this trust entity might be one created by a member of the elite.
Therefore, the tax agencies generally remain quiet, hands-off, and noninvasive.

If a would-be attacker were to contemplate attacking such a trust, how would it do so without having full
information about exactly whom it is attacking? Without knowing everything about the trust, it could

62
not mount an intelligent attack. That is one of the reasons these trusts are safe. They operate under the
international and universal right of private contract, and they exercise their right to keep most of their
information private.

Q: Can the Nominee Grantor and Successor Trustee be related (husband and wife)?

A: Yes, on the condition that the other trustee is non-related. This follows the cardinal rule that a
trustee can be related to the grantor only if the other trustee is not related, regardless of whether the
trustee referred to is current or successor, and regardless of whether the grantor is nominee or original.

Q: Can the Nominee Grantor and the Successor Trustee, as well as me (Managing Trustee), also be
Beneficiaries?

A: Yes, on the condition that there are also other beneficiaries who are non-related and who are
not trust officers.

Q: Can Beneficiaries be subtracted and added over time?

A: Yes, as long as the number doesn’t go below 1. 1 is the minimum. There is no maximum.

Q: If I create more than one Trust, do I need different officers for each Trust?… Or can I use the
same people I chose for the first Trust?

A: No, there is no requirement for you to appoint different officers. The same people can create as
many different trusts as they want. It was rumored in the early 1990s that the Rockefeller family had
some 7000 of these trusts.

Q: If I set up my Trust now in Canada, and then move to the US, would this cause complications?

A: No. Your question arises from statutory thinking, so if our trust were statutory, you might be
correct - - that changing domicile might cause complications that would require re-doing the paperwork.
But in the case of our Natural Law Trusts, the fact that they are non-statutory makes them non-attached
to any particular jurisdiction. That frees its officers to move, travel, and operate anywhere in the world,
without any changes needed to the trust at all. That is why we call them “international”. The only thing
that might change is where one’s bank account for the trust is.

Q: What would be the best way for us to set up the BIC Trust so that my three business partners
and I can receive 25% of our company’s profits each, in equal annual disbursements?

A: This can be done in several ways. From one perspective, you can know that it is not necessary to
figure all this out before you obtain your trust. Once you are a paid trust client, you have carte blanche
unlimited private consulting with our trust writer and the rest of us at BIC on many more details in your
trust setup, arrangements, layering, structuring, operations, estate engineering, financial planning, and
deal making.

63
Nevertheless, suffice it to say for now, the recipients of the disbursements can either be made
beneficiaries, or play no role whatsoever in the trust itself, other than contractors. The trust can
contract with outside parties and do deals with them without making them trust beneficiaries. The
choice of making them beneficiaries might be favored if paying them is the main reason, or one of the
main reasons, for setting the trust up . . . and if it is anticipated that the distributions to them will
continue for a long enough period - - and will constitute a large enough percentage of the trust’s assets -
- that it would make sense to dignify them with the title of trust beneficiaries. It is your choice.

Getting into greater details than this would be better addressed to your BIC trust writer, after you have
become a paid trust client.

Q: Can 4 equal trustees also be 4 equal beneficiaries?

A: Yes, as long as they are not the only beneficiaries. Whenever one person is both a trustee and a
beneficiary, it is necessary to have at least one other beneficiary as well, who is not a trustee.

Q: We want to run all this through a Private Membership Club, with a PMA. Will that complicate
the use of the Trust?

A: It is possible that in your discussions with our trust writer, you may discover that the features of
the trust make the club redundant and unnecessary. But if reasons exist to continue anyway with the
club idea, it need not be prohibitively complicated. The club could be made an asset of the trust, and its
fees could be payable to the trust. Plus there are other possible arrangements that could be made.
People work with LLCs, and make the trust own up to 98% of them. People work with foundations, and
discover they can operate the trust as a foundation, thus making a statutory foundation unnecessary. So
the same could occur with your club and your Private Membership Association (PMA). Greater details
can be discussed with our trust writer after you become a trust client.

Q: I heard that if the Trust pays the taxes on the

profits earned, then when it is dispersed, it is not
taxed again. Is this true? We don’t want any issues
with the IRS.

A: Ah well, this indicates that you have not read

the eBook (this book). The seriousness, sincerity,
and thoroughness of your questions show that you
are determined to create a perfect arrangement . . .
and so if you are that dedicated and that determined,
you should at least take a few hours and read the
eBook. It is available in the trust section of the
website for download as a pdf.

64
You will not have any issues with the IRS (and for clients in other countries, this applies to your tax
agencies too) if you understand the Natural Law Trust (NLT) correctly and if you set it up and operate it
correctly. One of the biggest mistakes you could make is to get a Natural Law Trust and engage even in
one communication with the IRS about it. The only exception is the application for the EIN, which is for
banking purposes only. So the IRS will know of the existence of the name, and one or two facts, but
nothing more. Most of the information about who the officers are, what the assets are, and what is being
done with them, is unavailable to the IRS and is never disclosed to them.

So whatever you have heard, did not apply to the NLT. It must have been some other trust you were
referring to. The NLT has no paying or filing requirements, as clearly explained in the eBook. “The only
rights you have, are the rights you know you have.” Let that sink in until it is crystal clear.

If you were to file a return for an NLT and pay, even once, then you are stuck with that relationship for
the rest of the life of the trust. Observe this truth and guide your actions accordingly.

Again, read the eBook, and especially read the tax section and the FAQs. Then hopefully both your
confusion and your worries will completely evaporate. We’ve been involved with these trusts since the
1980s, so we have over four decades of proven experience, with thousands of clients. Not one single
problem with the IRS (or any other tax agency) has occurred, ever, with any of these trusts - - but again,
on the condition that the client using and operating the trust understands the trust’s right to privacy - -
and operates it accordingly. The good news is, “operating it accordingly” is actually about 100 times
easier than operating it in compliance with the overwhelming myriad of statutory regulations and tax
rules.

Q: I see that the trust can be set up as an Irrevocable trust, can it be set up as a Discretionary trust
for the purpose of family planning like Belize where the beneficiaries can be named at a future time
when? Thank you.

A: Yes, orienting the trust as discretionary is one of the many flexibilities afforded the superior
Natural Law Trust design. In fact the standard theme is already discretionary in the way they are
written.

Just please understand that at least one beneficiary must be named, to make the trust valid. That does
not obligate you to make distributions to that beneficiary at any particular time, if at all. It just has to be
named. It could be a charity or humanitarian project, and its directors do not even have to be notified
that you have named them as a beneficiary. Or if you name a family member, that is fine too, but as I
said, distributions are optional. The only time distributions would be mandatory is when you have
written it into the trust as a commitment accordingly. This means you call the shots - - you make the
decisions as to if and when distributions are made.

Belize is a friendly jurisdiction and members of our BIC administration have done business and held
trusts there in the past, but trust arrangements there are inferior to the International Natural Law Trust

65
(NLT) offered by BIC, because no matter how friendly the laws may be in Belize, trusts set up under
those laws still make them statutory. The laws could always change next year, due to new legislation.
By contrast, no law can ever change the freedom enjoyed by a NLT, because it isn’t subject to legislated
statutes.

Q: Can a protector only fire trustees? If so, that means to appoint a new trustee, an existing trustee
has to be the one to do it, yes?

A: No, a protector can fire and then hire the replacement trustee. He must follow the rules: if he
fires a related trustee then he can hire a related trustee. But if un-related, he must replace with non-
related trustee.

Q: I wish to be the Executive Manager and Protector. I wish to be the main signatory. Will this
work?

A: No, a protector cannot be related to an executive manager or trustees or beneficiaries. If you

wish to be main signatory, you need to be one of the trustees, and choose someone else as a protector.
You cannot be both a trustee and a protector. A protector can only fire and hire trustees, only upon good
cause, such as fiduciary malfeasance. A protector cannot be signatory on the bank account. So, if you
wish to be main signatory, assign a trustee role to yourself. Select a nominee grantor and someone else
as protector, and you can be a trustee with a co-trustee or successor trustee, as long as you are not the
sole beneficiary.

Q: If I understand you correctly, the equity jurisdiction of the trust also places it under the
jurisdiction of the territorial and municipal courts, n'est-ce pas?

A: First, where did you get the idea

that the Natural Law Trust is under any
jurisdiction? Wouldn't it be rather
contradictory for us to refer to it as
"sovereign" and at the same time say it
is under some manmade governmental
jurisdiction? Let's analyze the only
sentence in the indenture that applies
to this:

"Its existence, validity, and authority are from the unalienable right to contract, under the common law
as it exists in the <State of Location1>, protected by the 1789 Constitution of the United States of
America, Article 1, Section.10, and needs no permission or franchise from the state to exist or function."

The first thing you need to know about this is you can replace that sentence with any jurisdictional
statement that you wish. The point is to satisfy the requirement to state under what kind of body of law
it exists. The above sentence basically avoids placing the trust under ANY particular body of law,

66
because the "unalienable right to contract" is pretty much universal. In 1954, the Uniform Commercial
Code became the international standard umbrella under which all other laws operate, and the UCC is
basically contract law. In addition, the unalienable right to contract is affirmed in numerous US
Supreme Court cases. The most famous of these is Hale vs. Henkle of 1905 - - one of the most quoted
court cases in history, which has never been overturned.

Mark Emery of Lighthouse Law Club has a trust almost identical to our Natural Law Trust, and one of its
only differences is that it states its authority is the British Common Law as practiced in the country of
Anguilla, and flies the flag of Anguilla on its cover. So you can see that any geographic location that the
trust operator considers to be harmonious with its purposes can be cited. But in all cases, the indenture
sentence says that the trust "needs no permission or franchise from the state to exist or function."

So being, the only thing that could ever be litigated in any jurisdiction would be the actions of the trust
officers - - not the trust itself. The trust itself has never been penetrated or invalidated anywhere, and in
fact cannot be invalidated. Only the actions of its officers could be challenged in litigation. While we are
not aware of any of our trust clients ever having had that happen either, the point is, only the actions of
the officers could be subject to a court action - - not the validity of the trust itself.

Q: What can one of these trusts do for me that a Wyoming LLC cannot, or, why do they compliment
each other?

A: As with all statutory entities, a Wyoming LLC carries with it all the limitations and responsibilities
of any statutory entity. Even though Wyoming, New Mexico, and Nevada are three of the best states in
which to incorporate, to maximize privacy and minimize taxes, they still nevertheless are subject to the
whims of the legislature. Are you thinking short term or long term? If you want to leave a legacy for
future generations, how do you know the state in which you have incorporated will not have changed all
its laws by then?

With a NLT, it goes on generation after generation. It can be renewed every 21 years. It transcends the
changing whims of governmental legislation. It is impervious to the changing policies of congresses and
parliaments. It is based on principles that are timeless and can never become extinct. This is the very
best of long-term thinking.

In addition, an LLC owes fees once a year. What if those fees are not paid? The LLC can be shut down.
Not so with the NLT. The NLT never owes any fees for its existence to anyone or anything.

Further, LLCs have to file tax returns. They may or may not owe any taxes, but they have to report.
Even tax exempt 501(c)3s have to file. It's like they're saying, "O dear Mr. Taxman, I hereby bow at your
feet. Here is every penny that came in and every penny that went out. Is that okay? Can I be approved
to exist another year?"

67
Any statutory entity, no matter how friendly the jurisdiction may be, can be interfered with or
terminated by the state that sponsored it, for any reason at any time. And you are asking "What can one
of these trusts do for me that a Wyoming LLC cannot?"

Q: Does having one of these trusts raise my profile with the IRS [or the tax agency of any country]?

A: We have never heard of this happening to any of thousands of clients in three decades. Nor is there
any logical reason why it should happen.

Q: Have your trusts been attacked and have they been successfully defended? Who defends them?

A: They have not been attacked because thus far, knock on wood, we have been fortunate enough to
attract intelligent clients who follow some basic simple rules of trust conduct. But in case they ever are
attacked, suffice it to say that we have an international network of powerful legal counsel who
understand these instruments very well and know superior methods of defense, invincibility, and
counter-attack if necessary.

Q: From what I’ve seen so far you guys still recommend to get a TIN [Tax Identification Number]
but only to get a bank account. I also read that you do not have to use a TIN or an SS [Social Security]
number if you open a non-interested checking account. Though it may be harder to obtain a bank
account is it not better not to have a TIN so the Trust cannot be tracked? For example I hear that it’s the
number one way the IRS can find your checking account. Basically, by tracking the TIN or SS number.

A: We appreciate that you are expressing your

concerns and we appreciate your interest in the Natural
Law Trust (NLT). However, you are obviously speaking
from inexperience and basing your concerns on fear,
rumors and hearsay which are totally inaccurate. Let us
clear up the matter once and for all for you.

Your statement about a “non-interested checking

account” is strange, because ALL checking accounts are
non-interest bearing. We have never heard of a
checking account that DOES pay interest. The only
accounts that most banks have that are non-interest
bearing are savings accounts. And even those require
some kind of tax ID number.

Have you ever opened a bank account, savings or checking, interest bearing or otherwise, without an
SSN or EIN - - some kind of IRS tax ID number? You see, it would be your experience that would prove
or disprove the rumors you are hearing.

68
We base our trust procedures on experience - - three decades of it, and four or five decades if you
include our mentors and teachers. That’s up to 50 years of direct experience, which to this day has
overwhelmingly disproven your concerns.

The truth that you need to understand right now, very clearly, is that not once in these 50 years have
ANY of us ever had a problem with the IRS with these trusts. A few people were stupid and foolish
enough to run to an IRS agent and ask about their policies towards them, and of course were given the
standard B.S. from their international crime syndicate bosses. But the vast majority, 99.9%, who kept
quiet, have done just fine, thank you.

Hence our approach is to simply remain silent about them. We don’t ask and we don’t tell. They don’t
ask and they pretend they don’t exist. If you are wise, you will simply learn from the successful
experience of others and keep quiet about these trusts when it comes to accountants, attorneys, and IRS
agents. Just keep quiet.

When an EIN is applied for, the only details furnished to the IRS are its name, that the trust is
“irrevocable”, who is the “responsible party”, and the SSN of the responsible party. That’s it. The
responsible party doesn’t have to be you. It can be anyone that you appoint. And besides, we have never
heard, in 50 years, of ANY responsible party ever being made responsible for the taxes or liabilities of
one of these NLTs.

By the above you can see that precious little information about the trust is given to the IRS. The IRS
doesn’t know whether it is statutory or nonstatutory, so it merely assumes that it is statutory . . . but we
don’t want to get into the argument with them by asserting that it isn’t. We just let them think what they
want to think . . . and we keep quiet because we know our rights. You have to know your rights too.

You have the Supreme Court-confirmed right to enter into private contract without interference by the
government, and without being compelled to disclose that contract’s private details, unless there is
evidence that one of the signatories has committed a major crime - - a crime with a victim - - where
harm was done. Absent of that, the government cannot compel anyone to disclose anything about the
trust.

Nor have we ever heard of one of these NLTs being audited. It is impossible to audit something whose
information is private, which has no filing requirements, and for all practical purposes is almost
invisible. For all the IRS knows, this trust might be the private contract of someone connected to the
Rockefeller family, or the Rothschilds, or some other elite family. They use them. So they are not going
to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing their collection agency to go nosing around into these
entities.

Yes, the name of the trust is in the government and banking databases. Yes, the bank account deposit
amounts are visible to these databases. So what? That means nothing. It doesn’t mean they have any

69
information from anywhere about what kind of trust it is (other than irrevocable). And it doesn’t mean
they have any information from anywhere about who the real signatories are behind the trust.

And they have no right to ask, unless they get a court order, and the court order cannot be issued unless
there is solid evidence of a real crime having been committed. Generally they won’t bother, because
they risk upsetting some of their own elite people, if they accidentally stumble upon the discovery that
elite family members are behind it. So they leave them alone. Our five decades of experience has proven
this.

Do you understand? So stop worrying, and have some peace of mind that people with far more
experience than you in these things have already long since proven the absence of such concerns. We
would not be publishing our website, our eBook, and our webinars, if the problem you have imagined
were a real one.

Q: I've been thinking to do a will to pass my possessions to others after I pass on. I've read that a
living trust is better for that (as compared to your NLT), easier and less probate. It can be done with or
without the last will. Do you agree?

A: Thank you for your inquiry, but you have heard very incorrectly and you have been misguided.
Have you read our trust eBook? It doesn’t sound like it. If you are comparing estate planning entities, it
is fairly necessary for you to have the knowledge provided in the trust eBook before knowing what is
best for you.

A will is inferior and unnecessary when you have an

NLT. And who told you that “a living trust is better
for that (as compared to your NLT), easier and less
probate”? I’d like to know what they were smoking.
It is well known, even in the statutory asset
protection world, that a living trust isn’t worth the
paper it is written on when it comes to asset
protection. About the only thing that it can do is
avoid probate, but so can the NLT. A living trust is
full of statutory requirements, fees, and complicated
legalese that can only be interpreted by an attorney.

Attorneys make their livelihood on statutory

legalese. That is why they hate the common law and natural law. And that is why they will steer you
away from the NLT. Therefore, that is why it is foolish to ask them about the NLT. They don’t make
their living from it, and furthermore, both their law schools and their peer groups have brainwashed
them against the very instruments that their own elite puppet masters in the Bilderbergers and
Committee of 300 have used for generations. Talk about ignorant!

70
So, we quietly use the same advanced trust technology that the elite have used, but we use it to free
people and make the world a better place. It is part of a new dawn of human civilization that is
happening.

Do you know the difference between statutory law, common law, and natural law? Once again, it is very
highly recommended that you read the trust eBook, including the section on the different types of law
and the FAQ section. We expect that once you understand the knowledge there, you will see the nearly
infinite advantages of the NLT over any other kind of estate planning or asset protection instrument.
May your studies go well!

Q: How do we have our own money if one cannot purchase without a trustee signing checks?

A: Well, that is why many NLT clients become their own trustees. If you are your own trustee, then
you do all the signing on your own expenditures. Or the other way you do it is you have yourself
appointed as the manager. You either have yourself appointed as the trustee or the manager. If you are
the manager, then the trustee authorizes you to take care of the daily operation of the trust, which
includes holding the checkbook, the password login, the debit cards, and the authority to send bank
wires, etc.

The less involved way that it is done is to give the trustees a Letter of Wishes every time you want
money to be sent out or transactions done. Since that is inconvenient, it is usually done infrequently by
those who have that arrangement. For example, you could have the trust turn over certain amounts of
money to you periodically via a Letter of Wishes, and then you make your expenditures and
transactions. You could even have the trustees approve an ongoing automatic transfer of money
monthly or quarterly to you. Hence they could put it on autopilot - - in fulfillment of your Letter of
Wishes only once - - but the autopilot would generate the transfers on a regular basis whenever you
have specified.

But the more direct way is for you to be the trustee, or for you to be the manager appointed by the
trustees to manage the daily affairs of the banking and so on for the trust. It all depends upon how
hands-on you want to be, how active you want to be, and how frequently you believe you will be
creating transactions.

Q: Please can you confirm if you can set up a pure common law family trust foundation?

A: Absolutely, of course, yes. Have you read the Natural Law Trust eBook? As you can see in there,
the NLT is the best template in the world from which to create a foundation, a family trust, a pure trust,
and a common law trust.

Some would actually call our NLT a “common law trust”, as the trust itself is based on common law. We
only use the words Natural Law because our perfection of the application of the common law
synthesizes all the highest relevant laws in the world when it comes to contracts, including the Uniform
Commercial Code, Kingdom Law, Canon Law, and the common sense ethics of human relationships

71
codified in centuries of tradition via common law in the international brotherhood of trust experience.
Thus it is closer to universal Natural Law than the sometimes imperfect manmade common law.

In the eBook you will see that it is infinitely flexible. Our Brilliance in Commerce House of Freedom
International Natural Law Trust is the apex, the quintessence, and the epitome of generations of
evolving perfection in the science and art of world-class asset protection - - stemming from what the
super rich elite originally had, and raised to levels of purity that minimize the chances of misuse.

As long as the basic protocols outlined in the trust itself and its manual are followed, which are much
simpler than any statutory foundation or trust, it can be structured to achieve any noble purpose - -
whether to be a foundation that makes philanthropic grants, a foundation that receives donations, or a
family holding trust, a business trust, a facilitator of humanitarian projects, a charity, a scientific
institute, an educational institute, a spiritual center, or any other worthy cause.

It is sovereign, in that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of any manmade principality on Earth, and thus
does not derive its permission to exist or its authenticity from any government. It has a 100% success
rate, in that it has never been penetrated or invalidated, and in fact cannot be invalidated. No NLT has
ever lost its assets due to its design. It has no weaknesses or vulnerabilities. It is intrinsically invincible.

It can be multi-layered, with additional NLTs serving

as trustees or beneficiaries, and it can be the holder
of the assets of statutory entities like LLCs,
corporations, and IBCs. There is really no limit to
what can be done with it, as long as the basic
guidelines set out in it are followed. So yes, we
believe you will be infinitely happier with the NLT
experience for decades and centuries to come . . . and
your heirs . . . than you would be if you had merely a
limited foundation created under some
governmental statutes that could change next year
with some new legislation. The NLT can go on generation after generation, because no congressional or
parliamentary legislation will ever make any difference to its existence and the enjoyment of its welfare.

Q: Is the Trust the same as the Private Asset Management System. If they are not the same then
what is the difference?

A: Mark Emery’s Private Asset Management System is fully described at

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/pams. It includes his version of BIC’s Natural Law Trust. His is called
the COLATO, which stands for Common Law Trust Organization.

The main difference between Mark’s COLATO and BIC’s NLT is that the COLATO is jurisdiction-specific.
It is domiciled in Anguilla and flies the flag of Anguilla on its cover. The reason Anguilla was chosen is

72
that it is under British Common Law, so the common law trust could have an actual national government
to look to for its authority. This is useful especially for foreign business, offshore activities, and
international asset protection.

By contrast, the NLT has elected to have no domicile or jurisdiction. The trust contract may cite the
common laws of an American state, or any location in the world, but the trust itself operates under the
inviolable universal right of private contract. Rules of contract law are governed by the UCC, which is
global, but the trust is sovereign in the sense that its right to exist is not dependent upon the permission
of any authority. Only the specific actions of its officers may be subjected to limited jurisdictions if
needed.

The other main difference is the COLATO provides no choice in who is designated as the trustee. It
provides a Panama foundation as the trustee.

With BIC’s NLT, the client himself can be the trustee if he chooses, and if he learns how. Or he can
appoint a friend as trustee. He can even name a family member as trustee if he appoints a nominee
grantor, and is not grantor himself. Further, BIC’s NLT can also provide a professional trustee service,
like the COLATO, if the client desires. So there are more choices.

Q: I've come across some research from another individual that suggests the corporation sole for
families and what they call a religious trust. Is this similar to the Natural Law Trust, or is it a more
complicated way of "owning nothing, control everything"?

A: Our BIC trust writer, whom you may have seen in our trust webinars, also writes corporations
sole. However, we do not recommend them for most people, because they are statutory. We have heard
horrendous stories of people who had them shut down and their assets confiscated because they were
using them as tax shelters. Those were NOT our clients; they were simply people about whom we have
heard.

The only way a corporation sole works successfully is if the creator of it is actually running a real
religious or spiritual organization, with real meetings, a real brick and mortar building, real community
participation, community service, and so on - - all the things you would see in an active church, mosque,
temple, or synagogue.

Even then a Natural Law Trust can own that kind of organization and protect it just as well as a
corporation sole can . . . and an NLT cannot be shut down, because it isn’t statutory and isn’t issued by
any governmental authority. We have a 100% success rate with the NLT going back many decades, in
that not a single one of them has ever been invalidated or penetrated - - and in fact cannot be
invalidated.

73
Q: I have a question in regards to jurisdiction of the trusts that are available through Brilliance in
Commerce. I would like to know if the decision by the Supreme Court in 2011 to allow judges to
suspend the Constitution in the court room has any adverse effect on the soundness of the common law
trust. In other words; does it compromise the strength of the trust at all?

A: Well, our first question is, did you read the trust eBook? In particular, did you read the section
on the different types of law on pages 5 through 7?

In there, we tried to make it very plain that the trust is not subject to the jurisdiction of any government
or any body of law - - including the Constitution or the Supreme Court. While we do sometimes cite US
Supreme Court cases to show the agreement of the court with the universal right to contract, such as
Hale v. Henkle, it in no way suggests that the trust derives its authority to exist from the court.

Therefore it is irrelevant whether the court can set aside the Constitution or not. For two or more
individuals to enter into a private contract with each other, without the obstruction or interference by
any government, is a universal right - - as long as the actions emanating from that contract are not
violating the rights of others.

One of the reasons we say our NLT has a 100% success rate is
that it has never been invalidated. In fact, it cannot be
invalidated by any authority, because its right to exist derives
from Natural Law, which transcends any individual human body
of law. Furthermore, it has never been penetrated.

We say it is sovereign because its right to exist is not subject to

any jurisdiction. The problem of trust officers potentially
committing crimes is solved by the fact that their individual
actions CAN be subjected to limited jurisdiction - - specifically to
address those actions - - and those actions only. The trust itself transcends any jurisdiction.

Your question is a good one . . . and thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify; but that is why we
have tried to make it very plain in the eBook that nothing any government does and nothing any court
does has any effect on the trust’s right to exist.

Q: I'm confused: can grantor also be trustee? Why or why not?

A: Well, think about it for a minute. In the eyes of all the world, a trust is supposed to be an
arrangement whereby someone entrusts assets with someone else to be held in safekeeping for some
future purpose. If the grantor were also the trustee, that means someone is entrusting those assets with
himself or herself. It is just common sense that anyone anywhere would see that as absurd and
meaningless. Thus indeed, it is considered to be a sham in the trust world. It is not really a trust. If
someone were to create an entity like that, it could fall apart very easily with the very slightest wind of
challenge blowing by.

74
Our Natural Law Trusts are invincible and bullet-proof precisely because they adhere to the commonly
recognized universal protocols of trust integrity.

Q: Can there be three alternate acting trustees all related to each other?

A: The only way the trust could stand up strong with an arrangement like that is if there is also
another trustee unrelated to those three, and also if none of them are related to the grantor.

Q: Why, if this is a Natural Law Trust/Common Law Trust that is not statutory that we cannot
choose as Grantors who we want for First Acting Trustee, even if it is ourselves? seems to me the control
should be in our hands, not in the hands of the fiction.

A: If you hold an apple in your hand and drop it to the floor, it will follow the law of gravity without
being subject to any statutory law. If you always speak kind words to people, the good vibrations you
are sending out will inevitably return to you because it is the law of karma. This too has nothing to do
with statutory law or any manmade law.

In the same way, there are universal principles that operate in the trust world that have nothing to do
with any bodies of statutes or governmental jurisdictions. These are what developed into what is
known as “common law” - - meaning don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t harm others. These are
basic ABCs that are universally accepted everywhere, regardless of the legal system or jurisdiction.

The NLT has derived its basic modus operandi from a consensus distillation of all the most essential
requirements for anyone anywhere to view the trust as legitimate, regardless of legal system or
jurisdiction. In that sense, it can be called a “common law” trust, because it is based on the conclusions
of centuries of human experience that have culminated in a set of unavoidable timeless principles.

We simply prefer the term “natural law” because there are so many inferior so-called common law
trusts out there that we wanted to distinguish ours from the weak ones and the ones that are incorrectly
designed. We respect natural law as being totally perfect, absolutely universal, and eternally immutable.
What people call common law is man’s best attempt at emulating universal natural law.

This awareness of law recognizes that everyone can do anything he or she pleases, as long as such
actions do not violate the rights of any other sentient being. It also recognizes that one should always
keep one’s word - - one’s contracts; one’s agreements.

The question you have raised of a grantor also being a trustee is not a question of one’s freedom from
statutes. It is a question of how to make a logical arrangement in contract between two or more human
beings that makes sense and that would hold up in a court in case it were ever challenged. It makes no
sense to anyone that one would entrust an asset only to oneself. That is exactly the same as simply
keeping the asset and not having a trust at all, as stated inter alia.

75
There is an international brotherhood-sisterhood of common law trusts. It is not a body of government-
enforced statutory law. Rather, it is a loose and decentralized global community of like-minded people
who would rather trust each other than big brother and its brute force mechanisms.

This global community has distilled the essence of commonly agreed-upon principles over centuries of
life experience. One of these principles is that in order for a trust to be respected and recognized as
legitimate, its trustees must be separate and different from the grantor, and must be unrelated to the
grantor.

If you are concerned about having legal and practical control of the trust, then perhaps you should
consider being the trustee. In that case, then simply find someone else to sign on as the grantor. That
could be a friend or really anyone. That is what is called a “nominee grantor”, because in an irrevocable
trust, the grantor signs on at the beginning and also signs off at the beginning - - right after signing on.

He or she signs off as relinquishing all further control and all further involvement with the trust, except
as perhaps the issuer of letters of wishes. But if you are the one setting up the trust and you wish to be
trustee, then the nominee grantor you appoint would rightfully not be expected to issue letters of
wishes. That person would simply sign off and disappear and have nothing further to do with the trust.

The assets can be contributed by anyone. The assets

put into the trust don’t need to come just from the
grantor. They can also come from the trustees. So
the grantor need not be seen as the only contributor.
If it is a nominee grantor, you could:

• give the nominee grantor $21;

• have yourself written into the trust as one of the trustees;
• have the grantor give the $21 back to you now in your new role as trustee, but that
exchange would not be to you personally - - it would be to the trust, and you are simply the
fiduciary accepting it on behalf of the trust;
• record the minutes accordingly;
• and now the grantor signs the page resigning from his position and relinquishing all further
involvement.

That makes the trust properly set up according to what we call trust law - - the international tradition of
commonly accepted requirements to make any trust integral and legitimate. Then as trustee, there is
nothing to stop you from adding an endless stream of additional assets into the trust.

Another way you can go is to be grantor, beneficiary, and manager . . . and as manager, you can also have
practical control of the trust and its assets. It’s just that then you would have to appoint at least two
other unrelated people as primary trustee and second current trustee OR successor trustee. All of this is

76
reviewed in the Natural Law Trust eBook in the section entitled “18 - Roles of the creator, trustee, and
beneficiary”. Have you read that?

Q: My husband and I have had a long history in the finance world and have set up many trusts and
private foundations in the past – none of which we want to use now as they all have a history and we feel
do not offer the level of protection we are looking for. We have been researching Corporation Soles for
some time and talking to people who have successfully set them up and using them – but all are in USA
so we have been a little stumped as to how we might go in Oz setting one up. Then we started
researching starting a ministry, charitable trusts etc. Then we stumbled across your videos & website.
My biggest concern with a Natural Law Trust is how we enforce it in this totally corrupt CaBAAL
operated Statute Law system (albeit, not for much longer). If we place a high value asset e.g.: a home in
it – will it be recognized as a protected trust asset in the eyes of the law as it stands today or are we
potentially setting up a big problem for our children down the track as part of our succession planning?

A: Your wisdom, intelligence, and good fortune are appreciated for having come so far in your
wonderful diversity of experience, knowledge, and study. To have arrived at Brilliance in Commerce is
more beneficial for you than you may have realized.

We too have long experience and study in all of the varied types of asset protection you mentioned. In
fact, our trust writer also knows how to set up Corporations Sole, but 99% of the time, even for
Americans, it is inferior to the Natural Law Trust. The NLT can do everything that the CS can do, and
more, without the disadvantages and limitations.

Your concern about enforcement is appreciated and we sympathize with the perspective you have on
the corruption of the cabal-controlled courts. The good news is that our clients have stayed completely
out of trouble and not a single one of them has ever lost an asset out of the NLT due to its design. If they
purchased shares of stock and the price went down, of course that is beyond the control of the trust and
is not the NLT’s fault. Same with real estate. But no NLT has ever been penetrated or invalidated, and
thus no asset has ever been lost due to any weakness of the NLT. That’s a 100% success rate, spanning
five decades - - three decades for those of us at BIC and two more decades for our mentors.

If enforcement of the rights of an NLT were ever to become necessary, it would be easy to achieve, even
in today’s courts, by providing limited jurisdiction - - not over the trust itself, but only over the actions
or transactions of its members. Actually, it is more likely that the litigation would focus on the actions of
parties outside the trust - - and therefore would never place the trust itself under a microscope. The
focus would be on other outside parties and their actions.

Even if enforcement were necessary to protect the assets in a NLT, such enforcement could be achieved
under contract law. The global trunk of the legal tree is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which
became operational worldwide in 1954. While usually litigation does not cite the UCC laws directly, all
the various statutes in federal, state, county, and municipal jurisdictions derive their commercial
principles from the UCC. They have to be in harmony with it in order to thrive in the global marketplace.

77
This means that it is virtually guaranteed that whatever jurisdiction your litigation may be in, will have
statutes that could be invoked to protect the right of contract under which the NLT operates. This is the
best of both worlds, because the NLT itself still remains sovereign and outside the jurisdiction of any
authority for its existence, but its right to asset protection is enforceable under the contract laws of any
jurisdiction anywhere in the world . . . as derived ultimately from the UCC.

Further, it is of paramount importance for you to

realize that the complete absence of any such
litigation or court battles in three decades among
our NLT clients - - as well as the total absence of
any trust penetration or invalidation - -
demonstrates that the proper operation of these
trusts, administered according to our guidance,
keeps our clients out of the arena of even the need
to defend the NLTs.

In military science, that is considered to be the

supreme ideal: to achieve victory before war, by preventing the birth of an enemy.

Hence our clients have been quietly enjoying their impervious asset protections and growing prosperity
without having to shout it from the rooftops or defend it loudly in the crass and corrupt for-profit
casinos and corporations disguised as courts of law.

Your question is excellent and your concern is legitimate. It is equally true that any fears about this
unsurpassed form of asset protection have no basis in reality. Congratulations to you for discovering it.

We are also among a very tiny number of trust companies that allow our clients to choose whether:

• to be the trustees, themselves;

• to choose a friend as a trustee; or
• to have us provide a professional trustee.

Since the NLT is irrevocable, if we were to require that we be the trustees, and give no other choice, the
prospective client would have a valid reason for concern and suspicion. I myself wouldn’t do business
with such a company! But the fact that we offer, and even encourage, the client to be his or her own
trustee, shows that one of the reasons for the great success of our clients is the peace of mind they
achieve by having both legal and practical control over their trusts. And of course the second best
option we provide is for the client to choose a trustworthy friend as trustee.

Certainly there are right and wrong ways to operate as trustee, and certain protocols must be followed
to make it work properly, but suffice it to say, it isn’t difficult. We provide ongoing monthly training
webinars to furnish all the necessary guidance, as well as a bibliography of recommended books to read,
and full one-on-one access to our trust writer at any time via phone, email, and Skype - - after one has

78
become a paid client. There are no further fees for this consultation unless it were to expand beyond the
scope of the original trust purchased.

Q: I always assumed that Natural Law Trusts was just a fancy name for common law trusts. If not,
what is the difference between Natural Law Trusts and Common Law Trusts? What is the wording that
makes them different? Anything else makes them different?

A: Yes, your original assumption was correct. At BIC we chose this “fancy name” because there are
so many inferior common law trusts out there that are written poorly and incorrectly, and have gotten
their operators in trouble. We wanted to distinguish our common law trust clearly from theirs.

The way ours are written is so far superior that not a single one of our clients over five decades has ever
had a problem due to the trust design. None of them have lost any assets due to the trust being
penetrated, and the trust has never been invalidated. In fact, it really cannot be invalidated.

In a way, it’s not a different kind of law on which it is based. It is still common law. It’s just that it has
faithfully adhered to all the best common principles so well, and the language has been simplified with
such skill, that it has become far more powerful as a result. It says more in fewer words, so it is very
concentrated and potent.

We have distilled the essence of the best practices in the arena of common law, harmonized it with the
global UCC, and achieved an instrument that works globally, without subjecting itself as an entity to any
jurisdiction. The only thing that could be subjected to certain jurisdictions would be the specific actions
or transactions, which means it would be limited jurisdiction - - but the trust itself is not able to be so
subjected.

There are many other reasons why it is superior to “common” common law trusts, which are explained
in the eBook. Did you read that?

Because common law is humanity’s best effort to emulated natural law, we simply decided to call it
“natural law”. Thank you for your question.

Q: Have you had people in [a certain country - - this is relevant to ALL countries] easily get an
exception for tax payments/lodgement for an NLT?

A: Yes, but you must understand that the existence of the exception is not something the
government gives, and it is not something you ask for. If it were an exemption, then yes, you would
apply for it and get it. But an “exception” means there is no requirement to apply for it, and the gov’t is
not going to grant it, because it isn’t in their statutes to do so.

79
On the other hand, millions of people worldwide,
including your country, have quietly used these
trusts for decades with no problem from the gov’t or
the tax agency - - for the simple reason that they
observe the tacit “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

It depends upon your knowing your rights. If you

know you have the right to the exception, then if the
tax office were to ever ask you to register the trust or
file a tax return on it, you would just answer politely
with a simple question: “What is the law that
requires a private contract pure trust to register or be taxable?” Put the question back on them.
Invariably, if they do produce a statute, it will not apply to the NLT, because the NLT isn’t under any
statutes.

This illustrates that “The only rights you have, are the rights you know you have.” This is because if you
have a right but don’t know you have it, your behavior will act in such a way that you may as well not
have that right. But if you have a right and know you have it, then you can live accordingly and derive
the benefits thereof.

This is what the wealthy around the world have been doing with the NLTs. They know they have the
right to not file or pay - - because the NLT is an exception to the statutory requirements. The U.S. is one
of the most onerous, aggressive, and abusive countries in the world to its own citizens when it comes to
enforcing taxation, but it does not touch the NLTs. It steers clear of them because it knows that the elite
use them, and there is no enforceable requirement for them to file. This is the same in England,
Australia, and most countries around the world - - especially the English-speaking ones.

Q: Where can I find a good Natural Law Trust writer?

A: Visit the folks at brillianceincommerce.com, and they will connect you with one of the best ones.

80
 The Grantor and the Trustee

by The Benefactor

Once upon a time,

In verses and rhyme,

A Grantor and Trustee were One.

Helping to bring the new paradigm,

On which world peace is won.

Many people they did bless,

With the wealth of Pure Consciousness,

And Peace and Happiness they did spread.

With the Natural Law Trust and the Wisdom of Oneness,

They banished bondage and brought freedom instead.

From where, from whence,

Did such a Oneness commence?

Those who are curious may query.

For it was long before hence, I do sense,

Far in the past of mystery.

81
The answer be,
It seems to me,
That the match was made in Infinity.
They came from on high, you see,
To meet on Earth with Affinity.

Innocent as the Dove,

Bestowing Love,
And delayed for a spell by the forces of hell;
They hail from The One High Above,
Whose Truth they did tell . . . via the Freedom Bell.

And so it was not strange,

For The One to arrange,
Liberation from this dark age.
The decree was made, across the range:
“Empower the Trusts to Open the Way!”

So from then and thereafter,

There was rejoicing and laughter,
And the forces of hell gave way - -
To a Golden Age in the now and hereafter,
With the Dawning on Earth a New Day.

82