"Hello, Central!" Would One Be Better Protected to Have A Trust Rather Than A Corporation?(Updated Feb. 16, 2008)
Patrick H. Bellringer
From: Tt
To: <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:22 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Linlar Services
Siterun Contact Request from Ttee.
Message:
Pardon me please, but ---
I Just received an offer to purchase stock in a start up corporation which purports to be the answer to the patriot communityâ?Tsâ?T media dilemma.
Woops; Just a minute please!
The District of Columbia was incorporated in 1871 and became the United States with a constitution crafted from the fourteenth amendment. Thatâ?Ts a fascist democracy using statutory laws controlling it newly minted United States citizens! (Corporate citizens residing in the several states?)
The united States of America with a Constitution crafted by the Sovereigns for themselves, a Sovereign People, which consists of the Organic interment with the 1st through the original 13th Amendments. Thatâ?Ts a Constitutional Republic using Common Law, Rule of Law! (Sovereign People inhabiting the several states?)
Would not the correct procedure be to form a Trust and dam the corporations?
Thank you,
Tt
(Reponse)
FROM: Anne Bellringer
TO: Tt
DATE: Feb. 12, 2008
SUBJECT: Reply
Dear Tt:
Thank you for your letter. We have forwarded it to "S". We shall forward "S's" reply to you when we receive it.
Sincerely,
Anne Bellringer
(Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: S
To: "'Bellringer'" <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: Siterun Contact Request from Linlar Services
I don't know what to say about this, Patrick. I do not understand the
question exactly, nor do I give legal advice.
S
(Reply)
FROM: Patrick H. Bellringer
TO: S
DATE: Feb. 12, 2008
SUBJECT: Reply
Dear S:
I think the question is about trusts. Would one be better protected to have a trust rather than a corporation?
In Love and Light,
Patrick H. Bellringer
(Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: S
To: "'Bellringer'" <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:45 AM
Subject: RE: Siterun Contact Request from Linlar Services
Dear Patrick:
This question pertains to 'asset protection' and 'privacy' primarily. There is no such thing in this system presently. "All property vests in the state". Pure Trust Organizations (PTO's) are the strongest form of trust construction I know of, but it is almost impossible to make full use of them in this system. They are based upon the constitutionally protected 'right to contract' and are not a business organization type 'trust'. Such trusts are a construct of inter-locking contracts, right from the very beginning, via an 'exchange'. Even if one managed such a trust, they cannot interface with the current de facto corporate fiat enfranchised banking system, because banks require some form of IRS number, statutory 'identification' etc.
The IRS and FBI have undertaken a concerted effort to suppress knowledge and use thereof. PTO trust providers have come under attack and have been chased half way around the world. In essence, if one is still a 'U.S. citizen' or 'citizen of the United States', one is presumed domiciled in the DISTRICT or FEDERAL ZONE, and does not have the status, standing, or capacity to privately contract, own or possess property in allodium (true title), or even to 'protect' anything.
The government can break most any trust it wants, even when properly constructed and operated, because the system is designed to protect the government and not the people. I am not saying that all trusts are under attack, but those not registered with the IRS are much more susceptible to attack than those which are. Those which are registered are regulated, have IRS TIN's, and are essentially operating for the benefit of the CORPORATE UNITED STATES+FRBS, because all 'U.S. persons' party to the trust are deemed U.S. 'citizens' under thrust of the 14th Amendment, birth registration, Social Security, etc. and have no rights. As such, seeking asset and privacy protection without doing the necessary work to change one's status, standing, and capacity first, is putting the cart before the horse.
As to corporations, LLC's etc. one can devise very elaborate or very simple 'company' or corporate mechanisms to build and/or 'hold' assets, but all such entities are deemed to be U.S. property and are regulated and taxed as such. Question is, who's company or corporation is it, really, and who's benefit or interest is express or implied within its existence and operations?
The only way to bracket or address any asset protection, privacy, and/or 'ownership' issue is to first look at the issue of status, standing, and capacity. The folks at www.constitutionalamericans.com and www.sedm.org are two very excellent sites on the subject of 'emancipation', status change etc. There are other good ones as well, but these two sites will open up a whole new world to anyone intent on understanding true privacy and protection.
Unless this system changes drastically, one cannot expect more of it than what it was designed to do, especially since 1913. That design is critical to our understanding and ability to operate within or without it by changing how we relate to it.
Sorry I can't be of more assistance, Patrick, but the issue of corporation vs. trust construction cannot be addressed in a thimble. Furthermore, it would depend on many things such as one's purposes, priorities, and objectives, management vs. ownership preferences, 'capitalization' structure etc. ....just too complex to get into in this venue. If things change, then these issues will take on entirely new light. Sorry.
S
(Reply)
Thank you Anne, Patrick and "S":
I believe "S" has said it all! "S" has driven directly to the point of enlightenment which is that the restoration of the Republic must be from within the Republic, using PTOs (Pure Trust Organizations) and Rule of Law (Constitution for The united States of America) by the only People who are qualified to do so (the Sovereign People who are not contracted to the Federal government).
The next question would be:
Would not the Magna Carta (already a part of our Constitution) be the correct tool to use for the realignment of the People with their Republic? (using the Common Law Grand Jury)
[See: Common Law Jury Groups:
http://www.republicmedia.tv/index.php?option=com_groupjive&Itemid=26 ]
Best regards,
Tt
(Response)
----- Original Message -----From: STo: 'Bellringer'Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:42 PMSubject: URGENT: I FORGOT TO SAYDear Patrick:
I intended my last submission to be private unless you feel it is noteworthy. I do not want to discourage, nor do I want anyone to read what I did say and take it out of context. I failed to state that most trusts operate with a ‘first’ or ‘senior’ or ‘executive’ trustee, and then have other lesser trustees which serve the capacity of the first. Altogether, they constitute the ‘trustee’ function and fiduciary capacity of the trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries or holders of beneficial interest. Any trust, depending on how it was set up as a matter of contract, can have more than one trustee, and a minimum of one. Most trusts are set up with a first executive trustee and two subordinate trustees. The fact that some of the key trustees in funding tiers 3 and 5 have resigned does not mean that there are no other trustees in place in those trusts. But, it may. And, it may be that even if there are other trustees in said trusts, the ones that did resign could be the only one have signatory or executor authority on said transactional business of the trust……especially banking business. There is an air of HIGH STRANGENESS to these alleged ‘resignations’ at this critical point in the process. Time will tell if even it is an issue or not, but I suspect that it may.
Sorry that I did not put this excerpt in my earlier post. If you want to cut/paste and add it at the end then post the whole thing, that’s fine……your call.
Thank you.
S
(Reply)
----- Original Message -----From: MMSent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:43 PMSubject: Siterun Contact Request from Linlar ServicesSender Message:
"Hello, Central!\" Would One Be Better Protected to Have A Trust Rather Than A Corporation?(Updated Feb. 14, 2008)
I don't see a way to "reply" to this messdage so I shall have to take the general response route ....
Good information, if you can fully comprehend it. Of course, the Illuminati have everything still very much under their control, with few loopholes, but the main problem with a Trust is that you have OTHERS controlling your funds or property.
There is ONE option for those who operate religious or spiritual organisations, and that is the Common Law Corporation Sole - again very little understood and greatly abused. There must be no cover-up in its use. and it does not even have to receive a \"NON-REPORTING EIN\" from the IRS. The IRS have removed most of the vital information from their website, but - I COPIED IT INTO MY OWN WEBSITE, so they cannot deny its authenticity.
If you DO qualify as a religious or spiritual organisation, check out http://corporationsole.insights2.org/ - it carries the most complete information on its history and use.
Otherwise, hold on for the NESARA announcement ...........!
(Reply)
----- Original Message -----From: NSent: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:35 PMSubject: Reference: Hello, Central!" Would One Be Better Protected to Have A Trust Rather Than A Corporation?(Updated Feb. 15, 2008)Hello Patrick and Anne,_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Reference: Hello, Central!" Would One Be Better Protected to Have A Trust Rather Than A Corporation?(Updated Feb. 15, 2008)I would like to comment on the Corp Sole issue. Take a look at an e-mail from Paycheck-Piracy dated Jan 10-2008, here I copy and paste the body of the e-mail,Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:54 PMTo:
Subject: Joe Saladino & Cajun Mike Mungovan were arrested early this morning on conspiracy charges
URGENT MESSAGE!
Joe Saladino and Cajun Mike Mungovan of the Freedom and Privacy Committee were arrested early this morning on conspiracy charges. Around 9:00 AM EST the IRS CID Agents and Sheriff Deputies came to Cajun Mike's home in Virginia and arrested him on conspiracy charges. About an hour later IRS CID Agents and Sheriff Deputies arrested Joe Saladino at his at his home (not sure which state Joe lives in, possibly Idaho.) The IRS did not say what the conspiracy charges involved, but it would be easy to assume that the conspiracy charges are connected to Joe's and Mike's involvement with helping people to escape from being financially raped and brutalized by the IRS.
*Note: Cajun Mike and Joe Saladino were setting up Corp Soles;Around the time Cajun Mike and Joe were arranging for the Corp Sole applications, the IRS posted a Corp Sole on their list of "Dirty Dozen." IRS (or DOJ, don't remember) took Joe Saladino to court, forcing him to reveal all their clients names to the IRS, I'm sure they had to comply, the court order was displayed on the internet for all to view.Now to the kicker; After you establish a Corp Sole. Go to any bank and try to open an account,.... I went to a local bank to open an account, they demanded a TIN number, without same would not open an account! Then demanded my SS # for identification purposes only,... The liars pulled my credit, when by my signature, and written demand, they had no right to do! Also note, if one person is the sole signor on the account, (the owner of the established Corp Sole) the IRS sees this person as the owner of the account, not the Corp Sole.Please folks, check this out before you establish a Corp Sole. My family truly qualified for a Corp Sole, however until the 3 lettered boys are evicted, you could suffer unnecessarily.If you read recent posts about obtaining a TIN or EIN, you are still under "The" system. This is a point we all are unaware of.NFormer Corp Sole person,(Reply)----- Original Message -----From: TKSent: Friday, February 15, 2008 8:18 PMSubject: Siterun Contact Request from Linlar ServicesMessage:Commonwealth Trusts and the Queen
S and Story, please note that almost all Country Trusts for the past few centuries contain a standard clause that all unclaimed trust assets revert to the property of the Queen (or King) of England. Does that add a bit more light on who gets what if Trustees jump ship? More feathers for my bed please....
----- Original Message -----From: STo: 'Bellringer'Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 6:11 PMSubject: Response to TK PostTK wrote:
From: TK
To: <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 8:18 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Linlar Services
Message:
Commonwealth Trusts and the Queen
S and Story, please note that almost all Country Trusts for the past few centuries contain a standard clause that all unclaimed trust assets revert to the property of the Queen (or King) of England. Does that add a bit more light on who gets what if Trustees jump ship? More feathers for my bed please....
My reply:
Now, that’s what I’m talking about in my post the other day re: CHRISTOPHER STORY’s report stating that certain trustees at levels 3 and 5 were ‘resigned’. My comments were intended to awaken readers to rudimentary trust ‘law’ and trust operations, especially concerning ‘trustees’, fiduciary capacity and duty, ‘trust protectors’ etc. I did not want to be the one to point any fingers, but given that innuendo has come to light, I concur completely with what TK has stated. If ‘payment trustees’ are not succeeded in fact, the assets to be received-accepted and then disbursed technically could be arguably be claimed as ‘unclaimed’ trust assets. That little known fact of international trust law could easily have been accounted for and factored in at the time of appointing any trustee, group of trustees, trust protector(s), or at the time of the creation of any trust [indenture] contract, or at most any other time in the operations and life of any trust. It would be like a ‘sleeper’ default provisio operating outside any trust, and would be easily recognizable by any national or international court, especially if not challenged or protested. If trust assets are unclaimed, they are deemed abandoned. What happens to an abandoned ship at sea in international water or in territorial water? It is ‘boarded’, then seized, and then may be re-flagged. In time of war or under conditions of piracy, a vessel and its contents may be claimed as ‘booty’ property [of the Crown?]. Nuff said?
So, whoever is running the BIG picture show on all of this had best TAKE HEED and understand that this ‘beneficiary’, if that is in fact what program recipients may be deemed, waives no rights, reserves all rights, and claims all rights, titles, and interests that accrue to him by any means. Beneficiaries and/or holders of beneficial interest have rights as well, which rights are closely tied and express the stated intentions of the maker(s), which operate through their commissioned or appointed trust fiduciaries.
Unfortunately, there is no way of ascertaining if Mr. Story’s statements are correct presently, given the volatility and liquidity of the situation from day to day. How would anyone be able to confirm trustee resignations, yet alone the identity of relevant trust, and the body of benefit holders which are presumed to be ‘within’ any trust? Virtually impossible, I’d say.
S