:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time); excluding emergencies and national holidays.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

sinking the ship

Contracts, Trusts & the corporation sole; what they are & how they relate with one another.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Viviv
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Wednesday June 24th, 2009 3:53 am MDT

sinking the ship

Postby Viviv » Saturday February 12th, 2011 10:22 pm MST

I created an llc corp a few years back but have left it alone since learning of and looking for a remedy to the CQV triple crown.I was wondering what known obstacles might exist to loading the llc with my security interests along with my wife and childrens corp.soles,then dissolving it never to be found except to prove that yes these legal fictions did exist but now they dont and claiming my body as a diplomat (ambassador)on behalf of our Saviour's Kingdom which Im hoping would establish my Sovereignty ?There is a maxim of law mentioning property on a mans soil is his so my body made from clay mingled w/blood should also help.If its a good idea maybe i could add more folks who claimed a new status en-mass for added strength.Anyone care to post a thought,correction,idea?Thank You in advance,Viviv

User avatar
Copacetic
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 37
Joined: Wednesday July 29th, 2009 8:28 am MDT

Re: sinking the ship

Postby Copacetic » Sunday February 13th, 2011 8:25 am MST

Viviv,
I think the first thing you need to realize is that you are sovereign, you were born sovereign. Your sovereignty is what binds you to the contracts you do enter into. Therefore there is no need to do anything to gain it. You just need to learn how to act sovereign.

As for this LLC, I doubt that it has anything to do with you. Read "The Seduction" linked on TL's homepage.

I would also definately read "Do you own Land?" that is linked on TL's homepage.

Copacetic
The only way evil men can win is if good men do nothing.
Me

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: sinking the ship

Postby Admin » Monday February 14th, 2011 11:46 am MST

:h: Viviv:
Due to your use of the terms: “CQV triple crown” and, “children’s corp. soles” (which terms are notorious marketing terms of Patriot Mythologists) we assume that you come to us loaded with errant assumptions gleaned from such marketers and those that follow them. Accordingly, to progress, you will likely learn it is necessary to forget much of what you gleaned from such sources and from now on look to the law itself and its history through your own personal firsthand study.

To evidence such a requirement, let’s look at the use of those terms:
  1. We assumed you are using CQV to abbreviate the Latin term: “Cestui Que Vie”; which is an Old French term for Beneficiary. A direct translation of the French term follows: cestui = were, que = that, and vie = life. Without being otherwise used in some context, the Old French phrase is literally an idiomatic expression meaning: “He for whose life/land is held by another person“; that is to say, the Beneficiary of a Trust. The “another person” in that relationship is the Trustee.

    In old France, the term was most often used to refer to a situation where a party deeded their land to another party (usually an immortal party like the Church) through a Trust, then, as Trustee, continued to hold control of that land for the duration of the Trustee’s life; at the end of which the land transfers to the Beneficiary. Thus, said Old French term was used by the tenant for life (Trustee) to refer to the actual owner of the Land (the Beneficiary) when someone (usually a representative of the king/government) came calling upon the tenant on the land for some kind of debt/obligation owed by the landowner. They would cry: “Cestui que vie!” The idiomatic meaning of which was: “We are merely tenants, here for life at the bequest of the landowner.” In other words, “You don’t want us, go see the Beneficiary!” The argument worked well for such tenants while in France’s feudal system because it put the letter of the law upon the relationship between the King and the Church instead of upon the tenant. Though the church need not even know they were the actual landowner (Beneficiary) when the grant was made, they still defended not only that they were not in tenancy, but also that they were the actual landowner. The practice was later outlawed by the fraud in the original landowner’s intent.

    The way the term came to use by Patriot Mythology’s predatory marketers was one of them discovered the term had been used in early American court cases to describe similar legal situations. They accordingly imagined it as a fitting term for marketing their story line. We could tell you who it was, but that would serve no purpose now. As they marketed their wares, they alleged the “Cestui Que Trust” was the style of trust the United States Government uses to create the relationship between the man and the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”). The allegation is needless and false. Needless because the term actually only refers to the Beneficiary of a trust rather than to a style of trust. It is false at least for the following causes:
    1. The Old French term was used to relate to Grantor Trusts; that is to say, trusts formed by the property–owner granting the equitable title of property to the Beneficiary in trust and then remaining in control of that property as Trustee of the trust for the live of the Grantor;
    2. In such a relationship, the Beneficiary has nothing to say about either the Trusts creation or their beneficiary status.
    3. The relationship created by the SSA is not a Grantor Trust.
    4. The SSA creates their relationship by reserving ownership of their social security card then offering it to be held in trust to create the relationship.
    5. Thus, the relationship with the SSA can only be created by and with the consent of all parties involved.
    The term “CQV” is the abbreviation to which subsequent marketers have reduced the original marketing term; still, the use of the term remains invalid.
  2. The term: “children’s corp. soles”, has no meaning to us; because a corporation sole cannot exist external to the business under which the corporation sole was created. “A Corporation Sole is merely, consciousness created in contract”. For example: the office of Governor is created in the contract known as the Constitution of the State whereunder the Governor of the State will serve. The same thing goes for:
    1. Corporate offices (like CEO, President, etc.), which offices are created within the contract that creates the corporation itself;
    2. The office of Trustee, which office is created within the indenture/contract that creates the Trust itself;
    3. Ministerial offices (like Priest, Pastor, Bishop, etc.), which offices are created within the organizational instruments that creates a Church.
    The provisions for each and every such office’s functions require consciousness and physical capacity for the office to function; as such, all such offices constitute corporation soles.

    The same people that started the rumor of the “Cestui Que Trust” also popularized the incorrect usage of the term “corporation sole”; as if you could create a corporation sole external to the distinct business entity under which a corporation sole contractually exists; and then, let it operate on its own as if it could (see Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole). That would be like creating:
    1. A Governor to act without creating the State;
    2. A CEO to act without creating the Corporation;
    3. Trustee to act without creating the Trust itself;
    4. Bishop to act without creating the Church.
    Thus, such predatory marketers spread their myths to ensnare those that will listen and follow their way without actually learning the law firsthand for themselves.
Thus, such predatory marketers spread their myths to ensnare those that will listen and follow their way without actually learning the law firsthand for themselves.

The CQV is expanded by other myths like this one:
Found by searching the internet for the term “CQV triple crown”, where marketers wrote:When we were born, a trust, called a Cestui Que Vie Trust (“CQV”) was set-up, for our benefit. Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what is the value which must be conveyed to the trust, in order to create it? It was our right to property (via Birth into this world), our body (via the Live Birth Record), and our souls (via Baptism). Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee…. the one that administers the trust. Since they, also, wanted to be beneficiary of this trust, they had to come up with ways to get us, as beneficiary, to authorize their charging the trust, allegedly, for our benefit (via our signature on a document: citation, application, etc.), and then, temporarily transfer trusteeship, to us, during the brief time that they want to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust.
People searching for such things and then spreading them is how such myths take on such followings. Yet, take a look at the myth:
  1. It claims the birth certificate is evidence of a trust set up in the interest of the party so born. That is impossible! Though a birth certificate would suffice as evidence of a birth, it provides no evidence of a trust having been created of any kind. Evidence of a Trust being created would require evidence of any of the elements of a trust were founded (see Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole).
  2. Then, after failing to provide any evidence of a trust’s existence it alleges the value required to create it is: “our right to property (via Birth into this world), our body (via the Live Birth Record), and our souls (via Baptism).” Of course, like most myths, no substance is provided for such an allegation. For example, if such a thing were true the creator of such a trust would have to have the right to grant such property to such a trust. According to the foundation of law in this country, humankind was created through a long line of descendancy from the First Man; and, his Creator granted him (and us through him) dominion, agency and possession (the three components elemental to sovereignty). Thus, humankind is sovereign by birth. Though in our infant state we must grow to the age of accountability to receive the fullness of that divine right, it remains ours. Thus, the United States of America, no one owns anyone else’s body or soul; though an individual can contract for services; such contracts are limited to lawful agreements made in accord with the will of each individual. Thus, the allegation is absurd; having merit neither in law nor in fact.
  3. They go on with: “Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee.” Such a thing is impossible! In order for a Trust to exist the owner and the Trustee must be distinct. It is impossible to be both the owner and trustee of a trust.
  4. It then claims that they wanted to be the Beneficiary as well. However, again the entire point of a trust is the distinction of the parties in the trust and the distinction of ownership of property so held in trust. The owner of property held in trust is always the Beneficiary; however, property so held is kept from the owner for a specified cause or term. When the cause or term are fulfilled the trust distributes the assets it holds to the Beneficiary and when all of the assets are so distributed the trust no longer exists.
  5. They then follow a complete lack of reason that could possibly have anything to do with trusts and end up with the allegation of yet another mythological creation, “a particular "constructive" trust”; but alas, again, there is no evidence provided; just a story that could only convince an ignorant party of anything.
We know that was not your presentation; however, it is what people run into when they try to come up with “evidence” of such a thing as you suggested at the core of your presentment—alleging a “CQV”.

Having dealt with the presupposed CQV we will ignore the tag line “triple crown”; because it too is merely a marketing term posed by strawman theologians and Team Law has already beat that horse to death—too bad it still has favor with so many people that have been romanced by those theologians. If you are one of those please read the Patriot Mythology page’s debunking of those myths.

We were pleased to see that you chose not to use the “LLC” styled corporation you referred to in your inquiry. Accordingly, the primary point of your inquiry asked: “what known obstacles might exist to loading the LLC with my security interests along with my wife…” Our first thought was: “That was an interesting request to make a day before Valentine’s Day.” All punning aside, we think you were wise to avoid taking any such actions before learning the true nature of the relationships involved and the actual ownership of all properties involved followed by discovering what you actually want to accomplish when you are through with whatever you decide to do.

However, at this point you would need to be a Team Law beneficiary before we could help you any further along that journey of discovery. Thus, until you are, you may want to continue learning how to properly learn the law by following the links we provided above and remembering to use the Standard for Review as you study the law firsthand from its source. To learn more about competent asset protection systems you may want to review what The Way of Kings™ has provided on their website.

Though we do not have the capacity to give advice, we like the line from the old Davey Crocket song: “Be sure you’re right; and, then go ahead.” It seems like that was why you had not proceeded with “loading the LLC”; you were not sure you were right. It is not likely that anyone can get right by studying what others have written on the internet. To get it right, you have to learn the law firsthand from your own hands on study of the law itself, and its history, from its original source—the law itself and actual historical records.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest