| Hey Friend,
In the days when predators of all kinds are seeking to devour your assets, predators such as Klaus Schwab of the WEF is using such mantras as 'You'll own nothing and be happy', we need to give special attention to such matters and not take it lightly.
Today let me share one little tidbit with you which might open your eyes to the power that you could have in your own hands if you are diligent.
In 1974 Nelson Rockefeller was a candidate for Vice President and appeared before a Senate subcommittee to testify on the veracity of his personal financial records which he submitted as an official function of the process.
It was noted for the record: “Due to the complexity and lack of legal means necessary under law to secure in-depth records of the Rockefeller estate, nor having the powers to abridge the right of contract, we must assume that the $218,000,000 figure is accurate.” (referring to his declared net worth)
Let's unwrap this. He was using private, non-statutory 'Business Trusts' to hold his assets. Those same Business Trusts go by many different names such as 'COLATO' or Common Law Trust Organization, The US Supreme court has referred to them as 'Pure Trusts', we refer to them as CBOs or Contractual Business Organizations and there are other monikers for the same thing. The name is not important, only the 'substance' and 'characteristics' are.
So when the Senate subcommittee said: "...lack of legal means necessary under law...nor having the powers to abridge the right of contract" what they were saying was that due to the fact that these 'trusts' were CBOs, aka 'contracts' Article 1:10:1 of the constitution is clear when it says: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; ... (or) pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts if the contract requires privacy then that contract cannot be violated! Not so with regular, attorney generated statutory trusts which are essentially 'creatures of the state' which they can control and regulate and tax.
So the net result was that the Senate had no lawful authority to verify the numbers that he submitted and they had to take him at face value.
This point is further strengthened in the Internal Revenue Code which states:
Internal Revenue Regulations section 301.7701-4(b)
(b) Business Trusts—there are other arrangements known as trusts because the legal title to property is conveyed to trustees for the benefit of beneficiaries, BUT which are not classified as trusts for purposes of the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) because they are not simply arrangements to protect and conserve the property for the beneficiaries.
So you can see that the IRC does not treat Business Trusts the same as statutory trusts for taxation purposes either.
Another Example:
Colorado Revised Statutes defining ‘Trusts’ in their probate code -Title 15 CRS 10-201 which defines to whom or what the body of statutory law applies:
“…excludes…business trusts providing for certificates to be issued to beneficiaries.”
And this is only the tip of the iceberg. If this intrigues you I have more on this topic available for your study. See below
|
