Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole

[Admin]

We hope you have been enjoying our Open Forum. We also hope it is answering questions you may have had and giving you good reasons to get involved with your support of Team Law. We hope you find Team Law a place where the mysticism around topics rarely taught to the general public are unraveled, making them easy to understand. We appreciate your comments and invite you to tell everyone about Team Law.

It is virtually impossible to live in this “modern world” and not interact with others through contracts. It is also impossible to follow the teachings provided in scripture without participating in contracts for they require man to covenant with our Creator.

Where the principle elements of contracts, trusts and the concept of the corporation sole bring light to almost any relationship, we present them here together to help you better understand the various relationships you may be involved with.

Team Law's: Standard for Review

Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:

1. First understand who the parties are;
   1. Always know yourself first
   2. Discover the true nature of all other parties second
2. Then you must understand the environmental and historical nature of the relationship; and,
3. Only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship.

Rule 2: To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied Rule 1, only then do the details of the situation in question have any meaning; Thus, Rule two is, review the details in question only after you have completed the review required by Rule 1, then review the details in question in accord with the steps required in Rule 1.

The biggest problem with this is most people do not address themselves first. When you review the parties in any relationship you are personally involved with you must review your own personal nature first, including whatever capacity you serve in the relationship. The next biggest problem is people fail to do their own research and instead rely on third party sources. You must know your own nature and the capacity you serve in any relationship and you must do your own research from the actual facts and history of the relationship. If these necessities alone were followed, our nation’s Constitution would not be hanging by a thread and the confusion found in the Patriot, Law, Freedom and Tax movements would be resolved. Therefore, we set this standard as the Standard for Review of any situation involving a relationship between parties. Team Law uses this standard for review in every review we do. It is key reason we rarely get anything wrong in our reviews; the other reasons are we always go to the source and verify facts rather than ever trusting in any third party information, and we stick to the law and historical facts.

Having set that standard for review lets now move on to that special kind of relationship at the center of this topic — contracts.

Contracts
A contract, as we will consider the subject here, is defined as:

1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

Every contract, whether implied or written, must have all of the following elements:

1. a giver;
2. a receiver;
3. valuable consideration over time; and,
4. acceptance.

Some people get a bit confused here in the matter of acceptance; they are of the impression that acceptance requires a signature and they think a signature must be performed in pen and ink. The courts accept signatures on paper as evidence of the intent to accept (agree to) the terms of a contract; the courts recognize such evidence indicates the signer’s intent to agree, which intent is proven by the signer’s signature act; that is the signer placed the pen on the paper and purposefully moved it in order to leave the ink trail as evidence of the signer’s agreement. The proof of agreement is the signature act not the trail of ink. The trail of ink is merely evidence of the signature act. Therefore, when a person performs an act that evidences agreement with, or compliance to, the terms of a contract, written or not, the act itself is a signature act that proves the agreement and so the contract. It should go without saying that written contracts make proving the terms of the relationship far easier and remove questions as to the terms of the agreement. A lawful contract cannot compel the impossible. A lawful contract cannot compel an unlawful act.

So, when reviewing a relationship, to verify its contractual nature, ask yourself if those elements (numbered above) are included in the relationship in question; if they are then the relationship is contractual, whether or not a written contract was made.

The particular type of contract we are reviewing in this topic is — the Trust.

Trusts
Simply stated, a trust is defined as:

A property interest held by one person for the benefit of another.

To say the same thing with a bit more definitive complexity:

The right, enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person holds the legal title; a property interest held by one person (the trustee) at the request of another (the settlor) for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary). •For a trust to be valid, it must involve a specific property, reflect the settlor’s intent, and be created for a lawful purpose. … • A trust arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it.

Therefore, every trust, whether written in a formal Indenture or not, contains the following five basic elements:

1. a Creator (settlor);
2. a Trustee;
3. a Beneficiary; and,
4. the Corpus or body of the trust — a specific property, some thing of value placed in trust with the Trustee by the Creator.
5. The Trusts creation was intentional.

Now lets take a look a the trust relationship and see if it qualifies as a contract.
Ask yourself:

1. “Does it have a giver?”
   • Yes, the Giver is the trust’s Creator.
2. “Does it have a Receiver?”
   • Yes, the Receiver is the trust’s Trustee.
3. “Does it have a valuable consideration over time?”
   • Yes, the trust’s Corpus is something of value that the Trustee has agreed to hold in trust until such time as it must be delivered to the trust’s Beneficiary.
4. “Does it have Acceptance?”
   • Yes, The Giver offered the corpus and the Trustee accepted it in trust; therefore, it has acceptance and the relationship fits all of the necessities of a contract, whether the agreement was written or generated in construct (without a written agreement).

So when you review a relationship ask yourself if these elements are included in the relationship. If they are all included, then the relationship is a contractually bound trust agreement whether there is a written agreement (Trust Indenture) or not; the acts of someone (the Creator) intentionally giving a specific thing (property) to another person (the Trustee) to hold for someone else (the Beneficiary) and the trustee accepting it, constitute signature acts proving the contractual relationship and verifying the formality of the contractual agreement of a Trust.

Now notice: a trust is created within the terms of its contractual agreement (with or without a written Indenture) and of necessity, the agreement must define a Trustee capacity; this is where the corporation sole comes in.

The Corporation Sole
The corporation sole is most simply defined as: “Consciousness created in contract.” It is the basis of corporate immunity. The corporation sole is not (and cannot be) an entity in and of itself, rather it is the nature of certain offices, entities and or capacities, like the Trustee capacity in a Trust.

To understand what the corporation sole nature is, one must understand what ‘consciousness created in contract’ is: notice the decision making ability necessarily included in any office (or official capacity) in any organization contractually requires a decision making capacity; also, notice that though a written document (like a Trust Indenture) can create the office of Trustee (or capacity for consciousness) but, it cannot create the actual consciousness or physical capacity necessary to exercise the contractually created will of the organization. Such actual consciousness and physical capacity must be borrowed from someone that has actual consciousness and the physical capacity to exercise the same. Such a contractually created capacity for consciousness is called —a corporation sole. Therefore, the Trust’s contract creates the Trust’s capacity for consciousness, which capacity officially resides in the office of the Trustee and that office (or capacity) exists in the nature of 'a corporation sole'; as do the offices of: CEOs, presidents, managers, governors, judges, mayors and any other capacity that fits the definition of a “consciousness created in contract.”

The 'corporation sole' is like the "soul" of the thing in that it brings actual life to the contractually created entity.

By its very nature, a corporation sole is an extra jurisdictional capacity; that means the corporation sole is the cause of corporate immunity because it is unassailable in any jurisdiction. This is because the corporation sole cannot act for itself, rather it acts only as the entity (the person) for whom the contractual consciousness was created. In other words, so long as the party lending consciousness and physical capacity to the corporation sole functions within the terms of the agreement that created the corporation sole (the office), the lender is immune from prosecution for the lawful acts of the entity.

Thus, because the capacity or office of Trustee was created so that the Trust can function, when the Trustee acts [in accord with its Indenture (contract)] it is the Trust that is acting and not the person lending consciousness and physical capacity to it. In other words, the person that lends consciousness and physical capacity to the office is not the Trustee; they simply lend the Trust actual consciousness and physical capacity that it can use in the office of its Trustee so that the Trust can actually do what it was contracted to do. Therefore, again, whenever the Trustee acts it is the Trust that is acting and not the man who lends the Trust actual consciousness and physical capacity.

If you review your relationships with this information in mind, you should understand them better. We may, in a later post, use this model to review the relationship most people seem to have with Corp. U.S. to show how understanding our relationships allows us to control them and can be of great help in restoring our nation.

We hope this information is helpful to you.

---

Attention Team Law beneficiaries:
If you’re interested, when you finish reading this post go to the Team Law Beneficiary Forum and read the article called, Social Security Administration created Trusts, where we will continue with this review by reviewing the relationship that stands as the nexus with virtually all connections most people today have with commerce, industry and or government.

<hr> P.S. We would beware of anyone (marketers, etc.) alleging they can create an entity called a “Corporation Sole” and separately operate it directly in commerce or business relations. Such marketers allege such creations are immune from taxes or other obligations that would otherwise attach to people, trusts, corporation and partnerships. Such allegations are false! This misleading idea comes from the fact that there are statutes and case law recognizing the absolute immune nature of the corporation sole capacity (consciousness created in the contract of another entity) and the fact that anyone can create such a capacity; this fact becomes misleading when the marketer provides the fuzzy logic that anyone should be able to generate a corporation sole and use it to act like a church and then enter commerce or business relations and remain immune. The problem with this concept is easily understood if we go back to the example of the Trust and notice, what the marketer alleges is they can create the corporation sole as a stand alone entity; thus, they allege they can remove the office from the trust and have it act of its own volition, without the Trust. What would happen if they did that: they would have either created:

• a General Partnership between the entity they created and those that operated it, thus removing the corporation sole nature from the entity leaving only their empty allegation that it is one; or,
• another trust (they call a corporation sole even though it is not), with no difference in immunity, liability, responsibility or operation from any other trust.

Thus, such entities are not what they seem to be, create confusion and any liability remains accountable. Wisdom says avoid such offerings like the plague, regardless of how good their promoters make them sound. <hr>For sound information regarding proper asset protection systems we would contact The Way of Kings™.