Now, take all that and place a simple barrier between the “sovereign” or “secured party” and commerce. The barrier is called an Express Trust under the Common Law. Throw out the fragile sovereign crown andgive the man a bulletproof trustee helmet. Now, instead of him owning a plot of land with a castle, havinga royal army and a royal staff of workers, stockpiling his own weapons, having Federal Reserve Notes orminted coins in his personal possession, and understanding all applicable bodies of law to protecthimself— he now does these things on behalf of a trust. Problem solved.

He needs to eat, but does he buy directly from the store with his own Federal Reserve Notes or silverdimes?

No. He buys on behalf of the trust and works out a private contract with the trust that enables him to eatthe trust’s food and offset his trustee compensation the trust owes him for carrying out his daily duties.

He sees an advantage to owning a ranch in a certain jurisdiction, but does he make an offer to purchasein his own name and thereby acquire personal ownership of the property?

No. He draws up an Offer to Purchase (or Offer to Buy if the trust has the gold on hand). The trustacquires the property and the beneficiaries of that trust benefit from his wise decision. He can thencontract privately with the trust as to how he may use the property, offsetting his compensation if that useinvolves anything outside of his duties as trustee. Even so, there are ways to keep things strictly withintrusteeship if you are really serious about living a trustee’s life.

Let’s say he needs to travel to the state to do the deal. Does he get behind the wheel of his motor vehiclewith license in hand as though he’s about to transport goods or passengers like any “driver” would?

No. He’s a trustee, so he gets into a trust-owned automobile with a certified copy of the manufacturer’scertificate of origin and bill of sale and his trustee identification, and he travels to that state on official trustbusiness.

Whatever contract he works out with the trust regarding offsetting things along the way with his trusteecompensation is a private contract that actually is protected under Article 1, Section 10. There are noquestions as to the validity of such a blatant trust relationship. Who’s asking? Another trust? TheConstitution for the United States of America creates an Express Trust under the Common Law, as didthe Articles of Confederation, to act as a limited governing entity.

Article 4, Section 2 provides a clear protection to the trustees of such trusts to do business on behalf ofthe trust while not being subjected to foreign business entity laws. The protection is real. If the host statetried to stop you, the trust could actually sue and the state would likely settle out of court.

The state constitutions do the same for each individual territory. Therefore, the United States corporation(and all its DBAs) and State corporations are, in essence, nominee trusts created under international lawby the original Express Trusts that were created back at the moment each constitution was ratified. Anytime one of these entities has questions for an Express Trust under the Common Law, they areasking an equal to show deference not legally required.

Article 1, Section 10 and Article 4, Section 2 can therefore be invoked anytime one of these entities looksas though it might impair the obligations you have to the trust or block your ability to administer trustaffairs in a certain state as trustee. There is no need to run or hide like you would with a pure trust orfederal contract trust. There is no fear of even being prosecuted: how many constitutional courts do yousee these days? It takes someone like you to invoke constitutional jurisdiction. That’s power.

The extent of the protection may not have dawned on you yet, so allow me to point out that yourobligations to the trust are as extensive as everything you do in your daily life. A trustee in commerceeats, drinks and sleeps wearing his trustee helmet. His clothes, his toothbrush and even his trousers are trust property. When he has Federal Reserve Notes or Ameros, they are in the trust’s possession byvirtue of his trusteeship— never in his personal possession.

It’s a lot simpler than some would expect. A simple document binder to hold your trustee identification, authorization papers, the trust’s debit cards and Federal Reserve Notes is all that is ever in yourpossession. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, but at the same time it is only nine-tenths.

There is one-tenth remaining for situations such as this. The document binder has the trust’s name and a private property notice embroidered on the outside to designate ownership. The notice also names the trusteeauthorized to have the document binder in his possession.

At that point, everything within the document binder belongs to the trust. It may be in your possession astrustee, however the contents are in the trust’s possession to the extent of nine-tenths of the law. Theyare in your personal possession only one-tenth by virtue of physically being on you. You are absolved ofany liability associated with having the debit card or, even worse, Federal Reserve Notes. So, for allintents and purposes you have not reduced yourself to a merchant.

I can go on and on like this, but I am merely trying to illustrate a point. What good is it to be the sovereignor a secured party creditor when you’re status is practically useless in everyday commerce? Not tomention, how well do you sleep knowing that the game isn’t over until the king is checkmated? How many"sovereigns" are backed into a corner by the Federal or State governments every year? On the otherhand, the trustee sleeps well every night because he literally can’t give up what he doesn’t have (anddoesn’t need to have). He owns nothing . Yet he controls it all .

As long as you maintain a strict separation in this manner, paying close attention to the nuances inpossession, you will avoid co-mingling of trust property and you will never diminish the protection. Thecommercial environment you are confronted with is as hostile toward sovereigns today as the AmericanRepublic always was toward poor Whites and free Negroes. They were without legally enforceable rights.They had no protections. What they couldn’t do for themselves would not get done, and there was nouniversal sense of justice toward them.

As a result, they were easily conquered over time and became today’s shining examples of 14th Amendment citizens: beneficiaries in mind and spirit. They became the exact opposite of today’s shiningexamples of trustees in commerce because benefits accepted equal jurisdiction even if the manaccepting them happens to be an internationally recognized sovereign. However, whose jurisdiction areyou under if you don’t accept any benefits? Can you see why trustees in commerce are in a league oftheir own? STUDIES 

The American Whigs 

Plato’s Lost Republic 

Law, Language & Script 

Politics of Legal Robbery 

History of White Slavery 

Minimum Contacts 

Escape from the Amero 

Why 21 Silver Dollars? 

The 87 Percent 

The Certificate’s Revival 

Uncensored News PROCESS REVIEWS 

Sovereignty 

In Itinere Status 

Foreclosure Prevention by Adverse Possession 

Commercial Process 

Monetize Bonds (BondPro) 

Exemption/Expatriation SPECIAL GUESTS 

Alfred Adask


Kal Gronvall 

Jeffrey Mandalis 

Carlton Weiss