Frank O'Collins on trusts: (In part.)
The reason I am writing and speaking about trusts is that over the past weeks a number of you raised the issue with me given that the word ‘trust’ is now so prominent (with a number of major movements at the moment)...
From the very beginning to the present day a lawful trust can only be formed where the one who creates it has the authority and the rights to convey the form and property in the first place. Go back to the analogy we spoke of about the use of the car and say that you have two children, a son and a daughter. Let’s say that the son wants to borrow the car and the son goes to the daughter and says he wants to borrow the car. The daughter says, “Here are the keys, don’t smash it or get in trouble and bring the car back by 9 o’clock. She may have said every single thing that parent would have said, but that would have been an unlawful conveyance because the daughter did not have the right to grant that property to her brother.
Let’s say that we live in a neighborhood in a home and if someone who arrives in our neighborhood went to your neighbor and said, “I want to live in the house next door which happens to be YOUR house.” If your neighbor happens to have a spare key to your house and said that would be fine, they could live there, but don’t make a mess of it, and you have to be out of there at the end of two weeks because the owners are coming back home. That would be an unlawful conveyance and unlawful creation of a trust because they did not have the right to let people into your home while you were away and use the spare bedroom.
Let’s take the same analogy again and before you went away on a trip you went to your neighbor who said that their son and daughter were going to baby-sit the home and make sure everything is fine, the lights and the alarm are on, and they will make sure that the pets are fed, and you say that is great. So the parents next door say that everything will be fine and there is an understanding that the house will be treated well and there is respect. If your neighbor gave the key to their children to go to your home and live there and care for it properly, that would be a lawful conveyance because you granted the neighbor the right as your agent to do so and to create that form of trust; that would be lawful.
Let’s take another analogy. Let’s say someone comes to you and says they have formed a trust for the planet and they call it “ABC Trust” or “People’s Trust” or whatever name you like. They have created a trust for the planet, you are a beneficiary and they are the trustees and all your property has now been conveyed into that trust. That would be an absolutely unlawful, fraudulent, immoral, deceitful trust. It would not be a lawful trust. Why? It wouldn’t be a lawful trust because it is not clear what or who the grantor of the trust is the one who owns the property and has rights to do convey. Under the Roman Cult version of the world, it is the Roman Cult that claims that it is the trustees of all property and that the Divine Creator as the owner grants the Roman Cult the right to administer the property.
So, if the Roman Cult was behind this trust and it has created many global trusts, would that make it legitimate? It would certainly give strength to the claim that the Roman Cult can claim and rely on such instruments as the Bible, the papal bulls, theological works, historical instruments such as libraries full of hundreds of thousands of texts over hundreds of years that reinforce their primacy. But, all that is, is an elaborate claim. Is it legitimate? Is it valid? That is the key question and we address that when you look at sites such as www.one-evil.org and we address that with the Covenant of One Heaven on www.one-heaven.org.
If someone came to you and they had no theological work of hundreds and hundreds of pages, no library of hundreds of thousands specifically designed works reinforcing that specific claim and all those people did was to claim to be the trustees and give no indication of the rights of the grantor of the trust, of the argument of the grantor, then even with one breach it would not be a valid trust. It would be an unlawful trust. If they claimed it to be legitimate, then they would be deliberately committing fraud and every single person involved would be placing themselves in grave danger through such naiveté. One cannot convey property into a trust without the right permission. It is that simple from the outset.
There will be more to speak about concerning www.one-heaven.org and the covenant of One Heaven regarding trusts before we end the call. What we have said with trusts is that there needs to be some instrument if it is a formal conveyance. And, there must be a trust deed. If there is no trust deed then there is no legitimate trust. When it comes to the conveyance even if there is a trust deed, the one who is conveying the property, the grantor, or the claimed owner of the property, must have permission and authority. If they don’t, it is not a lawful conveyance. It cannot be. There needs to be a collection of property defined within the trust. It can’t be aerie fairie and it cannot be everything that everything that walks, lives and breathes, it needs to be specific. If it is not specific and you cannot define the property then clearly there is no trust.
In terms of the administration there may be an executor, a trustor, who are the highest fiduciary or there may be trustees involved. There will be accounts to that that trust in its administration. And there will be some creation or extract of title which is one of the primary benefits of the trust which is then given to the beneficiary in terms of the benefits and fruits of what that trust are. It won’t be the legal title, but the beneficial title. When a trust has those elements then it is a legitimate trust. If it doesn’t have those elements then it cannot be regarded as a legitimate trust.
...Sadly the world and sadly in more recent years, the world is full of disinformation, greed, ego, false hope and false representation and I physically don’t have the time or energy to point out each and every false trail. That is something that you as a test of your own competence need to consider for yourself. I have shown plenty of examples that ordinarily if people were thinking objectively should give cause for pause. I gave an example some weeks ago in regard to the private law form and I repeat it: the private law form of the American Legal Institute in the creation of the system known as the Uniform Commercial Code (the UCC). If anyone was to come to you and say that they had used that system to foreclose anything in their system then you are dealing with fraudsters, criminals, and imposters. I assure you that is there and whatever has been put in place will be rejected ultimately. More so, the existing system will come after them and maybe not for a month or year, but it will come after them and it will come after every single one of you who ignore common sense and refuse to listen to what is abundantly clear: the UCC is used when it is promoted in the truth movement as a honey trap to increase the amount of money that can be made from people who stupidly use it. It is a private form of law and it can never be used against itself.
...we have hammered home the argument that unless you have permission to convey something into a trust then you cannot convey it, no matter how grand your claim is. Three, four or five people coming up and saying they are foreclosing on the world—it’s a nice, arrogant idea. It’s not true. If you want to keep hammering that home, then clearly you are doing it for something else. It is not true; it is a lie. It is falsity. (Emphasis mine.)
(Full article or listen to the full audio mp3 file - link(s) below)
Source ARTICLE: "Trusts- what are they?how do they work? and other answers"
Blog.Ucadia.com Audio Recording : https://ucadia.s3.amazonaws.com/audi..._broadcast.mp3
Add To Favorites!