Trusts- what are they?how do they work? and other answers

_________________________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (104 min 22.2 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________________________

We are changing the pace a bit this week and talking about trusts: what is a trust? how and why is it formed? where do trusts come from? when is a trust really a trust? how do they work in practice? how many trusts do we really have? how do we deal with trusts?

We’ll try to cover as much as we can concerning the function, purpose and design of trusts as a foundation for further discussions in coming weeks as the fulfillment of the promise I made that we would address some of these essential questions in a series like estates, affidavits, wills and testament and the other instruments for taking control of our own affairs and clearly demonstrating that we are not slaves.

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) since we first really started to introduce and define trusts in a far more accessible way in the last few years, time has passed and not everyone has had a chance to look at the workshop videos where I cover these things or have listened to the previous audios.  So, a lot of people are asking about trusts and saying:  “I hear about trusts but I am not 100% certain what a trust is?” or “I’m not really clear on what ultimately trusts are all about even though I might admit or say that I know?” or “I’m not clear and would you clarify since the word trust is used throughout the Ucadia websites and in particular the sites like www.one-heaven.org?” That is why I have decided to discuss trusts and answer the questions.

Where do we begin?  I’d like you to go to the website, www.one-heaven.org and when you get there, go to the body of canons, the maxims of law that we call positive law.  Look at article 80.  One of the most deliberately confusing concepts for people to get their heads around is the relation between fictional concepts when we speak about Law.  There is no such thing in nature called a ‘trust.’  They don’t grow on trees, come out of the land, they don’t land on planets, they don’t spontaneously create or combust through the interaction of elements.  They are a wholly fictional construct from the minds of philosophers hundreds and in some cases thousands of years ago.

What they recognize is something that was understood even in the earliest cultures:  the recognition that when one wants to not just implement, but enforce any kind of law as to ownership or possession or occupation or use of physical things, the law itself demands that a fictional construct of those things are created because in many cases those things themselves are immovable as objects.  The most obvious example of this is when we speak about land, our homes, for example.  If you have applied, paid for a mortgage, obtained or inherited a home, then you would be familiar with the concept of a title, an instrument that purports to represent the home, the physical place, and who may or may not own that physical place.  

The certificate of title is not the property itself; it is not the home or the land, but yes it is ‘property.’  It’s not the home or the land.  What it allows is a fictional construct to be created after a survey of that land which creates a title of ownership that allows that land to be sold, moved, and administered.  So even from the times back to Egypt, Sumeria and in the most ancient of traditional cultures it was recognized that creating a fictional icon of something tangible but immovable was a way then of administering rights, ownership, possession, occupation and the trade or the rights inherited by those things.

Where it gets difficult for many people, is the introduction of additional concepts in order to be able to ascribe a value to trade and to claim to own, to enforce law, when and how an “icon” needs to be created, say an “avatar” of your physical home, car, and how all these areas work in order to assign rights to those and be able to manage them as you cannot wrap your hands around these things and hold them, such as the land. So where it gets confusing is when the trusts come into play and what trusts and property have to do with one another?

The Concept of Property

The concept of creating avatars or fictional constructs of things to manage ownership is not new, and it’s not new to the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican.  The Romans were organizing registers of land, possessions, and trade as were the Greeks many hundreds and sometimes thousands of years ago.  The first use of trusts as the word we know today does in fact come from the Roman Cult.  What the Roman Cult did was to add an additional element into this idea of the creation of fictional avatars for homes and for horses, property.  

What the Roman Cult and Vatican claimed was “As the Divine Creator created everything that we see:  the planets, the heavens, the stars, including the people, the ultimate owner of everything and the ultimate owner of all the avatars must by definition be the Divine Creator.  Because we didn’t create it we cannot claim it.  Because we didn’t own it in the first place, we can’t claim it in the second place”.

If you think about that it makes perfect sense.  If people could go out and take possession of something purely by claiming it -which the Europeans have done in the “New World” in complete contradiction of what I’ve said- but if people were to go out in the cities today and make outrageous claims for which they have no prior ownership or rights, then it would be absolute chaos because people could make outrageous claims and if they were the first to do that and they were accepted, it would mean that all property rights would mean nothing.  It would be complete anarchy.

So, the Roman Cult in the most fundamental structuring of Western Roman Law say that the yes, the Divine Creator is the Creator of everything, but also that the Divine Creator is the Ultimate Owner of everything and we cannot own anything because we were not the original creators of it and we don’t have a prior right to that.  They also qualified and said that we can use it but the administration of those rights of use called property ultimately are held by the representative of the Divine Creator being the Roman cult, the Roman Catholic Church.  So, they established themselves effectively not as the owners but what they called the trustees.  What they said was that all that you see, and all the fictional constructs of what you see are held in trust on behalf of the Divine Creator by the Roman Pontiff and by the Roman Catholic Church for use by men, women and children on the planet.  This was the first creation of the concept of trusts.  This was the papal bull called Unum Sanctum (1302).  

Just to show you by fast-forwarding to the present day why that concept that you cannot own the thing outright and that we only have the right of use is evident in the real definition of what property is in the first place.  Look at canon 1868 (Article 80):

Property is any fictional Right of Use expressed into a Trust relationship with other Forms whereby there exists a claimed Form of Ownership or Executorship, Form of Trustee(s) administering the Form as Property and Forms of Beneficiaries. Hence Property is the Rights of an Owner to Use the Form, never ownership of the object or concept itself.

We see that from the very beginnings of the structuring of law by the Roman Cult back in the 14th century and the creation of the papal bull Unum Sanctum that kicks off the first master trust.  

Keep that in mind that one of the rules of forming and creating a trust is that there must be a grantor and the grantor must have the right to convey the property in the first instance.  What is a trust?  What do we mean by trust?  In our day-to-day life we deal with this all the time when we remember what was said in the construct, control mechanism by the Roman cult where they artfully claimed hundreds and hundreds of years ago that the Divine Creator is the Maker of everything, the Divine Creator is the Grantor of everything and the Catholic Church is merely the trustees of all in trust.  What do we mean by trust?

We deal with trusts all the time in our daily lives.  Probably the easiest ones to think of is the concept of our son or daughter borrowing the car.  “Hey Dad, can I borrow the car?”  “Yes, but don’t smash it and I’ve got to see it back here by 9 o’clock.”  There we have all the essential dynamics of a trust.  The property of the trust, in which the Latin word res is used for the thing, the object, and the form.  The property of the trust, the res of the trust is the right of use of the automobile.  The purpose of the trust is to move or transport.  The other condition of the trust is to maintain the vehicle properly and return it at a certain time for that trust to be dissolved. The grantor is the parent who gives the keys to the son and the trustee is the son driving.  The beneficiary, and this is where people get confused, in this case is the person that we call the son (or daughter) that has the enjoyment of the use of the fictional property.

That doesn’t mean that the son in the role of trustee is simultaneously the beneficiary.  Remember when we speak of fictions there are two separate and quite distinct roles.  The way to describe this is again by taking the parental role, and any parents raising children know that parenting acquires many hats.  It literally means many hats or many persons.  One person is the nurturer, one is the custodian, one is the guardian, one is the teacher, one is the driver, and one is the enforcer sometimes.  These are all different personalities of being a parent.  

Of course we can say overarching; all of these can be folded into the parent.  It doesn’t mean that these roles do not function uniquely and independently.  Of course they do.  If one is teaching their children a lesson, if one is not fair and reasonable, if one tries to mix that at the same time as being an enforcer, then it can be a harsh teacher.  It can present a difficult way for a child to learn.  If one is being a custodian and one is also trying to entertain, then children can get into trouble and fall off rides and get hurt.  If we are being custodians we need to focus at the job at hand.  These roles do require a different thought and intensity.  

What is a trust?

In that simple idea of a son or daughter borrowing a car from a parent, we see the operation of a trust.   We see the grantor, the property into the trust, the purpose of the trust, the rules of the trust, the intent of the trust and we have the trustee and beneficiary.  How do we formally define what a trust is before we get into the key elements so we can start to distinguish clearly when something is or is not a trust?   Sometimes there is unfortunate, deliberate confusion that exists.  Now look at Article 84 and Canon 1901 on Positive Law and there is a section of canons that define trust.

A Trust is a fictional Form of Relations and Agreement whereby certain Form, Rights and Obligations are lawfully conveyed to the control of one or more Persons as Executors and their Trustees for the benefit of one or more other Persons.

Remember the person is the beneficiary and you find in all cases the beneficiary is the fictional concept of the person, just as a trustee is also a fictional form.  That definition of Canon 1901 matches accurately and perfectly all reputable definitions of what a trust is.  Let’s break it down and look at the pieces one by one.  Trust identifies relations like we said between the grantor, the trustee, the beneficiary and the property.  And, it is an agreement and there must be a form of the agreement.  If there is an agreement then we must match all the considerations of an agreement.  There must be consideration, offer, terms and so forth.  There must be something that is lawfully conveyed in the form of rights and obligations of some kind, remembering based on the previous definition of property that property is a right of use and right of use is a form of legitimate property for a trust and all property is held in trust.  It is one and the same thing.  

When it is conveyed it is done so under the control of an executor or a trustor and there are trustees depending on how the agreement is established with certain benefit.  So we break these down in a more formal sense when we look at the more common elements of trusts when we begin to look at the structuring of trusts that occur in banking and finance, in business and in law.  So, the agreement does not have to be written in all trusts.  It does have to be written for some trusts, but in simple trusts it doesn’t have to be written.  It can as simple as the parents saying not to smash the car and to be back by a certain time.  When we speak of trusts in a more formal sense and those trusts are claiming certain rights or certain conveyances, then the terms of the trust, the agreement, purpose and intention of the trust should normally be reflected in a written document called the Trust Deed.   The Trust Deed then formally identifies the property to be conveyed and how the trust shall be administered.   

The most common elements of a trust are described in Canon 1902 and that is the owner of the property, or the authorized person having permission to create the trust and convey the form and property into the trust.  

All valid Trusts possess the following characteristics known as the Standard Characteristics of Trust:

(i) A Trust Instrument, also known as a Trust Deed identifying the essential Form of the Trust, the Property to be conveyed to create the Trust and how the Trust shall be administered by the Executor and any Trustees; and

(ii) An Owner of the Property or authorized Person having permission to create the Trust Instrument and convey the Form and Property into the Trust; and

(iii) A collection of Property within the Trust defined as the Trust Corpus, also Trust Body or Body Corporate; and

(iv) At least one Executor of the Trust possessing the highest fiduciary authority and function over the Trust, either appointed by the Owner of the Property conveyed into the Trust, or by the laws of appointment of Executor if a Cestui Que Vie Trust or the Beneficiary of the Trust if the beneficiary is also the Grantor; and

(v) At least one Trustee under Fiduciary Law or Administrator of the Trust under Administrative Law, who is neither the Owner nor authorized Person who conveyed the property into the Trust, appointed by and responsible to the Executor in accordance with the Trust Instrument who is then responsible for the administration of the assets of the Trust being the Trust Corpus also being the collection of Property; and

(vi) A Separate and unique set of Accounts held by the Trustee(s), also known as a separate fund, for the recording of all administrative transactions and duties; and

(vii) The formalization of the rights of Property conveyed into the Trust into a Legal Title held by the Trustees and one or more Equitable Title(s) permitting one or more beneficiaries lawful use of property of the Trust, consistent with the Trust Instrument; and

(viii) One or more beneficiaries.

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.  Ti 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.  

If there is only one beneficiary then that person can also be the executor and vice-versa.  But a person cannot be the trustee, the administrator and the beneficiary at the same time.  Nor can the same person be the executor and the trustee.  If you want an analogy think of it as this:  “Judge, jury and executioner.”  Now you might appointed or asked to judge something and give your opinion when you judge something.  That is fine.  You may be called to be a witness to a dispute between two parties.  You may also be called to do something as a result of a dispute between two people.  “Can you go and fix that please?”  “Look we had an argument, so can you take the kids home and I’ll get back with you later on.”  There are all different scenarios in our lives where we will be in the three roles.  But, the definition in Law is that you cannot be all three at the same time.  You can perform them differently because there are different obligations.  You can still be nominated at different times, but you cannot do all three at the same time.  That is the explanation and rationale of why you can be one and not the other.  It’s not that you cannot be one and the other; you cannot simultaneously be one and the other.  

Here’s an example.  Let’s go back to the analogy of a trust and let’s think of three roles. Let’s say there is the role of the executor, the role of the trustees and the role of the beneficiaries.  If you think of the executor in terms of being the director of a corporation, directors can also be employees.  If you think of trustees being employees, that is fine.  But one cannot be a director of employees when you are the employee that you are dealing with.  You can be the managing director, sure.  But, being a director of employees is different.  Similarly, beneficiaries can be viewed as shareholders.  Of course directors can have shareholding.  But, when you are functioning in the role of a shareholder, holding the directors to account you are wearing a different hat.  So, you see, you can have these different aspects.  But there are implied obligations within these different functions and this is why the law separates them and often confuses people into believing that you can only be one ever and that you cannot have a role in more than one position.   They confuse the fact that under obligations the issue is that you cannot simultaneously act as judge, jury and executioner.  You cannot simultaneously act as the director, the employee and the shareholder at the same time through the same act.  

Now, trusts are a critical part of Ucadia. What I have described is an accurate description of the founding law of trusts that underpins the Western Roman system, so what do we mean then by these different types of trusts that we see in Ucadia such as the Divine Trust, the True Trust and the Superior Trust?  Remember earlier that I said that in the case of the Roman Cult also known as the Vatican or the Holy See, it has accumulated history of hundreds of years and hundreds of papal bulls and thousands of pages of the bible that point to its claim as being the trustees on behalf of the Divine Creator for all property, for all living things on this planet.  It doesn’t make that claim right and it doesn’t make that claim absolute but what it does is make that claim very, very strong by the sheer weight of evidence.  The only way one can contest such a complex and massive claim is to present a comprehensive, logical counterclaim whereby the arguments of the Roman cult can be forensically dissected to show without a doubt that they were never the true creators, inheritors, or successors of the Catholic Church, much less the Christian church.  

Therefore, on that argument alone, they could not be the trustees as they are imposters.  Secondly, many of the core elements of their argument concerning their rights are without question fraud, fraudulent documents and deliberately criminal actions and they have never represented, ever, the Divine Creator and therefore no property has ever been in their trusts because there was never a lawful conveyance.  I’ll give you an example.  If someone came to you and said, and there is lots and lots of confusion and people who want to steal your money, good intentions and commit fraud and work as agents for the status quo and work as agents for nihilists and cause disruption and feed off your pain and agony, and they are more than happy for you to be confused by their deliberate confusion out there.  If someone came to you and said, for example, that we have foreclosed on these people, what would that mean?  That would mean that they are claiming that property that was once held legitimately by the Roman Cult has been somehow lawfully conveyed to some other entity.  

Based on what we have said, unless the Roman Cult has given permission for such an action and unless they were part of that claim, then any such claim would be absolutely absurd and you would have to be in such a state of confusion to believe such a claim and under such a spell of terrible con artists to believe such a state of confusion.  In fact if you took a step back from that position and looked at the argument that the Roman Cult has never had a legitimate claim in the first place, meaning that they have never, ever legitimately held property, then if a claim to create a trust, especially a trust for the world emerged based on some foreclosure, closure, claim or salvage or some other mechanism, then it would be false.   It would be wrong.  When we speak of different trusts in regards to Ucadia, there are two very important considerations:  the first is before we get to Divine or True Trusts or what these things specifically mean, keep these two things in mind:  the Covenant of One Heaven is a massive document designed over many, many years and is supported by a complex model which is the Ucadia model, and the Ucadia model is the Journey of UCA, the Journey of Unique Collective Awareness which is 23 chapters, the Journey of Self which is 23 chapters, the seven patents of Unique Collective Awareness that outline every elementary particle and every law of physics and the entire Hydro-Helio-Atomic Matrix, and defining the complete structuring of the Universe, and the foundation of the 22 collections of the most sacred texts in the world and the recreation and the restructuring of some of those ancient texts that have been missing, and the 22 books of canon law with all the maxims and principles of law to be found and sourced from all history, and over 7000 forms which define the 33 codes and structure of law, and the 33 codes of law derived from the 22 books of canons, the eleven covenants—this is a massive, absolutely massive model and the likes of this has never been seen except for the Roman Cult.  

It has taken a life-time to design and unless someone is able to show an original work of such depth, logic and forensic sense, then their claim is merely an arbitrary claim without substance, without sense, without any legitimacy whatsoever.  I can claim, and you can claim until the cows come home, you can claim that you are a royal and that you are from another planet and that you are whatever and people do.  The Internet is the playground for people to lie, lie and lie some more.  But, the immensity of the Ucadia model is not a lie; it is a fact.  It is a complex claim.  What is that complex claim? Before, people have come with their own motives, to muddy the waters and to find ways to make money, and for whatever motive they choose to obfuscate and deceive.  The Ucadia model through the Covenant of One Heaven made it clear that the Roman Cult has never held this property, that you have rights to what is yours and that you are not a slave and that a complete and total structure exists for your benefit and if these words sound familiar to what imposters and liars and people are doing, then imagine where they get their words.  But, look to the model and to the claim.   

There is only one claim and one model that in size alone can even come close.   That is the existing system for the last thousand years.  But, in terms of coherence, completeness, strength of claim, the Roman system does not have a leg to stand on.   That is the first.  Here is the second:  despite the lifetime of work, despite the immensity of the Ucadia model, despite that Ucadia can claim the lawful conveyance of certain rights, divine rights of use and the creation of the Divine Trusts, what makes Ucadia legitimate is not that claim alone.  It is when men and women complete their Will and Testament and are prepared to bear witness to that claim in recognizing that it lawfully conveys those rights and that no one stands between them and the Divine.  When that link is put in place it forms an unbreakable bond between the Covenant of One Heaven and the perfected Will and Testament template of a man and a woman. 

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.  

So what are the different types of trusts within Ucadia?  Let’s wrap up this so that we get really clear about what a trust is.  We have spoken about trusts, we have spoken about where they come from, the elements that form a trust, and 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.

Different types of Trusts

Ucadia identifies a structuring of trusts in a manner that absolutely breaks the arguments of the Roman Cult and anyone else that wants to come and try to lie, cheat, steal, and confuse.  The first is the concept of a Divine Trust.  In using the framework of what a trust is, the Divine Trust as defined in Article 85 is purely a spiritual trust of the Unique Collective Awareness (another name for the Divine Creator), administered on behalf of UCA by UCADIA. As a spiritual trust it is based on the following:  it says that you as being a part of the Divine can be identified separately to the Divine.    At the same time, as the personification of the Divine, you are the Absolute Divine.   

When we look at that separation, we can formalize the separation by saying that which is separated, that divinity or spirit is held in trust as part of the Collective.  When a Divine Immortal Spirit is created, it is created in Trust to the Collective.  How do we say that?  Take a cake:  a cake as a whole can be sliced into parts with a knife.  The cake is now in parts and it is still a hole until those parts are removed.  The knife or the identification that separates the cake is the elements that create a Divine Trust.  

What do we mean by a True Trust?  Canon 1942 we say that a True Trust is formed when the Divine Person formed by the  Divine Trust, grants certain Divine Rights of use known as Divinity to the True Person Trust which creates the trust corpus of the True Trust known as the body corporate that has legal personality.   So, if you want to express it more simply, when your Divine Spirit chooses to come to this planet and be expressed in a flesh vessel, a trust is formed for that Divine Right of Use that is then expressed through that vessel in the form of your mind, the True Person, the “I.”

The third type of trust that we speak of is a Superior Trust and a Superior Trust is formed by the identification of being a member.  We say in Canon 1950 that a Superior Trust is formed upon a True Person forming an Agreement by some deed to use certain property in accordance with these canons.  It is what we would normally call the form of person but the highest form of person if we were the member of any community.  

So there are the three forms of trusts:  the highest form is the Divine Trust, the second is the True Trust and the third is the Superior Trust.  No one can claim a higher form of trust.  No one can claim a higher form of trust.   It is, by definition the most perfected form of trust.  Ucadia doesn’t claim ownership of it.  Ucadia is the custodian of knowledge.  It is your Will and Testament that gives legitimacy to the claim, the consent gives legitimacy to the claim.  The fact that the Roman Cult nor any young ambitious pirates of today who want to come and confuse, steal and thieve, and repeat what the Roman Cult has done, have any right to claim your body, your property.  All of it is there in the Ucadia model and has been there for years and years.  While we don’t jump up on the parapets and defend whenever someone comes and makes a false claim or lies, or comes to see people put in prison or steal their money, because the information is there and we constantly ask people to please be competent, it is up to you to choose.

I leave you with this thought and challenge:  before we speak about estates next week, about Will and Testament and about administering your affairs and being competent, if you do not read the sections in positive law on trusts, and if you do not read the sections regarding Trusts and persons in the Covenant then you are not ready for the next sections.  If you don’t read and if you don’t comprehend then you cannot be competent in moving forward.  If you are not competent then discussing these things, raising these things and thinking they can be used in court can in fact create far more damage to you than if you never mention them at all. 

For those that listen and read, thank you.   For those who wish to be competent, thank you and good luck.  And for those that still want to be confused and ignore, I’m sorry to hear that.  I hope that one day you will wake up and until that day I hope that you do not get yourself into deeper trouble.  Thank you for listening. I know this is a technical, but passionate subject.  I hope that if you read these sections on the canons and look at the blog you will find the information useful and that you are to continue to help and support Ucadia and our efforts.