In beginning our exploration of the subject of trusts, it's crucial to first understand the legal systems that connect to living individuals, giving rise to various forms of trusts, both implied and expressed, which can be categorized as either public or private.

Most are not aware of the fact that legal systems can attach rights and duties to natural persons without their express consent in the form of constructive & resulting trusts (Cornell Law, 22 U.S. Code § 1645a). This dichotomy reflects two distinct legal frameworks, each with its own unique implications and applications regarding trusts.

First, let's consider the concept of the implied public trust. Public trusts are typically associated with the benefits and privileges that arise from being a citizen within a specific jurisdiction. In this context, since we are talking about the jurisdiction of the United States, it’s only appropriate to also address that the United States defined here, is not the same “United States” as it is referred to in the Constitution of the United States of America, which in fact, was referred to by the founding fathers as a constitutional republic. Contrarily, the United States is a District of Columbia corporation. In Volume 20: Corpus Juris. §1785 we find that "The United States government is [now] a foreign corporation with respect to a State" (See NY re: Merriam 36 N.E 505 1441 S. 01973 14 L. Ed. 287).

How this came to be is a long and complicated history but to summarize, between 1913 and 1933, through a series of bank failures and subrogated acts of congress, our elected government passed H.R. Resolution 192, which suspended the gold standard and disestablished the fixed content of the gold dollar that in effect took away the common law jurisdiction of the U.S standard dollar lawful money. In effect, the entire country, every state and freeborn, sovereign individual, became insolvent and was effectively put into bankruptcy and moved into a foreign implied trust.

This means that all assets and obligations were transferred into a trust that operates under foreign jurisdiction, implying that control and ownership were shifted away from domestic entities and individuals to an external authority. The concept of a foreign implied trust suggests that the country's resources and governance were no longer under the direct control of its people but were instead managed by external parties or entities, leading to significant changes in sovereignty and financial autonomy. This shift has profound implications for the legal and economic status of the nation and its citizens, as it denotes a loss of direct control over assets and decision-making processes, potentially impacting national policies and individual freedoms.

 In conclusion, everyone was forced on to the credit of the private banks, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the commercial banks, which began to pass around their debt instruments (securitization), as money, making use of their debts claims to move jurisdictions. Congress has now exclusive legislative states that extend their corporate jurisdictions. In this sense, the term "United States" is a singular noun.

In other words, you are a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories or Federal areas (enclaves). Hence, even a person living in one of the sovereign states could still be a member of the federal area and therefore a "citizen of the United States." This is the definition used in most Acts of Congress and federal statutes and is synonymous with the United States corporation which leads us to U.S.C. 8 § 1401 (a) which states that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

These laws, such as the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act in the United States or the Merchant Shipping Act in other jurisdictions, govern activities and disputes that take place on navigable waters. They create a form of implied trust between the individual and the state, wherein the individual, as a citizen, is subject to the rules and protections of that legal framework.

The Supreme Court of California confirms “The right to be and exist as a corporation is a grant by the sovereign power, a valuable right and subject to taxation. . . A corporate franchise is the right to exist as an entity for the purpose of doing things permitted by law...And the exercise of such right is subject to taxation.” Having granted this franchise to the people, the benefited foreign corporation affords them the advantages of In rem jurisdiction.

This jurisdictions over a man and woman can only exist if the man or woman is a slave, i.e., property or res (an object), in which case his or her disposition at law is no different than if he or she were property or other goods. (See Zong (Gregson v. Gilbert), 99 E.R. 3:3233 (K.B. 1783).

"In nature, in rem, jurisdiction is exercised over men and women by their Creator, exclusively. Governments can therefore gain only a fictional in rem jurisdiction over men by creating various legal devices (personas) for those men to assume limited control” (e.g., citizen, taxpayer, etc,) see Weiss Handbook & American L&P Ch.V § 65. 

This excerpt is from our exclusive E-book "The Secret Life of Trusts, Vol I" written by Javier Venegas. To access the full E-book, click https://www.frontiercapitaltrust.com/e-book