[aksis]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Trusts are generally domiciled in the state a person [trustee?settlor?] is living in in order to be effective, as a matter of convenience.

They can be and this will be the default if domicile is undeclared, yet the trust will be domiciled where it is declared to be domiciled in the trust indenture.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Sorry statement should have been “ However, domicile does NOT alter the fact that they were being used illegally.”

The reality of the fiction... *yawn*

Think universaly, act globaly. Think globaly, act localy.

More to my points, it is not a legal concern, it is a lawful one.

A Dictionary of Law (1893):

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal," a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. See "legal." [Bold emphasis added]

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual "Legal" looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and "Lawful" to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is act full in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott's Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I have a keyboard that is not well and I don’t always catch it before I post.

That can happen, or just type-o's. I do this sometimes as well.

I was more concerned that, "were", was actualy the word you intended because I didn't want to correct it and find it was not the word.

I appreciate the clarification. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.

Forgiven. I am not exactly looking for you to 'stand under' me, I need you to stand with me, as the Divine being, and comprehend life outside of the fiction... in the Universe, on Earth.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I agree, that change of domicile has an effect on the governing laws, but the laws under which it was formed are the controlling ones, regardless of where they move to.

So, at the very least, the "law it is formed under", is always the Law. Not the law of some fictinal nation state.

I recognize that the 'governing law' will always be one and the same with the Law.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

The treaty you are referring to is basically an international version of our constitution’s full faith and credit article.

I wouldn't give it that much credit, I can see it is like that in regards to trusts though...

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

The point being that the trust has to be legal and recognized by the nation it was drawn under.

Again, more to my points, it is not a concern of legality, the requirement is to be lawful.

Its not form->substance, It is:

Substance -> form.

or in other words,

It is not matter->Spirit, it is always,

Spirit->matter.

So long as it is a lawful covenent forming the trust, it will be legal in all States...

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

While I realize this is mostly semantics, for all practical purposes, the IRS is nothing more than a group of people...

Your exactly right in this point... well said!

So people should sue them... why name the United States as a party? It's a legal fiction, the people are the ones that commit the torts. Do people lack the ability to determin relaity from fiction? Are they competent? If not, do they become a "ward of the state"?

It is the ones in the masks that wronged people, not their mask.

The persona someone was acting in is a distraction and the 'shadow of a dog'.

While the shadow of a dog never bit anyone, the dog did.

Why point to the shadow of the dog as though it is what bit you?