Where to begin in protecting real property

[dave b]

My question(s) will, no doubt, expose my ignorance. I am grateful for the chance to learn from those experienced and successful in this area.



We(my wife and I) have recently purchased our home. We want to keep it safe [as possible] from marauders(government and/or private). Trusts have been mentioned as one means, but where to begin and who to trust. We would like to keep this as simple (and inexpensive) as possibe, but truly effective. We are looking for a long term solutions.



Maybe a trust isn't the way to go!? Maybe a land patent??



We are wanting to learn and get this going ASAP. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

[Ice]

Land Patent... with the intent to seek "Allodial Title".

There are many references within the forum and the "links" page as to where to acquire the necessary info.



Check the download section for the "Land Patent" document for an understanding of the power behind it.



Ice

[Jerseee]

Dave b,



Glad to see you being proactive in protecting your family and their possessions.



For questions of Trusts and how to develop one--contact oxfordtrust@hotmail.com or you can send a private e-mail to one of our esteemed members named "Montana" and Montana can help you with your questions.



Just as Ice referenced, knowledge is power. Learn, read, and study before making sudden moves. As you should know and realize--these procedures are put in place to prevent them but you know they can invade anytime and say ooops later.



With this in mind--you need to bone up on courtroom rules and procedure so, you can go on the offensive if this happens.



THis type of thinking is like chambering a round in your weapon of knowledge--you are not going to shoot but just in case you have to fire off a round--you will be able to.



have fun

[kmvh]

I know this is an older thread, but I would suggest anyone looking into asset protection to avoid trusts. To create them, they must, by definition, open the door to legal scrutiny, and if a judge can see it, he can seize it for any reason or for no reason.

I am currently looking into a Nevada Corporation. The book, "Bulletproof Asset Protection" by William S. Reed, J. D., is written by a former collection attorney who turned to the light side. Such a corp. costs about $2500 to set up with the company referenced below, and about $900 per year, which ain't cheap, but Nevada Corps were historically set up by/for the mafia, and are attached to Nevada's school funding (so it won't be going away anytime soon , and do not need to show the corporate details (stockholder lists, names on stock certificates, and bearer shares) in the record filed with the state. Anonymity is guaranteed.

You can use such corps for putting "friendly liens" on property you own to complicate any collection attempts. If you own a business, there are numerous tax benefits, as well. There are several other details about it that I would be glad to discuss, but since I don't sell them, I don't feel quite right repeating them here. Besides, it's been a couple weeks since I met with the representative from the company set up by Bill Reed, Asset Protection Group, Inc.

It's all completely legal and above-board, with all the legalities taken care of and certified by APG. They provide consulting service for each year you sign up, a set of paperwork, including the original certified articles of incorporation, minutes of your first board of directors meeting, and general instructions for each article you receive, as a few examples. They do not have a web site because they work through consultants. I heard about them on my local patriot radio station, KHNC, in an interview given by one of the agents. It all sounds like it's on the up-and-up, but I will investigate further.

Best,
Kara

[Purge]

I'm also a newbie and what I see is now you're subject to taxes and control of the gov.

I would go Nevada if I wanted a business but I don't think I would do this with my private business.

[TheBlackTruth]

Originally Posted by kmvh

I know this is an older thread, but I would suggest anyone looking into asset protection to avoid trusts. To create them, they must, by definition, open the door to legal scrutiny, and if a judge can see it, he can seize it for any reason or for no reason.

I am currently looking into a Nevada Corporation. The book, "Bulletproof Asset Protection" by William S. Reed, J. D., is written by a former collection attorney who turned to the light side. Such a corp. costs about $2500 to set up with the company referenced below, and about $900 per year, which ain't cheap, but Nevada Corps were historically set up by/for the mafia, and are attached to Nevada's school funding (so it won't be going away anytime soon , and do not need to show the corporate details (stockholder lists, names on stock certificates, and bearer shares) in the record filed with the state. Anonymity is guaranteed.

You can use such corps for putting "friendly liens" on property you own to complicate any collection attempts. If you own a business, there are numerous tax benefits, as well. There are several other details about it that I would be glad to discuss, but since I don't sell them, I don't feel quite right repeating them here. Besides, it's been a couple weeks since I met with the representative from the company set up by Bill Reed, Asset Protection Group, Inc.

It's all completely legal and above-board, with all the legalities taken care of and certified by APG. They provide consulting service for each year you sign up, a set of paperwork, including the original certified articles of incorporation, minutes of your first board of directors meeting, and general instructions for each article you receive, as a few examples. They do not have a web site because they work through consultants. I heard about them on my local patriot radio station, KHNC, in an interview given by one of the agents. It all sounds like it's on the up-and-up, but I will investigate further.

Best,
Kara

Purge is correct.

I am not a newbie (either on this site or in the Asset Protection Arena).

Pardon my verbosity, but I feel I must chime in with a different opinion else people may be misled by the post above.

As many of you know, there are many organizations and individuals touting various asset protection schemes. Some of them work to an extent. Some do not work at all. Generally, there are two camps from which most of these schemes come: the statutory entity camp, and the common-law entity camp.

Let's be clear on this part: Neither camp can provide you with "bullet-proof" asset protection. There are a few characteristics to a "bullet-proof" asset protection scheme that make them successful. The first layer of protection is anonymity. No matter how secure or vulnerable your system is, if nobody can find it, its safe! The next good characteristic is its resistance to judgements and liens. If an entity in your scheme cannot easily be attached, then that is good. Finally, tax liability. An entity with little or no tax liability is ideal.

The easiest to fall to a litigation attack would be the statutory entities (e.g. corporations, LLC's, LLP's, etc.) by virtue of their dependency on the government for their existence. A statutory entity, such as a corporation, owes its existence to provisions in State and Federal law that govern it. These laws can change at anytime. This is not good. Statutory entities are by far the worst asset protection tools available. They are better than being an individual, but not by very much. Consider the three characteristics of a good asset protection scheme I just listed. Corporations cannot be anonymous as they are publicly registered with the Secretary of State. Corporations are easily Liened up and Judgements can stick to them like flies to honey. In fact, the UCC was generally created to operate against corporate entities. There is also built-in corporate tax liability in statute that makes a corporation 0 for 3 on the asset protection scale.

This is not to say corporations aren't useful. They are. I'm saying a corporation should not be the only tool in your tool box. If all you have is a hammer, then all your problems will have to be nails. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where all they throw at you is nails so you can handle them with your hammer.

Common-law entities (e.g. corp soles, trusts, etc.) are much better than corporations in all categories. Firstly, a properly used trust is never registered with any government and as such can maintain a fair amount of anonymity. Common-law trusts have no tax liability as they are considered non-entities by the IRS. Trusts can be liened and judgements can stick, but it's not as easy to identify culpable parties if the trust's members are properly structured. A trust, although very handy, is still just another tool and can't do it all.

So far we've covered two jurisdictions. Most people do not leave these two juridictions when structuring their asset protection system. In fact even fewer go a step further and use BOTH jurisdictions strategically to acheive an even greater level of protection. There is one remaining jurisdiction that, when used in conjunction with the other two, can provide you with true "bullet proof" Asset Protection - The Offshore Jurisdiction.

Offshore is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to any place that is outside the external borders of the United States of America and US territories. Canada would be offshore by this definition. When you go offshore, you play by a completely different set of rules - their rules. There are many offshore jurisdictions that are as hostile, if not moreso, than the United States. However there are some that are much, much better. A good rule of thumb is to simply go where the super-wealthy go (e.g. U.S. senators, etc.) and that will take a lot of the guesswork out of it. I personally recommend Panama, but there are a few other jursidictions out there that are as good.

Structuring your system so that your equity flows Offshore is a great way to acheive total protection. A rule of asset protection is that "Liability flows with Equity". So, if your equity flows offshore, so will your liability. That's exactly how you want it to work.

Properly structured, you will find yourself owning no assets, having no income and therefore no tax liability. However you get to control assets of some unrelated third-party. That's precisely how the Rockafellers, Morgans, Carnegies, Rothschilds, etc. did it. Why reinvent the wheel?

On a final note, the prices quoted above are unreasonable. I set up statutory enties for my clients daily and a new corporation set up with all the fixings won't cost you a dime over $1200. Don't get ripped off when you go looking for protection.

If anyone wants more information on this, contact me in private.

-BT

[kmvh]

Thanks for the feedback, Purge and TheBlackTruth. There were a few details I didn't mention that your replies prompted. Regarding the taxes, true, you could be subject to them, but if you just use the corp. as a shell (that's all I would use it for), the corp. doesn't make any money, so there are no taxes for it per se (a federal tax form must still be submitted each year for the corporation, though).

However, if you do decide to set up your business there, there are numerous tax advantages, including using APG's TIN and the fact that Nevada has no state corporate or individual income tax, requires only 15% of the first $50,000 be paid in federal income taxes (compared with 28% of same for personal elsewhere), and numerous other advantages enumerated in the book I mentioned in my previous post, should you actually register an active and/or profitable business. Tax protection is one of the specific advantages touted by the Nevada Corp.

TheBlackTruth, you bring up many good points, including the common-law trust angle, anonymity, and price. I appreciate them, and would be interested in hearing more about your info, since I haven't committed yet. I'll contact you offline. However, no attempt was made to mislead in my previous post; only to hopefully add to the previously posited information, since none referenced Nevada Corps. I did mention the danger of trusts, but I stand by the warning, since statutory trust do, in fact, expose one to possible asset seizure. I also made it clear that I am simply relating what I was told regarding the Nevada Corps, but if anyone did see anything misleading in my information, please do not hesitate to bring it up.

Another thing I didn't mention is Asset Protection Group's IBC (International Business Corp.) product, which isn't something I would consider because of the added cost and the fact that it wouldn't really help me on the scale I am at right now (reeeally small-time and non-biz ). But it does add the advantages TheBlackTruth mentions about offshores, and would offer even more, if we were not considered "United States citizens." Then, all kinds of investments would be available to us that would supposedly be extremely lucrative. I am somewhat familiar with this conundrum, having an offshore trust in another investment. I remember reading about it in that structure's material. If anyone knows of a generally-accepted solution to this, I would be very interested in hearing about it!

In any event, the statement that a Nevada Corp. is vulnerable to suit/litigation depends on how you set it up and how you behave, as TheBlackTruth mentions in general. The fact that many rich and successful people, including many celebrities (e.g., Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson and Paul Simon) have used this structure successfully for many years (Robert Wagner, APG's spokesman, said he has had one since the '50s) points to its power and desirability; not because "a famous person is doing it," but for the same reason TheBlackTruth mentions that the Rockefellers, et. al., use what they do. Of course, we can only conject at what these elites use, since their information is obviously kept well-hidden.

In addition, regarding the issue that a Nevada Corp. is statutory-based may actually help ease the fears of many a seeker who has been burned trying to fly too close to the sovereign ideal before being fully prepared. I am definitely not knocking such an ideal, but I have had personal experience with trying to explain such "fanciful notions" to so-called officials. I would consider this a safe alternative, at least until I can learn more, as TheBlackTruth has offered.

However, the point was also made in my previous post that these corps are tied to education funding in Nevada, an always-contentious monetary issue, so they won't be going away soon. This may or may not be ultimately true, but even if it is not, it certainly has been in the past for many a famous and infamous personality. I still recommend checking out the book for more info, keeping in mind that any financial decision includes risk, no matter how bullet-proof it may appear, if only for the price of setting it up.

Also, attachment is specifically addressed, as the only individuals you must register in Nevada's state records are the corporate officers and directors, and one person is allowed hold all these offices. Many nominate as their officer Bill Reed (he can also serve as a resident, or registered agent, in the state), and he, in turn opens a bank account for the corporation and places his clients as "vice-presidents," with full authority to act on behalf of the company (primarily for wire transfers) since such an office is not required to be registered with the state. Admittedly, this can relinquish some privacy, but it is not considered public record, so would require more than prima-facia evidence of ownership. He still signs the physical checks and, if asked for names and owners of any corporation, he can truthfully answer that he does not have any idea, since in Nevada, bearer shares allow anyone to "own" the company, and are impossible to trace from the state or any other level, save the private. This is unique among Wyoming, Delaware, and Nevada, the generally most favored incorporation states. In fact, it is key to protecting the privacy of any corporation.

Nevada has striven to be most privacy-friendly, as is noted by its edict to not allow the IRS access to its records, which has stood since 1991. Even if they were to sign any kind of agreement, Nevada can only turn over the list of directors and corporate officers it has on record, and would therefore have no impact on anyone's privacy.

By way of concluding, the ideas presented by all are definitely worth closer examination to determine what is going to be the ideal situation for each one individually. I just hope to have helped clear up some of them about Nevada Corps in my small, non-expert way.

Happy hunting and apologies for my verbosity, too ,
Kara

[TheBlackTruth]

Thanks for your response, kmvh

Firstly, I didn't intend to imply you were intentionally misleading anyone and I apologize if I did. My concern for people being misled was out of not being given a complete picture of both the problem and possible avenues of solution and not because of any malice or bad faith.

Before I get into the details of my response, I will state the thesis: It is the synergistic exploitation of ALL THREE jurisdictions and the specialized entities they offer (i.e. statutory, common-law and off-shore) that results in a complete, impenetrable fortress.

Synergy: the cooperative use of multiple entities to effect an outcome greater than the sum of their individual contributions

I state my definition of 'synergy' because it is important that we're on the same page as I explain that no single entity, or group of entities from a single jurisdiction, can provide a level of protection as good as using entities from more than one jurisdiction.

More on corporations

In this post and in my earlier post, I use the term "corporation" generally to represent all entities of a statutory nature. This is because all statutory entities essentially have the same benefits and vulnerabilities with only small differences. It's also important to recognize what makes an entity 'statutory' in nature. Registration of any sort with a government agency makes said entity a statutory subject of said agency and therefore a subject of the government. This means, if you obtain an EIN for a common-law trust, you have just moved your trust out of the common-law and into statutory law and you've lost your protection at law. This can happen to any entity from any jurisdiction. Never register across jurisdictions. It is a trap.

Please don't come away from this discussion with the impression that I think corporations are bad. They are not. Corporations are very useful and play an important roll in almost any contemporary asset protection system. In today's world, especially in the United States, it is more often necessary than not that one requires a statutory interface in order to conduct business in today's market. It is in this that statutory entities shine.

By virtue of having an EIN/TIN a statutory entity can obtain financing for whatever business endeavor its controllers deem prudent at the time. A statutory entity can open checking accounts and obtain any licensing necessary to conduct business in highly-regulated industries or for whatever reason.

As for civil liability, your statutory entities will be wholly encumbered by a third party that is outside the statutory jurisdiction, thus making the statutory entity an unattractive target for attachment in civil litigation. Put simpler, your corporate entity should owe more than it is worth to another entity that you control, that way, if a lawsuit ever prevails against your statutory entity, the plaintiff only inherits debt owed to another entity controlled by you (this could be a common-law or off-shore entity). Attorneys don't sue those who do not have any money.

Synergy

If you recall in my earlier post the statement, "Liability flows with Equity." Well, exploring this concept further, I'll use an example:

Let's say we have a Nevada LLC. There are 2 general partners comprising this LLC and both are common-law trusts. Naturally the LLC is a registered entity. The Trusts are not. The common-law Trusts have no inherent tax liability. The IRS considers them non-entities. Since whenever there are 2 or more partners in an LLC the tax liability flows to the partners (or a single partner can specifically elect to do so), the liability flows into a jurisdiction that owes no duty to the IRS. Likewise with other sorts of liability (e.g. civil liability) are also similarly channeled. Essentially, the buck is passed until it is out of the reach of whomever is attempting to attach.

If I may make a brief allusion to the historical events surrounding the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax. Both of these systems are interdependent on one another and were directly preceded by the enactment of Foundation law - all of which was carefully and deliberately orchestrated by the founders of the FED and IRS.

Foundation law is that body of law which defines the scope and powers of Tax-exempt, Private Interest Foundations. There are many such foundations in existence at present, but it's amazing how little people know about what they are and how they work. Most people think of a foundation to simply be a name given to some regular entity that is involved in some sort of charity or philanthropic activity. This far from accurate. A Foundation is a unique entity at law. Foundations owe no tax duty to government and may move funds in and out of its control with very little regulation if any.

This is mainly because of how a Foundation is structured. See, the beneficiary of a Foundation is always considered to be the as-yet unborn generation to come. This concept is what separates foundations from other entities which have living, present beneficiaries. Liability flows with Equity. The unborn hold the equity. One cannot tax or levy the unborn. Foundations are untouchable. There is no record of a Foundation ever succumbing to a civil attack - ever. It's been attempted as recently as the Enron scandal.

The Foundation should be the foundation of any strong asset protection system. It is the point to which all equity should flow. The ideal system would be comprised of such a Foundation established in an off-shore jurisdiction. This foundation can create for itself as many International Business Corporations (IBCs) as it needs. These IBCs can in-turn travel on-shore and open W-8 accounts as foreign entities and also brokerage accounts if necessary. These IBCs can also send it's own people to conduct certain business on its behalf, such as property management (the house you live in) or asset leasing (the car you drive), or to act as trustees for any trusts of which the Foundation is named beneficiary.

Although many so-called experts have certain pieces of the system and have intimate familiarity with those pieces, there are few that have a complete package that truly leverages the power of jurisdictional synergy.

-BT

[Purge]

I lived most of my life in Connecticut and I remember an interesting story.
The Stanley Works Corp. wanted to open an office in Bermuda to avoid paying $30 million a year in taxes. I Believe Halliburton did this.

I googled Stanley, Bermuda and here is what I found. It is good reading.

Ascot Advisory Services I don’t know anything about this company

AFL-CIO Stanley Works Surrenders- Cancels Reincorporation to Bermuda Under Pressure

Freedom and Prosperity

Forbes.Com

Originally Posted by dave b

Where to begin in protecting real property?

I am beginning to believe only by hiring your own standing army.

and by hanging corrupt judges.

HB