This is a rephrase of my last question which was not clear. As a veteran, do I let go of the benefits I incurred from my four years of military service twenty years ago; since, going to the VA would indeed be a use of benefits, the VA does have my SSN and would identify me through that. The answer may seem obvious but there must be some way to retain the energy given to secure the use of the medical services...or not. As one moving to operate in a private capacity through trust(s), any contact with the corporate state creates a "minimum contact,"but in what instance can use of state services be secured without surrender of private status?

I see no one has tackled this question, probably because it's a tricky one without a clear answer. Utilization of VA benefits will definitely create minimum contacts and continue your ALL CAPS NAME juristic person in the public forum jurisdiction. However, you can wear more than one hat. If you own and control a corporation as CEO, that corporation is a separate entity from the entity that served in the military, even though you control both. Likewise, if you control a private express trust as trustee, that private trust is entirely separate. The important part is knowing which hat you're wearing at each moment. Does that make sense?

Yes it does. If say, "Billy Bob Trust" owned Bobby Joe, who has benefits, Billy Bob Trust can act as a representative and sign benefit paperwork on behalf of Bobby Joe (The trustee of Billy Bobs Trust signs). Thats what I understand from your answer. Thank you for this very much.

Kahen wrote:
That's one way you could approach it. You might get some resistance. The fact is BOBBY J. JOE is actually a US franchise organization, and Billy Bob Trust may or may not be able to claim full title to the entity, depending, inter alia, on the recorded status of legal title of the entity. By default, a legal fiction like BOBBY J. JOE is owned by big brother, not you. The government is trustee. You're just the authorized representative of the legal fiction. However, if you learn to operate in private jurisdiction outside Federal and State jurisdictions, you might find that the only thing you might care to do with the BOBBY J. Joe entity is collect its due veteran's benefits as the authorized representative to do so on behalf of that entity. The rest of the time, Bobby Joe the free inhabitant could act in the capacity of trustee of a private express trust and not enter the trust into the public forum jurisdiction by not making minimum contacts for the trust. In other words, your trust(s) and the all caps name ens legis formed by the birth certificate are totally separate entities. I see no need to tie them together. If it were me, I would just operate them separately, keep them apart, and change hats from private trustee to authorized representative for the veteran legal fiction and back to private trustee--just long enough to collect veteran benefits when needed.

Yes I see. The inhabitant must be considered separate from BOBBY JOE, the U.S corp. created entity. I have, via UCC and Declaration of name change, noticed the Secretary of state that I have a right of claim on BOBBY JOE since I created that entity via name change some years ago and UNKNOWINGLY gave the U.S corp rights of use. BOBBY JOE is not on the certificate of birth; it was inhabitant's creation. That is the in-road to the private Trust being able to claim "beneficial" ownership of BOBBY JOE. From my study, beneficiaries are owners in part, not whole of the Trust property and are not responsible as trustees, thus they own but are not liable. This is the route until the process of operating outside U.S jurisdiction is completed as it is much more difficult to accomplish for one's knowledge level at this particular time.

P.S I have studied with several groups and your assistance and responsibility to your members is stellar by comparison. I thank you.

Kahen wrote:
So glad we're able to help. Thanks for the props!

The free inhabitant IS separate from the juristic person. As long as you recognize this fact and act accordingly, you will find it easier and easier to keep them apart. Whether you "created" BOBBY JOE via name change is debatable. When a C-corp (a US franchise person, a legal fiction entity) changes names and gives notice of the change to the Secretary of State, a new entity is not created. Rather, the same US franchise entity merely changes names. I submit the same is true if ALAN ALDA changes names to BOBBY JOE and gives notice to the Secretary of State. The new name is tied to the same birth certificate, as the entity was berthed by the certificate and then altered in name only. While the inhabitant may have conjured the new name, the inhabitant did not create the entity. Split title to the entity still exists, at least at the time of the name change. The US has legal title as trustee, and you have the usufruct and beneficial interest. Whether you managed to wrest legal title and trusteeship from the US via your paperwork I cannot say for sure because I haven't seen the paperwork you employed for the purpose. It sounds like you don't claim legal title, just beneficial interest, which you already had before your paperwork was submitted. If your paperwork did anything, it may have moved the juristic person BOBBY JOE from a 14th Amendment US citizen-subject to a US national.

I'm happy you're here asking questions, and we're always here to discuss these finer points, many of which can be confusing and even overwhelming. We have some great courses on these matters that will help straighten a lot of this out. Have you considered registering for some courses with us? You can see everything we offer here: GTEN.org/webinars

Yes Christian, I very much want to take the "Right to Travel" course. I heard either P.J or yourself explain that you were in a position to "refuse for cause" citations. Will the course put me in that position if I follow the process through successfully? The description of what the course offers mentions discussed topics, but there is no mention on whether the process is taught specifically or not. I need that process. Please forgive the skittish approach—bad experiences.

Kahen wrote:

Yes, Right To Travel covers all aspects of traveling by right of personal liberty rather than by the privilege of a driver's license contract. A traffic ticket is a derivative of the driver's license contract, not a stand-alone document, so it means nothing when issued to someone who is not a party to the DMV contract. Thus, when a free inhabitant traveling by right receives a traffic ticket, it is easily refused for cause because it is nothing more than a commercial offer derived from a contract that is not established between the parties. It's like getting a statement in the mail for a mortgage you don't have! Are you required to pay on a non-existent mortgage contract? Of course not. If you didn't sign a note and security agreement for a mortgage, you aren't expected to make payments, and you have a right to refuse the offer to pay. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, any commercial offer can be refused for cause within 72 hours of receipt. It's a simple one-page letter, and we provide it in the course. I use it every time I get a ticket, and I never even receive a follow-up letter about the ticket. No court date, no notice I'm required to pay anything. The clerk of the court knows from the refusal letter that there's no substance to the ticket, and it's quashed.