Sovereignty by Trust How a Foreign Trust Qualifies as a Nation Under International Law

Sovereignty by Trust: How a Foreign Trust Qualifies as a Nation Under International Law

A foreign trust can lawfully serve as the foundation of a nation, meeting the core criteria for statehood established by the Montevideo Convention. Possessing legal personality, defined territory, a permanent population, and a governing structure, it functions as a sovereign entity under both contract and treaty law. This article explores how foreign trusts establish legitimate nations with the authority to govern, enter into agreements, and assert independence on the global stage.


🧾 What Is a Foreign Trust in This Context?

A foreign trust is:

  • A contractual legal arrangement (often irrevocable) between trustees, settlors, and beneficiaries.

  • Domiciled outside the jurisdiction of a given government—usually non-domestic, non-taxable, and private.

  • Operated under private law, not statutory public policy.

When used to create a nation-state, it becomes the contractual vessel through which governance, asset protection, and jurisdiction are declared and managed.

In this way, the foreign trust itself functions as the nation.


✅ Why a Foreign Trust Qualifies as a Nation

A foreign trust can be recognized as a nation or private state because:

1. It Has Legal Personality

The trust, via trustees, can contract, sue, be sued, hold property, and issue rules—just like a sovereign. In international law, the capacity to enter into relations with other states is one of the four key criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention.

2. It Can Declare Jurisdiction and Law

A properly constructed trust indenture can establish:

  • Law form (natural law, common law, ecclesiastical law)

  • Jurisdiction

  • Venue

  • Governing authority

This forms the governmental structure of the nation, satisfying another Montevideo criterion.

3. It Can Have Members/Citizens

The trust can define members or beneficiaries as the permanent population of the nation. These people consent to be governed under its private law system, fulfilling the “permanent population” requirement under international law.

4. It Can Own or Claim Land

The trust can claim and hold land privately or under ecclesiastical/ancestral right (think: tribal or hereditary trusts). It may also define jurisdiction over land contractually or symbolically. This satisfies the territory requirement under Montevideo.

5. It Can Enter Into Treaties and Contracts

The trust can issue agreements with other private nations, tribes, foreign trusts, or even nation-states. The ability to enter into treaties and formal relations is the fourth key requirement for nationhood under international law.

6. It Avoids State Interference

Because it’s private and foreign to the domestic system, it often enjoys immunity under:

  • Private international law

  • The Hague Conventions

  • Trust treaty protections

  • Comity of nations

This makes it more sovereign than even many “recognized” states that are internally beholden to public policy.


🛡️ Famous Examples of Trust-Based Sovereignty

  • Ecclesiastical Sovereign Trusts – Used by religious microstates and orders like the Vatican or the Knights of Malta.

  • Indigenous Nations – Many tribal nations operate under hereditary or natural trusts.

  • Private International Governments – Such as certain U.N. agencies or global banks, which operate on supranational trust structures.

  • Financial Sovereign Entities – The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is a prime example of a trust-structured supranational entity.

These prove the trust model is not only valid—but powerful.


🧰 Pro Tips for Building a Nation-State via Foreign Trust

These are not merely strategic—they are practical applications of international law:

  • Use a contract trust or common law trust, not a statutory trust.

  • Declare the trust as operating under lex mercatoria, natural law, or divine law, depending on your philosophy.

  • Make sure the trust has:

    • Trustees (governing body)

    • Trust indenture (charter/constitution)

    • Settlor (founder)

    • Beneficiaries (the people/nation)

    • Defined jurisdiction and choice of law

  • Record it publicly or internationally—through public notices, foreign registries, UPU, Hague Apostilles, or treaty-based announcements.

Each of these elements mimics the same functional markers required of a sovereign state under the Montevideo Convention (1933).


🧩 Bottom Line

Yes—a foreign trust can qualify as the core legal instrument to form a nation, state, tribe, or private society under:

  • ✅ Contract law

  • ✅ International law (with proper expression)

  • ✅ Treaty law (if you enter into agreements)

  • ✅ Natural law / private governance frameworks

The foreign trust becomes the vessel of sovereignty, housing your law, your people, your land, and your government—all by contract, consent, and record. It’s not only a nation—it’s a lawful person in the family of nations.

Leave your vote

1536822 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Criminal RICO Syndicate in Riverside County, California: How Lawyers Posing as “Judges,” Clerks, and Deputies Form an Ongoing Enterprise of Fraud, Obstruction, and Human Rights Violations — 42 USC 1984, 18 USC 241-242, RICO, Extortion and more

Criminal RICO Syndicate in Riverside County, California: How Lawyers Posing as “Judges,” Clerks, and Deputies Form an Ongoing Enterprise of Fraud, Obstruction, and Human Rights Violations — 42 USC 1984, 18 USC 241-242, RICO, Extortion and more

This exposé reveals a coordinated RICO enterprise operating within Riverside County’s justice system, naming Sheriff Chad Bianco, DA Michael Hestrin, Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner, and others for systemic fraud, extortion, and deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It further exposes U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal for judicial obstruction and record concealment, constituting willful interference in violation of federal due process. Backed by an active federal RICO lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 before Judge Wesley Hsu, the article outlines a pattern of racketeering, forged instruments, false filings, and unlawful evictions. Officials including Pam Bondi, Rob Bonta, Kash Patel, and the FBI have been formally notified but remain silent. This is not isolated misconduct—it is organized crime under color of law. The piece stands as both public notice and evidentiary documentation for further federal action.

What a California Court Commissioner Really Is and how Charles Rogers Jeremiah Raxter are Engaged in RICO and Felonies in Riverside California 1 1

Riverside, California: What a California Court Commissioner Really Is and how Fraudulent “Commissioner” Charles Rogers, Jeremiah Raxter are Engaged in RICO and Felonies

Charles Rogers (Bar #64530) and Jeremiah D. Raxter (Bar #276811) are engaged in an ongoing scheme of judicial fraud and racketeering in Riverside County, California. Both individuals are inactive members of the California State Bar and have no lawful authority to act as judges or commissioners. Their acts — including issuing bench warrants, signing orders, and presiding over court matters — are void ab initio and constitute federal felonies under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1962. Their actions represent a criminal enterprise under color of law, demanding immediate investigation, disbarment, and prosecution. Public notice is hereby given that all their proceedings are fraudulent and without legal force.

Criminal RICO Syndicate in Riverside County, California: How Lawyers Posing as “Judges,” Clerks, and Deputies Form an Ongoing Enterprise of Fraud, Obstruction, and Human Rights Violations — 42 USC 1984, 18 USC 241-242, RICO, Extortion and more

Organized Judicial Racketeering in Southern California: How Attorneys Masquerading as Judges Collude with Clerks and Sheriffs to Perpetrate Fraud, Extortion, and Civil Rights Violations Under Color of Law

This exposé reveals a coordinated RICO enterprise operating within Riverside County’s justice system, naming Sheriff Chad Bianco, DA Michael Hestrin, Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner, and others for systemic fraud, extortion, and deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It further exposes U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal for judicial obstruction and record concealment, constituting willful interference in violation of federal due process. Backed by an active federal RICO lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 before Judge Wesley Hsu, the article outlines a pattern of racketeering, forged instruments, false filings, and unlawful evictions. Officials including Pam Bondi, Rob Bonta, Kash Patel, and the FBI have been formally notified but remain silent. This is not isolated misconduct—it is organized crime under color of law. The piece stands as both public notice and evidentiary documentation for further federal action.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!