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

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish "the People"

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish “the People”

A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debt discharge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

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 !!