I read the attached with much interest. I went on the internet to find out more about this "corporation soul", there was barely anything - however, I did a further search on the individuals who were promoting "corporation soul" and found this:
What was written in this 35 page package was interesting and of course, made "logical/legal sense", ie, the separation of church and state; however, which I believe most of us have experienced, we get ignored, regardless if there is legal precedence or at the very least, our sincere intent, ie to obliterate, extinguish and retire debt. I guess the pope or the queen have a "special status" that can be ignored with regard to us "regular folks".
As I stated previously, I obtained Boris' apostilled package from MN, I can understand the use of "corporation soul" term used in the paperwork as a reference point and not as a sole end goal. Whereas the attached reference from soleresources.org appears to be an end goal. I presume the entire package was to "establish an un-rebuttable/refutable evidence of records to prove trust"
Boris, do not be upset with me that I obtained this info, I just really want to "understand". Like so many, and you too, so much time and effort has gone in this study, frustrating the hell out of us. In reading CW's narrative posted the other day, from my memory, the system was set up to "clear out the debt" ie to use the banks as clearing houses, but officials ignore this. I tried this with an attempt to deposit "credit", a payment stub with the proper indorsement, the manager freaked out and returned it back to me certified mail. Even when I deposit checks, I do not indorse the private credit, "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions per 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a", this too gets ignored, as I asked the teller.
The rule of usufruct - with the delivery, surrender, conveyance, etc is ignored.
Going to the probate court in private with affidavit of life, cestui que, etc was ignored.
Catholic church was ignored.
State of birth - spoke with the one who signed the BC AFTER I had sent him letters asking him questions, I said to him, why did you not answer? He said - why should I?
I even did a sample "declaratory judgment in private" up to the AG of state of birth, got ignored.
I do not want to whine, this is why I want to get this "trust stuff understood". It makes sense but also what I have done in the past - and that got ignored. The Declaratory Judgment document was on point and tied specific to their statutes and their obligations relating to their statutes. Got ignored :(