The Stockholm Syndrome Vs. You,Your Money,Your Freedom

[Financial Safety Services and Freedom Network commentary: this excellent article by world traveller Simon Black does a good job of explaining some of the psychological barriers which prevent a person from making the important step of moving at least some portion of their own finances and business dealings offshore- if not offshore, to at least get some of it outside of any part of the financial system within the country you presently live in. If you would like to discuss specific aspects of the article via email, Skype , or in person, please let me know at:onebornfreeatyahoodotcom, and I'll see what I can do. Regards, onebornfree.]

                                             


 "

In August 1973, Jan-Erik Olsson walked into the main branch of Kreditbanken bank in central Stockholm, Sweden and attempted to rob the place at gunpoint. 



He failed miserably. 

When the police arrived in short order, Olsson opened fire and injured one of the cops. This only escalated the situation. 



In desperation, Olsson took four people hostage, and they were held for six days at the bank until police finally used gas to subdue the captors. 



This sort of thing happens all the time, so it's hardly noteworthy. But what's unique about this event is that the hostages later said they actually felt safer with their captors than the police. 



The victims had, in fact, become emotionally attached to Olsson and his partner, to the point that they even publicly defended the pair after the ordeal was over. 



As it turns out, this is actually fairly common. Psychologists call this 'Stockholm Syndrome' after the Kreditbanken robbery; the term denotes a traumatic, positive bond that forms between captors and hostages.

 

To those of us who have never been held hostage, it almost seems fantastical... even intellectually offensive. Seriously, how could anyone ever develop endearing feelings for someone holding you at gunpoint? 



But when you think about it, this is the very nature of patriotism. 

Through an entire lifetime of bombastic propaganda, complete with songs and flags and parades, people develop an unquestioning commitment to the state. 

They'll say things like 'this is the freest country in the world' without a shred of objective evidence to support that conclusion... and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 



But meanwhile, we're all held at gunpoint. 

Spy agencies monitor our phone calls and emails. Central bankers manipulate markets and destroy people who are responsible enough to save. 

Politicians confiscate people's livelihoods, regulate them to the hilt, authorize discretionary assassination of their own citizens, and actively work to destroy any vestiges of personal liberty. 



While everyone is allowed to roam around, work, and buy flat-screen TVs, we're all ultimately handcuffed by the state. 

Everything in our entire lives-- from the value of our savings to our homes and personal property, to even our personal freedom-- can all be confiscated in their sole discretion. 



I'd be willing to bet the chickens scratching around my yard right now think that they're free... and have no idea that they'll be this evening's dinner. 

This is a hostage situation, plain and simple. 



Yet they've skillfully managed to create bonds of affection. The hostages are standing tall, waving the flag, and defending the government's absurd, destructive actions... no matter how much they defy reality.

 

It's gotten to the point that the hostages have begun talking about government actions in the first person: 

'There's no way "we" would ever default...' 

'In this country "we're" innocent until proven guilty...' 

'Airport security makes "us" safer from terrorists...' 

'WE should invade Iran...'

 

Hostages have become so inured to the violence of our captors that few people even realize that it's happening. 

The fear and intimidation tactics have just become part of daily life. 



This is really hazardous thinking. Hostage situations are dangerous. When things start getting bad, the captors become desperate and start sacrificing their prisoners.

 

Candidly, our courses of action are limited. 

One can simply hope that the situation will improve, and that you won't be one of the hostages that gets slaughtered. 



Conversely, you can head towards the big, giant EXIT sign and leave the whole situation behind for greener pastures. 



Or, you can bear down and stick it out... but at least have a credible escape plan. Reduce your exposure to the captors. Don't have all of your eggs in one basket. 



It costs you nothing, for example, to move a portion of your savings abroad to a safe, stable bank in a jurisdiction that your home government does not control. 



It costs you nothing to pursue an 'ancestry' passport in the event that your parents or grandparents hailed from certain countries like Ireland or Italy. 



Yet in the event that the hostage crisis escalates, it's these sorts of steps that will end up paying enormous dividends for you... and pave the way to freedom."

Simon Black 

Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com

                FINANCIAL SAFETY SERVICES DISCLAIMER

More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant , a problem solver, and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel 

Home studio recording example "Somewhere Over The Rainbow Blues"[2014 Remix]:

Youtube link 

Other 2014 "Studio" Remixes:

"The Thrill Is Gone"

"Face In The Crowd Blues"

Live, solo example [own composition "Dreams [Anarchist's Blues]:

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

Onebornfree Personal Freedom Blogsites: 

                                                                                         

 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog

Onebornfree's Freedom Network Mythbusters blog

The Freedom Network

The Problem-Solver

Personal Privacy:Your Employer May Share Your Salary, and Equifax Might Sell That Data

[Onebornfree's Financial Safety Services commentary: I agree with J.J. Luna's comment on this: "The only remedy: Quit your job and work for yourself." and remember, if you think this news below is bad, please remember that the Federal government has far more on you than even Equifax, and virtually none of that information is safe and secure from prying eyes, and all of which will be used against you if and when "necessary" with no regard to your "constitutional rights" or whatever! Please take the time to read this article and then grab a copy of Luna's new {2012 updated} book "How To Be Invisible" regards, onebornfree]:

A good-looking "corporate ties" demo model- or,"I can't quit my job  and work for myself"

"The Equifax credit reporting agency, with the aid of thousands of human resource departments around the country, has assembled what may be the most powerful and thorough private Americans’ personal information ever created, containing 190 million employment and salary records covering more than one-third of U.S. adults. Some of the information in the little-known database, created through an Equifax-owned company called The Work Number, is sold to debt collectors, financial service companies and other entities.

"It's the biggest privacy breach in our time, and it’s legal and no one knows it’s going on," said Robert Mather, who runs a small employment background company named Pre-Employ.com. "It's like a secret CIA."


Despite all the information Americans now share on social media and websites, and all the data we know companies collect on us, one piece of information is still sacred to most people: their salaries. After all, who would post their salary as a status update on Facebook or in a tweet?

But salary information is also for sale by Equifax through The Work Number. Its database is so detailed that it contains week-by-week paystub information dating back years for many individuals, as well as other kinds of human resources-related information, such as health care provider, whether someone has dental insurance and if they’ve ever filed an unemployment claim. In 2009, Equifax said the data covered 30 percent of the U.S. working population, and it now says The Work Number is adding 12 million records annually.


How does Equifax obtain this sensitive and secret information? With the willing aid of thousands of U.S. businesses, including many of the Fortune 500. Government agencies -- representing 85 percent of the federal civilian population, including workers at the Department of Defense, according to Equifax -- and schools also work with The Work Number. Many of them let Equifax tap directly into their data so the credit bureau can always have the latest employment information. In fact, these organizations actually pay Equifax for the privilege of giving away their employees' personal information.


Equifax turns around and sells some of this data to third parties, including debt collectors and other financial services companies.


Equifax declined to be interviewed, but in an emailed statement to NBCNews.com, it confirmed that it shares "employment data" with debt collectors and others, and said it does so in compliance with Fair Credit Reporting Act guidelines.


"In all cases, these entities must have a permissible purpose to request employment information," Equifax spokesman Timothy Klein said.


He also said consumers give these third parties the right to access the data "at the time of application" for credit.


"A consumer grants verifiers (creditors) and their assigned debt collectors the right to verify employment should the consumer default on their account," he said.


Data for debt collectors

Companies sign up for The Work Number because it gives them an easy way to outsource employment verification of former workers. Firms hate taking these calls, which usually come when a former employee is applying for a new job, because they are a costly distraction for human resources departments and open the firm up to lawsuits if someone says something disparaging about the former employee. So they contract with The WorkNumber, which automates the process. In exchange, firms upload their human resources data to The Work Number, which was part of an independent St.Louis-based firm named TALX until it was acquired by Equifax in 2007 for $1.4 billion.


The Work Number offers consumers some benefits. It provides an easy way for prospective landlords to verify an applicant's income, for example. Consumers tell the Work Number they want a one-time access code, which they then give to a landlord so he or she can verify that the potential tenant can really afford the apartment.


But The Work Number serves dual purposes. It’s also a massive database that Equifax monetizes in a variety of ways, despite the reassuring-sounding messages found all over TheWorkNumber.com.


"Can just anyone get my income information from The Work Number?" reads one passage. Answer: "No. You have to give someone authorization to get your income information from the service."


Employers who sign up for the service go to great pains to reassure workers that their data is safe and secret. Columbia University, when it explained to employees it was transitioning to The Work Number, posted this on the school's website:


"You are the only person who can authorize access to your salary information."


But Kathy Sandy of Sommerville, N.J. was surprised to find that a debt collector had accessed information from her report two years ago, something she learned only when she obtained her "consumer disclosure" from The Work Number. Because the data is considered a credit report, consumers are entitled to one free report every year. The report shows what data the report contains, and what entities have seen it.


Sandy's Work Number report, which she shared with NBC News, is 22 pages long -- an amazingly detailed history of every paycheck she had received for years. The first page of the report lists "verifiers who have requested your data in the past 24 months." On the list is "Pressler and Pressler," a law firm that specializes in debt collection. The firm had sued her in small claims court over a credit card debt that she says she was already repaying. It is not clear from Sandy’s report what employment data was shared with Pressler and Pressler; Equifax says it does not provide salary information to debt collectors, but it does provide other information.

                                         

                                                      Another fine "corporate tie" model!

"I found out debt collectors can access this information, which is strange," Sandy said. "I assumed with The Work Number, for that information, you had to have a (passcode) … but they got in, and got it somehow without my consent."


In brochures where Equifax advertises sale of the data, it's not shy about the source.


"The Work Number specializes in employment and income verification. It's direct from the source: the employer. It's current, as of the last pay period. It's delivered quickly -- on demand," says one brochure, titled "Portfolio Monitoring."


In his statement to NBC News, Klein confirmed that "pay rate" information is shared with third parties, including "mortgage, auto and other financial services credit grantors," as authorized under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.


He denied that salary information is sold to debt collectors, however.


"Debt/Collection agencies may request employment information -- which may be nothing more than verifying that a consumer is working where they say they are – if it qualifies under permissible purpose," he wrote. "Collections agencies are not provided salary information."


That contradicts an assertion made recently by Equifax CEO Richard Smith in 2009, when he talked about how detailed The Work Number data is.


"With FirstSearch and TALX we can provide information about a debtor’s location, income and employment," said Smith in an interview published on NYSE Magazine’s website, referring to The Work Number’s former parent company. "That can help prioritize which accounts to pursue first. If they’re employed, that business has a better shot at collecting what is owed to them."


Klein said Smith misspoke when describing TALX’s services, and reiterated that salary information on consumers is not sold to debt collectors.


'Unbelievably scary'

With or without the income data, The Work Number data is incredibly valuable to debt collectors -- and it may come as a surprise to many workers that their employers, directly or unwittingly, help debt collectors.


Equifax markets The Work Number specifically to student loan issuers. In another brochure on the firm's website, Equifax brags that The Work Number makes debt collectors' jobs easier.


"The Work Number produced a 5.5 percent lift in Right Party Contact and a 7.3 percent lift in Collections Resolution versus current skip-trace methods," the "case study" brochure says.


Equifax’s resale of The Work Number data doesn’t stop there. It also offers "portfolio monitoring" to financial firms who might want to market their products to consumers … or to get early warning on someone who might soon land in financial trouble. It calls this "proactive managing of risk."


"The Work Number is part of our employment and income verification service. It provides continual track of changes to your customer or client portfolio, delivered on demand per your schedule," it says. "Simply submit a portfolio of customer or client accounts and The Work Number does the rest. ... Using The Work Number to stay abreast of employment changes can expand your ability to mitigate risk while maximizing product and service potential."


Mather has been in the employer data business for more than 20 years, and he says that if Americans suspected their employers were giving away their personal information to a credit bureau, they'd be shocked.


"The story here is how (The Work Number) is getting this information," he said. "When people find out, no respectable employer will continue to do this."


Larry Ponemon is a privacy expert who operates The Ponemon Institute, a consulting firm. He said he’d never heard of companies selling employer data to debt collectors.


"Are you joking? Oh my god, I'm shocked," Ponemon said when the business was described to him. "This is unbelievably scary. I consider payroll information very sensitive and private." In studies he's conducted, salary data is always among the information consumers say is most private.


"If the public knew about this, there would be such outrage," he said. "It's just ... really depressing."


Paul Stephens, director of policy and advocacy at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, had heard of The Work Number, but only because some consumers have complained to his agency that the data in its database is inaccurate. Some workers find that when they try to use the information for employment verification, their titles are outdated or otherwise misrepresent their work history, which can be embarrassing for a job applicant.


When told that the data is sold to third parties, he said he was under the impression the data was not shared.


"I think it is something that would be offensive to many people. One typically considers salary information to be shared by your employer just with IRS," he said.


A glance at the language on The Work Number's website suggested to Stephens that the firm is legally within its rights to share the information, however.


"You get into the 'permissible purpose' doctrine," he said. "Debt collectors have a permissible purpose to look at your credit information. It was my impression that the data was only being given out when employees released it."


'Secret' process?
Data brokers are under heightened scrutiny in Washington, D.C., lately. There are two separate congressional investigations of the industry, and the Federal Trade Commission announced in December that it had begun an inquiry into how brokers obtain their information. Equifax received an inquiry letter from the FTC, but only for the data broker portion of its business involving non-financial data, such as criminal background records and address information.


Credit reporting agencies, such as The Work Number, are distinct from data brokers and are governed by special rules. Ironically, those special rules may open the door for Equifax -- and the credit-reporting side of its business -- to resell the salary information, says Katrina Blodgett, a lawyer with the Federal Trade Commission. She is one the agency’s experts on the Fair Credit Reporting Act.


The FTC filed a case against TALX and Equifax in 2008 for allegedly failing to provide employers with sufficient notice about their disclosure responsibilities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax admitted no wrongdoing and paid a small fine.


Blodgett said the Fair Credit Reporting Act and subsequent updates give consumers specific legal rights, such as the ability to dispute errors in credit reports. But it also creates permissible purposes for access, including giving financial service companies the right to review credit reports of consumers they do business with.


"It’s not as easy as it should be to say whether debt collectors can get your consumer reports, because it depends on the circumstance," she said, adding that she believed Equifax could have the right to sell the salary information to debt collectors because it is part of a credit report.


Much attention has been paid to the use of credit reports by human resource departments in recent years, and Congress gave job applicants special rights when a credit report is used during the job interview process. The reverse isn’t true, however, Blodgett pointed out.


"There are special restrictions on how credit reports can be used in hiring decisions, but there are no special restrictions on how employment reports (such as salary information) is used for non-employment purposes," she said.


She said she wasn’t surprised that Equifax is selling the information in The Work Number.


"They are a credit bureau. They sell credit information to lenders," she said.


Mather wants the sale of employee information halted. His firm also performs third-party employment verification, but he does not resell the data he collects.


"I strongly believe there is no reason to resell employee information to debt collectors without the permission of the employer and employee," he said. "This 'secret' process needs to stop. I hope eventually a simple law is passed making it required to get the permission of the employee BEFORE his information is resold. It simply should NOT be used for any other purpose except for employment purposes without permission. In my view, it is a betrayal of trust."


Consumers who want to see what information The Work Number has on their employment history can visit this page on the TheWorkNumber.com. While reports are available online, consumers may have to fill out a form and mail it to The Work Number in some cases."

ARTICLE SOURCE

Terry Coxon on Government, the Reality of Regulation and the Importance of Asset Protection

[Freedom Network  and Financial Safety Services commentary: Terry Coxon is a person who I have read and admired for many years now, his book "Keep What You Earn", is, in my humble opinion  an all time classic on asset protection. I would encourage anyone reading this Daily Bell interview to read that book at least twice through. Also, I believe his much maligned Passport Trust system is a very important and useful tool for the individual seeking more financial privacy, safety, and therefor by direct effect, more personal freedom.]

                                                       

Introduction: Terry Coxon is the author of Keep What You Earn and was for many years a close collaborator with and editor for the late Harry Browne. He currently is a regular contributor to The Casey Report. Mr. Coxon has a distinguished history as an architect of innovative financial planning arrangements, including the Permanent Portfolio Fund, the United States Gold Trust (the first gold ETF), the Passport Financial Offshore Trust and the Open Opportunity IRA.

Daily Bell: Glad to speak with you again. Let's jump right in. You've been speaking out for freedom and free markets for decades. Yet things seem to be getting worse. Why is that?

Terry Coxon: Once the public accepts or even tolerates the notion that regulation is needed for one thing, it's ready to accept every claim that regulation is needed for something else. Roll back the clock and look at what has happened.

The unstated premise of the Pure Food And Drug Act of 1906 was that individuals acting privately are too lazy, gullible and silly to stop handing their money to providers of rotten food or of poisons labeled "medicine," whereas individuals acting as government employees are energetic, shrewd and purposeful. If you accept the premise, then of course you want the same energetic, shrewd and purposeful people to prevent any mistake that you fear the lazy, gullible and silly might make. That's why today anyone who wants to smoke in a bar in California has no choice but to grab the stool by the window and lean his head out.

Daily Bell: Does regulatory democracy work?

Terry Coxon: I'd call it a great success. It works splendidly for:

        •       Businesses, especially the bigger firms, that want to freeze out new competitors

• Politicians who want to point to their accomplishments

• Politicians who want campaign contributions

• Politicians who want to re-enforce the dependency of their business constituents

• Foggy-headed individuals galloping to the rescue of millions of people they will  never meet

• Utopians who enjoy their thoughts of intellectual and moral superiority

• People who enjoy punishing

• People who doubted that they really existed until they acquired the power to punish

• People who've decided that their best career plan is to collect a government paycheck for                     going through the motions prescribed by particular laws

•        Individuals who are afraid of being free

• Individuals who resent those who are not afraid of being free

The numbers add up.

Daily Bell: Who is behind regulatory democracy and why does it continue to function from a regulatory and enforcement aspect despite its failure?

Terry Coxon: It hasn't failed at all. Just ask any of the people I've listed. It delivers what they want.

Daily Bell: Why do facilities like the SEC continue to gain power despite their incompetence?

Terry Coxon: You can rate the SEC as incompetent only if you judge it by its stated purpose. If you judge it by how well it serves the people on my list, it's performing swimmingly.
As for the public, any investor who thinks he's being protected by the SEC is a sheep waiting to be shorn. Quiz the people waiting in the sheering pen and you'll find that the place is crowded with people inclined to believe that individuals holding government-employee IDs are energetic, shrewd and purposeful.

Daily Bell: You were caught up in the system via the SEC. Tell us about that.

Terry Coxon: Imagine Martians destroying your planet.

Daily Bell: What needs to be done to reduce this regulatory plague?

Terry Coxon: I don't know that there is anything that can be done to stop the plague. Freedom is man's natural state but it is not his usual condition. By history's standards, liberty for the general public is an abnormality. The best you can do is to understand the problem, so that your head doesn't get filled with fictions and so that you can try to avoid getting hurt. One way to look at The Daily Bell is as a mental health project. By confirming for visitors that their doubts about government are in fact well founded, you help them get past the official fictions and stay grounded in reality.

Daily Bell: We believe we've noticed an uptick in the aggressiveness of the regulatory state − the aggressiveness regarding gun control, for instance. We believe that there is a power elite behind this aggressiveness. We believe that this group is pushing forward with plans to consolidate world government. Disarmament is part of that plan. Agree? Disagree?

Terry Coxon: Some people are far more effective than most in moving government in their preferred direction. Call them the power elite if you like but I don't believe you need to refer to a power elite to understand and explain how government works.

The starting point in making sense of government is to stop thinking of it as though it were a person. It's not a person. It's many thousands of people (including the members of what you call the power elite) pushing and tugging on one another in an effort to direct and control their collective power. It's a scrum. Everyone in the scrum has his own purposes, which is why government so often behaves in a contradictory fashion − attacking cigarette companies while at the same time subsidizing tobacco farmers, for example. Multiple personality disorder is an excellent model of government behavior.

Today most of the people in the scrum are lovers of big government, and they feel about private gun ownership the way monkeys in trees feel about panthers. There is a reason for their passion about gun control: Control over weapons is at the heart of government power.
It's a postulate of political science (both among libertarians and among more conventional folks) that government is the institution that holds an effective monopoly on the exercise of force. I think that touches on the truth but then glances off it. The monopoly isn't on force per se. It's a monopoly on intimidation. I've come to that conclusion by considering how a monopoly arises spontaneously.

A natural monopoly occurs in an industry if and only if the available technology supports unlimited efficiencies of scale. In such a situation, where any firm can turn out the product more efficiently than any smaller firm, the result is that the biggest firm forces the others out of business. It becomes a monopoly.

It's the production of intimidation (more so than the production of force) that enjoys efficiencies of scale. Regardless of how large or small the groups, a larger organized group of unarmed men can be expected to succeed in subduing a smaller group of unarmed men, if that is what they set out to do. And the intensity of the motivations of the two unarmed groups matters little. Both groups know who is likely to win any contest so even if the members of the larger group are only marginally interested in prevailing, the usual result is that no contest takes place because the smaller group sees that the odds are badly against it. The smaller group is intimidated.

Lovers of big government hate privately owned guns with such passion and obsession because weapons dampen the economies of scale in the production of intimidation. A single armed individual may succeed in overcoming multiple armed government employees, even though he would have no chance of overcoming them if no one were armed.

And private weapons dampen the efficiencies of scale in the production of intimidation in another way. With lethal weapons as part of the mix, motivation becomes a big factor. Three armed men who are seen to be seething with anger or who show a belief that they either must prevail or die may succeed in intimidating six armed government employees who are watching for 4 o'clock so that they can start getting overtime pay.

I wish the truth were gentler but that is, I believe, how things actually work. For myself, however, I have no taste for being part of either group.

Daily Bell: You deal a lot with asset protection and estate planning. Tell us about that.

Terry Coxon: It's a big topic.

No one wants to be a financial victim of what so many governments have become, but protection means dealing with multiple threats to wealth and covering all the bases. Here's a broad outline.

1. Decide on the kinds of things you want to own. That's the first step because you make can those decisions independently of how you handle the next steps.

2. Decide where you want to own things. Keeping everything in your home country is a mistake because it means volunteering now to cooperate in whatever the government decides to do tomorrow.

3. Decide how you want to own things. In the US, direct, personal ownership just isn't what it used to be. It's now more of an illusion of property than a reality. Direct personal ownership now means that you are the government's unpaid custodian. You take care of things until a tax collector or a regulatory agency or a judge says "hand them over." Using a foreign company to hold assets, especially liquid assets, would be a big improvement. But the thorough solution is an international trust. You hire the right institution to own things for you. No arrangement is sturdier.

4. Build exactly one plan, a single plan for all your objectives. That single plan should coordinate the goals of asset protection, internationalizing your investments, avoiding estate taxes, reducing income taxes, achieving privacy and generally becoming less dependent on what happens in your home country. If you have a separate plan for each objective, you risk tripping over yourself.

Most people can be far better protected than they are. For people in the US, all the goals I listed (which are the ones most commonly mentioned by my planning clients) are achievable to one degree or another.

Asset protection. It's not difficult at all to put liquid assets absolutely beyond the reach of future litigation risks, and it doesn't take long to get it done. Sixty days is plenty of time, once you decide to act. Immoveable assets, such as real estate, are more of a problem but the problem is solvable.

Estate tax. That's a tax on not planning. Even the largest taxable estate can be whittled down to almost nothing, and it can be done without interfering in investment decisions or giving anything away before you really want to. But it's a more complicated project than protecting against lawsuits, and it's a slow, gradual process that may take years.

Internationalizing your investments. Setting up accounts with foreign institutions has become a gigantic chore. But it's a kind of grunt work. What it takes is patience and persistence.
Income tax planning. There are some simple but rewarding steps that most people overlook. Few investors realize what they can accomplish with a familiar, homey thing like an IRA. There are other approaches that can accomplish even more, if your assets are large enough and if you have a tolerance for complexity.

Financial privacy. You can't have any but your heirs can have plenty.

Daily Bell: Tell us a little about the Passport Trust program. It's been quite a success.

Terry Coxon: An international trust is the permanent, robust solution for protecting family wealth. Nothing else comes close. I designed the Passport Trust program to make international trusts easy to understand and to eliminate unnecessary costs. Controlling costs lowers the wealth threshold at which real protection becomes practical.

Because an international trust can accomplish so much, getting the full advantage of one requires a lot of information. But the core concepts are quite simple. If you're curious, start by reading "Your Own International Trust." You can find it as a PDF at Passporttrustinfo.com. In ten minutes you can become a minor expert.

Daily Bell: Thanks for your time once again.

Original article source.