Hollow Earth Network's

Member Websites

New Earth Ascending
A Lightworker Community

2 Channeled
shows each month.

Many of One
The Story of  Creation

Earth Ascends
Galactic Messages

  To Subscribe
   Free Email 

    Click Here


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:28 AM,


Dear Anne,

I am familiar with the Massachusetts trust. If done properly, I believe it is a good choice if one is determined to use a trust.

However, the novice trustee or manager is likely to compromise it, unless much due diligence is given to thoroughly knowing the trust, how trust law operates in the matter, and the rights and responsibilities of the parties. Due diligence will be required to prevent it from being raided. No form of trust is a magic bullet.

I suggest that whoever is interested in creating such a trust also seek training and learning materials.

In love,






Thank you Shelley.

The difficulty that some others and I have regarding the language is not the lack of "legalese"/"legalize", but it is the very obvious ambiguity and lack of disclosure regarding key aspects of a trust.

It is a common-sense and reasonable expectation that when reading the trust document people should be able to readily identify, among other things, the rights and obligations associated with placing their name into the trust. Anyone putting their name into the trust should know of a certainty their rights and obligations in the matter, including whether or not the name put into the trust is in fact trust-property put in by them as grantor, or whether or not putting in their name makes them a beneficiary. Such things should be clear and express; otherwise, how can there be understanding, even without legalese? Where are such necessary facts disclosed in/on the trust document and the name-submission form presented by the website?

My loved ones and I do not question the integrity of Dr. Henderson, or you. We have need of disclosure in support of the good faith of our heart-minds. These things are matters of spirit and law, including the love and ways of Father God, whether or not there is any legalese.

No one with whom I have spoken or otherwise communicated has been able to identify any disclosed or defined trustee, any disclosed or defined beneficiary, or disclosed or defined rights and obligations of beneficiary, or any disclosed or defined trust-property (res), though there are perhaps some vague inferences. One may compare the trust document to the gospel (good news) without disclosure of Christ (trustee) and who is helped (beneficiary) and what is used to help (trust property/res) and what giving one's name incurs/gains/loses. Would not such so-called good news be absurd?

This lack leaves very much to imagination and unsureness. There seems to be very much left up to presumption, which is also a matter of legal fictions (fictions of law) within the current constructs of law which have been problematic and the source of much suffering and loss--not that that is your or the doctor's motive.
It should be apparent to the sound and sovereign heart-mind that lack of legalese cannot avoid the principles of law and justice and love, or the need and love of disclosure necessary to binding and loving agreement.

I am thankful for your reply, but it lacks anything expressly in the trust by which I may reasonably use in helping you, or by which I may soundly and lovingly be corrected. In looking at the trust document, I have seen no reference expressly including other documents, which reference would lawfully bring other documents (or info, e.g. the things to which your reply has referred) within the construct of what you call the trust, or "this trust". I am aware that it is a matter of law and common sense that that which is omitted from the terms (legalese or not) is excluded from the trust (agreement), and unenforceable.

The intent that you have mentioned seems very honorable; but I and some others perceive that of itself that intent does not satisfy the reasonable and lawful and just requirements of a trust.

If the reasonable questions and concerns were to be satisfied, I and some others would be most happy to give our names into the trust, and to promote the trust. The intent you have stated seems good.

My beloved friends and I await a better and more sound reply. We are not looking for legalese; the complete truth will do, as long as that truth is reflected on the face of the trust document presented to obtain our good-faith involvement.
Your reply and this response will be copied to my dear friend(s), and others who desire better knowledge.

If you desire to communicate under the cloak of secrecy, I may so do, but not to the possible harm of any being.

In faith, hope and love,
Tim Pledger

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 2:14 PM,
Shelley Bolling shelleybolling@gmail.com wrote:

Tim, Thank you for your concerns regarding the Bathsheba and Esther Trust.

This is not written in "legalize" intentionally, so that lay people may be able to understand its intent. The Trust is under the Sovereign Civil Peoples Rights Trust, which is one of four main trusts overseeing the new metals backed
banking system, humanitarian projects and prosperity packages. All four main trusts have been filed with the World Court in the Hague. We have 197 nations
(not governments, as they are all corrupt, but peoples in those nations) working with us for the restoration of humanity. Dr. Henderson filed a suit against the 1871 Corporation July 24, 2002, for restoration of what had been taken from our family. This has prevented the US Corp from filing bankruptcy. Therefore, all 197 nations wanting their restoration have come under the same suit.

Please go to our website and review the attached documents at the bottom of the site for a better understanding. www.sovcpr.com.


Shelley Bolling
Sovereign Civil Peoples Rights



Dear Shelley,
My opinion regarding the trust has been solicited by friends; and I have provided it by various writings. A chain of communications led to me writing and sending a letter to Anne at Hollow Earth Network.
Please find and read the attached copy of letter that I sent to Anne.
I have been corrected regarding the email address that I used in previously attempting communication with you.
If you would like my help, please let me know.
I am also open to being corrected.
Transcending our density and dark programming involves knowledge seemingly new to us and the growth pains of developmental progression involving corrections.
Often, I have been corrected of God (love, light); and I have learned to take and experience much joy in so being.
I may not answer unsolicited emails and may report them as spam. Of course, your email is solicited.
In faith, hope and love,
Tim Pledger
February 1 2014


If from reading the trust document one cannot identify the trustee(s) and trustee duties, the beneficiary(ies) and their rights and obligations, and the property in the trust, they do not understand the trust. If one does not understand, how can one agree?


If you so desire, I will be happy to do a more thorough summary with explanation...with short sentences :-D

Apparently, there are people who do not understand the language of the trust document, yet they placed their names in the trust anyway. They were unknowingly confused at the time that they did so. Their ignorance and illusion of knowledge and false faith (faith regarding that which is false) and delusion cause, and are one with, their confusion. There is dark programming left to rise above, transcend.

Often, confusion exists before it is identified and exposed. When it is exposed, there comes an apparent consciousness that dawns upon the heart-mind, and they then know they are confused. This is part of learning and increasing in knowingness. Some will in their avatar awaken to the fact of their confusion/delusion that actually existed before reading the analysis we have provided. Their higher self is not confused; their earth-bound consciousness is confused.

Your comment regarding knowing and following the heart-mind is true.

Some people experience similar confusion-effects in listening to the calls/channellings. I have been able to explain and clarify to those around me who have been confused by the calls/channellings.

When one recognizes that one is confused, that is a good thing, and is a golden opportunity to gain clarity and growth. It is part of our due-diligence and self-command responsibility in love.

Your point regarding lessons is on target.

Tim Pledger



(Comments below)

January 31, 2014
Dear Anne,
In love and gratitude and regarding the BATHSHEBA AND ESTHER TRUST, I write this letter for the loving scrutiny of your heart-mind, and that of other precious souls with whom you choose to share this.
I recognize that in presenting the trust, you were not endorsing it, but that, in love, you were offering it for consideration, a possibility.
I will attempt brevity in sharing some things of my awareness and opinion. While I am no attorney and do not give legal advice, I am not new to the subject matter, and have spent many hours in law libraries, including my own, devoting prayerful heart-mind energy in the pursuit and due diligence of knowing.
Each and every soul is responsible regarding giving due diligence to perceive (understand) a trust (involves contract) before entering into it in any capacity. Rushing in without due diligence and adequate perception is not wise; and it may subject the one so rushing to unforeseen and undesirable hardship and/or loss.
Many trusts and beneficiaries have been spoiled by various adversaries.
I have attempted to communicate and offer my assistance to Shelly Bolling, but the email address (shellybolling@gmail.com) apparently is not receiving my emails.
In its essence, the trust is a simple thing. It involves some very simple and fundamental concepts of law. It is a legal matter. In this, Father God and others have indicated the preference and wisdom of doing things lawfully, or legally.
In its most fundamental essence, a trust may be said to be a confidence placed in another regarding something of property.
In its practical use, a trust is a type of entity known as a fiction:  the trust takes on the attributes of a person, much like a corporation. There are rights and obligations that accrue to the trust, which of course includes, among other things, the parties to the trust.
The trust is the creation of its creator; and that creator may be variously called Grantor, Trustor or Truster.
The document that creates a trust (e.g. express trust) is variously called an indenture, a trust indenture, a trust instrument, a deed, etc. Within the current constructs of law, this document is the peculiar law of the trust, it governs the trust, and it identifies things necessary to the trust, e.g. who is/are the trustee(s), the beneficiaries (a.ka. cestui que trust), and the trust property (or the trust res—the trust thing:  the thing that is the subject property).
Let’s take a look at some things regarding the BATHSHEBA AND ESTHER TRUST, doing so with the involvement of some facts and concepts of trust law in our heart-mind. In a “Christed” condition, we have soundness of mind, which is a matter of the heart-intellect oneness of balanced being.
Keep in mind that the trust is presented to be in plain language so that it is easily understandable. Hopefully, we shall see if this is true.
When we read any document, whether scripture or trust/contract or other, wisdom  (a quality of being, like love) involves its energies of thought and truth (that which is reliable and enduring) and heart.
I subsequently will express some overall opinions, but before doing so, I need to preface them with some facts and related thoughts. If I do not do this, many will not likely perceive the why without much explanation after the fact.
All souls giving due diligence should research these matters on their own, and form their own opinions and conclusions.
It may be perceived that the so-called trust as presented on the website is the trust document. Let’s examine it somewhat superficially, since an in-depth examination and analysis would be very lengthy. Keep in mind the following things that I have found in various law dictionaries; and please forgive my informality and its seeming lack of scholarship.

  1. Indenture:  “A deed to which two or more persons are parties, and in which these enter into reciprocal and corresponding grants or obligations towards each other.”—Black’s Law Dictionary (BLD) 3rd, p950
  2. Consider deed-poll:  “only the party making it executes it or binds himself by it as a deed, though the grantors or grantees therein may be several in number”—BLD 3rd, p950 at “INDENTURE.”
  3. Trust indenture:  “The document which contains the terms and conditions which govern the conduct of the trustee and the rights of the beneficiaries.”—BLD 5th, p1358
  4. Trust instrument:  “The formal document which creates the trust and contains the powers of the trustees and the rights of the beneficiaries. It may be a deed in trust or a formal declaration of trust.”—BLD 5th, p1358
Paragraph 1:  Statement of general intent

  1. The term “this trust” should have certain definition on the face of the instrument. We should have in our heart-mind things such as the following:
    1. Historically and in/at “the law” regarding trusts, a trust is a type of fiction (fictio) in the nature of a fictitious person having rights and obligations of a person within the lex fori of Rome, along with some aspects of “common law” also involving private international law, admiralty. The United States law form is derived of Roman law.
    2. Trust:  in general,
      1. “A right of property, real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another.”—BLD 5th, p1352
      2. “A confidence reposed in one person, who is termed trustee, for the benefit of another, who is called the cestui que trust, respecting property which is held by the trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trust.”—BLD 5th, p1353
      3. There is the trust creator:  the Trustor/Truster/Grantor.
      4. There is the trust instrument:  the document formally creating and governing the trust, e.g. indenture, deed, or deed-poll (made by one party only; the maker executes it).
      5. There are the trust-persons:
        1. Trustee
        2. Beneficiary, or cestui que trust
        3. Any officers created by the trust instrument, or otherwise authorized by the trust instrument; this may involve the trustee(s) being authorized to create offices/officers
        4. Etc.
      6. There is the property, the res.
        1. Property:  “That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one.” “The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest.”—BLD 5th, p1095
          1. One’s very name is a matter of property.
          2. Everything in one’s name is a matter of property.
          3. Property may be real, personal, tangible, intangible, intellectual…
          4. Property cannot become a “trust res” unless it is placed into the trust by grant (permission), or perhaps by a court order.
          5. Even “Goodwill is property.”—BLD 5th, p1095
        2. Trust res:  “The property of which the trust consists.”—BLD 5th, p1358
    3. What kind of trust? Which one or more of the following apply?
      1. active trust (a.k.a direct trust):  imposes action upon the trustee
      2. cesti que trust:  beneficiary
      3. charitable trust (a.k.a. public trust):  for the benefit of a class of persons or the public generally
      4. contingent trust:  express trust which depends upon some future event to affect its operation
      5. discretionary trust:  “A trust in which trustees have discretion as to types of investment and also as to whether and when distributions may be made to beneficiaries.”—BLD 5th, p1354
      6. executory trust:  requires an additional instrument, e.g. a grant of one’s name or other property into a trust could so constitute
      7. express trust:  “created or declared by express terms”—BLD 5th, p1354
      8. implied trust:  not express; by implication of law or circumstances
      9. passive trust:  not active; “the trustee has no active duty to perform”—BLD 5th, p1355
      10. private trust:  for certain designated individual(s)
      11. resulting trust:  “One that arises by implication of law, or by the operation and construction of equity…” regarding implied intent of the parties—BLD 5th, p1355
      12. secret trust:  verbal
      13. shifting trust:  “An express trust which is so settled that it may operate in favor of beneficiaries additional to, or substituted for, those first named, upon specified contingencies.”—BLD 5th, p1355
      14. simple trust:  where property is simply vested in one person for another’s use
      15. transgressive trust “a trust which transgresses or violates the rule against perpetuities.”—BLD 3rd, p1761
      16. etc.
    4. “the people” is not defined
    5. “their own”?
While examining the remainder of the “trust”, we should find certain knowledge and/or evidence of several things, answers regarding the following questions: 

  1. Who is the Trustor/Grantor?
  2. Who is/are the trustee(s)?
  3. Who is/are the beneficiary/beneficiaries?
  4. What is the res (property)?
  5. Where is the evidence of the acceptance of the trustee(s)?
  6. What type of trust is it?
  7. In/of what jurisdiction is the trust created?
  8. What is the nature of the person, or persons, creating the trust?
  9. What is the evidence that the creator (Trustor/Grantor), or creators, has/have the lawful capacity/status to create the trust?
  10. What is the evidence of perfect title/possession/ownership, regarding the res/property? What is the evidence that the res/property of the trust is legally/lawfully unencumbered before creating the trust? Is there any declaration/proclamation regarding perfection in the matter of the res/property?
We have all been invited to read and scrutinize the document. We should do it in soundness of heart-mind.
Paragraph 2:  Scripture quotation

  1. In the knowledge-based opinion of my heart-mind, the quotation seems to employ and rely upon copyrighted material within the construct of the law forum (lex fori) of the “Global Elite” doing business in the Roman way involving private international law (admiralty) and its fictions, including the version of the bible that exists within that forum and under its rule.
  2. In the knowledge-based opinion of my heart-mind, even the fiction styled “LORD” is a falsehood, a lie, a pretense after the pattern of the lex fori of the two-faced (secular-ecclesiastical) system of Rome’s global dominion through fictio, and involving capitis diminutio maxima (person of maximum loss of status/right). “LORD” is not what the original language reflects; it is a device and (per)version.
Paragraph 3: 

  1. Is indented—Indenture?
  2. We have awakened to the fact that we have followed the unlawful traditions of the Global Elite,
    1. In the knowledge-based opinion of my heart-mind, the face of the document evidences continuation of the same fact and following.
    2. If we are truly departing from such unlawful traditions, why would we evidence on the face of the document that we are continuing therein?
  3. And are extracting ourselves from those laws and traditions of men.
    1. Are we sure about that?
    2. What of the trust evidences that we indeed are extracting ourselves?
  4. And accepting the ways of our heavenly Father, YHWH (God),
    1. “YHWH” appears also in the form of fiction of the lex fori of Rome, that fiction being in the nature of capitis diminutio maximus (person of maximum loss of status/rights). In that, why do we not perceive that the very name of God is fictionalized and subjugated under legal fiction of the lex fori of the two-faced rule of Rome? Are the way of our heavenly Father the ways of fiction? Fiction:  that which is known to be false, or likely to be false, is presumed to be true; and it will not be allowed to be proved otherwise. Regarding fictio, fiction, fiction of law, legal fiction, please see various editions of BLD, e.g. 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, etc.
    2. Is the trust a form of indenture involving the lex fori of Rome and its fictionalization and subjugation and subversion regarding God?
  5. And are submitting to His (the FICTIONAL GOD’S?) ways of restoration of abundance for all humanity.
P4—Provisions (not defined/specified; what provisions?) set aside for the following things:

  1. Foreclosed properties
  2. Homeless
  3. Personal property
  4. (margin-shift right, or indent, begins here) Support businesses
  5. Clean water
  6. Healthy food
  7. School and medical infrastructure
  8. Transportation infrastructure
  9. Two areas of land:
    1. Holy Ground (~200k+ acres)
    2. Heaven’s Mountain (5,237 +/- acres)
      1. Royal Estate?????

  1. “STATE OF TEXAS” and “COUNTY OF TARRANT” are resultant fictions (in the nature of fictitious persons) issued of the lex fori of Rome, which has been a means and device of the so-called Global Elite. I thought we were extracting ourselves. Does this indicate jurisdiction of fiction? I think so.
  2. Dr. Hendo I. L. Henderson & Shelly Bolling
  3. “Stewards in the trust”
    1. The term steward is not defined of the trust document.
    2. A steward is not a trustee. Many, especially we who are dumbed-down believers in Christ, have in our ignorance and delusion confused stewardship and trusteeship. They are not the same. Keep in heart-mind the principle of scripture that God’s people are destroyed (or kept as dumb lambs—a more literal translation) for lack of knowledge. The ignorant are typically deluded. God’s and Christ’s mission of salvation involves deliverance from ignorance and delusion, and involves new government of a higher order.
    3. No office of Steward is created, or even inferred, of the trust document.
  1. Wrote the trust by their own hand
  2. Will oversee use of “said funds set aside for the Trust to restore humanity”
    1. Apparently it is inferred that the Steward(s) is/are overseers of some funds. What funds?
    2. The “said funds” has no mention or definition in what is presented as an indenture. What are the “said funds”?
Here are a few of many final observations/opinions.

  1. The so-called trust fails to identify or define any creator (Trustor/Grantor).
  2. The so-called trust fails to identify or define any trustee.
  3. The so-called trust fails to identify or define any res/property.
  4. The so-called trust fails to disclose/answer any of the fundamental questions previously posed.
  5. It is not clearly stated on the face of the purported trust document, or the related form for name submission, the nature of any obligation and/or right incurred in so submitting one’s name into the trust.
This could be construed as us placing our property (name) into the trust as grantor of that res/property (name).
Our name is our property, perhaps with the exception of that which is called the strawman name (JOHN PRETENSE SMITH; cestui que trust), which is not our creation and we likely have no perfect/clear title regarding that fictional name—though it may be legally construed that we have indeed given that name into the trust. If so, what of all other property in that name?
Then, there is our true name. Who of sound heart-mind would place that name in trust, in a fiction?
The trust document is the standard and rule and law regarding the trust. If beneficiaries were to be allowed and qualified and identified by the submission of their name, that should be clearly stated on the face of the trust instrument. It is not. This would tend to give rise to the possibility, and perhaps likelihood, of aspects of inferred and secret trusts and the various inventive ways of interpretation by courts of fiction under the umbrella of the lex fori of Rome (including the UNITED STATES corporation), which in my knowing opinion has been a major obstacle to liberty and consciousness and restoration of the people within the lawful jurisdiction and protection of Father God, or the Creator.
While regarding some trusts it could be a breach of fiduciary duty to disclose the trust instrument, there should at least be a full disclosure of all facts, including all obligations and rights, involved in one submitting their name! That is neither on the redemption form nor the presented/alleged trust instrument.
I do not think that there necessarily is any foul intent on the part of the named Stewards. However, in my knowledge-based opinion and reasoning, the face of the trust reflects either incompetency on the part of someone, or a group, or at worst reflects a nefarious and dark scheme.
If one does not completely understand the trust and what one has incurred by submitting one’s name (and others names), I suggest the notion that one may use fax to give notice that one has come to know that one does not understand and that one’s name is to be removed from the trust. Otherwise, if one has prayed about it and one knows by faith that it is for that one (whatever it is) then there is the notion that one may leave one’s name in the trust, or submit it. However, only each one is responsible for that one and what one does (deed of trust?)!
This man does not trust the so-called trust, and will take much joy in either assisting the real Trustor(s) or being corrected.
May all be blessed.
In faith, hope and love,
Tim Pledger

February 1 2014


The post by the lawyer concerning this trust was very confusing.  Is it possible to get him to give a layman ‘s terms post as to what it is he is trying to convey here?  Should we not have submitted names to the trust?  Are we in some kind of trouble now?

I am confused and hope he can give us guidance that we will understand.  I got really lost in all the legal jargon and have not idea what point he was trying to make.

Thank you so much Anne,

In love and light


Donna, I know so little about this.  When I received it, I passed that information on to those I knew had no currency options.  I did not participate in the trust and have no personal knowledge about it.  And, of course, I did not recommend it ... just passed on the information I had received.

And Tim Pledger is, of course, not a lawyer and cannot advise; however, he has offered his own personal opinion and the reference material upon which he based his own decision. I believe his best advice to you and others that have become involved is to, as Zorra has already told us, go into your HeartMind, ask about this, and see how you FEEL.  

If you feel solidly confident and assured to go on, you will know.  If you feel uneasy, uncertain, or worried ... he suggests you send a fax and remove your  name from submission.

I have had others inquire... "something about relinquishing the value of their personal name" ... again, I have not seen nor read the trust, but Tim seems to also put our attention on relinquishing value attached to our names.

How do you feel about this?  It is easy to send a fax if that would ease your mind.  And then, pass this information on to those with whom you have shared the trust...

I will post your question and my response, as I am sure we will have more inquiries.

We are here, learning our last lessons, Donna.  We are being taught HOW  to use our own discrimination, making our own decisions.  We can, and we DO know.  Our HeartMind knows.  Now, we must decide ... for ourselves.

Love, Anne

Copyright © Retired Colonel Billie Faye Woodard, Pahrump, Nevada