Pure / Common Law Trusts - I have used them for years

[Notorial dissent]

The only requirement for a trustee for a domestic trust is that they be of legal age and/or competence for the state the trust is registered in or created in. A trustee can just as easily be a corporation.

In order for the IRS to recognize a trust, it must meet the legal requirements for the state it is domiciled in, if it doesn't, they treat it as if it doesn't exist.

[aksis]

Who cares if the IRS recognizes it or not... the IRS is just a corporation that independently contracts with the United States of America via the municipal corporation UNITED STATES.

It's recognition is not required.

[Notorial dissent]

Right, and Lynne Meredith, James and Shirley Aldridge, Donald Fletcher, Richard V. Richelo, Jr, Melody J. Bohrer, John P. Ellis, Sr., William N. Jackson, Palle "Pono" Bognaes, Lonnie D. Krocket, Charles James Payton, Larken Rose, Kent Hovind, Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown, and Larken Rose to name just a few who seem to have discovered that the IRS cares. Those must be imaginary jail cells they are sitting in. So yep, go right ahead and ignore them with impunity.

The IRS is NOT a corporation, it is a bureau or unit with in the Treasury Department, under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the rest is more nonsense not worth addressing.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

The IRS is NOT a corporation, it is a bureau or unit with in the Treasury Department, under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the rest is more nonsense not worth addressing.

So what was the law that actually created the bureau?

Do you happen to know which law it was?

Just asking.

[Notorial dissent]

I have seen the reference to it, will see if I can remember where.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Right, and Lynne Meredith, James and Shirley Aldridge, Donald Fletcher, Richard V. Richelo, Jr, Melody J. Bohrer, John P. Ellis, Sr., William N. Jackson, Palle "Pono" Bognaes, Lonnie D. Krocket, Charles James Payton, Larken Rose, Kent Hovind, Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown, and Larken Rose to name just a few who seem to have discovered that the IRS cares. Those must be imaginary jail cells they are sitting in. So yep, go right ahead and ignore them with impunity.

The IRS is NOT a corporation, it is a bureau or unit with in the Treasury Department, under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the rest is more nonsense not worth addressing.

The then the IRS is a department of a municipal corporation? It's not even the principle.

Umm, where were their trusts domiciled?

What Nationality where all those people?

Further, you would need to look the United Nations documentation regarding the recognition of trusts. Not the United States.

It's (US') recognition is not required. The only recognition required would be that of the First Exchanger. It is a private matter, not a public one.

[Notorial dissent]

The IRS is a bureau within the Department of the Treasury which is an office of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America.

The trusts would have been domiciled within the state the convicts were living in.

They were as far as can be ascertained U S citizens.

Hate to break it to you, but the UN has no authority over trust law, and so would have absolutely nothing to say in the matter. Trust law is the province of the National Government they reside under, and in this case the State Government they domiciled the trust under. However, domicile does NOT alter the fact that they were being used illegally.

You are so very confused, and so very wrong.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

The trusts would have been domiciled within the state the [trustees] were living in.

No. They would have been domiciled where the trust indenture delcared them to be domiciled, regardless of if the trustees maintained any residence[s] in any foreign state[s].

If no domicile, or more to the point governing law, was declared/expressed, then it shall be governed by the law with which the trust is most closely connected, and in accertaining this law, "referance shall be made in particular to - a) the place of administration of the trust desegnated by the creator/settlor; b) the situs of [the bulk of] the assets of the trust; c) the [domicile and/or] residence or business [for exmaple, the law firm] of the trustee; d) the objects of the trust and the place where they are to be fulfilled."

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

They were as far as can be ascertained U S citizens.

This is hearsay. Yet, your post, presuming that the trustees are U.S. citizens... is not in scope of this discussion anyways, so regardless of the accuracy/inaccuracy of your points, they are moot.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Hate to break it to you, but the UN has no authority over trust law, and so would have absolutely nothing to say in the matter. Trust law is the province of the National Government they reside under, and in this case the State Government they domiciled the trust under. However, domicile does alter the fact that they we[r]e being used illegally.

Like I pointed out, you have shifted from non-US trusts, to trusts domiciled in the United States. Then addressed me as if I were speaking about US domiciled trusts with trustees that are US citizens. I am not. You will have to forgive the confusion.

You also see that the domicile changes the governing law. Good. You have proven my point and agree with it.

In a Nation State that is a contracting member of the United Nations, the CONVENTION ON THE [PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL] LAW APPLICABLE TO TRUSTS AND ON THEIR RECOGNITION (concluded July 1st, 1985), is very relevent to this subject matter. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act...ons.pdf&cid=59

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

The IRS is a bureau within the Department of the Treasury which is an office of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America.

Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff, v. T-Bow Company Trust,
Internal Revenue Service, and Steve Morgan.
Case No. CV 93-4117, Complaint for Impleader.

In the District court of the Seventh Judicial District of The State of Idaho, In And For The County Of Bonneville Magistrates Court.

In the Complaint for Impleader, prepared by the attorneys for plaintiff, page one, item #4:

Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an agency of the United States government which has presented to Plaintiff a lien against monies to which Defendant Steve Morgan, or presumably Defendant T-Bow Company Trust for him, may be entitled.

The response of the Attorneys for the United States of America, prepared by Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States' Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, item #4:

Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government

Is there some difference between an "agency of the United States government," and "bureau within the Department of the Treasury which is an office of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America," in which such "bureau" which, admittedly (by respondent UNITED STATES), on record, "is not an agency of the United States government," can, in a bureaucratic capacity of "not an agency of the United States government" operate "within the Department of the Treasury which is an office of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America," in a capacity without "agency of the United States government?"

How, precisely, and by what specific and precise mechanics, does this particular "bureau" which admittedly (by respondent UNITED STATES), on record, "is not an agency of the United States government," operate as
"a bureau within the Department of the Treasury which is an office of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America?"

In what precise relationship to "the Department of the Treasury which is an office of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America," would the so called "bureau" (IRS?, alleged Bureau of Internal Revenue? or ?), which the Department of Justice ("which is an office of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America?"), "Denies that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States," would such "bureau" ("not an agency of the United States government"), be situated, or employed?

Where is the precise documentation of the exact nature of such relationship?

Is it a "bureau?"

It calls itself a "service," does it not?

Is it a contractual relationship?

Is the IRS an independent contractor?

Is the IRS, in any part, a collection agency subject to FDCPA?

I find legislation concerning an "office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue," "created in the Treasury Department," within "The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432)."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...db&recNum=0463
(It goes on for a few pages, just keep clicking "Next Image.")

But I find nowhere within The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432) provision for creating a "Bureau of Internal Revenue."

I have heard rumors of allegations at the time of The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432), concerning a "Bureau of Internal Revenue," and allegations of Congressional "intent" to create such, allegedly published by the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue," in the Federal Register.

Where, though, is the precise legislation which precisely created that precisely named "bureau?"

Perhaps Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707 might actually know the truth?

[aksis]

mrg, my post stands corrected. Good questions and points. Thanks.