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

[Notorial dissent]

Trusts are generally domiciled in the state a person is living in in order to be effective, as a matter of convenience.

Since they were all busted for tax violations, and there being nothing said about it in the case summaries, the people involved can be assumed to be U S citizens and the trusts domiciled within the US, and most likely within the state they were charged from. My basis for this being that they were busted for tax violations and not violations of foreign trusts, which would have been a whole other set of charges. I wasn’t talking about the trustees in any point, I was talking about the people busted for tax violations, but it is most likely that they were trustees as well.

Sorry statement should have been “ However, domicile does NOT alter the fact that they were being used illegally.”, I have a keyboard that is not well and I don’t always catch it before I post.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.

I agree, that change of domicile has an effect on the governing laws, but the laws under which it was formed are the controlling ones, regardless of where they move to. All that aside, there isn’t all that much difference state to state for most of these do to uniform trust standards, and IRS requirements, which actually drive the entire matter any way.

The treaty you are referring to is basically an international version of our constitution’s full faith and credit article. The point being that the trust has to be legal and recognized by the nation it was drawn under.

In

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 phrase is an agency is the key part, and the rebuttal is correct. The IRS is technically a bureau of the Treasury, but it is not an agency of the government in the sense they were trying to use. While I realize this is mostly semantics, for all practical purposes, the IRS is nothing more than a group of people with a special task within the confines of the Department of the Treasury. As such they have no separate existence outside of the Treasury, and by act of law, they cannot be sued as there is not an entity to sue, and for the same reason, the Treasury cannot be sued. If someone is going to sue, the party they can sue is the US. I don’t pretend to understand why they did it this way, but they did, and if you want to sue the IRS, the proper party to be sued is the US.

It is no different than having an argument with the collections department of a department store. You cannot sue the collections department as they do not exist separately of the department store. If you want to sue, you have to sue the department store. The same logic applies here.

The Treasury Department is created under authority of the constitution and fleshed out by act of congress. Within the Treasury, the various units are created either by statute or by general authority of the Secretary to carry on the treasury’s business. In most cases there will be some congressional action directing the Secretary to take on some function and giving the authority to set up that part of the internal bureaucracy.

The IRS is/was created by order of the congress by act of law, its employees are treasury department employees and subject to the Secretary of the Treasury and their immediate supervisor the Director of Internal Revenue.

The IRS is not a collection agency and not subject to FDCPA.

The IRS in one form or another has been in existence since 1862, but it has been reformed a great many times since then. I doubt if any of the 1862 act is still in force.

I believe that the bureau designation came out of the teens, but don’t really remember, it is just a convenient term of use as most groups within a Government Department are usually referred to as bureaus. As I remember, somewhere on the IRS site is a historical record that should have the changes that have happened over the years. There is also a public information office at the Treasury that would have the information as well.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

In

Prove it.

"Technically!?"

And in reality, apart from technicality, what then?

Can you/will you please show that "they" were "tyring to use" the terms "agency of the government" in any particular sense, and clearly, what precise "sense" you presume "they" "were trying to use" the terms?

WOW!

Thank you for that.

Is that not what your friend David Merrill might refer to as an inadvertant, but telling "blurting?"

Admittedly "mostly semantics?"

"...nothing more than?"

"...a group of people," such as officers in the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which is the only origin traceable in statute?

There is no entity?

"...the Treasury?"

Why bring up the Treasury, what does that have to do with anything?

No entities?

Glory hallelujah!

I am free at last Lord, thank god I am Free!

Because there are no entities?

It is good that you admit not to understand, but the part about pretending may seem to be a bit disingenuous.

Who are "they?

What is "this way," and precisely what did "they" do in the "this way that you will provide precise description of?

Can you/will you cite the precisely named Act of Congress providing that "if you want to sue the IRS, the proper party to be sued is the US," and what is meant by "the US," and what the relationship of the IRS is to this "the US," especially in light of the admission of the DOJ that the IRS "is not an agency of the United States government?"

How is it not quite a bit different, seeing as how the collections department of a department store has no mercenary armed forces to deploy?

Will not the "collections department of a department store" decline to pursue the "collections," for very long, and will sell the alleged debt to attorneys whom one can sue?

How precisely, is your analogy other than weak?

See above.

See above.

Is not a a false (or at best weak) analogy rhetoric rather than logic?

Can you/will you provide the precise name of the Act of Congress by which the "Treasury Department" is "fleshed out?

Can you/will you provide positive proof that the constitution has "authority?"

Did the constitution "author" itself?

Can you/will you please show where any "authority" exists in and of the constitution itself?

How many times does the term appear, and in what precise context?

Is the context expressed in plurality or singularity?

How is this other than opinion or presumption, as I see no proof?

Again there is that term authority.

Authority is property of author.

What precisely is the Secretary constitutionally author of?

What is the difference between delegation and authority?

Does the Secretary not have but delegation?

Can you/will you show me precisely where Congress has any authority to give?

Are there not but enumerated Powers vested in a Congress of the states?

Can you/will you prove conclusively otherwise?

Has not congress been authored by those who vest Powers through ordainment and establishment from without the body of "...this Constitution for the United States of America, which itself was authored, and subject to authority of author??

Which is it, "by order" or by "act of law?"

Can you/will you by precise name identify that "act,' and prove your claim, pursuant to said "act?"

Prove it.

Is not the function of the so called IRS far greater than its collection arm?

Form or substance?

Can you/will you separate the form from the substance and show the original basis in substance?

Re-form?

Can you show beyond your doubt?

You believe?

Do you know that "belief" involves having faith in the existence of things that cannot be proven to exist?

How have you tendered anything but unsubstantiated opinion stemming from a poor memory, faith in the existence of things that cannot be proven to exist, and unsubstantiated statements of presumption, conjecture, and/or opinion?

Does that "historical record" contain opinions, conjecture, ommissions, documented allusion to rumors of Congressional "intent," and consist of more or less opinion, without lawful references in fact, as does your unsubstantiated opinion presented herein.

As well as a bit of misinformation, and disinformation, half truths, presumptions and their elk?

Precisely how have you substantially addressed anything I wrote?

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Trusts are generally domiciled in the state a person [trustee?settlor?] is living in in order to be effective, as a matter of convenience.

They can be and this will be the default if domicile is undeclared, yet the trust will be domiciled where it is declared to be domiciled in the trust indenture.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Sorry statement should have been “ However, domicile does NOT alter the fact that they were being used illegally.”

The reality of the fiction... *yawn*

Think universaly, act globaly. Think globaly, act localy.

More to my points, it is not a legal concern, it is a lawful one.

A Dictionary of Law (1893):

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal," a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. See "legal." [Bold emphasis added]

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual "Legal" looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and "Lawful" to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is act full in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott's Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I have a keyboard that is not well and I don’t always catch it before I post.

That can happen, or just type-o's. I do this sometimes as well.

I was more concerned that, "were", was actualy the word you intended because I didn't want to correct it and find it was not the word.

I appreciate the clarification. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.

Forgiven. I am not exactly looking for you to 'stand under' me, I need you to stand with me, as the Divine being, and comprehend life outside of the fiction... in the Universe, on Earth.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I agree, that change of domicile has an effect on the governing laws, but the laws under which it was formed are the controlling ones, regardless of where they move to.

So, at the very least, the "law it is formed under", is always the Law. Not the law of some fictinal nation state.

I recognize that the 'governing law' will always be one and the same with the Law.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

The treaty you are referring to is basically an international version of our constitution’s full faith and credit article.

I wouldn't give it that much credit, I can see it is like that in regards to trusts though...

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

The point being that the trust has to be legal and recognized by the nation it was drawn under.

Again, more to my points, it is not a concern of legality, the requirement is to be lawful.

Its not form->substance, It is:

Substance -> form.

or in other words,

It is not matter->Spirit, it is always,

Spirit->matter.

So long as it is a lawful covenent forming the trust, it will be legal in all States...

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

While I realize this is mostly semantics, for all practical purposes, the IRS is nothing more than a group of people...

Your exactly right in this point... well said!

So people should sue them... why name the United States as a party? It's a legal fiction, the people are the ones that commit the torts. Do people lack the ability to determin relaity from fiction? Are they competent? If not, do they become a "ward of the state"?

It is the ones in the masks that wronged people, not their mask.

The persona someone was acting in is a distraction and the 'shadow of a dog'.

While the shadow of a dog never bit anyone, the dog did.

Why point to the shadow of the dog as though it is what bit you?

[Freetalker]

I am very curious about Pure Trusts. I have just been awarded a sixable settlement of more than 5 figures, and I must construst a trust, for the money belongs to a small boy. I spoke to my banker about a pure trust, and he rolled his eyes at me. How does one go about creating a pure trust? Can a pure trust be considerd equity? Is it held in gold, as I have heard? Please advise, i need to know these things soon. Thanks, Freetalker

[aksis]

Freetalker,

Do you know what a trust is?

If so, what is it?

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by aksis

So people should sue them... why name the United States as a party? It's a legal fiction, the people are the ones that commit the torts. I have never understood why they do it that way either, but for the most part you have to sue the US rather than the department. It requires legislation for a department to sue and be sued in its own right, and I suspect it is more of time saver as much as anything else, or conversely, since they are a part of the government as a whole, then you should actually sue the government if you are going to. I also don’t really see why this bothers people that they should have to do it that way, it is all the same thing in the final analysis. If you look at it as the government through its employees taking an action that you are filing suit about, then it makes sense as to why you would sue the government. Yes, the actions are carried out by people, but done at the direction of their employer.

Do people lack the ability to determin relaity from fiction? I think some people have a hard time separating fiction from fact which is not at all the same thing

Are they competent? I think most people are competent, I think some people are just plain too stupid to be let loose though.

If not, do they become a "ward of the state"? depends on what you mean here


It is the ones in the masks that wronged people, not their mask.
true, however, which people are actually responsible and what is the mask

The persona someone was acting in is a distraction and the 'shadow of a dog'.

While the shadow of a dog never bit anyone, the dog did.

Why point to the shadow of the dog as though it is what bit you? because sometimes that is all some people can see

I am not saying there is anything wrong with trusts, only in what some people think they are or can do. Properly set up and utilized they can accomplish a great deal, but they have to be properly done and legal for where they are going to be used. That is the distinction I am trying to make.

[Smith]

Statutory trust are all subject to the legislature's whim and subject to their codes.

Under statutes " pure " trust does exist , but a common law pure trust is one based upon contracts . I do not remember the details.... it look like I have a lot of digging to do to find old paperwork.

I had a guy try to sell me a common law pure trust years ago . I didn't know much about it ,but kept the papers.
I might even still have his phone number .


I will keep you post them if I find them.

[Freetalker]

Originally Posted by aksis

Freetalker,

Do you know what a trust is?

If so, what is it?

Well, I know that a Trust is an enity all it's own, like an artificial being that never dies. I have been researching this, for good reason. My young disabled son is soon to recieve a large settlement. I wish to secure this money away from the greedy hands of the bank, and the IRS, of which I know is acting in an illegal manner. I also wish to use the trust as equity. Social Security tells me the money [has] to be in a trust, but as I said, I want a pure trust, if at all possible. I have seen sites that stated pure Constitutional trusts are illegal, and a way to avoid taxes, and I have also seen sites that offer to sell me one. I have some experience in the law, but none in the finances. I know how banks are, after all, they are part of the FRB. Any good advice will be taken seriously here, this thing must be done, or my little boy will eventually lose most of his money to Uncle Sammy. Freetalker

[aksis]

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856):

TRUST, contracts, devises. An equitable right, title or interest in property, real or personal, distinct from its legal ownership; or it is a personal obligation for paying, delivering or performing anything, where the person trusting has no real right or security, for by, that act he confides altogether to the faithfulness of those entrusted.This is its most general meaning, and includes deposits, bailments, and the like. In its more technical sense, it may be defined to be an obligation upon a person, arising out of a confidence reposed in him, to apply property faithfully, and according to such confidence. Willis on Trustees, 1; 4 Kent, Com. 295; 2 Fonb. Eq. 1; 1 Saund. Uses and Tr. 6; Coop. Eq. Pl. Introd. 27; 3 Bl. Com. 431.

2. Trusts were probably derived from the civil law. The fidei commissum, (q.v.) is not dissimilar to a trust.

3. Trusts are either express or implied. 1st. Express trusts are those which are created in express terms in the deed, writing or will. The terms to create an express trust will be sufficient, if it can be fairly collected upon the face of the instrument that a trust was intended. Express trusts are usually found in preliminary sealed agreements, such as marriage articles, or articles for the purchase of land; in formal conveyances, such as marriage settlements, terms for years, mortgages, assignments for the payment of debts, raising portions or other purposes; and in wills and testaments, when the bequests involve fiduciary interests for private benefit or public charity,, they may be created even by parol. 6 Watts & Serg. 97.

4.-2d. Implied trusts are those which without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction, as matters of intent; or which are superinduced upon the transaction by operation of law, as matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties.

In simplicity, a trust is a contract.

It is a contract, usualy between (but not limited too being between), the Trust Creator (Grantor) and Trustee (Or a Board of Trustees). The simplicity of the contract is that the Trustee[s] will hold property, accounts, etc.. for a Benificiary.

The Constitution expressly forbids imparing the obligations of contracts.

Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This is a website I presume was created by Mr. Thomas Daniel of the family of CLARK: http://www.rhfweb.com/personal.html

I found this page in it, and it had quite a few decent links and information: http://www.rhfweb.com/trustb.html

You will find this link on the personal page:

[Trust Companies That I Own and Manage]

There are quite a few trust indentures to read over and he has given this express premission there:

"(Please note the trusts below are intended also a examples for others to use to start similar companies, in case I can not start or maintain the companies myself due to lack of funds, time or security. Anyone is welcome to copy and use my company trust ideas, forms, and legal statements as posted at the trust web sites to start their own companies.)"

--Mr. Thomas Daniel of the family of CLARK

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I am not saying there is anything wrong with trusts, only in what some people think they are or can do. Properly set up and utilized they can accomplish a great deal, but they have to be properly done and legal for where they are going to be used. That is the distinction I am trying to make.

This is a good point. I would say, from a very foundatinal prespective, lawful rather then legal.

You don't need to make use of any particular legal system to have a lawful trust that is both legal and that will be recognized in all legal systems.

So let's discuss trusts from the basics...

What is a lawful contract?

What are the base elements required for a contract to be considered a trust, and for the trust to be a) lawful and b) recognizable as a trust by all Member States of the UN?

What can't a common law trust be used for?

What would invalidate the declaration & contract?

What elements can be added after we have a base set of elements to better secure the trust aginst the trustees and 3rd parties (including judges and government employees) from stealing the assets from the benificiaries?

What if someone more intelligent then you applied this principle to deprive you of your freedom?

Is this right or just?

Sure, "stupid people do stupid things"... yet untill they harm someone there is no crime.

The potential for crime is not crime.

The "employer" is one of the people as well.

The legal fiction called person is never the cause.

It is always one of the people that will be to blame. Not the fiction.

Who gave the agent/employee the order?

That one was not and never will be delegated any power, right, duty, or authority to give orders to to agents/employees to commit crimes aginst the People.