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

ntent was ntent on only one thing.

Making only one vague post.

HB

[Bill Smith]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Bill just ask the following companies about Constitutional Pure Trusts in the spirit of Article I Sec 10:

Sony
U Haul
Boston Celtics
Merill Lynch
Chicago Merchandise Mart
Fidelity Magellan
Rockefeller
Kemper foods
Ross Perot
Kennedy's
Jimmy CArter
DuPont
Hunt Family
Mellon Family
Rupert Murdoch

Bill just ask the following whether or not these type of trusts are recognized as valid tax reduction tools:

Shearson Annex
Merrill Lynch
EF Hutton
Payne Webber
Price Waterhouse
Dellotte & Touche

EVERY one of those entities is a CORPORATION and not a "Pure Trust" which you can verify by looking at their 10-Q statements, and even requesting copies of their Articles of Incorporation from their investor relations departments.

It is amazing the stuff that you just make up as you go, followed by righteous indignation as if somehow that makes your BS smell sweeter.

Quit telling it to people like it AIN'T.

[weishaupt1776]

Bill just ask the following companies about Constitutional Pure Trusts in the spirit of Article I Sec 10:

Sony
U Haul
Boston Celtics
Merill Lynch
Chicago Merchandise Mart
Fidelity Magellan
Rockefeller
Kemper foods
Ross Perot
Kennedy's
Jimmy CArter
DuPont
Hunt Family
Mellon Family
Rupert Murdoch

Bill just ask the following whether or not these type of trusts are recognized as valid tax reduction tools:

Shearson Annex
Merrill Lynch
EF Hutton
Payne Webber
Price Waterhouse
Dellotte & Touche

[Pony]

Hello,

I am researching asset protection and getting out of the tax system. I have been listening to Richard Young on KDWN in Las Vegas for a year now. He has Federal Contract Pure Trusts that he has been setting up for 18 years with no problems from the Feds. He has a Tax Determination letter that he can set up so that you can mail it to the Chief Counsel of the IRS and have them make a determination as to wether you are a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code. If they do not reply in 30 days, then you are considered to be out of the system since the Gov't must reply in 30 days to refute your claims. He reports no client has ever had a legitimate problem and I cannot find anyone on the internet who has had a bad experience with him.

Can anyone here give me some honest and legitimate feedback on them? I really like Richard and he has been doing this for so long, and none of his clients call on the air to complain.

Thank you

Pony

[weishaupt1776]

How come Pure trusts, Business Trusts, Massachusetts Trusts, etc. are more than positively recognized in

1. 4A American Jurisprudence Legal Forms 2d Business Trusts (162 chapters);
2. 16A Fletcher Cyclopedia of Private Corporations §§ 8227 through 8274;
3. 13 American Jurisprudence 2d Business Trusts (108 chapters);
4. and 12A Corpus Juris Secundum Business Trusts (67 chapters)

HUH?

[David Merrill]

When one sells a home or functional automobile for $21 it becomes very difficult to conceal the fraudulent conveyance. The sale was obviously to put a higher priced property into the alter ego and hope to conceal that bogus price tag. I know a man who plead guilty to failure to file and attempting to commit fraud against the government, by and large to get the charges against his wife dropped and bargain down to two years and half a million dollars in fines. Fraudulent conveyances like described were the main factor convincing him he would not be able to convince a jury in his favor.

Removal from the forum is the primary method of process to deal with such an attack. Admiralty. The first thing Ronald Dean did was fire the trustee. The professional trustee, John, had over twenty accounts swept on this warrant. Through attorneys John only has had partial success reclaiming the funds for his beneficiary/clients. And those successes are only after paying off any alleged treasury debts.

Some suitors have found security in conveying titles to their true name. Any name is a trust. Owning property in your legal name, on the birth certificate is using a trust set up for you in commerce at birth.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...tification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ification3.jpg

If you are building a trust, you may best use that one - retaining 'government' by contract the trustee - the general public trust. Or better yet set one up in your true name and simply own your own property. The legal name is prima facia evidence you are engaged in a general social compact - a constructive trust.

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement2.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement3.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement4.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement5.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...tofservice.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant2.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/1-HR3812.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/2-HR3812.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/3-HR3812.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/4-HR3812.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Bill Smith

EVERY one of those entities is a CORPORATION and not a "Pure Trust" which you can verify by looking at their 10-Q statements, and even requesting copies of their Articles of Incorporation from their investor relations departments.

You obviously misread the post. I said ask the following whether or not pure trusts are bogus. Those corporations use pure trusts

[TheBlackTruth]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

You obviously misread the post. I said ask the following whether or not pure trusts are bogus. Those corporations use pure trusts

Perhaps its the prefix "Pure" or "Common Law" that is throwing people on the defensive. I like using the term non-statutory because that is really what is important and is more accurate. What is significant is that the trust (regardless of what model it is derived from) has no statutory ties and doesn't derive its right to exist from some statute proscribing a charter issued from a state agency.

-BT

[MADDOG]

THANKS for this info everyone. I'm not sure how a pure trust is set up differently than the usual trust. Is there someplace on this forum that I can go to learn about that?

We have a home in a 100% homestead state, and that home is owned by our trust - a trust set up several years ago with the help of a close friend who is a paralegal, but I know she used the standard form used in her employer's law office. It is also set up using the names on our birth certificates. This trust is the title holder to our residence, which is also 100%homestead protected in this state.

An irrevocable living trust is supposed to be iron-clad, but it is a typical statutory trust, I'm sure. Anything new we do now would fall under the Fraudulent Reconveyance Act because we are currently being pursued by creditors. My mom desperately wants us closer to her, and she is afraid to move here because of the hurricanes - only Texas and Florida are 100% homestead states, and she is afraid to move here. But I don't think we DARE sell this house and move the money out from under the Homestead protection here. We've lived here 5 years so we are protected from the new bankruptcy law that comes into play in October (a Homestead will only protect your home if you've been there over 4 years). I don't think there is any way we can protect our assets if we sell this house and try to move close to my mom, do you? Hurricanes or not, we'd better stay put!

See the ultimate trust law compendium at http://www.trustinfosite.com or http://www.trustinfoonline.com