Pure Trust Template

[David Merrill]

I suppose that constructive trust inherently means that Social Security, to you is what you believe it is; at least in part. And that is built up of not only what people tell you about Social Security, but how you perceive what they are telling you.

Therefore you would be best off to understand the trust in place around your SSN through written definitions directly from the SSA. For instance the idea of Pure Trust, to me would be a less taboo form of saying - Common Law Trust. Contracts, protected under Article I, §10 of the Constitution can certainly come into existence and do all the time. Sometimes they are implied and sometimes they are express and the difference is typically semantics and having to hire an attorney or other arbitrator in equity to decide how to read the contract (written or unwritten).

I have studied about the early formation of today's Social Security. For a while I was even getting all my funds back but decided to await that benefit should I need it in the future. That was a very well written booklet that I no longer have. It involved getting reports from the SSA about my trust and account etc. then explaining from the SSA and USC policies how to go about refunding me. I have the Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt and have been coached from the Congressional Reports and other sources well about the Bankers' Holiday and War and Emergency Powers in place since 1933.

The trust indenture I proposed here was simply because the heading of this thread speaks of a Template. I used a template. I put that together to reflect the general public trust in place today - through initial express trust and subsequent implied and constructive trust. Meaning that the contract in place has gone through shifts and novations but many of those are just in your heads.

For instance the simple notion you are required to have a SSN is flawed logic. That you are required to have a SSN to open a bank account is also flawed considering there is no law requiring you to have a SSN. There is no SSN required to have a Driver License in the State of Colorado. Therefore there is nothing that you would need a driver license for that you must have a SSN for; except of course to make a claim with the SSA. If you have no SSN like me, then you have no Taxpayer ID and without that you are no Taxpayer. Notice the 1040 and about any other Form from the Treasury says SSN is mandatory.

(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), on and after October 1, 2000, an application for a driver's or minor driver's license shall include the applicant's social security number, which shall remain confidential and shall not be placed on the applicant's driver's or minor driver's license unless such applicant has waived such confidentiality; except that such confidentiality shall not extend to the state child support enforcement agency, the department, or a court of competent jurisdiction when requesting information in the course of activities authorized under article 13 of title 26, C.R.S.,or article 14 of title 14, C.R.S. If the applicant does not have a social security number, the applicant shall submit a sworn statement, together with the application, stating that the applicant does not have a social security number. The license issued as a result of said application may, at the applicant's option, contain an identification number, which shall be the applicant's social security number.

Regardless of my troll brigade, whom you might choose to believe about the constructions, I will choose the advice from the SSA about these things. If you have any doubts about believing David Merrill on the Internet, what wierd quirk of human nature would have you believing people who will not even tell you who they are? But overall how is it that we can get you to look for guidance about Social Security from anywhere ultimately other than Social Security? That is where I inquired.

I got into a question and answer session here. Aksis wanted me to define the parameters of construction about the extant SSA trust I drafted into a standard common law trust indenture template. Here's the rub folks; those constructions are designed and planted inside Aksis' head. If you want to claw through the conditioning, get down to the SSA office and start reading and asking questions.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[aksis]

Truth be told, I don't trust the People at the SSA to tell me the truth. I have been betrayed by the whole ****ing lot of government employees. It is part of why I have expatriated.

Sure, most people are well intended, but they are underlings of people who are not, and, are them selves ignorant.

I understand the simplicity of a contract.

You did provide a template, true.

Come to think of it...

Do I even want to be an 'agent' for it? No. Not unless I am absolutly clear on what that means...

An agent would be subject to the First Trustee or the Trust from what I understand [federal employee? I think so.]. SO fuc.k being the agent for the PERSON or the First Trustee.

I am no party to IT.

So the advocation to sign stuff:

FULL MIDDLE LAST by True Name; Family, agent

or

TrueName dba TrueNameFAMILY

...is putting ones self right back into the mix.

I am still wondering what the simplest template of a sound Trust agreement could be. They can get as complex as someone wishes to make them.

[David Merrill]

I am figuring that may have sounded offensive. What I meant by it was that with any of us a contructive trust dispute must be arbitrated by determining what was in the minds of the parties. That is all I meant and maybe should not have used Aksis for example.

[aksis]

David, any frustrsation and anger is not really with you. [the name thing did bug me a little]

I am just under alot of pressure...

Thanks for being willing to go over and over and over and over this stuff, not only for me, but others.

I had ment no offense either, I am just not going to let people tell me who I am. I am sure you understand this.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

A contructive trust dispute must be arbitrated by determining what was in the minds of the parties.

It would be hard for me to really speak on what was in Franklins mind [yeah I can hear it now... read the Public Papers...], and, I am not sure who exactly the First Trustee defaults to in this implied [constructive] Trust, So I would be unable to ask them what they think at this point.

You had mentioned that: Chief of Protocol for the US State Department - Donald Burnham ENSENAT; Louisiana Bar #05358, was advised to be appointed as the First Trustee. Is the "Chief of Protocol for the US State Department", whoever that may be at any time, the de jure First Trustee?

If not, who is, or how could I find out?

Contact the SSA. Yet who would I even ask? Will I just sound like some nut to them when I call or go in to discuss such a thing? Granted I still have alot more homework to do before I did something like that.

[aksis]

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [in part]:

AGENT, contracts. One who undertakes to manage some affair to be transacted for another, by his authority on account of the latter, who is called the principal, and to render an account of it.

2. There are various descriptions of agents, to whom different appellations are given according to the nature of their employments; as brokers, factors, supercargoes, attorneys, and the like; they are all included in this general term. The authority is created either by deed, by simple writing, by parol, or by mere employment, according to the capacity of the parties, or the nature of the act to be done. It is, therefore, express or implied.

3. It is said to be general or special with reference to its object, i.e., according as it is confined to a single act or is extended to all acts connected with a particular employment.

4. With reference to the manner of its execution, it is either limited or unlimited, i. e. the agent is bound by precise instructions, (q.v.) or left to pursue his own discretion. It is the duty of an agent, 1, To perform what he has undertaken in relation to his agency. 2, To use all necessary care. 3, To render an account.

5. Agents are either joint or several. It is a general rule of the common law, that when an authority is given to two or more persons to do an act, and there is no several authority given, all the agents must concur in doing it, in order to bind the principal.

6. This rule has been so construed that when the authority is given jointly and severally to three person, two cannot properly execute it; it must be done by all or by one only but if the authority is so worded that it is apparent, the principal intended to give power to either of them, an execution by two will be valid. This rule applies to private agencies: for, in public agencies an authority executed by a major would be sufficient.

7. The rule in commercial transactions however, is very different; and generally when there are several agents each possesses the whole power. For example, on a consignment of goods for sale to two factors, (whether they are partners or not,) each of them is understood to possess the whole power over the goods for the purposes of the consignment.

8. As to the persons who are capable of becoming agents, it may be observed, that but few persons are excluded from acting as agents, or from exercising authority delegated to them by others. It is not, therefore, requisite that a person be sui juris, or capable of acting in his own right, in order to be qualified to act for others. Infants, femes covert, persons attainted or outlawed, aliens and other persons incompetent for many purposes, may act as agents for others.

9. But in the case of a married woman, it is to be observed, that she cannot be an agent for another when her husband expressly dissents, particularly when he may be rendered liable for her acts. Persons who have clearly no understanding, as idiots and lunatics cannot be agents for others.

10. There is another class who, though possessing understanding, are incapable of acting as agents for others; these are persons whose duties and characters are incompatible with their obligations to the principal. For example, a person cannot act as agent in buying for another, goods belonging to himself. An agent has rights which he can enforce, and is, liable to obligations which he must perform. These will be briefly considered:

11. The rights to which agents are entitled, arise from obligations due to them by their principals, or by third persons.

12 - 1. Their rights against their principals are, 1., to receive a just compensation for their services, when faithfully performed, in execution of a lawful agency, unless such services, are entirely gratuitous, or the agreement between the parties repels such a claim; this compensation, usually called a commission, is regulated either by particular agreement, or by the usage of trade, or the presumed intention of the parties. 2. To be reimbursed all their just advances, expenses and disbursements made in the course of their agency, on account of, or for the benefit of their principal; and also to be paid interest upon such advances, whenever from the nature of the business, or the usage of trade, or the particular agreement of the parties, it may be fairly presumed to have been stipulated for, or due to the agent.

13. Besides the personal remedies which an agent has to enforce his claims against his principal for his commissions and, advancements, he has a lien upon the property of the principal in his hand.

14.-2. The rights of agents against third persons arise, either on contracts made between such third persons and them, or in consequence of torts committed by the latter. 1. The rights of agents against third persons on contracts, are, 1st, when the contract is in writing and made expressly with the agent, and imports to be a contract personally with him, although he may be known to act as an agent; as, for example, when a promissory note is given to the agent as such, for the benefit of his principal, and the promise is to pay the money to the agent, oe nomine. When the agent is the only known or ostensible principal, and therefore, is in contemplation of law, the real contracting party. As, if an agent sell goods of his principal in his own name, as if he were the owner, he is entitled to sue the buyer in his own name; although his principal may also sue. And on the other hand, if he so buy, he may enforce the contract by action. 3d. When, by the usage of trade, the agent is authorized to act as owner, or as a principal contracting party, although his character as agent is known, he may enforce his contract by action. For example, an auctioner, who sells the goods of another may maintain an action for the price, because he has a possession coupled with an interest in the goods, and it is a general rule, that whenever an agent, though known as such, has a special property in the subject-matter of the contract, and not a bare custody, or when he has acquired an interest, or has a lien upon it, he may sue upon the contract. But this right to bring an action by agents is subordinate to the rights of the principal, who may, unless in particular cases, where the agent has a lien, or some other vested right, bring a suit himself, and suspend or extinguish the right of the agent. 2. Agents are entitled to actions against third persons for torts committed against them in the course of their agency. 1st. They may maintain actions, of trespass or trover against third persons for any torts or injuries affecting their possession of the goods which they hold as agents. 2d. When an agent has been induced by the fraud of a third person to sell or buy goods for his principal, and he has sustained loss, he may maintain an action against such third person for such wrongful act, deceit, or fraud.

15.-2. Agents are liable for their acts, 1, to their principals; and 2, to third person.

16.-1. The liabilities of agents to their principals arise from a violation of their duties and obligations to the principal, by exceeding their authority, by misconduct, or by any negligence or omission, or act by which the principal sustains a loss. Agents may become liable for damages and loss under a special contract, contrary to the general usages of trade. They may also become responsible when charging a del credere commission.

[cont. in next post]

[aksis]

17.-2. Agents become liable to third persons; 1st, on their contract; 1, when the agent, undertakes to do an act for another, and does not possess a sufficient authority from the principal, and that is unknown to the other party, he will be considered as having acted for himself as a principal. 2. When the agent does not disclose his agency, he will be considered as a principal; and, in the case of agents or factors, acting for merchants in a foreign country, they will be considered liable whether they disclose their principal or not, this being the usage of the trade; but this presumption may be rebutted by proof of a contrary agreement. 3. The agent will be liable when he expressly, or by implication, incurs a personal responsibility. 4. When the agent makes a contract as such, and there is no other responsible as principal, to whom resort can be had; as, if a man sign a note as "guardian of AB," an infant; in that case neither the infant nor his property will be liable, and the agent alone will be responsible. 2d. Agents become liable to third persons in regard to torts or wrongs done by them in the course of their agency. A distinction has been made, in relation to third persons, between acts of misfeasance and non-feasance: an agent is, liable for the former, under certain circumstances, but not for the latter; he being responsible for his non-feasance only to his principal. An agent is liable for misfeasance as to third persons, when, intentionally or ignorantly, he commits a wrong, although authorized by his principal, because no one can lawfully authorize another to commit a wrong upon the rights or property of another. 3d. An agent is liable to refund money, when payment to him is void ab initio, so that, the money was never received for the use of his principal, and he is consequently not accountable to the latter for it, if he has not actually paid it over at the time he receives notice of the take. But unless "caught with the money in his possession," the agent is not responsible. This last rule is, however, subject to this qualification, that the money shall have been lawfully received by the agent; for if, in receiving it, the agent was a wrongdoer, he will not be exempted from liability by payment to his principal. See Diplomatic Agent.

[aksis]

I am definatly not an agent for this Implied [constructive] Trust. [Cancellatura of Foreign Instruments; Default Judgement on C.F.I.]
People can find these document templates & instructions here: http://www.commonlawlibrary.com/

Nor do I think I want to be an agent or trustee for this Implied [constructive] Trust.

Prehaps some people want to. I wish you well.

Read about those Trust Fund Taxes here...I really like the part where J. Scalia says "A trust without a res can no more be created by legislative decree than can a pink rock-candy mountain. In the nature of things no trust exists until a res is identified. Ordinarily the res is identified by the settlor of the trust; in the case of § 7501 it is initially identified (if at all) by the statute, subject (as I shall discuss) to later reidentification by the taxpayer. Where the taxes subject to the trust-fund provision of § 7501 are collected taxes, the statute plainly identifies the res: it is the collections. There may be difficulty in tracing them, but there is no doubt that they exist. Where, however, the taxes subject to the trust-fund provision are withheld taxes, the statute provides no clear identification. When I pay a worker $90 there is no clearly identifiable locus of the $10 in withheld taxes that I do not pay him. Indeed, if my total assets at the time of the payment are $90 there is no conceivable locus."

[aksis]

I was thinking about this & the First Trustee, and the execution aspects are still nagging at my mind.

Wouldn't the 'UNITED STATES' be more proper as the de facto First Trustee? This leaves it to the UNITED STATES to delegate the responsibility to what ever officer IT deems to be the proper office.

It seems that to name someone as First Trustee then makes the execution dependent upon the man/women to agree and sign, unless their is some code that makes one of the office's duties to serve as First Trustee of these trusts.

Also, being that this trust is the U.S. person, the 14th ammendment's scope clears up for many people.

David, you say that this trust is alread in effect, so I am still looking for a way to simply take the unexecuted express trust that you presented (you expressed that you didn't know how people had exicuted it), and exicute it, prehaps with a single signature... so that anyone who is aware of the "new deal" can sign it and then transform the implied [constructive] trust, into an express trust. The way it currently sits requires the Chief of Protocal to sign it for it to be exicuted. I don't like all the unspoken, unexpressed, insinuated 'stuff', it is just too vauge and uncertian, and I don't like the idea of having to bug the Chief of Protocal for his signature.

I was looking at this page linked from commonlawvenue.com in regards to a way to convert the implied [constructive] trust into an express trust via a letter and, the default once 30 days has passed:

http://www.commonlawlibrary.com/Inde...eIndentWeb.htm

While both trusts establish that the PERSON and the human being are NOT the same entity, they are comming from 2 very different prespectives on how the trust is constituted, how the human being relates to the trust, and how the trust relates to the UNITED STATES/SSA. This leaves me with the delemia, which one is valid?

My interest in this, is to have an accurate Express Trust, so that I can lay it before someone, and they can have a tangable document to refer to that makes it clear to them that people are not the U.S. person[s], and also that explains the U.S. person, answering the 'who', 'what', 'why', 'where', and 'how' of the U.S. PERSON[S], and the parties to them. This is still hazy & uncertian.

That people & U.S. persons are not the same is clear.

[David Merrill]

Constructive or resulting trusts are as or more powerful than express trusts. Unless of course you are an attorney who is convoluting that fact prejudiced toward the principal Bank and Fund (United Nations - not the United States). That does not diminish or change the fact; it only convolutes things.

If you want to read the constructive and resulting trust in express form, then you already have. Here is an example of it in use:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ovation_ER.jpg
novation on ER contract

I clearly understand how to use the general public trust. One suitor simply paid me to draft it out and then said he did not mind me removing his details and sharing it with you all. It is simply a matter of being the heir apparent in coherence with HJR-192:

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif

Note the opening paragraph in the Myth of Ages snippet attached:



Regards,

David Merrill.