Letter 2797

[theghost]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Skeptic, Do you know who runs quatloos? It's an attorney. An attorney who sells......you guessed it, STATUTORY TRUSTS! What else would he say about pure trusts? Have you ever used a pure trust? I have used them for years, and it sounds like Weis has as well, and they work beautifully

(Pats "theghost" on the head)

Suuuuure they work. I believe you. Of course.

Care to give any proof of this claim?

You see, quatloos! gives facts. It gives numerous court cases where people who used "pure trusts" were busted and went to jail.

What do we get from you? Claims that you--an anonymous person on the internet, unlike the editor of quatloos!--used these trusts and they "worked beautifully". Care to prove this? Any court cases where the "pure trust" promoter / user had won? Heck, care to give me your evidence that the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc. used such trusts "for centuries"? Wait, don't tell me: there aren't any such court cases because it's all "hidden", or the IRS "doesn't want you to know about it", or is was a "secret" way for the super-rich only, blah blah blah.

In other words, you expect me to buy the tall tale about how pure trusts "work beautifully" by giving me, as "proof", a taller tale about how this is the "secret" method the Rockefellers use. Sorry, not good enough.

Name one, and then we'll study exactly why THAT individual allegedly went to jail.

This, of course, is the flip side of your "evidence" that pure trusts work. The pure trust proponent has to explain away two embarrasing facts: 1). The total lack of any public record of the success of pure trusts, and 2). The overwhelming evidence for their failure.

We've already seen how you try to explain away the former: you claim you (or the Rockefellers) use them and they "work beautifully", without a shread of verifiable evidence except for your word. Now you're trying to attack #2: how do you explain the hundreds of "pure trust" promoters / users convicted ? Well, you just pretend that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM did SOMETHING ELSE wrong, so there is nothing wrong with the "pure trust" concept itself that could possibly be incorrect.

Sure. Makes sense. About as much sense as claiming that the earth is really flat, and it is just the case that there was something wrong with every single one of the hundreds of experiments that allegedly showed it is a sphere.

Skeptic, (good name for you, by the way), you are asking me to prove a negative. You are actually asking me to prove that I, or a pure trust I manage, has NOT gotten into trouble with the IRS. Can't you see how assinine, and impossible this is? Now I know you're an attorney, from the quatloos staff, or just an incredible fool. (Are you the exalted "editor of quatloos?") As to your other incoherent ramblings, it is obvious you didn't really read me post. Just like asking for court cases of anyone beating the IRS, or the bankers, like you're really going to find them. Ever heard of unpublished cases? They actually do this sometimes! You are living by the code, and you will die by the code, unless you wake up some day. I literally know of hundreds of people using them successfully, have you ever heard of asset protection? Or is this just another myth busted by the brilliant minds at quatloos? I don't have to prove sh!# to you. You enjoy your statutory trust, I'll enjoy my pure trust.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, (good name for you, by the way), you are asking me to prove a negative. You are actually asking me to prove that I, or a pure trust I manage, has NOT gotten into trouble with the IRS

No, I am asking you to prove a POSITIVE: to prove that you, or the Vanderbilts, etc., are now or ever did use pure trusts. Give me some reliable evidence. Also, while we're on the issue of positive evidence, I am asking you to show me one court case when somebody--not necessarily you--used a pure trust, was sued by the IRS, and won.

Well, do you have any?

Just like asking for court cases of anyone beating the IRS, or the bankers, like you're really going to find them.

Oh, I see. So the fact that you can show me NO court cases where these phoney-baloney "pure trust" or "debt elimination" schemes actually work is actually evidence that they DO work, because the eeeeeeeeeevil courts just "hide" the truth by not publishing the cases. So if you could show me court cases where the pure trust defense works, that would "prove" the pure trust defense works; but now that you can't, that, too, "proves" it works!

Sorry, I find it very, very hard to believe that there are such pure trust "victories" but that an enormous conspiracy hides them from everybody with 100% success. How, exactly, are they going to stop the acquitted defendant from publishing his victory all over the internet, for example? Or talk to the press? Or stop members of the jury, or spectators, or anybody else who was witness to the "victory" to do the same thing? Even if the court opinion is "unpublished", these witnesses could tell everybody the date, time, place, name of judge and court, and so on, which would be verifiable evidence. But no such evidence exists.

And this super-efficient, 100%-perfect government coverup of "the truth" is done by the same people who brought us $500 dollar hammers, $3,500 toilet seats, Watergate, and Monica Lewisnky, right? They couldn't cover up the embarrasing shenanigans of the president and the Pentagon brass--even when we KNOW they tried their darnest--but somehow they are magically 100% succesful in covering up embarrasing court loses?

Give me a break. No, the real reason the evidence I ask for, of "pure trust" (and "mortgage elimination") victories is unavaible, is not because there is an enomrous coverup. It's because it doesn't exist, because this nonsense simply doesn't work.

[weishaupt1776]

I love managing the pure trust. Was on the verge of a levy or two or three, but it blew over after the conveyance.

Skeptic, it's so sad that you insist on being a slave. I'm having the time of my life and it gets better & better & I am a paycheck away from the street week to week.

Have you ever studied the nature of crabs before?

If you put a bunch of 'em in a bucket, and one is about to crawl out of it, all of the crabs try to pull it back down so it doesn't escape.

Skeptic, you are one of the crabs, and quatloos is the bucket.
Sj.net members are the ones crawling out of the bucket, and your claws keep missing us

Such a shame - so sorry - so sorry

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

I love managing the pure trust. Was on the verge of a levy or two or three, but it blew over after the conveyance.

Skeptic, it's so sad that you insist on being a slave. I'm having the time of my life and it gets better & better & I am a paycheck away from the street week to week.

Have you ever studied the nature of crabs before?

If you put a bunch of 'em in a bucket, and one is about to crawl out of it, all of the crabs try to pull it back down so it doesn't escape.

Skeptic, you are one of the crabs, and quatloos is the bucket.
Sj.net members are the ones crawling out of the bucket, and your claws keep missing us

Such a shame - so sorry - so sorry

Emphasis added.

Weishaupt1776,

I must agree with your illuminating post, it is sad that some cling to enslavement. However many others, most members here at sui juris, refuse to submit to tyranny. We will not yield to despotism.

As far as I am concerned Skeptic's credibility is in the toilet, or should I say, the tank. Skeptic demands "proof of claim", yet, often he will not provide such "proof" when it is demanded of him. Why should anyone care what Skeptic thinks! Many of his ideas are "bizarre" and without foundation.

[theghost]

OK Skeptic, I'll try this one last time with you, but I am tiring of you very quickly. I'll just address this one paragraph of yours, because the rest is just assinine rambling.
Quote:No, I am asking you to prove a POSITIVE: to prove that you, or the Vanderbilts, etc., are now or ever did use pure trusts. Give me some reliable evidence. Also, while we're on the issue of positive evidence, I am asking you to show me one court case when somebody--not necessarily you--used a pure trust, was sued by the IRS, and won.

You specifically asked me to show you that I HAVE NOT gotten sued with my pure trust, and now you're asking for proof that I, or the Vanderbuilts use one. Ask yourself something, if someone goes to the time and expense to protect their property through the use of a pure trust, wouldn't you think that a major reason for all this is maybe privacy, as well as protection? Do you expect me to take out a front page ad, and tell the world the name of the trust that protects my property, where it can be found, complete with a phone number and e-mail? You really don't get it, do you? Either that, or you are a plant/troll/infiltrator/editor of quatloos's bitch. As for the court case you so desperately seek, re-read my original post again, ask someone to help you if you need it, and you'll see that I said properly written and managed pure trusts DON'T GO TO COURT! Courts have no jurisdiction over them, period. A properly managed pure trust will never get sued. Pure trusts don't/can't commit crimes. Don't run your mouth off about things you know nothing about. Now you go study real hard, and come back in about six years, and we'll try this again.

[Skeptic]

now you're asking for proof that I, or the Vanderbuilts use one. Ask yourself something, if someone goes to the time and expense to protect their property through the use of a pure trust, wouldn't you think that a major reason for all this is maybe privacy, as well as protection?

Privacy? You mean the IRS has no idea the Vandebuits might be rich, or think of looking at their finances? Suppose you had proof they are using pure trusts and posted it here--do you really think that would be, somehow, a surprise to the IRS and give them the information they need against the Vanderbuilts? If it is so private, why are you bragging about it all over the internet?

No, the "privacy" excuse won't cut it. First of all, I didn't ask necessarily for YOU to give me YOUR personal information. I asked you to give me information about ANYBODY who used pure trusts and won their case against the IRS. Since court proceedings are public record, privacy would not be an issue here. Of course you can't--because no such cases exist.

If you were using pure trusts and keeping completely quiet about it, well, you're privacy excuse would have a point. But you post all over the net that you are using pure trusts and the IRS cannot touch you, nyah nyah nyah. It is only when somebody asks for verification (other than your word) that, all of a sudden, you are concerned with "privacy".

You know what you remind me of? You remind me of those MLM ("Multi Level Marketing", that is, legal pyramid schemes) guys who claim to be wonderfully succesful businessmen, but, when you ask them to show you some evidence, they mumble, "er, that's private information" and refuse. The real reason is not, of course, "privacy" (or they wouldn't be bragging about it in the first place) but that, in reality, they're losing their ass while lying through their teeth.

I say it's the same situation here. Somehow, when you have hundreds of "pure trust" conviction in the public record, and vague mumblings about "well, it's private" or "stop asking me to prove a negative" (which I wasn't) as excuses why you can't show me a single verifiable success, it looks a LOT more likely that the pure trust "success" rate is probably even lower than the MLM-heads success rate.

[theghost]

Skeptic, you're an illiterate moron. I told you to get someone to help you read my previous posts. You are a waste of my valuable time, and this ends here. You've failed at your agenda, and eveyone here sees right through you. You'll never know true freedom, and you'll get what you deserve. One day soon, you will lose everything you think you currently own, and you'll wonder where you went wrong. Don't come back here begging for help. If you really wanted to understand, or needed help or guidance, you wouldn't be the smartass that you are, plant! Go argue with your brilliant comrades at quatloos. Man, I pray that you're not breeding.

[Skeptic]

]Skeptic, you're an illiterate moron. I told you to get someone to help you read my previous posts. You are a waste of my valuable time, and this ends here.

Yeah yeah yeah. Of course. Hey, why not shut me up and actually show a single court case where pure trust worked? Oh wait, they don't exist. But that's just because the evil conspiracy to hide the truth. Right.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

]Skeptic, you're an illiterate moron. I told you to get someone to help you read my previous posts. You are a waste of my valuable time, and this ends here.

Yeah yeah yeah. Of course. Hey, why not shut me up and actually show a single court case where pure trust worked? Oh wait, they don't exist. But that's just because the evil conspiracy to hide the truth. Right.

Yeah, that works for me. Like unpublished court decisions, etc.