Trust oriented mortgage discussion

[Highspirit]

Thank you Michael, however it is worth pointing out straight away that Christian delivers his education completely FREE!! That is everything. However, he offers those that are interested, a more one 2 one experience of the learning which he is charging very little for in view of the support he offers. Having said that, I am not doing the class, I do not need to, the education is all there for Free and you can attend his 3/4 times a week calls and get your questions answered as well, ALL FOR FREE!!!! The call is on Skype and he is open to all questions no matter how long you hold him in the call. I personally think that is a breath of fresh air.

May I ask if you have attended any one of his calls to have your questions/concerns answered directly or have you dismissed this possibility out of hand? I would not put you down as being so closed minded. It makes me wonder why you haven't spoken to him directly with these questions/concerns (or e-mailed your questions to him via his website) and then come forward and made these remarks.

It is very unfair to imply he is charging money for the education. Yes, it is unproven in the UK to date, I accept that, however, having listened to the theory and why everything is a Trust, I myself am happy to accept that as being true. It is Brand New Technology and it makes sense to me.

Why Micheal do you offer an argument balanced in favour of aggression? Why do you choose friction over debate? Let's look at the success everyone is having overall with D/C, it is not good, and I am talking overall. Check the success page here and other forums, they are not bursting with success. That may be due to incorrect procedures/paperwork etc and that is something we will never know but what we do know is that success is small. There are many 'guru's' out there offering the Debtor/Creditor approach and I have seen them all I think in the last 12mnths +. They all ofer a different approach, different paperwork, different forms, different way to do A4V etc etc etc. We have all seen it, it causes confusion to those that are looking for remedy. Trusts on the other hand offers a much more straight forward way of doing things.

What are you referring to with all my last year remarks as well? I have only ever offered information I have come across as that, information that one should take as such. People take their own responsibility like I do in the end. We are all learning as I am sure you are too.

Christian covers quite extensively his success with the mortgages and why, may I enquire if you have listened at-all to his Audio's? You may have dismissed them with a closed mind or if you have listened and have argument to offer to his comments then please contribute in a more friendly manner. We are all wanting remedy here as well as other aspects to living more freely.

So, before you cast assertions of Christian only charging money then I would suggest you research your comments before posting such and diverting people away from another aspect of education that is completely Free to obtain. People can listen/ ask questions and then dismiss once they have been informed. All for Free as well. You only had to ask after all to discover this rather than point the finger and make assumptions.

You have however said you are not up for debate in the matter which to me is a closed mind. You have judged quite incorrectly and I think a public apology or retraction of your comments is required once you have seen that all the education including calls and questions is in fact totally Free.

Please people if you are interested, do not let Michaels comments put you off. Find out first and speak to me about the FREE education and support.

Peace

HS :)

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

Thank you Michael, however it is worth pointing out straight away that Christian delivers his education completely FREE!! That is everything. However, he offers those that are interested, a more one 2 one experience of the learning which he is charging very little for in view of the support he offers. Having said that, I am not doing the class, I do not need to, the education is all there for Free and you can attend his 3/4 times a week calls and get your questions answered as well, ALL FOR FREE!!!! The call is on Skype and he is open to all questions no matter how long you hold him in the call. I personally think that is a breath of fresh air.

May I ask if you have attended any one of his calls to have your questions/concerns answered directly or have you dismissed this possibility out of hand? I would not put you down as being so closed minded. It makes me wonder why you haven't spoken to him directly with these questions/concerns (or e-mailed your questions to him via his website) and then come forward and made these remarks.

It is very unfair to imply he is charging money for the education. Yes, it is unproven in the UK to date, I accept that, however, having listened to the theory and why everything is a Trust, I myself am happy to accept that as being true. It is Brand New Technology and it makes sense to me.

Why Micheal do you offer an argument balanced in favour of aggression? Why do you choose friction over debate? Let's look at the success everyone is having overall with D/C, it is not good, and I am talking overall. Check the success page here and other forums, they are not bursting with success. That may be due to incorrect procedures/paperwork etc and that is something we will never know but what we do know is that success is small. There are many 'guru's' out there offering the Debtor/Creditor approach and I have seen them all I think in the last 12mnths +. They all ofer a different approach, different paperwork, different forms, different way to do A4V etc etc etc. We have all seen it, it causes confusion to those that are looking for remedy. Trusts on the other hand offers a much more straight forward way of doing things.

What are you referring to with all my last year remarks as well? I have only ever offered information I have come across as that, information that one should take as such. People take their own responsibility like I do in the end. We are all learning as I am sure you are too.

Christian covers quite extensively his success with the mortgages and why, may I enquire if you have listened at-all to his Audio's? You may have dismissed them with a closed mind or if you have listened and have argument to offer to his comments then please contribute in a more friendly manner. We are all wanting remedy here as well as other aspects to living more freely.

So, before you cast assertions of Christian only charging money then I would suggest you research your comments before posting such and diverting people away from another aspect of education that is completely Free to obtain. People can listen/ ask questions and then dismiss once they have been informed. All for Free as well. You only had to ask after all to discover this rather than point the finger and make assumptions.

You have however said you are not up for debate in the matter which to me is a closed mind. You have judged quite incorrectly and I think a public apology or retraction for your comments are required once you have seen that all the education including calls and questions is in fact totally Free.

Please people if you are interested, do not let Michaels comments put you off. Find out first and speak to me about the FREE education and support.

Peace

HS :)

HS, you have unfairly accused me of aggression in an ironically aggressive manner. Chill out man. All I did was express my opinion and ask questions of a remedy which is unproven. Kindly cease and desist from making spurious accusations about my posts. My arguments are never based upon anything other than my own research and experiences. I have heard nothing from Christian that I have not heard from others over the course of the last year. Yet still no sustainable remedy surfaces.

Furthermore, when somebody claims that a method I have repeatedly used successfully doesn't work, except when the malevolent forces wish to throw a red herring into the mix, forgive me for detecting the unmistakable whiff of horseshit. I have not dismissed Christian's theories with a closed mind; I have syntheisized the information he has presented and concluded that he has not yet offered anything sustainable, in my humble opinion. Others must make up their own minds.

That being said, I have never denied the significance of Trust Law, as the information posted at Free The Planet corroborates. If any proof that Christian's method has been successful surfaces, I look forward to reading it. Until then, it is yet more hearsay and wishful thinking.

Peace

[Highspirit]

My point Micheal is that you accused Christian of charging money and used overtones of that being him offering disinfo at cost. You were wrong, now at least have the decency to apologise for your remarks of him charging money (the basis and quality of his info is your personal opinion you are entitled to).

You have dismissed the info, thats fine, but many others have not and are finding it useful so at least let others who are looking for other sources of information investigate it without being distracted with your false allegations. I have seen many from the D/C route now turning to this education. They too are turning away from D/C and you may be surprised at the amount of people that are. Just another fad? well maybe but they must have a reason for turning their back on D/C.

If you had listened to CW then you would of course know all about his success to date especially with mortgages but you fail to mention that.

I have seen the information you have posted on your aspect of Trusts but where you stop others have carried on and seem to be unravelling information that may benefit over and above D/C. Time will only tell.

I am not out there all over the threads telling people to stop the D/C route, but I am telling people there may be more to look at and at least don't dismiss Trusts. It is my decsion to follow Trusts and dismiss D/C, others may dabble in both and some may reject Trusts completely. That's called choice but people must be given that choice in the first place. CW offers a Free platform to investigate that choice so people can decide for themselves.

It does not need people like you coming along making the allegations that you have made no matter how much success you may have had on a personal level, that success for whatever reason does not appear to be being duplicated by others (success in the D/C approach overall that is). That does not mean it is not viable but the same can be said about Trusts which is, as I have already said, absolutely brand new in its current format and approach and not been around for over 20yrs++ like D/C. You would think after all that time that D/C would be a walk in the park by now, but it isn't.

Thank you

HS

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

My point Micheal is that you accused Christian of charging money and used overtones of that being him offering disinfo at cost. You were wrong, now at least have the decency to apologise for your remarks of him charging money (the basis and quality of his info is your personal opinion you are entitled to).

You have dismissed the info, thats fine, but many others have not and are finding it useful so at least let others who are looking for other sources of information investigate it without being distracted with your false allegations. I have seen many from the D/C route now turning to this education. They too are turning away from D/C and you may be surprised at the amount of people that are. Just another fad? well maybe but they must have a reason for turning their back on D/C.

If you had listened to CW then you would of course know all about his success to date especially with mortgages but you fail to mention that.

I have seen the information you have posted on your aspect of Trusts but where you stop others have carried on and seem to be unravelling information that may benefit over and above D/C. Time will only tell.

I am not out there all over the threads telling people to stop the D/C route, but I am telling people there may be more to look at and at least don't dismiss Trusts. It is my decsion to follow Trusts and dismiss D/C, others may dabble in both and some may reject Trusts completely. That's called choice but people must be given that choice in the first place. CW offers a Free platform to investigate that choice so people can decide for themselves.

It does not need people like you coming along making the allegations that you have made no matter how much success you may have had on a personal level, that success for whatever reason does not appear to be being duplicated by others (success in the D/C approach overall that is). That does not mean it is not viable but the same can be said about Trusts which is, as I have already said, absolutely brand new in its current format and approach and not been around for over 20yrs++ like D/C. You would think after all that time that D/C would be a walk in the park by now, but it isn't.

Thank you

HS

This is your final warning HS - kindly cease and desist from spinning my words into falsehoods, the incidences of which I do not have the time to list and correct. However, the 'people like you' crack is particularly disrespectful, considering how much I have given freely with no expectation of reward.

I never promised that what works for me will work for everybody, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognise when failure occurs because of flaws in the adminstration of the process, rather than the tehnology used. By the same token, in my estimation it is ludicrous to place trust in a method which cannot be explained coherently by its advocates, especially when they also can't provide proof of claim upon reasonable request.

However, you clearly believe that Christain's understanding of English Trust Law is far superior to mine. Since I am currently acting as both Trustee and Beneficiary of two Discretionary Trusts involving property, I find that rather fascinating. Tell me, which part of English Trust Law have I failed to grasp?

Peace.

[BaldBeardyDude]

Ok, that's enough!

Michael, Terry - I respect you both as you know, but this is not helping either our cause, or peoples opinions on the matter.

I have a suggestion - maybe Michael sticks to his thread and off trusts, Highspirit vice versa? The rest of the forum being fair game...but play nicely!

I do not want to see this from two very well respected members of our family, please let it go before I am forced to do that which I am loathe to do and get involved more than this little suggestion - all have had ample say, so let us end it.


BBD

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

From Bouviers:

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 intrusted. 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.

5. The most common form of an implied trust is where property or money is delivered by one person to another, to be by the latter delivered to a third person. These implied trusts greatly extend over the business and pursuits of men: a few examples will be given.

6. When land is purchased by one man in the name of another, and the former pays the consideration money, the land will in general be held by the grantee in Trust for the person who so paid the consideration money. Com. Dig. Chancery, 3 W 3; 2 Fonbl. Eq. book 2, c. 5, §1, note a. Story, Eq. Jur. §1201.

7. When real property is purchased out of partnership funds, and the title is taken in the name of one of the partners, he will hold it in trust for all the partners. 7 Ves. jr. 453; Montague on Partn. 97, n.; Colly. Partn. 68.

8. When a contract is made for the sale of land, in equity the vendor is immediately deemed a trustee for the vendee of the estate; and the vendee, a trustee for the vendor of the purchase money; and by this means there is an equitable conversion of the property. 1 Fonbl. Eq. book 1, ch. 6, §9, note t; Story, Eq. Jur. SSSS 789, 790, 1212. See Conversion. For the origin of trusts in the civil law, see 5 Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. liv. 3, t. 2, c. 1, n. 18; 1 Brown's Civ. Law, 190. Vide Resulting Trusts. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

TRUSTEE, estates. A trustee is one to whom an estate has been conveyed in trust.

2. The trust estate is not subject to the specialty or judgment debts of the trustee, to the dower of his wife, or the curtesy of the hushand of a female trustee.

3. With respect to the duties of trustees, it is held, in conformity to the old law of uses, that pernancy of the profits, execution of estates, and defence of the land, are the three great properties of a trust, so that the courts of chancery will compel trustees, 1. To permit the cestui que trust to receive the rents and profits of the land. 2. To execute such conveyances, in accordance with the provisions of the trust, as the cestui que trust shall direct. 3. To defend the title of the land in any court of law or equity. Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4.

4. It has been judiciously remarked by Mr. Justice Story, 2 Eq. Jur. §1267, that in a great variety of cases, it is not easy to say what the duty of a trustee is; and that therefore, it often becomes indispensable for him, before he acts, to seek, the aid and direction of a court of equity. Fonbl. Eq. book 2, c. 7, §2, and note c. Vide Vin. Ab. tit. Trusts, O, P, Q, R, S, T; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

What is a Trust?

In broad terms, a trust is simply a way of gifting property. Any type of property -shares, buildings,cash, etc. can be placed under a trust. You can use a trust to make a gift of a life policy on the terms set out in the trust document.

The person who creates a trust (the settlor) chooses the people who can benefit (the beneficiaries) and defines how and when they are able to enjoy the gifted property. Once the trust is up and running it can then only be dealt with according to those terms. You could contrast the position with that under your will, which you can change as many times as you like whilst you are alive. On the other hand, gifting a life policy under a will may not secure the benefits obtained from writing the policy under an appropriate trust.

http://www.walcross.co.uk/forms/guide_trusts.pdf

Why can't a sole trustee be a sole beneficiary?

The sole trustee cannot be the sole beneficiary because a trust is a legal relationship between a trustee and the beneficiary or beneficiaries.

If a sole trustee were also the sole beneficiary, then this would be an agreement that a person had with themselves. The law says that no trust can exist in these circumstances.

However, a trustee can be a beneficiary of the trust as long as there is at least one other beneficiary as well.

http://www.cleardocs.com/resources-legal-faq-discretionary-trust.html#1

Can the Settlor be a trustee?

The simple answer is 'yes' but it is usually advisable to have at least one other trustee. In addition, HMRC may look at the substance of the structure and exceptionally argue that the trust arrangement is simply a sham. If the sole trustee is the settlor practical difficulties might arise in contesting the position and two or more Trustees are recommended.

http://www.slevinassociates.co.uk/trusts-tax-basics.php

Peace

[BaldBeardyDude]

Michael, I am guessing that post took more than the eight minutes between our posts to put together - so doesn't count, m8

Thanks for the links, I am sure they will be of use.

Bests to all

BBD

[Highspirit]

Thanks Pete, what can I say. Michael has posted links to law defintions and Statutory rules surrounding Trusts which is more easily read and condensed into the respected 'Gilberts Trusts' manual.

This post is not directed at Michael but for others who are looking into Trusts so please bear that in mind Pete. Also, I am no expert, I am just deeply interested in the subject and I hope to be utilising the knowledge in the next few months. I am offering an insight here that others may or may not want to take further for themselves.

As those who are studying Trusts know, it is not just about the Statutory and 'Public' aspect of Trusts (The Black), it is their use within the 'Private' (The White)we are mainly concerned with.

There can be co-Trustees, co-Beneficiary's and multiple Trusts operating under the umberella of one item, say a Mortgage for example. There is no relevance in the points being made about sole Trustee's and Sole Beneficiarys etc. That is not the angle and thrust of the research.

The most simple and basic matter is that when you append your unqualified signature upon a document I now believe you are actually forming a Trust. You don't know it generally speaking but you are. Once you have realised you have been placed into a Trust (Implied) then you can go nunc-pro-tunc and express the Trust as the Grantor/Settlor. The Grantor/Settlor holds the power within any Trust for obvious reasons.

When you know the elements of a Trust you can easily prove a Trust exists along with the 'Intent' and 'Purpose'. When you prove a Trust is in place then you can start to move the titles as you see fit. You can express the Trust from nunc-pro-tunc.

In a trust, you are the lender of an asset held in special deposit and if you don’t express the trust you are the debtor under the debtor/creditor [d/c] relationship, and in court you have to bond the case, and the bond is really with the trust. A bond is a trust, in a trust relationship.

There are things in trust that are similar to AFV, tho I wouldn’t call them that and it’s all explained in Gilberts, which is a basic primer for statutory trusts, (The Black), but there is the 'White' (Private side) to trusts, so you’ll know the difference when you see it.

For example, AFV/RFV under d/c, (based on evidence I’ve seen) creates a lien under UCC, which is a negotiable instrument, and that equals debt. Debt is what we’re using as money in the system today. So these liens we’re creating today by unqualified signature, if we go by the rule of signatures in expressing it as a trust, but if we’re not expressing it as a trust we’re creating a lien, so we’re just creating debt, and they love us for that.

Here we thought we were getting set-off on the private side, but we weren’t even doing discharge on the public side. The solution may be 180 degrees in the opposite direction, and I think they just toss us a bone here and there, because I don’t know anyone who can claim a 100% success rate with ANY method, whether AFV, Redemption, whatever. Everyone has about the same success rate, which must make you wonder, especially when someone could take the same method, do it exactly the same way, and not get the same result.

But in studying trusts, I came to the conclusion that it’s been trusts all along. Many people use trusts, but only as a means of protecting assets, to protect the assets from creditors. I’m talking about trusts not defensively, but offensively, and I’m learning that that is what they’ve been using against us all along; it just looked like the same thing, because trusts and d/c are so closely related, they look similar, but they’re different.

Trusts operate in equity, we thought it was Admiralty, but that’s d/c, and they were taking you there to enforce a breach of contract, but really there can’t be any contracts because there is no money, because you can’t give value for consideration. But under trust, you don’t have to give a value of anything, because the thing/res, that’s what’s put into the trust, that’s the principal, the property. The trust operates solely under equity, and that’s where its power is. They come at you in Admiralty, but move to equity for enforcement, and equity will compel you to do the duty, and if you don’t you’re Fined or Repossessed.

No parties in the trust need to know or understand they’re forming a trust. As long as I have the elements and the means of formation, I have a trust. After I claim trust, if I can prove it, then I have standing to make a claim as, say, beneficiary, and claim that the trustee didn’t make a payment/disbursement. After I make a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the trustee, and a court of equity assumes the trustee is guilty. He must prove he made a payment, or he will be in contempt and the court will require the payment. Remedy is not in knowing who you are as Secured Party Creditor (SPC) but in knowing who you are as Grantor.

When you act as Grantor/Beneficiary or Grantor/Trustee, you have different powers, depending on how you want to work it. The key is, whoever signed as Grantor, that’s where it all began. Everything is a trust, even buying Petrol. If you get an offer in the mail, say an electric bill, you could treat it as a trust. It’s an offer for a d/c relationship only if you don’t know it’s a trust. So you could make it a trust by having the elements of a trust; intent, purpose, res and parties. You could turn that offer into the res and return it to them, as the special deposit under trusts, and in Black’s 4th, look at ‘trust deposit’; “a deposit which is for the purpose of the depositor, to make a payment for an obligation or a debt, or some other purpose.” So whatever the grantor wants to do he can do, as long as it’s lawful. You could use that deposit to pay that debt. I could give the order to convert and convert the assets to, say, money, whatever their money is, and take care of the debt. So the remedy is really not in d/c, it’s in trust.

How they got us: Legal fiction: “the assumption that something is true, even tho it may be untrue, made especially in judicial reasoning, to alter how a legal rule operates. Specifically, a device by which a legal rule or institution (a trust) is diverted from its original purpose, to accomplish indirectly some other objective.” The constructive/cestui que/NI/strawman trust is an example of a legal fiction.

1901, Henry S. Main wrote: “I employ a legal fiction to signify any assumption which conceals, or effects to conceal, the fact that the rule of law has undergone alteration, its letter remaining unchanged, its operation being modified. It is not difficult to understand why fictions in all their forms are congenial to the infancy of society. They satisfy the desire for improvement, which is not quite wanting at the same time that they did not offend the superstitious disrelish for change which is always present.”

Privity of contracts, where privity means the relationship between two parties, each having a legally recognised interest in the same subject matter, such as a court case or a piece of property! “The relationship between two parties allowing them to sue each other but preventing a third party from doing so. The requirement of privity has been relaxed under normal laws, modern laws and doctrines of implied warranties (trusts), and strict liability, which allows a third-party beneficiary or other foreseeable user (both trust terms) to sue the seller of a defective product.” (Could that non-performing product be a Strawman/slave?)

To many students of the common law, privity of contract became a fetish, (i.e. you’re supposed to agree, or have knowledge of a contract to be liable student-practitioners. As such, this change has operated to deprive many a claimant of a remedy in cases where, according to the moores (i.e. the dead, with no vision) of the time, the claim was just. Many came to believe that a court action could not be assigned. Even now it is asserted that a man cannot be made the debtor of another against his will. But the common law has been influenced by equity (thru trusts, where no common-law disclosure need be given, and a trust is wrapped in a colorable common law contract.) By the Law Merchant (i.e. the UCC), a debtor could become bound by a UCC 3, thru silence, to pay a perfect stranger, even if he had no privity of knowledge. The common law courts made use of fictions/trusts, and pretended they were not doing that which they were doing.” Bingo. This is what they do not want you to know. (Hanson, “Principles of Law and Contracts:).

Privity of Estate: an estate is a trust: a mutual and successive relationship to the same right in property as between grantor and grantee or landlord and tenant. Also termed privity of title. AKA warranty deed: a trust, you, as grantee/trustee filed by the previous owner, as grantor in a successive trust.

The UCC is your debtor/creditor [d/c] manual. You have to look at the UCC thru ‘trust eyes’. Look at UCC4-103, Variation by Agreement. Many banks not too many years ago were called a “Trust” (Trustee Savings Bank for example), but not anymore. Why? What are they hiding. We know there is no money today. If you take a Black’s law dictionary, and look up ‘money’, funds, or credit, and then look up every word in the definition, and every word in that definition, you’ll be amazed at what you find.

No consideration or value can be given in contracts since real money was removed, common law vanished in the Public, so all contracts become colorable, (lies) so trusts fill the void. Colorable contracts wrap a trust at the core, so everything is trusts, and the gifting of the res into the trust, forming the corpus of the trust. Your signature is the representation of the trust and all your past, present, and future labor or assets, where your signature is the res/value/principal.

Trusts: If two parties have the four elements of a trust, and employed one of the four methods of formation of the trust, then they have a trust, recognised in law, whether they know it or not, and the trustee can be held liable.

Black’s law; two kinds of trusts, Express and Implied.

Trust: the right, enforceable solely in equity, (in court), to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person holds legal title; a property interest held by one person (grantee or trustee) at the request of the grantor or settlor, for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary).

Express Trust: a trust created with the Settlor’s express intent (expressing the trust, voluntarily), usually declared in writing; an ordinary trust as opposed to a resulting trust or a constructive trust.

Implied trust, which is involuntary; also called constructive trust. (NI account). The form thru which the conscience of equity (the court) finds expression against one who has obtained property by wrong-doing. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title (possession/90%) may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest (title, the other tenth), equity converts him into a trustee. (They deem us to be holding title illegally, and they convert us into the trustee.) It is sometimes said that when there are sufficient grounds for imposing a constructive trust, the court construes a trust (it implies a trust because we did not express a trust first). The expression ‘constructive trust’ is absurd, because “constructive” is derived from “construe”, not ‘construct’; the court ‘construes’ the circumstances, it explains them; it does not ‘construct’ them.” (Black’s). We don’t express the trust, so they construe it to their benefit.

Cestui que trust is an implied or constructive trust.(National Insurance# Trust Account) It is a beneficiary of the foreign situs trust because you didn’t express the trust after age 18. The cestui que is the remedy by which the court of equity finds justice for the one who has lost his property to one who does not legally have a right to the property. You are being construed as the one holding the property illegally.

One is holding the property illegally when it has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title my not in good conscience hold the beneficial or legal title, and equity converts him into a trustee. They construe the trust with you as the trustee under debtor/creditor law, you were supposed to pay, you didn’t, so you are in breach of fiduciary duty, you can go to Prison. You should express the trust with your intent using pre-statutes and codes for example, so you could then pay with private credit, or NDI’s, ‘negotiable debt instruments’ and you would be safe in making private payments with private credit. They put you under public policy where you have to pay with Bank Notes. The substantive rights of the real man lie with equity. But the courts construe you as trustee with duty to pay them, as construed beneficiary, in Bank Notes.

To understand trusts, understand first the workings of the Tax code, the motor vehicle code, courts, property taxes, etc. that we have been induced into signing.

Recomended reading is “The Law of Trusts and Trustees” Bogart and Bogart, and “Scott on Trusts”, also “Wills and Trusts in a Nutshell”.

Key points in trust law: ‘he who claims trust must prove trust.’ That burden of proof is a prima facie case, the proof of which is in the expression of the trust. Four elements to a trust, 1) parties, (grantor, trustee, beneficiary), 2) a specific res/property/’the thing’, 3) intent, and 4) purpose.

Trustee holds the trust property and is subject to equitable duties for the benefit of the beneficiary. They make us trustee/beneficiary by the mere acceptance of benefits.
Beneficiary (aka benef) diclaimer. Can waive.

No one can be forced to be a fiduciary/trustee, only voluntarily.

Did you understand that you were creating a trust when you signed documents? “Is this your signature?” One is presumed to know the nature and content of what he signs. But ‘no parties to the trust (grantor, trustee, benef) need to know or understand that they are forming a trust. That does not negate the trust.

[Sec 23, ‘Restatement of the Law on Trusts”, and also out of Gilbert’s Law Summaries on Trusts]. UCC is key: "Incomplete instrument" means a signed writing, whether or not issued by the signer, the contents of which show at the time of signing that it is incomplete but that the signer intended it to be completed by the addition of words or numbers.” They add “pay to the order of”, and “one million pounds”, and then they turn the offer you signed into a cheque. You can do the same, i.e. turn it into a cheque. Instead of trading our labor for Bank Notes we have to learn to trade our credit for them.


How do you make a prima facie case? Simple, come in with all the doc’s copied, and make an allegation. Beneficiary must show he is a beneficiary, managed by fiduciary, of a trust, with a trust res. In other words, express the trust.

Where the beneficiary is unknown, the trustee has no obligation to pay. When they construe you to be trustee, who hasn’t paid, what would your defence be. The unknown beneficiary? Since the trust was not expressed, how would you know who the beneficiary was. Or you could re-express the trust to your liking, with yourself as benef. Identify the party that needs to be paid. Breach of fiduciary duty can put one in Prison. Misapplication of fiduciary property or prop of financial institutions; embezzlement, misappropriation, ‘defraud includes embezzlement.’

The trustee may deviate from the terms of the trust if all beneficiaries agree to that (Scott’s, “On Abridgement, 216). As an example, let’s say there are several benefs, and the trustee wanted to make a donation to an organization, which is not listed as a beneficiary in the trust. If all but one of the benefs support it, the trustee cannot, it must be unanimous.

Going back to a Mortgage,to reconvey the mortgage you must terminate the trust. When you signed the application for the loan, the bank monetised your signature, got paid, deposited into an account. Then you signed the prom note/Mortgage Deed at closing, which they deposited onto the right (asset) side of the ledger, and deposited your sec agreement on the left (debit) side.

Do debt validation, then get them in dishonour, which could be used for revocation of POA, re-express the trust with appointment of trustee=bank. Since they’re the benef, the trust terminates, cuz they can’t be both. Now the trustee must disperse funds to the benef. As Grantor, you instruct the trustee, they’re in breach. Debtor-creditor law is where you’re paying for 30 years.
Establish holder in due course status. Follow UCC procedure.

Once the Trust is expressed the 'Bank' are seen to have co-mingled Trust Funds (Private) with Public Funds and breached the Trust. There is also 'conversion'. The Special Deposit must be returned to the Grantor/Settlor.

Everything becomes an act of ‘gifting’ under the Trust. Trusts were put in place with the taking of the gold. So every colorable contract is wrapping and hiding a trust at it’s core and the gifting of the ‘res’ or the principal of the trust forms the corpus of the trust. Your signature is your representation of the trust and all your past, present, and future labor, i.e. your assets. Your signature is the res, i.e. the value and the principal.

The key is, how did you give your signature. It is the ‘rule of signatures’ and the ‘rule of forms’ that counts. You never want to give your unqualified signature in the public because it is going to be construed as the strawman. That gives them ‘accommodation signature’ rights (carte blanche) and access to your account (NI Account). You can restrict your signature so that you have access to the account. You want to sign (before signature) ‘by Grantor’, ‘by Trustee’, or ‘by Beneficiary’, (the 3 parties to a trust), or sign as “Authorised Representative (AR)”. AR is also the ‘portal term’ because it portals in to your UCC. Under UCC 3-402, where the AR is signing for the contract debtor-creditor relationship. But it also can apply to trusts, with a Form 56 appointment to the AR, who may function as a co-trustee.

The NI account/trust is really a sub-trust, and by giving qualified signatures, that tells them you know who you are. If you don’t express the trust, they will ‘construe’ the trust, under creditor/debtor law. By not expressing the trust, we drop the ball, they pick it up, and construe it, in their favor, with you liable for payment with Bank Notes.

When you’re under Trusts, you’re not under debtor/creditor, or agency, or statutes and codes, you’re under private law. Courts can operate in both the public and the private realms. They got you into trust, but believing that you’re operating under debtor/creditor. The three parties to a trust, grantor, trustee and beneficiary, do not have to have knowledge that they are forming a trust relationship that can be seen and recognised by law. That’s how they trick you in court. You aren’t qualifying your signature.

You give them access to the account by accommodation rights based on the birth certificate.

Besides ‘authorised rep’, another word that has two functions is ‘transfer’. Under UCC, it’s 3-200’s, where transfer is really ‘negotiation’ of a negotiable instrument, by assignment, endorsement, delivery by bearer, or by operation of law. “Transfer” also means, under trust law, ‘one of the means of forming a trust’. We qualified our signatures as grantor and beneficiary, and appointed the judge as trustee, for closure and settlement.

Look up definition of special deposit; trust deposit, and trust receipt.

Trust receipt is ‘a pre-UCC security device, now governed by Article 9 of the Code, consisting of a receipt, stating that the wholesaler or buyer has possession of the goods for the benefit of the financier.’ Today, there must usually be a security agreement, coupled with a filed financing statement (UCC1), with the security agreement on it. That is a trust receipt if you express the trust first. And a receipt is ‘a record of a payment.’ If you didn’t express the trust, they construed it to be your UCC filing under debtor/creditor law, and now you owe a debt. If you had come in expressing the trust, that UCC1 filing with the security agreement would be a trust receipt, a record of the payment being made. The key is in the expression of the trust.

Phew, OK, that's a further introduction to Trusts and this is informatioin I have looked at that has lead me away from believing everything is purely D/C, IMHO it is not, it is TRUSTS, but you may make up your own mind on that and choose the path that feels right for you.

I suppose the big point here is that if you are going into a situation as D/C and your opponent is using Trust without telling you or even having to tell you then what chance do you really stand? (10%?)

Always in Peace

HS :)

[bustthematrix]

Hi HS

What a mammoth post! Have you set a record for size of post??

As to how this will pan out, I suppose time will tell. However HS, people are definitely getting success with what you've called the Debtor-Creditor approach. Much of the failure has come from people trying to use it to stop repos or from situations where they are already in unclean hands!

If there is real value to Trust technology, I suppose we'll find out soon enough right? I think where Fmotlkam has concerns is that results are being obtained but because there is also a lot of ignorance mixed in, it's not necessarily reflective of those who really know what they are doing. Many will be found to be actually just dabbling as opposed to working a method. With Trusts, we are yet to see results or even understand clearly what needs to happen to get those results.

Perhaps both approaches are valid and people just need to learn to apply them correctly.

Either way, we be brethren so let's keep the peace.

[Highspirit]

Right on BTM, but I would take issue with the amount of success that D/C is achieving and I for one looked into Trusts at first to see if there was something there that MAY have an answer.

I would say that after the length of time d/c has been around that the success stats are not at-all promising. I am not just referring to UK but I monitor all the other forums in the USA, Australia as well. Many in the USA who have been doing d/c for sometime are looking at Trusts as a possible answer.

Now, it may not be the answer because as yet it is unproven in the UK. That is because it is in it's infancy imho.

You mention that people may be failing because of the unclean hands doctrine. The only unclean hands in Equity are those of the fraudulent lenders.

The biggest point of all BTM is as mentioned. If you are using d/c and your opponent is using Trusts then wouldn't you at least want to know about it?

d/c is being seen to get some results, yes, but nothing significant at this time, why? well I dont know, yet.

Trusts may be another tool to use in the toolbox but something tells me (and only time will tell) that Trusts is the key to the whole puzzle. Christian Walters maintains that d/c has been allowed to have a degree of success to keep people down the blind alley. I might be wrong but there are a great many involved on the Trust side now from the US especially who have been dong d/c for years who have decided to learn about Trusts.

I accept and have seen evidence that d/c is getting results but I also see others stating they have followed the exact same path as someone elses success and failed. I can only take their word that that is the case of course.

D/C has been around for a great many years, Trusts for just a few months. Let's wait and see, but it is getting results in the USA if you can believe what Christian Walters is saying. He could be lying but I don't see a motive for that as his education is completely FREE!!

Please also bear in mind that I still believe Affidavits and Liens still have their place. (at this moment in time)

Always in Peace

HS :)