  |  | ||||
| |||||
        | |||||
Answers about Pure Trusts
Date:
| |||||||||||||||
| Answers about Pure Trusts | | |||||||||||||
Date: | | 05/15/2000 | | ||||||||||||
| | | | ||||||||||||
|
| |
Government Is No Longer Your "Business Partner" "The taxpayer -- that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take a civil service examination." -President Ronald Reagan The greatest secret of the ultra rich for avoiding the hated income tax is A PURE TRUST, more commonly known as a "contractual agreement" (which is misapplied since in Common Law, there are NO agreements, only contracts). This tool of the super rich is guaranteed by Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part that a Citizen has the right to contract. Further, Article 1, Section 10 states: "No state shall pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..." Note that the State can not pass laws which control or influence the "contractual agreement." A PURE TRUST is a contract NOT formed by a contract-with-the- State as is a corporation or a statutory trust. It (the PURE TRUST) is created by a contract between private persons each of whom has the Constitutional Right of Contract. WHY MUST THE PURE TRUST BE "IRREVOCABLE?" To make sure that there is no confusion about the fact that you do not still own the PURE TRUST property, the assets must be permanently transferred to the PURE TRUST. Under statutory law, a revocable Trust is one in which the Exchangor (you) can change his mind and cancel the whole transaction, thereby taking back all assets placed into the trust. This provides no protection to the estate from future claims against the Exchangor. For example, if someone sues you for no reason and a judgment against you personally is obtained, if you had a revocable trust, the judgment creditor could pierce the trust and get at those trust assets to satisfy his judgment, regardless of how the judgment was obtained in the first place. This type of attack could never diminish the assets under a PURE TRUST. In addition, if you can revoke the Trust and got the assets back, you would have gained nothing in probate or income tax savings at all. Even if you die before the trust expires, in some jurisdictions, the value of a revocable trust estate is placed in your estate for probate and tax computations. Under federal law, the total value of a revocable trust is placed in your estate for federal estate tax purposes. THE CONTRACTS OF THE PURE TRUST 1. Between the Creator and the Exchangor, giving birth to the PURE TRUST. 2. Between the Creator and the Board of Trustees, giving the Trustees fiduciary authority over this artificial person that the Creator and Exchangor created in order to hold some asset. 3. Between the Trustees and the General Manager for proper functioning of the day-to-day activities of the PURE TRUST Organization. THE IRREVOCABLE NATURE OF EXCHANGING ASSETS INTO THE PURE TRUST If the assets are given irrevocably to the Pure Trust, can the Pure Trust be disbanded or terminated? The answer is, "Yes." Do the Contracts cancel when the Pure Trust is terminated? Yes, they do. This brings us to the purpose for having Certificate Holders. The Certificate Holders are NOT beneficiaries -- their whole purpose is to be there to assume possession of the proceeds of the Trust (the remaining assets), should it ever terminate. So, in the cases above, the assets of the PURE TRUST would, upon its closing, be transferred to the Certificate Holders. The irrevocable nature of the PURE TRUST means that the assets go to the PURE TRUST absolutely. You do not have the chance to say, "OOPS, I made a mistake. I didn't want to put my house in, so I'm taking my house back." The reason there is no question of ownership is because you have irrevocably exchanged ownership into the PURE TRUST. No one can take your assets away from you, because you have given them up irrevocably. ORIGINS OF COMMON LAW As discussed earlier, law in the western world (primarily Europe) evolved slowly over the centuries. This body of "laws" owed its heritage to the laws imported and imposed during the Roman occupation. These laws were a written list of instructions of how the citizens of the society were supposed to conduct themselves. This "Law" was known as the "Civil Law." This basic Roman system still prevails in many countries. However, after the Normans killed King Herold and won the critical Battle of Hastings during their conquest of Britain in 1066, a legal tradition called the "common law," different from the civil law, began to develop in England. This system of law was based upon respect and responsibility. These laws were not written down, but were "common" knowledge among the population. They were based, not on written rules, but upon the concept that God was supreme, and that the citizens had been granted certain unassailable "rights" as a result of being created by God. An example would be the right to enter into an agreement with one another, and then be bound by that agreement. This came to be known as the Right of Contract. In the twelfth century, during the reign of the legal reformer, Henry II, court decisions were written down and catalogued according to the types of cases, just as they earlier were under Roman Law (Civil Law). When the courts had to decide similar issues later, they reviewed the earlier decisions and if a precedent was found that covered the current case, they applied the principle of the earlier decision. They called this doctrine, "stare decisis," a Latin term meaning "To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases." Under the rule of "stare decisis," once a legal issue had been resolved, a court did not reconsider that legal issue in a later case where the facts were substantially similar. Misuse of this "Civil Law" system by the King was the source of a great amount of unhappiness and injustice over many years. Finally, the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John in the thirteenth century established the process of "common law" as a viable, reliable legal forum. During America's colonial period, most of the common law tradition, imported from England, was adopted by the colonialists. The "common man" lived by the "Common Law." When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1781, it was based upon the tenants of the common law. It declares that the Citizen is the Sovereign, and grants powers to the state only so far as is required for the sate to function the way the Citizens desire. But, those who secretly still supported Britain, wanted to impose the system of statutes known as the "Civil Law" upon the populus of America. So, they made sure that the laws enacted by Congress and the states had to find support in the written law, or the laws had to be discarded. (See the establishment of the American Bar Association by delegates of the British Bar Association in 1878 in Saratoga, New York. ORGANIC SOVEREIGN AMERICAN FREEMAN COMPENDIUM, Chapter 12.) So we see two different legal systems; Common Law and Civil Law being adopted in this country. "The Common Law is absolutely distinguished from the Roman or Civil Law system." People v. Ballard, 155 NYS 2d 59 This important distinction which set the Common Law apart from the Civil or statutory law was the bane of those who wanted to recapture control of the "colonies." So, in 1938, the united States supreme Court solved the problem of the lack of control over Common Law, by overturning 100 years of precedent (stemming from the Swift v. Tyson case in 1840) declaring that henceforth, the Common Law would be "statutorized" and be a part of the statutory or Civil Law in this country. Any graduate of any law school can confirm this fact for you. It was contained in the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins decision. As a result, all courts in this country today are "statutory" or "Merchant Law" courts. The Common Law no longer exists. In fact, in some states, such as Ohio, laws have subsequently been passed to make clear that "Common Law" activities are no longer legal. In Ohio, for example, "Common Law marriage" is specifically BANNED by statute! [NOTE: If anyone EVER attempts to present you with a document that is written under the "Common Law," be aware that they are presenting you with a fraudulent document. The precedent set by the Erie Railroad v. Thompkins case still stands, to this day.] Today, the court decisions which are published and available in the law libraries, and thus become a part of statute law, are almost always appellate court decisions, not trial court decisions. The U.S. supreme Court and the state supreme Courts are part of the appellate court systems in this country. The appellate court opinions which appear in published form in the law library follow a format as follows: 1. The Facts, which are taken from the lower court's determination. 2. The Issues, which are presented by the appealing parties. 3. The Ruling or Holding, which is the answer to the issues. 4. The Reasoning or Rationale, which is the discussion. Most judges try hard to be consistent with decisions that they or a higher court have made. This consistency is very important to the statutory law tradition. For this reason, if you can find a previous court decision that rules your way on facts similar to your situation, you have a good shot at persuading a judge to follow that case and decide in your favor. Under Civil Law, there are two ways to argue your case when you want to persuade a judge to rule your way. One is called "precedent authority," and the other is called "persuasive authority." Under precedent authority, using the principle of stare decisis (to adhere to decided cases), means that the court is compelled to uphold the earlier decision if there is nothing unique or different from the one being decided. If the earlier decision was a U.S. supreme Court case, that case is the binding authority on all courts in this country. Under persuasive authority, as a general rule, the higher the court, the more persuasive its opinion. In the absence of a precedent case, a case may be considered persuasive authority by many out-of-state courts, although the case may not be binding outside of the state in which it was decided. Two Important Questions Q. WHAT IS THE MAIN DISADVANTAGE OF MANAGING A PURE TRUST? A. The one main disadvantage of managing a PURE TRUST is that you must not commingle any personal finances with those of the PURE TRUST that you manage. If PURE TRUST funds are used to pay personal expenses or PURE TRUST funds are commingled with personal funds, a court could rule that the PURE TRUST was merely the "alter-ego" of the individual, and the transfer with the PURE TRUST a "sham", and in that manner, set the PURE TRUST aside. Q. PEOPLE OFTEN ASK IF THE PURE TRUST IS LEGAL. HOW CAN I RESPOND? A. You may be shocked to learn that the PURE TRUST is not legal. However, the PURE TRUST is lawful. As revealed in the definitions of "lawful" and "legal", "lawful" means that it is not illegal. "An act that is described as "lawful" means that it is an approved, authorized, or sanctioned activity. To say that an activity is "lawful" carries with it a moral or ethical evaluation." The PURE TRUST is lawful, not because it has to comply with any tenants of the statutory law (because it does not), but because it is in compliance with the Constitution of the United States. Source: http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/puretrust.htm | | | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
