Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Common-Law Trust---> Secrets of Asset Protection

Hi John,

Thank You for this platform.

With the upcoming Worldwide Currency Revaluation drawing nearer, and nearer the recipients of great wealth may want to know about the greatest secret of the ultra rich. I'm sure they'll want to thank you for your generosity. 

The greatest secret of the ultra rich for avoiding the hated income tax is a common-law 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 common-law trust is a contract NOT formed by a contract-with-the- State as is a corporation or a statutory trust. It (the common-law trust) is created by a contract between "private people" each of whom has the "Constitutional protected" Right of Contract.

Whereas defined pursuant to; Supreme Court Annotated Statute: HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel 
was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand upon "his 
Constitutional Rights" s a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his  "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." 
He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to 
incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His 
rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be 
"taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does 
not trespass upon their rights."

Statutory v. Non-Statutory
The first and most fundamental issue that one needs to understand is the distinction between a statutory trust and a non-statutory trust. A non-statutory trust is generally referred to as a common-law trust.  

Statutory trusts are those, which like corporations, are established by and through a law created by the legislature of each state. Such trusts are imbued by the legislature with certain "financial advantages" (e.g. exempting certain property from state taxation of one form or another). However, such trusts are 100% within the regulatory control of the state. If the legislature were to change its mind tomorrow and withdraw the trust's financial advantage, they would be doing nothing wrong and you would have no recourse. When you place property in a statutory trust, you are in effect saying to the legislature, "I agree that this property is within the state's jurisdiction and it would be really great if you'd treat me fairly in the future." Placing one's property within a statutory trust also makes that property ripe for administrative levy and/or seizure in the event that a tax agency makes a claim against the people who established the trust, or against the trust directly.

Conversely, common-law trusts are not created by legislative fiat, but are created in the realm of Equity and under a "People's" un-a-lien-able right to contract.  

"A pure Trust is non-statutory. The Court holds that the Trust is created under the realm of equity under common-law and is not…created by legislative authority."
Croker v. MacCloy, 649 US Supp 39

[A contractual organization is] "created under the common-law of contracts and does not depend upon any statute for its existence."
156 American Law Review 28

It is important to know and understand that an organization (such as a common-law trust), which has "not been" created under state authority, generally cannot be regulated, and most state laws (codes written to effect corporations) "have no legal force upon such an organization." We say that such a trust cannot "generally" be regulated, because we wish the reader to over-stand that there are certain activities that are inherently subject to state regulatory control [e.g. hauling toxic waste on the highway] and if a common-law trust were to engage in such an activity, then it would be subject to state regulatory control. 

Another advantage of a common-law trust is that the trust possesses the same rights, liberties and immunities (speaking in Constitutional terms) as the trustee.

"The fact that a business trust is not regarded as a legal entity distinct from its trustees, if a true trust…may result in this advantage to the trust, which a corporation does not possess: The trust consists of individuals…who are People, and who, therefore, are entitled to certain rights and immunities such as those guaranteed by the privileges and immunities clauses of the Federal Constitution, which do not apply to Corporations." Morrissey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 296 US 344 (1935)

This is an important concept that translates into important real-life benefits. Most "organizations" are statutory fictions and are subject to virtually every law on the books. They are also obligated to open their "books and records," upon demand, to allow the corporate government to explore whether or not some violation (of a virtually endless list of laws) has occurred. Statutory entities may also be prohibited from activities from which "People" with un-a-lien-able rights cannot be prohibited.

Common-law trusts are not bound by laws controlling the actions of corporations. Common-law trusts are not bound by "public policy" decisions of the legislature that are masquerading as "law." Common-law trusts need not open their books to anyone unless ordered to do so by a true judicial warrant issued by an appropriate court. Common-law trusts may freely engage in any activity that any American people may engage in (provided that the trustee is a people of a state of the Union). 

"These trusts - whether pure trusts or partnership - are unincorporated. They are not organized under any statute; and they derive no power, benefit, or privilege from any statute."
Hecht v. Malley, 68 L ed 949

"A Pure Trust is not subject to legislative control. The Court holds that the Trust is...not subject to legislative restriction as are corporation and other statutory entities created by legislative authority." 
Croker v. MacCloy, 649 US Supp 39 

"A Pure Trust derives no power, benefit, or privilege from any statute."
Crocker v. Malley 264 US 144

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/202780282/Special-Report-Secrets-of-Asset-Protection-Common-Law-Trust


Unknown said...

I found this blog very informative and I would like to see some more blogs on this topic.
Low Cost Offshore Asset Protection Trust

Anonymous said...

Where does one find an attorney who can draw up such a trust? If banks are a bad place to keep your money, where then does one keep it safely?

Ronn Wyckoff said...

Where does one find a lawyer to draw up a trust as described here? In my area, no one seems to understand this trust. Also, where does one keep money safely, if not in a bank?,