[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Two Cities on February 12, 1998 at 19:16:01:

In Reply to: Re: TRUSTS posted by Common Right Group on February 12, 1998 at 08:45:09:

: :

: : Good question.
: : Now there are trusts and trusts.
: : Some issue certificates of beneficial interest.

: : Some trusts are not trusts at all, they are contracts in
: : the form of a trust. Contracts, indentures, contracts,
: : indentures, tear across the toothed line, the dental line,
: : the denture that is in the old parchment, the tear line.

: : Why a single trust?

: : Now if someone would post the exact and literal text of trust
: : indentures here, I would be quite interested in reading them.
: : Some indentures (contracts) seem to be flawed.

: : Article I, section 10. contracts(Contracts(CONTRACTS))
: : covenants(Covenants(COVENANTS))

: You and about six gazzillion other people would be "interested in stealing - oops- reading it."

Your fee?

: Some of us barely eek out a living as it is, and developing pure trusts is one of the methods used under PRIVATE contract.

I'm attempting to understand this. It appears that just about any business could, if someone so chooses, be organized and recognized
(if recognition is desired) under this form, then existing as a non-statutory legal person, with many rights (not priviledges).

: Now, if you want to develop a trust, and are the Trustor, not planning on being the Trustee, and are willing to work through a third party Creator, and can appoint a Protector to assure the trust is not mishandled by the Trustees, we could help if you were local, and would guarantee in the PRIVATE CONTRACT IN TRUST FORM that the Trustee(s) have a recission period of three to five days or the resolution of any problems.

I read that the Trustee, is a capacity exercised by the man/woman appointed, and as such separate, a 'office' of the trust so to speak, but perhaps not.
And the I might want to be the Trustee in some instances, looking out for the beneficial interests of others.

: After all, the terms of the trust is the responsibility of the Trustor, and the Creator / develop[er is merely an intermediary and / or ghost writer in many cases.

Sounds reasonable. So the Trustor and the Creator could be the same individual, or legal entity.

: After you have done your homework, you may then rail against trusts and developers!

Sorry if you thought I was railing at ALL developers. It's just that some developers have such a large requirement to be taken on initial "faith". The mystique is plentiful.
Two teaspoonfuls of one trust or another, with unknown Trustees potentially in charge of real assets.

Since there presumably are no laws impairing the obligation of contracts, and for those non-sovereign capacities tied to statutory creations, with vanishingly similar forms
of identification procedures, it would appear that underlying all those statutory creations, is the voluntary capacity of a sovereign to engage in a contract with a statutory
entity, i.e. the State's contracts rely on each individuals unimpaired ability to contract. At least there is enough venting on this Forum of some what it seems to be un-popular
contracts enforced by statutory entities against other body corporates without Given names, but with Last names, usually capitalized fully.

So I was hypothetically looking for a Trustor/Creator, said Trustor with 21 silver dollars in his pocket, and an urge to contract with Me, the Trustee, and to place these 21 silver
dollars under contract (trust), for myself in my capacity as Trustee to look after according to the terms of the contract, for let's say the benefit of my children. The Creator of this instrument
shall of course be paid his drafting fee, if I agree to the amount, and can come to the conclusion that the Creator/drafter is knowledgable. At this juncture, I would think that a "new",
artificial person has been created by the contract. So some of the 'information' advertised (and I would have to say advertised) then suggests, that the quality of some of these contracting
parties has to be that of these 'lily-white' Sovereigns, claiming by these statements that all other individuals ability to contract is impaired.

Now this flies in the face of what I perceive is going on. The State does not appear to hold the opinion that most non-Sovereigns have an impaired ability to be tied to the obligation of contracts.

And don't get me wrong. It appears that these Trusts can be marvelous vehicles for a number of activities. I generally more interested in the workings of an entire network of interlocked trusts, each
with it's potentially separate purpose and liabilities and sphere of influence, visibility, recognition etc.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]