Pure/Common-Law/Non-Statutory/etc Trusts

[fmmcosta]

Hello,

I'm not a lawyer and I've been studying Trusts for sometime now and I decided now to check "the other side of the story". I came across this site and others that say or imply that Pure/Common-Law/Non-Statutory/etc Trusts don't exist.

Regarding this website I read this article and many other topics here on the forum and since you "advertise"

Have a stupid theory why you shouldn't have to pay taxes? 861? Non-Filer? Sovereign Citizen? Believe that the federal courts are actually admiralty courts or that the only real citizens of the USA live in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia, then this forum is for you.

I decided to give it a shot.

First of, from what I read on the article and here on the forum, those cases where trusts didn't work, calling them trusts is... farfetched and I agree that they should be punished.

However, I don't agree that they don't exist, simply because human beings have rights.

Article 29.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

This means that every other law, not mentioned in the article above, in order to be enforced by the government they need to have a contract (consent), thus the existence of the "Social Contract". With the creation of this contract the citizen is born.

Citizen - Human being in the enjoyment of civil and political rights of a free state.

The key words being "in the enjoyment of" implying that you may not be "in the enjoyment of" and subject to statutory law at all times.

That said, in a contract you can choose the governing law of the contract between the parties and as governing law you can choose Common Law and equity and not any state law.

I don't understand why these "trust" case laws are used as "proof" that pure trusts don't exist.

[Pottapaug1938]

No, Cap'n, you're right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has nothing to say on the issue of the so-called pure/common-law/non-statutory trusts.

As for fmmcosta's assrtion that "in a contract you can choose the governing law of the contract between the parties and as governing law you can choose Common Law and equity and not any state law", things don't work that way. For one thing, the distinction between law and equity no longer exists; and for another, common law -- or, to put it another way, the law that is set for th in the compendiums of decisions handed down by appellate courts through the years, has been modified by subsequent decisions or by statutory enactments over the years. Finally, there is no ability to choose common law and equity, to govern a trust, and reject the applicability of state law. If you set up a trust in Massachusetts, then Massachusetts law -- both statutory and common -- governs it, and you have to accept the whole package. the same applies to any other state or territory.

[Imalawman]

Hello,

I'm not a lawyer

This is evident.

That said, in a contract you can choose the governing law of the contract between the parties and as governing law you can choose Common Law and equity and not any state law.

So, I can choose not be bound by the laws on murder? Would you have a problem if someone were to kill a loved one because they chose not to contract with the government?

[fmmcosta]

Take a deep breath Sparky. Now hold it. And slowly let it go. Repeat.

Now, reread what was written, slowly and carefully. Do trusts exist? Yes. Are many serving a legitimate, legal need? Yes.

What Quatloos does is try to inform and educate people about trusts that are created solely for the evasion and avoidance of taxes, or the evasion and avoidance in the division of marital assets, and under the law (here in the USA) they have no standing - as in are not legitimate and hence do not exist (under the law).

I suggest you do the same then.

In the mentioned article, the author is very clear in what he is saying. He says that Common-Law Non-Statutory Trusts don't exist and that every trust has to pay taxes.

With that said, if the trust is UNDER the law of the USA (statutory law) then it most certainly will have to pay all the taxes the government wants because it's a Statutory Trust.

Even so, the trust paperwork is only 20% of the job. Even if the trust is non-statutory it can become statutory in numerous ways.

As for the "Declaratin of Human Rights" well Sparky, if it is not a positive law passed by Congress and signed by the President, it is nothing more than pretty speechifying and likely holds absolutely no legal weight in US courts (the lawyers here will gleefully correct me if I am wrong).

It's a treaty so that isn't entirely true.

[fmmcosta]

No, Cap'n, you're right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has nothing to say on the issue of the so-called pure/common-law/non-statutory trusts.

really?

As for fmmcosta's assrtion that "in a contract you can choose the governing law of the contract between the parties and as governing law you can choose Common Law and equity and not any state law", things don't work that way. For one thing, the distinction between law and equity no longer exists; and for another, common law -- or, to put it another way, the law that is set for th in the compendiums of decisions handed down by appellate courts through the years, has been modified by subsequent decisions or by statutory enactments over the years. Finally, there is no ability to choose common law and equity, to govern a trust, and reject the applicability of state law. If you set up a trust in Massachusetts, then Massachusetts law -- both statutory and common -- governs it, and you have to accept the whole package. the same applies to any other state or territory.

Are you implying that in the USA the people is in servitude for the government? Are you saying that the government is a party in every contract even if it isn't signatory? Do Human Beings have rights there?

[fmmcosta]

This is evident.

It's also evident that you don't know how to read.

So, I can choose not be bound by the laws on murder? Would you have a problem if someone were to kill a loved one because they chose not to contract with the government?

Are the "laws on murder" statutory? Guess not, so... your point is?

[Pottapaug1938]

With that said, if the trust is UNDER the law of the USA (statutory law) then it most certainly will have to pay all the taxes the government wants because it's a Statutory Trust.

Wrong. If a trust is formed within the United States, then the laws of the United States, and the laws of the state or territory of formation, apply to the trust. That includes statutory laws, and common laws. That means that the trust will need to pay all taxes due under these respective jurisdictions, whether the trust is statutory, pure, common-law, non-statutory, mortise-and-tenon, brick-and-mortar or whips-and-chains.

I don't know why you make such a fetish of whether or not a trust is formed "UNDER the law of the USA (statutory law)"; but I have my suspicions. If you are indeed new to the "other side of the story", then stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and put down that jug of kool-aid. Take some time to review past Quatloos threads on the subject of trust, and you'll find that the fools of the past and present who had tried to set up one of these goofball trusts that you mention end up 1) losing in court and 2) suffering heavy financial penalties. That's every time, Sparky -- 100%, in other words.

The bottom line is that we have to obey the laws as they are, whether or not we like them; and if there is a provision of the common law that says "X", and then a statute is enacted which says "X is no longer valid. From here on, Y applies", then "Y" applies in all circumstances unless a court invalidates the statute mandating "Y" and that decision holds up under appellate review.

[Quixote]

This means that every other law, not mentioned in the article above, in order to be enforced by the government they need to have a contract (consent), thus the existence of the "Social Contract". With the creation of this contract the citizen is born.

No, the citizen is born by being born. At least in the US. That's what the 14th Amendment says. His continued presence within the borders of the US and acceptance of the benefits of citizenship implies his agreement with the terms of the "social contract", which we put in quotation marks to distinguish it from an actual contract.

All that is probably moot anyway. If there is any federal or state law which is not covered by paragraph 2 of article 29, it is probably covered by paragraph 1. Certainly, all tax laws are.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

[Prof]

Interesting hyperbole. Of course we are not all "in servitude" to the local, state and national governments, but our "human rights" to do exactly as we please are certainly limited. For example, at common law, you were not permitted to murder your neighbor. Although no state has retained common law crimes, it is a violation of a statute in every state to murder your neighbor. (Yes, murder, and all crimes, are statutory in nature -- see the Criminal Code for your state.)

And, while courts of equity in England could grant equitable relief -- say to prevent you from building a dam to cut of the river flow to your property -- statutes and rules now allow the court systems in the state and federal contexts to prevent you from doing just the same, even if there are no separate courts of equity. (The difference is, in civil cases or in criminal cases, the common law could only grant damages or impose punishments for a harm actually done; equity grew up as a way of granting preventative relief, generally called an injunction, ordering a person not do do something that would cause injury; in a criminal case, this is called a protective order.)

I must admit that the common law recognized slavery, child labor, denial of rights to women, and all sorts of things that are now prohibited by either the Constitution or statute. That's just what happens when you let government in the door. Note that the child labor laws certainly violate that sacred right of contract you are referring to in you hyperbolic comments.

Now, statutes prohibit certain types of contracts and certain types of conduct. For example, you cannot create a trust or a corporation or even a patnership to do illegal stuff, like sell cocaine. You cannot say, I have a "pure trust" or a corporation sole and those things are not taxed, when the statutes (and before the statutes, the common law and the courts of equity) lmited the use of such devices.

Of course, the government has become very invasive. Many think too invasive. But only a troll or an anarchist thinks that we need to do away with government as a means of creating a just and safe society. If you think otherwise, look at anarchy in action -- Somalia. Or places where government is not limited by the niceties of the rule of law -- say Zimbabwae. Or look at places where the government has no power to control its criminal element -- like Mexico.

It strikes me that you know little about the common law, the courts of equity, or the history of statutes and codification. You might want to read Holmes' Common Law or even Friedman's History of American Law, now in its 3d edition.

[ArthurWankspittle]

If fmmcosta is who I think they are, they must have got bored with hinting that they know "the right way" to do things, asking obtuse questions and never giving straight answers like they used to do on George Tran's old website. What happened? Tran's website down to Georgie Boy himself, two supporters and three sockpuppets? I gather one of George's properties went at a foreclosure auction some time back. What happened to the other two? Must search it out sometime. Must be great to get a "victory" like that!

[Imalawman]

So, I can choose not be bound by the laws on murder? Would you have a problem if someone were to kill a loved one because they chose not to contract with the government?

Are the "laws on murder" statutory? Guess not, so... your point is?

um...actually, they are. But once you decide you can pick and choose the law, why couldn't I choose not to abide by any law whatsoever? Who says I'm bound by common law? You? HA. I choose MY law. What can you do about it?

You see, this is the inevitable result. You can't just pick and choose what laws to follow. Even if you follow common law, who's going to carry out the punishment for violations of common law which only you choose to follow?

[LPC]

That said, in a contract you can choose the governing law of the contract between the parties

True, subject to some limitations. In the case of the law of trusts, you can choose which state's laws should apply to the administration of the trust.

and as governing law you can choose Common Law and equity and not any state law.

Wrong. And in several ways.

You can pick which state's laws should apply, but you can't pick and choose which laws of the state will apply. For example, if you create a trust under Pennsylvania law, there are certain parts of the Uniform Trust Act that *must* apply. (See 20 Pa.C.S. §7705(b), titled "Mandatory rules.") There is nothing you can do about it, and no way to avoid it, except to create a trust under the laws of a different state.

There is also no "common law" that is separate or different from "state law." The decisions of the courts of a state are its "common law" and part of the law of that state. If the state has enacted statutes that negate or conflict with common law, then the statutes control. You don't get to choose (as explained above).

Finally, this is a forum about taxes, and you can choose what non-tax laws apply to a trust, but you can't choose what tax laws apply. If you're a citizen or resident within the borders of a state of the United States and you create a trust, it's going to be subject to federal income tax laws regardless of what magic words you utter during the creation.

I don't understand why these "trust" case laws are used as "proof" that pure trusts don't exist.

I don't know what "these 'trust' case laws" you mean, because you never cited any case or any law, but the question is not whether "pure trusts" exist, but how they are taxed.

[wserra]

If fmmcosta is who I think they are, they must have got bored with hinting that they know "the right way" to do things, asking obtuse questions and never giving straight answers like they used to do on George Tran's old website.

I knew I recognized that login. A fan of George "Thank you, Sir! May I have another?" Tran. In order to show fellow Quatloosians that resistance is likely futile, a few quotes from "fmmcosta":

I can easily use administrative process and if they refuse to pay I use a commercial lien, then I go to the court to validate the lien.

This isn’t law… it’s commerce. I don’t need a “law” saying that shooting someone is a crime. I was harmed then I have to be indemnified. Basic principals of commerce.
...
OFF COURSE law doesn’t matter. NOT FOR ME but for the judge point of view it does because he has to follow it.
...
The bank has to give you remedy if you demand it properly as a sovereign/trustee/secured party creditor/authorized agent/etc.

The law doesn’t matter… it only applies if you contract with him, giving consent.
...
NEGATIVE AVERMENT search this term.

Do you think that someone has a higher claim against the strawman and the strawman’s property that the Human Being originator of it?
...
A sovereign doesn’t argue… he asks questions just like a king.
...
Roger Elvick was somewhat of a pioneer in Commercial Redemption but he only had pieces of the puzzle, and either went to jail for being to smart, (IE correct in its process) not having ALL of the info to defend oneself, or (most likely) both.

It's a lost cause.

[Paul]

In the mentioned article, the author is very clear in what he is saying. He says that Common-Law Non-Statutory Trusts don't exist and that every trust has to pay taxes.

Oh, you mean that when it says:

Constitutional or Pure Trusts do not pay taxes, because taxes are paid by the persons creating them under their own income tax. In other words, if you convey property or income to a Constitutional or Pure Trust, the Courts and the IRS will simply treat that property or income as if it had never been given away in the first place, and you have to pay taxes on it just like you would have in the first place.

it really means the trust DOES pay taxes? Or didn't you read that far into the article? Absolutely right, you're not a lawyer. You're not even literate.

[Lambkin]

I'm gonna hazard a guess that fmmcosta will not go to jail for being "to smart".

[fmmcosta]

Wrong. If a trust is formed within the United States, then the laws of the United States, and the laws of the state or territory of formation, apply to the trust. That includes statutory laws, and common laws. That means that the trust will need to pay all taxes due under these respective jurisdictions, whether the trust is statutory, pure, common-law, non-statutory, mortise-and-tenon, brick-and-mortar or whips-and-chains.

I don't know why you make such a fetish of whether or not a trust is formed "UNDER the law of the USA (statutory law)"; but I have my suspicions. If you are indeed new to the "other side of the story", then stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and put down that jug of kool-aid. Take some time to review past Quatloos threads on the subject of trust, and you'll find that the fools of the past and present who had tried to set up one of these goofball trusts that you mention end up 1) losing in court and 2) suffering heavy financial penalties. That's every time, Sparky -- 100%, in other words.

The bottom line is that we have to obey the laws as they are, whether or not we like them; and if there is a provision of the common law that says "X", and then a statute is enacted which says "X is no longer valid. From here on, Y applies", then "Y" applies in all circumstances unless a court invalidates the statute mandating "Y" and that decision holds up under appellate review.

So... Can you explain me where does the power of the government over you come from? Are you saying that you are subject to the government and there is nothing you can do about it? Sure sounds like servitude to me.

[fmmcosta]

No, the citizen is born by being born. At least in the US. That's what the 14th Amendment says. His continued presence within the borders of the US and acceptance of the benefits of citizenship implies his agreement with the terms of the "social contract", which we put in quotation marks to distinguish it from an actual contract.

Well, it's a contract nonetheless or more specifically a trust where the citizen is beneficiary. Citizenship is a legal capacity of the human being as many others. Most people in the world only have this legal capacity (citizenship) and other sub-capacities and YES the citizen us subject to statutory law but the human being is not and has human being you can create and develop your legal personality as much as you want. So, you can also create another contract (trust) not governed by statutory law, where you are trustee (or whatever) and, of course, you, as trustee, and the trust must never be in a position of beneficiary of the government.

All that is probably moot anyway. If there is any federal or state law which is not covered by paragraph 2 of article 29, it is probably covered by paragraph 1. Certainly, all tax laws are.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

It seems to me that you are confusing "community" with "society" which are different things. That article has nothing to do with taxes.

[jg]

Indeed, when I was born in the United States (and not the child of ambassadors not subject to United States laws) at that moment and so long as I remain in the United States I remain subject to the laws of the United States.
That is I the citizen and I the human being. I can not decide for myself to not be subject to the law except by leaving the country. To have it otherwise would lead to chaos as each of us decide for ourself to what law we are subject. Then, the law loses meaning and becomes unenforcable.
It is not servitude because I can choose to leave (and I can revoke citizenship as well).
But, even a noncitizen is subject to the law of the country of physical presence (again, except for ambassadors and such).

A trust that is created is in much the same situation. At the time and place it is created it is subject to the laws under which it was created. It remains so until it leaves (that is until amended/disbanded and recreated elsewhere).

No, you can not create another contract (trust) not governed by statutory law except by doing so elsewhere.

[Olsenfin]

fmcosta:

You're absolutely right. You're right and all those judges and lawyers are wrong. Go right ahead and establish one of those Constitutional Trusts. Don't pay gift taxes. Don't pay income taxes. Get your sovrun buddies to do so, too. After all, what can they do to you?

[fmmcosta]

Interesting hyperbole. Of course we are not all "in servitude" to the local, state and national governments, but our "human rights" to do exactly as we please are certainly limited. For example, at common law, you were not permitted to murder your neighbor. Although no state has retained common law crimes, it is a violation of a statute in every state to murder your neighbor. (Yes, murder, and all crimes, are statutory in nature -- see the Criminal Code for your state.)

It's not necessarily a hyperbole since the citizen is subject/slave/servant /etc. of the government but the human being is not.

The crime of murder is regulated by common-law, human rights and the constitution, however, the time you spend in jail for committing murder is defined by statutory law (criminal code). If common law, human rights and the constitution permitted murder then probably there wouldn't be any statutory law for it.

And, while courts of equity in England could grant equitable relief -- say to prevent you from building a dam to cut of the river flow to your property -- statutes and rules now allow the court systems in the state and federal contexts to prevent you from doing just the same, even if there are no separate courts of equity. (The difference is, in civil cases or in criminal cases, the common law could only grant damages or impose punishments for a harm actually done; equity grew up as a way of granting preventative relief, generally called an injunction, ordering a person not do do something that would cause injury; in a criminal case, this is called a protective order.)

of course they allow... over the citizen. As a citizen you give all your rights as a human being away and you are left with benefits and duties.

I must admit that the common law recognized slavery, child labor, denial of rights to women, and all sorts of things that are now prohibited by either the Constitution or statute. That's just what happens when you let government in the door. Note that the child labor laws certainly violate that sacred right of contract you are referring to in you hyperbolic comments.

No it doesn't. Because I'm sure that you are viewing the child as a citizen so, as a citizen you have the right to benefits and the obligation to follow statutory law or the law of the trust, just like in any other trust.

Now, statutes prohibit certain types of contracts and certain types of conduct. For example, you cannot create a trust or a corporation or even a patnership to do illegal stuff, like sell cocaine. You cannot say, I have a "pure trust" or a corporation sole and those things are not taxed, when the statutes (and before the statutes, the common law and the courts of equity) lmited the use of such devices.

It prohibits certain types of contracts to beneficiaries, not to human beings. The wording is very specific.

Of course, the government has become very invasive. Many think too invasive. But only a troll or an anarchist thinks that we need to do away with government as a means of creating a just and safe society. If you think otherwise, look at anarchy in action -- Somalia. Or places where government is not limited by the niceties of the rule of law -- say Zimbabwae. Or look at places where the government has no power to control its criminal element -- like Mexico.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-government, I'm pretty much pro-government BUT I'm anti-servitude.