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

[fmmcosta]

"I am not a lawyer" but I went to prison for being the promoter of Commonwealth Trust Company and their products. From my experience anyone who uses Common Law trusts and Sovereigns as trustees is as blind as I was and is in for a real learning experience when the IRS comes to knowledge of his actions.

The trusts I marketed until July of 2003 appeared legitimate, held real estate, obtained title insurance, wired proceeds offshore and owned vehicles plus much more. None held up when it came time to go to court. I have had to testify for the Government in six different cases being cross examined by Bernhoft's team, Beacraft twice, Mark Lane and others and all this sovereign trustee argument and right to contract did not help the past clients of mine.

In this world the only way one could or should consider the use of trusts is with the guidance of an expert trust/tax attorney. I remember the last day I was working for Commonwealth Trust Company. We were doing a conference in Las Vagas July 18, 2003 when the IRS burst throught the doors. That conference had three attorneys scheduled to be there and speak to and assist my clients, so make sure you find an attorney that is legitimate not the kind I recruited to take part in that conference.

The biggest mistake of my adult life was letting my grudgeful attitude lead me into the trust business. I have millions to pay in restitution and have harmed others because of my actions. I have had to file tax returns on trust income to comply with my plea agreement of I would still be in prison.

If we do not like the present tax system we must change it through new legislation!!!

Stay away from Common Law Trusts!

Sorry to hear that.

Can you tell me about your trusts? or do you have the case law for me to read?

What do you mean by "title insurance"?

And by "owned vehicles"? (Automobiles?)

I remember the last day I was working for Commonwealth Trust Company

What was "Commonwealth Trust Company"? Was this the trust that owned the vehicles, title insurance and real estate that you mentioned?

[fmmcosta]

You're portugese, you figure it out.

enough said

[Prof]

I see no point in contributing anything

Good, then don't.

Certainly I will not be offering any further comments. When you announced that you were from Portugal, I should have stated then and there as follows:

1. I know nothing about the laws of Portugal; I do know a little history, and cannot imagine that Portugal ever had a "common law" tradition but am not even willing the GOOGLE the issue. I am reasonably sure that modern Portugal is a "Code" country where the traditions of common law do not apply. (I.e., Portugal, like most of Europe, uses a Code Civil adopted from the Napoleonic Code of laws.)

2. If you actually reside in Portugal, apparent concerns with US law is non-sensical, for US law would have no application unless US law can be used as the choice of law governing a trust created in Portugal. I seriously doubt that such is the case, but if it is, then people on this board can advise you about US law, but not how a Portugese court might apply US law. You appear to want to argue that (i) you know Portugese law; (ii) you know US law; and, (iii) that you know who a Portugese Court would interpret US law. I know that you do not know any US law -- or understand any US legal principles concerning the common law tradition, statutory interpretation and application, and the codification of US law over the last 160 or so years.

3. Therefore, since I know next to nothing about Portugese law, and you know absolutely nothing about US law, further comment from me is a waste of electrons.

[Pottapaug1938]

"Title insurance" is the insurance that is bought to protect an insured against loss due to a defect in a real estate title.

Let's say that you own Blackacre, a 10-acre plot in Somewhere, New York. You put $100,000 of your own money into the purchase, and took out a mortgage to cover the rest of the purchase price. You quickly erect a gorgeous mansion on the place. A year or two later, you get two letters in the mail: one from a power company, and one from a mining company. The one from the mining company informs you that you must vacate your property, as they are exercising their right to contruct an open-pit coal mine right where your mansion is, and the electric company informs you that they will be running an above-ground power line along your landscaped front lawn.

You call the lawyer that did the title search; but he has just been disbarred for stealing client funds and drinking and gambling them away. He has absolutely no asset left. You hire another lawyer; and this one finds the easements that the first lawyer overlooked. Bottom line: you are compelled to tear down your house, and the rest of your property is of no use to you; and you are still bound to pay the mortgage.

If you had bought a "lender's policy" of title insurance at the closing, the title company would pay for a lawyer to defend against the claims; and it would pay off the mortgage if you lost. If you also bought an owner's policy, the title company would also compensate you for your losses. It may seem like an unnecessary expense; but during my years in that industry I saw more than a few cases where title insurance policies saved homeowners from financial disaster.

[Cpt Banjo]

If you had bought a "lender's policy" of title insurance at the closing, the title company would pay for a lawyer to defend against the claims; and it would pay off the mortgage if you lost. If you also bought an owner's policy, the title company would also compensate you for your losses. It may seem like an unnecessary expense; but during my years in that industry I saw more than a few cases where title insurance policies saved homeowners from financial disaster.

In my experience, lenders always require a a mortgagee title policy (that's the term used in Texas) as a condition to making the loan.

[Pottapaug1938]

If you had bought a "lender's policy" of title insurance at the closing, the title company would pay for a lawyer to defend against the claims; and it would pay off the mortgage if you lost. If you also bought an owner's policy, the title company would also compensate you for your losses. It may seem like an unnecessary expense; but during my years in that industry I saw more than a few cases where title insurance policies saved homeowners from financial disaster.

In my experience, lenders always require a a mortgagee title policy (that's the term used in Texas) as a condition to making the loan.

It's the same in Massachusetts (the name of the policy varies from title company to title company); and most prudent homebuyers buy an owner's policy as well.

Title insurance is also universal on big construction projects. Typically, most of the funding for a project is held back, and is disbursed as needed. Before the bank will do that, however, they will call the title company. Someone at the title company will then call one of its title examiners (they have none of their own), and the examiner will run the title up until the present. He will then tell the title company that titler is clear up through such and such a date and time; and after the title company issues a "date-down endorsement" on the title policy, the bank will release the funds.

I should also note that, if a title search does disclose something like a utility easement, the title policy will list that easement as an exception to its coverage.

[wserra]

Hi, Rebuck.

Worse than going through what you went through: going through what you went through and not learning from it.

Welcome to Quatloos.

[Rebuck]

Commonwealth Trust Company was a trust that produced and marketed thousands of trusts to others from about 1988 through 2003. These trust indentures looked like a contract having real people as creator, exchanger, trustee and certificate holder (beneficiary). They were able to own cars, trucks , construction equipment, businesses, land, etc. Typically clients used many different trusts to make it harder to find assets. They were all recorded in a court house in the US but claimed to be created under the Constituion's right to contract. They were a sham because the client's who purchased them really had all the control therefore they were the clients "alter ego". The trustees were paid small signature fees when signatures were needed but did not have any control over the property of the trust.

You might want to read "Bailey's Lament", here in this message board, as he was a trustee for Comonwealth. He did not make decisions as a real trustee would regarding the business of a real trust.

This scheme was marketed to clients in all 50 states. Wesley Snipes used some of theses trusts and you know he now is serving time. Just because many people get involved doesn't mean it is a good program. We connected our clients to banks in Austria, Copenhagen, Isle of Man and Cyprus and these offshore bankers welcomed their deposits.

The way a real estate sale worked is like the home I sold in the fall of 2003. I needed money for attorney's fees as I knew I soon would be indicted. The home I lived in was owned by one trust and liened by another. I paid trustee services to list it with a realtor and produce the signatures and documents needed to sell the house and have the proceeds wired to Federal Bank of the Middle East in Cyprus. I later re-patriated over $100,000 via a no name debit card back to the US and converted the cash to money orders to pay attorneys. Needless to say I went to a lot of different ATMs pulling $1000 only at one time so I would not raise a red flag emptying an ATM.

All the people that I am aware of who where approached by the IRS had opportunity to settle and pay the interest and penalties and not be charged criminally. Those who defended their postion and the position of their trust business all lost in court after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on defense attorneys who have not a prayer to win but will take their money.

[Demosthenes]

Hi Wayne,

Welcome to Quatloos.

Can I ask you a favor... Can you start a new thread talking about your experience? I think it's too important for it to be lost in a huge thread such as this one.

Thanks,

Demo

[fmmcosta]

"Title insurance" is the insurance that is bought to protect an insured against loss due to a defect in a real estate title.

Let's say that you own Blackacre, a 10-acre plot in Somewhere, New York. You put $100,000 of your own money into the purchase, and took out a mortgage to cover the rest of the purchase price. You quickly erect a gorgeous mansion on the place. A year or two later, you get two letters in the mail: one from a power company, and one from a mining company. The one from the mining company informs you that you must vacate your property, as they are exercising their right to contruct an open-pit coal mine right where your mansion is, and the electric company informs you that they will be running an above-ground power line along your landscaped front lawn.

You call the lawyer that did the title search; but he has just been disbarred for stealing client funds and drinking and gambling them away. He has absolutely no asset left. You hire another lawyer; and this one finds the easements that the first lawyer overlooked. Bottom line: you are compelled to tear down your house, and the rest of your property is of no use to you; and you are still bound to pay the mortgage.

If you had bought a "lender's policy" of title insurance at the closing, the title company would pay for a lawyer to defend against the claims; and it would pay off the mortgage if you lost. If you also bought an owner's policy, the title company would also compensate you for your losses. It may seem like an unnecessary expense; but during my years in that industry I saw more than a few cases where title insurance policies saved homeowners from financial disaster.

So, the insurance was for the real estate or property of the trust?

Not really sure why someone claiming to have a common law trust would do that but ok.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

So, the insurance was for the real estate or property of the trust?

Not really sure why someone claiming to have a common law trust would do that but ok.

Because the trust and trustee can be dragged into civil matters involving property title and any encumberances thereto.

[fmmcosta]

@Rebuck,

So, in the name of clarification so that I can be sure of what you are saying.

All the Trusts created by and including Commonwealth Trust Company were "recorded in a court house in the US but claimed to be created under the Constituion's right to contract"?

The trustee were not trustees and the grantor (the clients) was the one controlling the trusts?

"We connected our clients to banks in Austria, Copenhagen, Isle of Man and Cyprus and thes offshore bankers welcomed their deposits."

The deposits were from trust res/property?
Who held the bank accounts? (trust?, grantor?, trustee?, offshore trust?, offshore company?)

"I paid trustee services to list it with a realtor and produce the signatures and documents needed to sell the house and have the proceeds wired to Federal Bank of the Middle East in Cyprus. I later re-patriated over $100,000 via a no name debit card back to the US and converted the cash to money orders to pay attorneys."

You used trust funds for your personal "gain"?

[Pottapaug1938]

"Title insurance" is the insurance that is bought to protect an insured against loss due to a defect in a real estate title.

Let's say that you own Blackacre, a 10-acre plot in Somewhere, New York. You put $100,000 of your own money into the purchase, and took out a mortgage to cover the rest of the purchase price. You quickly erect a gorgeous mansion on the place. A year or two later, you get two letters in the mail: one from a power company, and one from a mining company. The one from the mining company informs you that you must vacate your property, as they are exercising their right to contruct an open-pit coal mine right where your mansion is, and the electric company informs you that they will be running an above-ground power line along your landscaped front lawn.

You call the lawyer that did the title search; but he has just been disbarred for stealing client funds and drinking and gambling them away. He has absolutely no asset left. You hire another lawyer; and this one finds the easements that the first lawyer overlooked. Bottom line: you are compelled to tear down your house, and the rest of your property is of no use to you; and you are still bound to pay the mortgage.

If you had bought a "lender's policy" of title insurance at the closing, the title company would pay for a lawyer to defend against the claims; and it would pay off the mortgage if you lost. If you also bought an owner's policy, the title company would also compensate you for your losses. It may seem like an unnecessary expense; but during my years in that industry I saw more than a few cases where title insurance policies saved homeowners from financial disaster.

So, the insurance was for the real estate or property of the trust?

Title insurance is always for real property only. If I took title to my property in the name of the "Pottapaug 1938 Trust", the title insurance would not cover any non-real estate to which the trust held title.

Not really sure why someone claiming to have a common law trust would do that but ok.

Someone who claims to have a common law trust is a fool. They no longer exist, except as an archaic concept. Trusts are now regulated by statute in every U.S. jurisdiction; and if you know of anyone who claims that a common law trust takes the trust corpus outside any such jurisdiction, please let me know -- I've got a castle in the air that I'd like to seel them.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Isn't the IRC statutory law? If it's statutory law, as I'm pretty sure it is, doesn't it only refers to statutory trusts?

Frankly, I am amazed that you didn't interpret the word "statutory" as being law which only applies to works of art.

Your grasp of the English language is coming across as if you were using Google or Babelfish to translate, rather than speaking it yourself. Your grasp of legal principles and concepts, however, is puerile and childish, with no sign that I can see that you are even listening when other people try to correct your misunderstandings.

[fmmcosta]

Someone who claims to have a common law trust is a fool. They no longer exist, except as an archaic concept. Trusts are now regulated by statute in every U.S. jurisdiction; and if you know of anyone who claims that a common law trust takes the trust corpus outside any such jurisdiction, please let me know -- I've got a castle in the air that I'd like to seel them.

Actually I know a few that, I think, are not mentioned on this website.

http://www.nacrs.org
http://www.executivetrusteetraining.com/

[Pottapaug1938]

Someone who claims to have a common law trust is a fool. They no longer exist, except as an archaic concept. Trusts are now regulated by statute in every U.S. jurisdiction; and if you know of anyone who claims that a common law trust takes the trust corpus outside any such jurisdiction, please let me know -- I've got a castle in the air that I'd like to seel them.

Actually I know a few that, I think, are not mentioned on this website.

http://www.nacrs.org
http://www.executivetrusteetraining.com/

If that's what you know, then you don't know anything. it took me all of thirty seconds to review each web site and see that they build their entire premises on concepts completely unsupported in modern American law (such as the idea that their "trusts" are not under the laws of any state, or that their "common law banking" is not really banking as we know it.

You're looking worse and worse with every post.

[wserra]

Actually I know a few that, I think, are not mentioned on this website.

http://www.nacrs.org
http://www.executivetrusteetraining.com/

Maybe. But, if they charge for that nonsense, they're thieves.

[Demosthenes]

Thanks for bringing two new scammers to our attention!

[Gregg]

Thanks for bringing two new scammers to our attention!

Somewhere tonight a few scammers now sleep peacefully only because they don't yet know a cat with a helmet has them on her list.

And as a private aside, there is also out there a poor pathetic DMV clerk who is screaming in terror trying to figure out why her eyes, ears and nose are bleeding, and her face looks like the final scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Ah yes, vengeance is sweet.

[grixit]

So, is fmmcosta using the "squeeze your eyes tight and yell 'does not!'" technique? Or is it the "squeeze your eyes tight and yell 'can't see me!'" one?