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

[fmmcosta]

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?

Actually, it isn't. Statutory only tells you the penalty of murder because in common law and in the constitution murder isn't permitted.

So, as governing law of your contract you would choose... none. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with None Law.

The courts will.

[LPC]

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

Gibberish. There are citizens who are not human beings? What are they then, shape-shifting lizards?

Everything you write is gibberish and trash.

[Pottapaug1938]

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like them; and if there is a provision of the common law that says "X", and then a statute is enacted which says "X is no longer valid.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.

Thanks for proving my suspicions -- you're the latest in a long line of fakers who come onto Quatloos, acting normal, but then show their true colors through inane questions like yours. Of course, I said nothing about us being "subject to the government". If you will Google "The American's Creed", you will find a phrase about how our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. "We, the people" grant the government the powers that it has; and in the daily news (and on Quatloos), we see ongoing disputes as to the proper extent of those powers. To claim that we are in "servitude" to the government is unadulterated idiocy.

Perhaps you would prefer anarchy, where everyone is sovereign and subject to no one -- and are in a world of "every person for him/herself?"

[Pottapaug1938]

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?

Actually, it isn't. Statutory only tells you the penalty of murder because in common law and in the constitution murder isn't permitted.

So, as governing law of your contract you would choose... none. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with None Law.

The kinds of law with which you aren't familiar would fill volumes. You were just told that common law no longer governs things like murder, statutory law does; but you seem to cling to the common law -- or rather, your fantasies about common law -- as if it were some magic bullet to make the ebil gummint back away from you doing whatever you wanna do.

When you first joined this site, one of the first things that you told us was that you're not a lawyer. Well, many Quatloos veterans are; so why don't you try listening and comprehending what we have to say -- or is that too politically unpleasant for you?

The courts will.[/quote]

[fmmcosta]

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.

You are subject to the statutory laws of the government because you enjoy/benefit from the government.

When you get a job do you use your Social Security Number? Yes? Then YES, you have to pay income tax, because you are benefiting from something that isn't yours.

A non-citizen (foreign citizen or stateless) is, of course, subject to statutory law because, as I already said, they are in a beneficiary position specially if they have no other (or none in the case of a stateless individual) position/capacity/legal personality/identity. A Human Being has the right to free travel, right? The citizen doesn't and that's the point.

[fmmcosta]

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?

Did you even read my posts?

What judges?
What lawyers?
Where did I say that they are wrong?

[fmmcosta]

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

Gibberish. There are citizens who are not human beings? What are they then, shape-shifting lizards?

Everything you write is gibberish and trash.

Are all citizens, human beings?
Are all human beings, citizens?

What is a Corporation then? Isn't a Corporation a legal personality just like the citizen? Is a Corporation a Human Being?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

You are subject to the statutory laws of the government because you enjoy/benefit from the government.

Wrong again. You're subject to them because you live here.

[fmmcosta]

Thanks for proving my suspicions -- you're the latest in a long line of fakers who come onto Quatloos, acting normal, but then show their true colors through inane questions like yours. Of course, I said nothing about us being "subject to the government". If you will Google "The American's Creed", you will find a phrase about how our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. "We, the people" grant the government the powers that it has; and in the daily news (and on Quatloos), we see ongoing disputes as to the proper extent of those powers. To claim that we are in "servitude" to the government is unadulterated idiocy.

Perhaps you would prefer anarchy, where everyone is sovereign and subject to no one -- and are in a world of "every person for him/herself?"

I'm the one being attacked and yet somehow it's my fault?

For starters it's not "We, the people" it's "We, the People", it's grammatically different.

As I already said, I'm pro-government and not anti-government. I'm talking about statutory law and not being subject to statutory law. The government has the duty to uphold the Human Rights.

So, I asked you 2 questions and because you don't know how to answer them you decide to attack me and to distort my words.

[fmmcosta]

...

You are subject to the statutory laws of the government because you enjoy/benefit from the government.

Wrong again. You're subject to them because you live here.

Just curious, are you really a judge?

What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the statutory laws are somehow imposed to me? How? Who/What gave them that right? Do they own the land, the geographical area?

Elaborate please.

[fmmcosta]

The kinds of law with which you aren't familiar would fill volumes. You were just told that common law no longer governs things like murder, statutory law does; but you seem to cling to the common law -- or rather, your fantasies about common law -- as if it were some magic bullet to make the ebil gummint back away from you doing whatever you wanna do.

Are you claiming to "be familiar" to all kinds of law? Are you saying that the kinds of law that you aren't familiar with don't wouldn't fill volumes?

Common law is Common law. Common law governs what it always governed. There's no changing in that. Statutory law only tells you what the penalties are for all the kinds of murder the government can come up with.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of "citizenship" or "legal personality".

When you first joined this site, one of the first things that you told us was that you're not a lawyer. Well, many Quatloos veterans are; so why don't you try listening and comprehending what we have to say -- or is that too politically unpleasant for you?

Well, I didn't listened but I sure read and as I said, pointing out case law where the "trusts" aren't even trusts (because they violate equity) and/or trusts that are somehow in a beneficiary position to the government and argue that because they, naturally, loose in court Common-Law Trusts don't exist, is BS.

[Cathulhu]

Why do the trolls always start with "I'm not a lawyer, but..."?

[fmmcosta]

Why do the trolls always start with "I'm not a lawyer, but..."?

troll - someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Is this what you mean?

[Gregg]

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.

Well, get your hearing checked, we call it civilization. Let me be the latest to suggest if you don't like it you go to Somalia. They have almost no government oppression there and no income tax, either.

[ArthurWankspittle]

...

You are subject to the statutory laws of the government because you enjoy/benefit from the government.

Wrong again. You're subject to them because you live here.

Begging you pardon, judge, but can I be pedantic here. You are subject to the laws of government because you are within their territory, usually by physical presence. Non-residents are equally required to adhere to the laws as residents - a point always missed by sovereign types. Tourists or illegal aliens are subject to the same laws as residents.

[Arthur Rubin]

Actually, there are legitimate trusts, which are not subject to state taxation, even though all the trustees, beneficiaries, and administrators are in states with state income taxes.

As an example, if a trust's trustees and beneficaries all are Indiana residents, but the trust is operated in California, then neither Indiana nor California would tax the trust, even though both states tax "resident" trusts.

[wserra]

Wrong again. You're subject to them because you live here.

It's actually even more general than that. Like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, fmmcosta is subject to US law because he/they/it is here.

'Course, to fmmcosta, that may depend on what "is" is.

[wserra]

Why do the trolls always start with "I'm not a lawyer, but..."?

For the same reason that those abducted by aliens start, "I'm not an astronomer, but . . ." And troofers start, "I'm not an engineer, but . . ." And creationists start, "I'm not a biologist, but . . ." And Jenny McCarthy starts, "I'm not a doctor, but . . ." It means, "I know better than the people who know."

It goes with the wackitory.

[Cathulhu]

"I'm a doctor, Jim, not a lawyer!"

I'm sure Bones said that at some point.

[notorial dissent]

Just another troll who believes that if they just use the right magic words in the right order that they can do whatever they want. YAWN!!!!