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

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

You're too funny for words -- you actually have the brass to quibble over "We, the people" vs. "We, the People". I guess that, to sovrun fakers like you, using the magic words incorrectly can be VERY upsetting. As for not answering your "questions": insofar as I decline to answer them, I do so because your premises are horsesh*t -- you make an artificial distinction between "citizens" and "human beings" which is completely unsupported in the law -- regarding the "right to travel", to give but one example; and I have better things to do with my time than "reinvent the legal wheel" writing a legal treatise for someone who will only misinterpret what I say. If you are truly interested in answers to your original questions, use the search function on Quatloos; and by entering the key words you'll find past threads which will give you the answers you want. If, on the other hand, you are a trolling faker, you'll keep on interjecting silly questions which make clear that you've been drinking the sovrun kool-aid for much too long.

[notorial dissent]

Like I said, TROLL, magic words user. Pointless.

[fmmcosta]

You're too funny for words -- you actually have the brass to quibble over "We, the people" vs. "We, the People". I guess that, to sovrun fakers like you, using the magic words incorrectly can be VERY upsetting. As for not answering your "questions": insofar as I decline to answer them, I do so because your premises are horsesh*t -- you make an artificial distinction between "citizens" and "human beings" which is completely unsupported in the law -- regarding the "right to travel", to give but one example; and I have better things to do with my time than "reinvent the legal wheel" writing a legal treatise for someone who will only misinterpret what I say. If you are truly interested in answers to your original questions, use the search function on Quatloos; and by entering the key words you'll find past threads which will give you the answers you want. If, on the other hand, you are a trolling faker, you'll keep on interjecting silly questions which make clear that you've been drinking the sovrun kool-aid for much too long.

I'm not from the USA. Did I even mention the word "sovereign"?

"artificial distinction between "citizens" and "human beings" which is completely unsupported in the law"

You have a dictionary right? What about a legal one?

Do does words have the SAME definition? NO, then they aren't the same thing.

I used the search and read several threads and my "original" questions arose and are yet unanswered.

[fmmcosta]

A Human Being has the right to free travel, right?

No.

Show me where it is written that a "Human Being" has the right to free travel. And, I think you mean the right to travel freely, as free travel has a completely different meaning. Either way, show us where it is written.

Take your time Sparky, there is no rush.

here

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

[Pottapaug1938]

You're too funny for words -- you actually have the brass to quibble over "We, the people" vs. "We, the People". I guess that, to sovrun fakers like you, using the magic words incorrectly can be VERY upsetting. As for not answering your "questions": insofar as I decline to answer them, I do so because your premises are horsesh*t -- you make an artificial distinction between "citizens" and "human beings" which is completely unsupported in the law -- regarding the "right to travel", to give but one example; and I have better things to do with my time than "reinvent the legal wheel" writing a legal treatise for someone who will only misinterpret what I say. If you are truly interested in answers to your original questions, use the search function on Quatloos; and by entering the key words you'll find past threads which will give you the answers you want. If, on the other hand, you are a trolling faker, you'll keep on interjecting silly questions which make clear that you've been drinking the sovrun kool-aid for much too long.

I'm not from the USA. Did I even mention the word "sovereign"?

"artificial distinction between "citizens" and "human beings" which is completely unsupported in the law"

You have a dictionary right? What about a legal one?

Do does words have the SAME definition? NO, then they aren't the same thing.

I used the search and read several threads and my "original" questions arose and are yet unanswered.

If you aren't from the USA. then you need to do a lot more studying about our system of government -- using conventional sources -- before you start asking questions like you have.

My comment about the artificial distinction between citizens and human beings, that you make, came from your assertions about how citizens have benefits and duties, while human beings have rights. We are BOTH human beings and citizens, Sparky; and as citizens of a freely elected government in a civilized society, we give up certain rights (the right to go wherever we want, when we want, how we want) for our own safety (would you like me driving at 140 mph down your street? Would you like to have me rear-end your car, and kill everyone inside, because I don't want to bother with safety inspections? Would you like me to drive a school bus, with your kids inside, if I have a long record of at-fault traffic accidents? and so on). The UN Declaration of Human Rights, so beloved by you, has NEVER been interpreted by ANY country to give ANYONE the UNRESTRICTED right to travel freely; and the UDHR has NEVER been interpreted to trump national laws.

Go back to school; and come back here when you're done.

[Pottapaug1938]

fmmcosta reminds me of a girl I knew when I was growing up. When I walked past her house, she used to like to throw a rubber ball at my head; and when I objected, she said "it's a free country" (just like fmmcosta seems to think that the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Common Law trump any laws that make you unable to do as you please). One day, she threw the ball at hit me in the eye; and I threw the ball into the trees behind her head. Miss Free Country promptly ran into the house to whine to Mommy, who then came boiling out of her house to yell at me for "mistreating a girl".

Next day, I got the rubber ball in my eye again; and this time she got to find out, the hard way, what it felt like. She runs into the house again; Mommy comes out of the house in a rage again, screams at me for "hitting a girl", and runs back into the house to call my mother. God bless Mom -- she told Miss Free Country's mom that if she couldn't control her daughter's behavior towards me, she wasn't going to say anything if I struck back. That evening. MFC's dad called my house and yelled at my father; and Dad told him to STFU and to get his daughter under control, or she'd keep on getting balls thrown at her the way that she was throwing them towards me.

I never saw that ball come near me again.

[Imalawman]

On a somewhat serious note, I think part of the sovereign movement stems from the way many of us casually use the term, "rights". For instance, we all quote, "endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights...". I tend to shock people when I say that I disagree with this statement. A man, left alone, has no rights. There are no immutable forces of the universe which grant a man "rights". To think so can lead to inane arguments that we see from the nut-du-jour.

Instead, what really transpires is that a group of people decide that they have certain core moral beliefs that everyone in their group should adhere to. As such, the group grants its members "rights". It is only because the group has formed and enacted laws that there are rights. And the rights only have meaning because they are enforced through a legal system. Without all these constructs of a society, there can be no rights. When a nutjob claims that he has rights outside of the laws of this country, he unwittingly is attempting to destroy all the rights that he may have. In anarchy, there are no rights of man.

[LPC]

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

No, you are subject to the laws of a government because you are in a place where the government can enforce its laws.

Putting it quite bluntly, if you are in a place where the US Marshals can seize you, then you are subject to the laws of the United States.

It's really that simple.

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.

And we know that's true because you say so?

I pay more attention to what the courts say, such as:

“All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.” United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#contract and http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges for other citations of authority. (By "authority," I mean opinions that matter--unlike yours.)

[LPC]

I used the search and read several threads and my "original" questions arose and are yet unanswered.

All of your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers.

[Parvati]

A Human Being has the right to free travel, right?

No.

Show me where it is written that a "Human Being" has the right to free travel. And, I think you mean the right to travel freely, as free travel has a completely different meaning. Either way, show us where it is written.

Take your time Sparky, there is no rush.

here

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Seems like every time the "freedom of movement" quote rears its head, it is closely followed by some variation on the "I shouldn't have to pay car insurance/pay for road repairs/have my car inspected/have a registration/need a drivers license" theme.

[Famspear]

On a somewhat serious note, I think part of the sovereign movement stems from the way many of us casually use the term, "rights". For instance, we all quote, "endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights...". I tend to shock people when I say that I disagree with this statement. A man, left alone, has no rights. There are no immutable forces of the universe which grant a man "rights". To think so can lead to inane arguments that we see from the nut-du-jour.

Instead, what really transpires is that a group of people decide that they have certain core moral beliefs that everyone in their group should adhere to. As such, the group grants its members "rights". It is only because the group has formed and enacted laws that there are rights. And the rights only have meaning because they are enforced through a legal system. Without all these constructs of a society, there can be no rights. When a nutjob claims that he has rights outside of the laws of this country, he unwittingly is attempting to destroy all the rights that he may have. In anarchy, there are no rights of man.

You're hittin' the nail on the head.

[Famspear]

I used the search and read several threads and my "original" questions arose and are yet unanswered.

All of your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers.

That brings to mind a memory from many years ago. I was in a court room covering a criminal trial as a reporter (this was in my prior career as a broadcaster) and an experienced and well-respected defense attorney was cross-examining a government witness. The defense attorney repeatedly asked a particular question but would then repeatedly interrupt the witness in his response, and he finally asked the Judge to instruct the witness. The Judge responded, "I believe the witness is trying to answer your question, Counselor. It may not be the answer you want to hear."

[Prof]

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.

No, the definition of the crime of murder, which is not mentioned in the Constitution of the US or of any state, AFAIK, is contained in statutes. See Texas Penal Code, for example:

§ 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person
commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly,
recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an
individual.
(b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder,
manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

AFAIK, no "Declaration of Human Rights" defines any crime or punishment for a crime with the possible exception of some document dealing with genocide or unjust wars or so forth.

As LPC has pointed out, the fact that you are not or do not consider yourself to be a citizen of either the US or of Texas is simply irrelevant. If you commit the crime described above in the State of Texas, and are arrested and charged, the State can and will try you for the crime and if you are convicted you will either be incarcerated or, if a capital murder, executed. If you knew anything, you would know that Texas has recently convicted a number of no-citizens who happen to be citizens of countries to the South. Several have been executed. Texas from time to time convicts and executes citizens of other States.

As LPC has pointed out, criminal jurisdiction is about POWER, not consent, citizenship or anything you have suggested. I you commit a crime in Texas, it has the POWER to prosecute and, if convicted, incarcerate or execute you. As LPC says, it is just that simple.

On another level, your insistance that you are a "human being" is probably correct--I'll take your word for it. Most statutes, however, use the term "individual" for "living, breathing, men on the land." Like it or not, that word is commonly defined and understood to mean "human being." The term "person" describes all legal entities, in some statutes anyway, from human beings to partnerships to corporations. Some statutes reserve the broadest term, "entity," for circumstances in which governmental untis -- towns, cities, counties, agencies, etc. -- are to be covered as well. So, entity includes everyone; person includes all but governmental units; individuals only includes human beings. These statutory terms and definitions are for convenience. If Congress wanted to say that in its statutes, all "humans" will be referred to as "souls," it could do so as a matter of definitional conveniece.

Finally, as to citizenship, if you reside in the and were born or naturalized here, you are a citizen whether you like it or not, until you leave. All of this contract stuff is pure BS. If you do not want to be a citizen, renounce and move to a third country, where you will either be a citizen or an illegal resident. Take your pick of door number 1, 2, or 3.

[Duke2Earl]

Here's the deal... trusts do have valid, legitimate purposes that are recognized under US law. But trusts cannot be used to avoid income tax. And no amount of discussion of UN treaties, contract law, rights to travel, citizenship, human rights, your bowling average, your Facebook friends or other miscellaneous horse manure is going to change that.

And your probable response will be some variation of what my children said when 4 years old.... "But why, Mommy, why?" Because that's the way it is.

[Famspear]

Getting back to what Imalawman wrote -- if all we needed were our "natural rights," there would have been little need for the American Revolution -- or for an American government. The purpose of forming a government, at least for a free people, is (among other things, perhaps) to provide for the security of "natural rights". Only when people form groups and institute governments and legal systems do legal rights (as opposed to natural rights) come into being. We "secure" natural rights by forming groups and creating corresponding legal rights.

A property right, for example, is a largely meaningless concept in the absence of a group of people who have organized themselves and have agreed that a property right is created -- that a particular person's use and enjoyment of a particular area of land, for example, should be protected by the group. The group agrees, by creating a system of laws and government, that there should be a Sheriff who can be called if someone enters that space of land without the permission of the person recognized by the group as the owner.

[fmmcosta]

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.

Look, I don't know for sure how it works in the USA but in my country it's said on the civil code

ARTICLE 41
(Obligations arising from legal transactions)
1. The obligations arising from legal transactions, as well as the very substance of it, are regulated by law that the subjects have appointed or had in view.
2. The designation or reference of the parties may, however, fall on law whose applicability corresponds to a serious interest of the "parties" or is in connection with some of the elements of the legal transaction justifiable in the field of private international law.

Does Common-Law "correspond to a serious interest of the "parties""?

I think it does.

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).

There is Common Law and Statutory Law and they are not the same thing. However, I agree with what you are saying because you are saying it in a citizen perspective.

Citizens and Human Beings are not the same thing.

A Human Being has right to privacy or whatever but FBI agents are able to search databases for "proactive" reasons (whatever this means). This isn't a violation of human rights because they do it to citizens and they are allowed to do it to citizens because they are beneficiaries and because of that they none (or few) rights, only benefits.

They use very specific wording in the law. If the IRS code said "all human beings within the borders of the USA have to pay income tax" it would be a human rights violation and possibly (didn't check) unconstitutional and because of it they use citizen or taxpayer or whatever.

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.

If you create a trust as a citizen then you are right.

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.

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf this isn't even a trust because the trustee isn't trustee, the "trust" owns a business (I suppose a company) being in a beneficiary position and he also created a bank account for the "trust" making it beneficiary of the interstate banking association and of the government. So, YES it's a sham but not a valid trust.

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/contrusts.htm#bond this one I don't even know where to start... it's ridiculous.

[fmmcosta]

My comment about the artificial distinction between citizens and human beings, that you make, came from your assertions about how citizens have benefits and duties, while human beings have rights. We are BOTH human beings and citizens, Sparky; and as citizens of a freely elected government in a civilized society, we give up certain rights (the right to go wherever we want, when we want, how we want) for our own safety (would you like me driving at 140 mph down your street? Would you like to have me rear-end your car, and kill everyone inside, because I don't want to bother with safety inspections? Would you like me to drive a school bus, with your kids inside, if I have a long record of at-fault traffic accidents? and so on). The UN Declaration of Human Rights, so beloved by you, has NEVER been interpreted by ANY country to give ANYONE the UNRESTRICTED right to travel freely; and the UDHR has NEVER been interpreted to trump national laws.

Go back to school; and come back here when you're done.

The Constitution and the law in my country has to be in harmony with the UDHR.

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.

Of all those "examples" you made which are not covered by this article? Isn't this article clear?

[Famspear]

....They use very specific wording in the law. If the IRS code said "all human beings within the borders of the USA have to pay income tax" it would be a human rights violation and possibly (didn't check) unconstitutional and because of it they use citizen or taxpayer or whatever....

Yes, they use very specific wording in the law. And yes, under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, all human beings who are either U.S. citizens (whether residing in the U.S. or not) or U.S. residents (whether U.S. citizens or not) are subject to the U.S. federal income tax. Indeed, even a non-resident, non-U.S. citizen who has never set foot on U.S. soil can be subject to the U.S. federal income tax. And no, that's not a "human rights" violation, and it's not "unconstitutional."

There is no "human right" not to have the U.S. federal income tax imposed on you, regardless of where you live, etc.

[Pottapaug1938]

They use very specific wording in the law. If the IRS code said "all human beings within the borders of the USA have to pay income tax" it would be a human rights violation and possibly (didn't check) unconstitutional and because of it they use citizen or taxpayer or whatever.

You've fallen into the trap. Just because the IRS code doesn't use the exact words that YOU want to see there, you draw the falsely logical premise that you are offering to us. Under the IRS code, certain stated classes of people have to pay income tax, whether they be citizens or aliens. Of course, both citizens and aliens are necessarily human beings -- unless, of course, you can prove to me that you can be a citizen or alien if you are something other than a human being.

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.

If you create a trust as a citizen then you are right.

If you create a trust, as a citizen or an alien within the United States or any of its constituent states and territories, then he is also right. If I were a Canadian citizen, and I lived and worked in Massachusetts and set up a trust in that state, I would be subject to the laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concerning that trust, regardless of the fact that I was not a U.S. citizen.

[fmmcosta]

fmmcosta reminds me of a girl I knew when I was growing up. When I walked past her house, she used to like to throw a rubber ball at my head; and when I objected, she said "it's a free country" (just like fmmcosta seems to think that the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Common Law trump any laws that make you unable to do as you please). One day, she threw the ball at hit me in the eye; and I threw the ball into the trees behind her head. Miss Free Country promptly ran into the house to whine to Mommy, who then came boiling out of her house to yell at me for "mistreating a girl".

Next day, I got the rubber ball in my eye again; and this time she got to find out, the hard way, what it felt like. She runs into the house again; Mommy comes out of the house in a rage again, screams at me for "hitting a girl", and runs back into the house to call my mother. God bless Mom -- she told Miss Free Country's mom that if she couldn't control her daughter's behavior towards me, she wasn't going to say anything if I struck back. That evening. MFC's dad called my house and yelled at my father; and Dad told him to STFU and to get his daughter under control, or she'd keep on getting balls thrown at her the way that she was throwing them towards me.

I never saw that ball come near me again.

Don't distort my words nor the UDHR. When did I say that?