The company name is Master's Protection Group and the website is totalassetprotector.com. From the FAQ on the site:
I find it interesting that they're pretty emphatic about not being a tax avoidance strategy which was one of the keynote selling points in previous Pure Trust scams. My hunch is that since these trusts survive only as long as they don't receive any official scrutiny and an IRS audit for unpaid taxes is one of the faster ways to attract official attention, the promoters are telling people to pay their taxes as a way of delaying those people finding out that their expensive trusts are worthless.Why must I give up ownership of my assets?
The key to our system is giving up ownership but retaining control. If you own nothing, nothing can be taken from you!
How do I give up ownership of my assets?
The Investor agrees to give up ownership of their assets to the Creator of the Specialized Trust, in exchange for Trust Certificates. The Certificate Holders are the beneficiaries of the Trust.
What is a specialized trust?
The specialized trust is created as a private contractual agreement to hold assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
Why must I give up ownership of my assets irrevocably?
If the Investor retains any degree of ownership in the assets transferred to the Specialized Trust, as in the case of a revocable Living Trust, regardless of how minimal the degree of ownership might be, the assets could be taken from them.
Why is a pure trust created as a private contract?
A powerful right that is available to every American is the right to create a lawful private contract with any competent individual of legal age. This right to contract is protected by Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, and case law.
Everything contained within a privately created contract, including the Contract and Trust Indenture of a Pure Trust, is private, and protected from creditors, government agencies, and even the Internal Revenue Service. This is contrary to any statutory entity (trust, corporation, Limited Liability Company, partnership, etc.) whose books and records are basically subject to seizure and review at any time.
Is a pure trust different than a living trust?
A Living Trust provides only one benefit, it avoids probate. It provides no asset privacy and no asset protection. A Pure Trust avoids probate and provides total asset privacy and impenetrable asset protection.
Does the IRS recognize a pure trust?
The IRS recognizes the Business Trust (Pure Trust) as a valid, legal entity (Internal Revenue Regulation 301.7701).
Is the pure trust what the IRS refers to as an abusive trust?
The IRS refers to the Pure Business Trust in an article, "Trusts Used for Abusive Purposes." Trusts, corporations, limited liability companies, and partnerships are all inert legal entities. However, some of the people who manage and control these entities may use them for abusive purposes, such as tax evasion, illegal activities, etc. The Specialized Trust Strategy is an Estate Planning tool in which its Trusts are used strictly to provide asset privacy and protection.
Does the trust provide tax benefits?
The trust is created solely as a privacy and protection entity. The Trust does not provide any tax benefits. However, it creates a Limited Liability Company, which does provide lawful tax benefits. Knowledgeable tax preparers understand the lawful tax benefits available to a Limited Liability Company. A Limited Liability Company provides tax benefits that are not available to an individual.
How expensive are these trust products? I don't know for sure but have forwarded the question. I did find a copy of their affiliate compensation plan and it looks like you can make over $1,700 for selling one of these trust so it stands to reason they cost more than that. (On edit, I just received word, the basic 2 trust 1 LLC package is $3,800 with 1,800 of that in commissions to the sales force.)
My acquaintance provided me with a number of documents but they were all in jpeg format, I may need to find a way to get the to display here (who does free image hotlinking). But I found a PDF copy of one of these docs and can copy from it: (The formatting on the original pdf was a clearer read, it can be found here.)
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 US 518
“The opinion of the court, after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which can not be impaired without violating the constitution of the United States.”
Since 1819 the case of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward has been cited by the US Supreme Court over 105 times, and by lower Federal and State courts over 2,365 times.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN REVERSED
Frisbie v. U.S., 157 US 160, 39 L Ed 657, 15 S Ct 586 (1895)
Patterson v. Bank Eudora, 190 US 169, 47 L Ed 1002, 23 S Ct 821 (1903)
Muller v. Oregon, 208 US 412, 52 L Ed 551, 38 S Ct 324 (1908)P
United States Supreme Court has long held and recognized that freedom to make contracts and have them enforced by the courts is part of the bundle of rights protected by the “due process” clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
“…among the inalienable rights of the citizen is that of the liberty of contract...”
“…every citizen has a right freely to contract for the price of his labor, services, or property.”
88 American Law Reports, 3d, 711, paragraph 2; 13 American Jurisprudence, 2nd, 375, paragraph 1; 156 American Law Reports, 27
“The Massachusetts or business trust, which is also called a common-law trust, is essentially a contractual business organization cast in the form of a trust.
Burnet v. Smith, 240 SW 1007 (1922)
“A Pure Trust is established by contract, and any law or procedure in its operation, denying or obstructing contract rights impairs contract obligation and is, therefore, violative of the United States Constitution.”
Crocker v. Malley, 249 US 233, 239 Supp Ct 270
“A Trust organization created under the U.S. Constitutional right of contract, cannot be abridged. The agreement, when executed, creates a Federal organization, not under the laws passed by any of the several (State) legislatures.”
Schuman-Heink v. Folsom, 159 NE 250 (1927)
“This type of trust is also sometimes referred to as a “Common-Law Trust” because it finds its basis in the law of contracts and does not depend on any statute for its existence.”
Hecht v. Malley, 265 US 144 (1924)
“The “Massachusetts Trust” is a form of business organization, common in that State, consisting essentially of an arrangement whereby property is conveyed to trustees, in accordance with the terms of an instrument of trust, to be held and managed for the benefit of such persons as may from time to time
be the holders of transferable certificates issued by the trustees showing the shares into which the beneficial interest in the property is divided. These certificates, which resemble certificates for shares of stock in a corporation and are issued and transferred in like manner, entitle the holders to share ratably in the income of the property, and, upon termination of the trust, in the proceeds.”
“Under the Massachusetts decisions these trust instruments are held to create either pure trusts or partnerships, according to the way in which the trustees are to conduct the affairs committed to their charge. If they are the principals and are free from the control of the certificate holders in the management of the property, a trust is created; but if the certificate holders are associated together in the control of the property as principals and the trustees are merely their managing agents, a partnership relation between the certificate holders is created.”
“These trusts – whether pure trusts or partnerships are unincorporated. They are not organized under any statute; and they derive no power, benefit or privilege from any statute.”
The Supreme Court cited the Hecht case in Navarro v. Lee 466 US 458, 1980.
Narragansett Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Burnham, 51 R1 371, 154 A909 (1931)
“Held, that the agreement and declaration of trust created a pure trust…”
“Certificate holders (beneficiaries) have no voice in the management of the trust estate or control over the trustee. The declaration of trust provides: The trustee shall have the exclusive right to control the trust estate as it may deem for the best interests of the beneficiaries, free from all control by the beneficiaries, as fully and to the same extent as though the trustee were the sole legal and equitable owner thereof, and shall not be subject to any obligations to the beneficiaries other than such as are expressly assumed hereunder."
“In the instant case it is clear that the agreement and declaration of trust created a pure trust. The trust res is real estate. The certificate holders have no control over the trustee, whose power over the trust property is absolute, limited only by the principles of equity applicable to relation of trustee and cestui que trust.”
Schuman-Heink v. Folsom, 159 NE 250 (1927)
“When the express trust is used as an agency of commerce it is commonly known as a business trust. Because of its development and common use in the state of Massachusetts it is often called a Massachusetts trust, and, because it finds its basis in the law of contract and does not depend on any statute for its existence it is sometimes called a common-law trust.”
Smith v. Morse, 2 CA 524
Burnet v. Smith, 240 SW 1007 (1922)
“A Pure Trust is established by contract, and any law or procedure in its operation, denying or obstructing contract rights impairs contract obligation and is, therefore, violative of the United States Constitution.”
Berry v. McCourt, 204 NE 2d 235 (1965)
“A Pure Trust is a contractual relationship in Trust form.”
Beilin v. Krenn & Dato, 350 Ill 284, 183 NE 330
“The Contract Trust owns the property and is a distinct legal entity. Beneficial Certificate Holders are not treated as co-owners of trust property.”
Baker v. Stem, 58 ALR 462
“It is established by legal precedent that Pure Trusts are lawful, valid business organizations.”
Swanson v. Commissioner, 296 US 362
“The essential nature of a business trust is not affected by the smallness of the number of participants, nor the limited scope of its business.”
Crocker v. MacCloy, 649 US 39
“Concerning privacy, a pure trust organization, created under the United States Constitutional right to contract, cannot be abridged…The agreement, when executed, creates a Federal organization not under the laws passed by any of the several legislatures.”
Hale v. Henkle, 201 US 43
“…there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Since 1905 the case of Hale v. Henkle has been cited by the US Supreme Court over 144 times, and by the lower Federal and State courts over 1,600 times.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN REVERSED
Beilin v. Krenn & Dato, 350 Ill 284, 183 NE 330
“The Contract Trust owns the property and is a distinct legal entity. Beneficial Certificate Holders are not treated as co-owners of trust property.”
Schuman-Heink v. Folsom, 159 NE 250 (1927)
“If it is free of control by the Certificate Holders, then it is a Pure Trust.”
Smith v. Morse, 2 CA 524
“The Trustees of a Trust have all the power necessary to carry out the obligations which they assume. Their books and records are not subject to review or subpoena.”
Hodgkiss v. Northland Petroleum Consolidated, 104 Mont 328, 67 P 2d 811
“Courts, however, must enforce contracts as made, not make new ones for the parties, no matter how unreasonable the terms may appear.”
Shaw v. Paine, 12 Allen (Mass) 293
“The creator of a Pure Trust may mold and give it any shape he chooses, and he or the trustees may provide for the appointment of a successor or successors to the trustee or trustees, upon such terms as he may choose to impose.”
Crocker v. MacCloy, 649 US Supp 39
“A Pure Trust is not subject to legislative control. The U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Trust relationship comes under the realm of equity, based upon common law, and is not subject to legislative restrictions as are corporations and other organizations created by legislative authority.”
American Jurisprudence, Volume 13, Business Trust, Section 31 Eligibility
The rule applicable to trusts generally that any person having capacity to take and hold legal title to property has capacity to be the beneficiary of a trust of such property would appear to apply to business trusts as well.”
“Trustees of a business trust are not disqualified from being shareholders thereof; in fact, provision for ownership of shares by the trustees is frequently incorporated in trust instruments.”
Parker v. Montmaric Trust, 278 SW 321 (1925)
“Certificates are personal property and convey no interest in the trust property.”
Becker v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 296 US 48, 50; 80 L Ed; 56 S Ct 78
“The owner of Beneficial Certificates is not an owner as a stockholder is an owner; that Certificate Holders have no ownership whatever in property held by the Contract Trust, nor do they have any voice or control over the Trustees.”
Beilin v. Krenn & Dato, 350 Ill 284, 183 NE 330
“The Contract Trust owns the property and is a distinct legal entity. Beneficial Certificate Holders are not treated as co-owners of trust property.”
Estate of Anderson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 Tax Court 706.721
“Certificates have no ascertainable “Fair Market Value” and have minimal value to someone else. Bad bargains do not result in taxable gifts.”
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465, 469, 55 S Ct 266, 267, 79 L Ed 596 (1935)
Landmark case in which U.S. Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland stated…
“The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.”
Internal Revenue Regulation, 26 CFR, Section 301.7701-4(b):
"(b) Business Trusts -- There are other arrangements which are known as trusts because the legal title to property is conveyed to trustees for the benefit of Beneficiaries, but which are not classified as trusts
for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, because they are not simply arrangements to protect or conserve the property for the Beneficiaries."
Berry v. McCourt, 204 NE 2d 235 (1965)
“There are other arrangements known as trusts because the legal title to property is conveyed to trustees for the benefit of beneficiaries, but which are not classified as trusts for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, because they are not simply arrangements to protect and conserve the property for the beneficiaries.”
Boyd v. US, 116 US 618
Edwards v. Commissioner, 415 F2d 578, 10th Cir (1969)
“Dignity of contract cannot be set aside because a tax benefit results either by design or accident.”
Weeks v. Sibley, (DC), 269 F 155W
“A Pure Trust is not illegal if formed for the express purpose of avoiding taxation.”
Guitar Family Trust Estate v. Commissioner, 72 F 2d 52 (1934)
“An Association or a Corporation are not taxed the same as a Pure Trust.”
Burnet v. Logan, 283 US 404
“The liability for income tax ultimately can be fairly determined without resort to mere estimates, assumptions, and speculation. When the profit, if any, is actually realized, the taxpayer will be required to respond.”
“The consideration…was…and the promise of future money payments wholly contingent upon facts and circumstances not possible to foretell with anything like fair certainty. The promise was in no proper sense equivalent to cash. It had no ascertainable fair market value. The transaction was not a closed one.”
“Certificates in exchange are not taxable until a realized gain has occurred.”
“No tax is assessed on the conveyance of property to a trust because it constitutes a tax-free trade and exchange for trust certificates which have only a contingent future interest of indeterminable value. The tax is not evaded or avoided. It is merely deferred.”
ABUSIVE TRUSTS
Note: The Internal Revenue Service has become aware of serious widespread tax abuses involving the use of Business Trust type entities. The IRS notes that some promoters argue that their business trusts can eliminate all self-employment tax and most of an individual’s income tax, plus take business deductions for expenses which otherwise would be non-deductible personal living expenses to the taxpayer. They quote cases such as Schultz v. Commissioner, 50 AFTR 2d 82-5562; Holman v. U.S. 5 AFTR 2d 84-862; Schmidt v. U.S. 68 AFTR 2d 91-5005; Zmuda v. Commissioner 53 AFTR 2d 84-1269; Wesenberg v. Commissioner 69 TC 1005; and Smith v. Commissioner TC Memo 1986-487.
It is important to note that in the Schultz case, the courts firmly stated that “It is fundamental to our income tax regime that personal consumption expenditures - food, clothing, travel, education, entertainment - do not generate income tax deductions unless they are inextricably linked to the production of income. The trust devices here [Schultz] are a transparent attempt to transfer all of the family activities into trust activities and all the families expenses into expenses of trust administration
I don't know trust law but I've seen sovereign citizen debate tactics before. Citations which are out of context and old enough that they're likely to be out of date. But it clearly does establish Master's Protection as following in the footsteps of too many scams to count.
The current website isn't all that informative but archived copies include a few things that were in the documents I received. (Link to and archived copy of the site)
More on their sales pitch:
“IT WON’T HAPPEN TO ME!”
THE ODDS ARE OVERWHELMING THAT
“IT WILL HAPPEN TO YOU!”
In the UNITED STATES today, on average…
A lawsuit is filed every 30 seconds!
Someone has a heart attack every 4 – 5 seconds!
Someone has a stroke every 7 – 8 seconds!
An automobile accident happens every second!
Someone’s identity is stolen every 3 – 5 seconds!
It’s not a question of IF something will happen to you…
It’s only a question of WHAT will happen…
and WHEN it will happen!
THE GOOD NEWS…there is a SOLUTION!
Master’s Protection Group is providing individuals, families, and businesses with
TOTAL ASSET PRIVACY and IMPENETRABLE ASSET PROTECTION!
It all starts by
LEARNING FROM THE BEST…
The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen (1976)
“The key to this system is giving up ownership but retaining control. For example, most people don’t believe they really own something unless they retain title to it in their own name. The Rockefellers know this is a big mistake. Often it is better to have your assets owned by a trust or a foundation – which you control – than to have them in your own name.” (emphasis added)
“…they can achieve almost total privacy.”
Now the lot of that seems like a steaming load to me but the bolded section in particular. So if I'm about to get sued I should just sue myself first? I can recognize "magical thinking" in many forms and the above is one of them. I can tell it's wrong but I can not clearly explain why it's wrong. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm asking help with. Thank you.Introducing the
SPECIALIZED TRUST STRATEGY© (STS)
The most powerful Asset Privacy and Asset Protection program ever developed!
And it’s as simple as 1…2…3
Suggestion…follow the schematic while reading this explanation…
The Specialized Trust Strategy (STS) provides Americans from all walks of life with personal asset privacy and asset protection unlike any other program available today. The function of this program is to protect a Client’s personal assets (personal residence and personal property) from lawsuits, creditors, liens, seizures, nursing home spend-down, etc. For those who own real property other than their personal residence (rental property, investment property, etc.), those with a more sophisticated investment portfolio, those who own a professional practice, those who own a business, etc…the Advanced Specialized Trust Strategy (ASTS) is available. For more information concerning the ASTS program, click on: Advanced Specialized Trust Strategy.
Although the most powerful asset privacy and protection program in the country today, the STS program is extremely simple to manage and operate. It easily blends into your present lifestyle. The schematic shown above provides a visual explanation of how the STS program works. Each entity shown in this schematic (Trust #1, the LLC, and Trust #2) is created by Master’s Protection Group, and the documents are delivered to your door fully operational and ready to use.
A Schematic Synopsis…
Notice in the upper left hand corner that the Investor can be an individual, a husband and wife, or a business entity, such as a trust, corporation, or an LLC. The Investor (you) agrees to transfer their assets to the Creator of Trust #1 (blue arrow) in exchange for trust certificates (red arrow). This exchange represents a simple, lawful, private contractual agreement. Trust #1 is now the lawful owner the assets.
As stated in The Rockefeller File, by creating Trust #1 you have taken the first and most important step in the creation of total asset privacy and impenetrable protection…you have “given up ownership” of your assets. From this point on, if you were to be sued, file bankruptcy, should a lien placed on you or any of your assets (even an IRS lien), should you have to enter a nursing home (qualify for Medicaid)… regardless of what may happen to you…you own nothing, so nothing can be taken from you!
To provide a second layer of protection, and to place the assets owned by Trust #1 into a friendlier business environment, Trust #1 creates a single member limited liability company (LLC), shown in the lower left hand corner of the schematic. Trust #1 is the Sole Member (owner) of the newly created LLC. Trust #1 funds the new LLC by transferring its newly acquired assets to the LLC. The assets previously owned by the Investor, then Trust #1, are now owned by the LLC.
Nothing regarding the assets, Trust #1, or the new LLC can be linked to you!
The new LLC, like any business, can be sued. If a business is sued, and a large enough judgment is rendered against the business, the assets owned by the business, or even the business itself, can be lost. To protect its assets, the LLC becomes the Investor and creates Specialized Trust #2, shown in the lower right hand corner of the schematic. However, the LLC does not transfer its assets to Specialized Trust #2…it only transfers the equity (blue arrow) of its assets to Specialized Trust #2 in exchange for trust certificates (red arrow).
Because Trust #2 only owns equity, it protects its equity the same way a mortgage company or bank protects their equity…through the use of a lien. If the trustees of Trust #2 ever feel that the assets owned by the LLC are in any type of jeopardy (lawsuit, lien, etc.), they have a fiduciary responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the corpus (equity) of Trust. They will immediately file a UCC-1 lien on the LLC, using the assets as collateral, to protect their equitable ownership position. If a judgment is ultimately placed against the LLC, the UCC-1 lien filed by the trustees of Trust #2 will have a proprietary position over all other liens and judgments filed against the LLC. The UCC-1 lien filed by Trust #2 will have to be satisfied before any other judgments or liens against the LLC are paid…including an IRS lien.
A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION…
Based on what you have just learned about this unique asset privacy and protection strategy, let me ask… If you were an attorney, and were contemplating filing a lawsuit against an LLC, and through your discover you found out that there were already liens filed against the LLC, for an amount equal to the entire value of the assets and income owned by the LLC…would you still put in the time, effort, and expense of filing a lawsuit…knowing that even if you win, and get a substantial judgment against the LLC, neither you nor your client would receive a dime, other than what would be paid by the LLC’s insurance company? I don’t think so. It seems obvious that the prudent thing for an attorney to do would be to negotiate a settlement with the insurance company right from the start…the LLC loses nothing!
This is only a brief synopsis of what the Specialized Trust Strategy IS DOING for people from coast to coast…and CAN DO for you, your family, your profession, and your business. But the most important benefit you will receive from this program is PEACE OF MIND!
To instantly protect everything you own…
all you have to do is complete the simple application!
Give yourself the gift of PEACE OF MIND…TODAY!
On Edit, I think I just found one of their trust documents (PDF link)
Now most of that is just pops and buzzes to me, I'll let you law talking guys give it any attention it needs. Now I know sovereign gibberish when I see it, this one made me smile:
Doesn't Mr.Miles know that once you spell your trusts name IN ALL CAPS he already seeded jurisdiction to the District of Criminals (Washington DC for the uninitiated)?I, Hampton Miles, Creator of ARA EQUITY HOLDINGS, CTO, CL, Company, a
Contract Trust Organization, being duly sworn, do hereby declare: That I did, under
duress, have my seal notarized, by a Notary, which is an "officer of the court", for
purposes of their actions and further, .realizing that this action may bring unfavorable
actions upon this free market contractual company by said "court", such as a claim of
venue or jurisdiction by said "court", did so with full reservations of all rights.
This affirmation is made for the purpose of: Notice of non-acceptance of any claim of
venue or jurisdiction by said "court" due to the actions by me/us while under duress.
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition: "Duress is that as identified by: unlawful constraint exercised upon
a man whereby he is forced to do some act that he otherwise would not have done." Further, "Duress
consists in any illegal imprisonment or legal imprisohment used for an illegal purpose, or threats of bodily
or other harm or other means amounting to or tending to coerce the will of another and actually inducing
him to do an act contrary to his free will." And, "Duress of goods: Where the act consists of a tortuous
-r>. seizure or detention or property from the person entitled to and require some act as a condition for in
surrender the act is duress of goods."
BEFORE US; on this day personally appeared Hampton Miles, Creator of ARA EQUITY
HOLDINGS, CTO, CL, as Creator, known to us or satisfactorily affirmed and evidenced
to us that he is the person described in, and whose name is subscribed to acknowledgement
of Contract and Trust Indenture, who, having duly affirmed and acknowledged to us that
he did place his seal upon said instrument, the same has been executed as under Duress,
for the uses, purposes, consideration, and in the capacity therein.
[Edited to fix image link.]
