|Trust Basics - Notes & Quotes|
Notes & Quotes
"There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, in 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 tothe State or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.... He owes no 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 the law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Supreme Court, Hale vs. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74
Since 1905 the case of Hale Vs. Henkle has been cited by the Supreme Court over 144 times,
"The opinion of the court after serious deliberation is that this is a contract, the obligation of which can not be impaired without violating the constitution of the united States....After the revolution, the Constitution of the United States imposed this additional limitation...that the legislative of a State shall pass no 'law impairing the obligation of contract.' It results from this opinion, that the acts of the legislative of New Hampshire are repugnant to the constitution of the United States." Supreme Court, Dartmouth College vs. Woodward 17 us 518
Since 1819 the case of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward has been cited
The Unites States adopted the Common Laws of England with the Constitution.
Even Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when brought inland, is subject to the Common Law remedy, the same as Equity; and cannot supersede the sovereign citizens' God endowed/given unalienable/inalienable rights, and these same rights as secured in and under the Constitution of the United States of America.
No emergency justifies a violation of any Constitutional Provision.
No National emergency or Executive Order, including but not limited to, The Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec, 95a] March 9, 1933, shall nullify any of the Constitutional Protections of this Trust Estate. No emergency justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision. 16 Am Jur 2nd Ed. 71, 72 The prohibitions of the federal constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be nullified by the executive and senate combined. Reid vs. Covert, ant, U.S. 1, 1 ~ Ed 2nd 1148 (1951)
This Trust Estate is alien to the jurisdiction of, and not subject to the decisions of Article I, Executive or Legislative and Administrative Courts and Tribunals, Municipal Courts, Tax Courts, or any defacto court or tribunal and is not subject to the decisions of defacto judges or courts or tribunals created by the limited authority of Article I, §8, Cl. 17. and Article IV, §3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution, or through corporate or emergency powers.
Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior federal courts in the exercise of power under Article III of the Constitution cannot be affected by legislation enacted by Congress under Article I §8 clause 17 of the Constitution.
...the United States has no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain within the limits of a state except in cases which it is expressly granted.
It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears. Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336, U.S. 281
...the United States Government is a Foreign corporation with respect to a state.
"A Trust, for probate avoidance, is a lawful, irrevocable, separate legal entity." Shaw vs. Paine 12 Allen (Mass) 293, Harwood vs. Tracy 118 MA 631. 24 s.w. 214
"The Trustees of a Trust have all the powers necessary to carry out the obligations which they assume...Their books and records are not subject to review or supeona." Smith vs. Morse 2CA 524, Boyd vs. US 116 us 618, Silverthorne Lumber Companyvs. U.S. 251 us 385
"Concerning privacy, a Trust organization, created under the United States Constitutional right to contract, can not be abridged...The agreement, when executed, creates a Federal organization not under the laws passed by any of the several legislatures."
"A Pure Trust is not subject to legislative control. The United States 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."
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 investigation. He owes no 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 the law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
According to the supreme Court of these united states, The fact that a business Trust is not regarded as a legal entity distinct from its Trustees, it is a true Trust, may result in this advantage to the Trust, which a corporation does not possess: The Trust of individuals...who are Citizens, and who, therefore, are entitled to certain rights and immunities such as those guaranteed by the privileges and immunities clause [Art. IV, §2. Cl. 1] of the Federal Constitution. which do not apply to corporations." -296 U.S. 344. 80 L.ed. 263. 56 S Ct 289. 156 ALR
The terms Common Law Trust...is not descriptive of any particular characteristics of such organizations. The basis for the terminology, Common Law Trust is not that such organizations are the creatures of the common law, as distinguished from equity, but that they are created under the common law of contracts and do not depend upon any statute. -Schumann-Heeink vs. Folsom, 328 111 321, 159 NE 250. 58 ALR 485. 156 ALR viii.
Burnet vs. Logan. 283 U.S. 404. ruled that, 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.
If it is free of control by Certificate Holders, then it is a Pure Trust.
Trust property cannot be held under attachment nor sold upon execution, for the Trustee's personal debts.
This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby...The Senators and representatives and members of the State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby...Constitution for these united States, Article VI, §2, Cl. 1
It may be said that the Constitution executes itself. This expression may be allowed; but with as much propriety. These may be said to be laws which the People have enacted themselves, and no laws of Congress can either take from, add to or confirm them. They are rights, privileges or immunities which are granted by the People, and are beyond the powers of Congress or State Legislatures. It may be laid down as a universal rule, Admitting to no exception, that when the Constitution has established a disability or immunity, a privilege or a Right, these are precisely as that instrument has fixed them, and can neither be augmented nor curtailed by any act or law either of Congress or a State Legislature. We are more particular in stating this because it has sometimes been forgotten both by Legislatures and Theoretical expositors of theConstitution. Bouvier's Law Dictionary. l870 pp 622-625
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment...In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed...Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it...A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
...A regulation which is inconsistent with the law is invalid...because a statute may not operate in derogation of the Constitution.Title 5 U.S.C. 301, 559 C1.2
A PURE TRUST IS NON-STATUTORY. A Pure Trust is not subject to legislative control. The supreme court holds that the Trust is created under the realm of equity under the common law and is not subject to legislative restrictions as are corporations and other statutory entities created by legislative authority. Crocker v. MacCloy, 649 US Supp 39
All subjects over which the sovereign power of the state extends [ie. corporations or other statutory entities] are objects of taxation [and regulations], but those over which it does not extend are exempt from taxation [and regulation]. This proposition may almost be pronounced as self evident. The sovereignty of the state extends to everything which exists by its authority or its permission.-McCulloch v. the state of Maryland, 4 Wheat, 316
The Pure Trust derives no power, benefit, or privilege from any statute".
A Pure Trust is not subject to legislative control. The U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Trust relationship comes under the realm of equity, based upon the common law and is not subject to legislative restrictions as are corporations and other organizations created by legislative authority. Elliot vs. Freeman 20 U.S. 178
One of the objectives of Business Trusts is to obtain for the Trust associates, most of the advantages of corporations, without the authority of any legislative act and with the freedom from the restrictions and regulations generally imposed by law upon corporations. 13 Am Jur 2d, pg 379, Paragraph 51
|NOTICE: "Your Privacy and Asset Accumulation Guide" is not affiliated with Freedom School.|
Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2010
All Rights Reserved
H O M E