Trusts in General

  Example pic
          An Overview :


A. "Express" or "direct" trusts are those trusts intentionally created by the direct and positive act of the Settlor, by some writing, deed, or will, or oral declaration.

B. The creation of a trust is not merely the making of one form of a contract. It is the Creation of a  STATUS...(29)

C. A trust always involves an equitable ownership embracing a set of rights and duties fiduciary in character.

D. A trust involves legal and equitable estates in different person, a trust is imperative in that it must be performed.

E. If the trustee becomes insolvent, the cestui may take ALL THE TRUST PROPERTY from the assets of the insolvent and need not come in as a general creditor, except as to trust assets which he cannot trace(30)

A major distinction between trust and contract is that in the trust, there is always a divided ownership of the property, the trustee has a legal title and the beneficiary has an equitable title to the same property. In insolvency situations the trustee may be guilty of embezzlement of the trust res. In order to avoid the charge of embezzlement Franklin Roosevelt came up with the "New Deal". The "New Deal" created a new "status, and that being one of "Debt".

F. Trusts frequently change to debts, and debts to trusts. If by CONSENT of the beneficiary the trustee is absolved from his obligation as trustee and undertakes in place thereof to come under a "contract liability", a DEBT may well be SUBSTITUTED FOR THE TRUST; but the trustee cannot of his own accord work such a change.(31)

By the acceptance of the Social Security Number an actual "acceptance of an offer" is made, and now you fall under the law of contract and you are debtor. The law of contract was developed almost entirely by courts of law, while the rules of trusts are the product of chancery courts.

G. Equitable jurisdiction over contracts is auxiliary and secondary, Equitable enforcement of trusts is PRIMARY AND ALMOST EXCLUSIVE. This difference is well illustrated in the attitude of equity toward the specific enforcement of contracts. Equity asserts a discretion in giving that relief. It examines the adequacy of the remedy at law, and sometimes considers mutuality of relief, and other matters. BUT THE SAME COURT gives the cestui a remedy for BREACH OF TRUST without regard to the relief available in a court of law.(32)

In every suit I ever filed against the United States, the U.S. Attorney would come in and say there were adequate remedies available to me at law and bango, my case was out of there. Until I read Bogert I had no contemplation of the full meaning of what information was being transmitted. He was literally stating this was a "contract" case. Unfortunately he failed to inform me of just what contract made the court look for an adequate remedy at law and I knew no better. In cases that are based upon some sort of contract, the court will naturally look to all other possibilities, but a trust case is a court of equities primary concern, and according to the above, should look no where else. Now when a court of equity says there is another adequate remedy at law, I would want to ask it what contract was created as to give it the authority to make that determination.

Right up to present date, the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the fact that a person can only bequeath property provided by statute, because that is how the Founding Fathers bequeathed the trust to the posterity.

H. The right to will or inherit property has usually been held not to be a constitutionally protected property right(33)

I. "A person must devise or bequeath his property in accordance with and subject to the conditions and limitations provided by statute; otherwise he cannot bequeath it all."(34)

The reason it is not held to be a constitutionally protected right is because it falls under Common Law protection, this is why "the Common Law shall prevail(35) in many states.

When a person starts talking about their inheritance established by the Constitutional Trust that person bypasses all the Constitutional arguments and goes straight to the Common Law of England, the Statute of Uses, the Statutes of Charitable Uses, Statute of Wills, and Statutes of Mortmain. You should no longer argue "their" constitutional protection. God bless their Royal Majesties.

============================================================================

(29. . Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, copyright 1935 and 1951, Vernon Law Book Co)

(30. . In order to prevent you as the cestui from taking the trust res no declaration of insolvency has transpired from the United States.)

(31. In re Gans & Klein, D.C. 1926, 14 F.2d 116.)

(32. Bogert, Trusts and Trustees)

(33. . 16A Am Jur 2d Constitutional Law, '585.)

(34. 79 Am Jur 2d Wills '55.)

(35. " Except Louisiana, it is definitely different.)

_____________________________________________________



Points & Authorities :

Offerings :


If you have found the information presented of interest or use, please consider supporting this effort by reviewing our offerings.

Spread the word.

Thank You