PCT01-A - Different Kinds of Trusts
PCT01-A - Different Kinds of Trusts
PCT01-A - Different Kinds of Trusts
TRUSTS
© Copyright 1994 Sovereign Services ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Introduction
There are many different kinds of trusts - almost as many as there are writers of trusts.
Also, each writer of trusts has his or her own perspective of what a trust is and what
he or she means by terms like "trust."
Although the Wyoming Trust includes a clause that states that it is not a statutory
trust, bureaucrats would certainly claim that it is subject to their statutory control.
Arizona has a statute that describes certain trusts, and stipulates that these trusts are
subject to statutory control, and that for purposes of registration, reporting, and
taxation are treated the same way as a corporation. I don't know to what extent there
are similar statutes in other states (and countries).
The Wyoming Trust provides minimal privacy and asset protection. Its advantages
include that it's cheap, easy to set up, and can be used to open a bank account. It's
appropriate for a resourceful person who wants to operate a business or activity that
doesn't in itself attract undue attention. The user has to provide his or her own
trustees.
The "Build Freedom Shift" has been described as the shift of economic activities
from the public and private sectors into the free-market sector. The Build Freedom
Trust can be the ideal vehicle to shift some of your business activities into the real or
true free market. A major international holding company, based in Pennsylvania has
reorganized itself as a Build Freedom Trust and declared itself a "Build Freedom
Territory."
Build Freedom Holdings, the company that owns and manages "Build Freedom
Headquarters" is organized as a Build Freedom Trust. If you seek recognition or
protection from legal or political systems other than those in Build Freedom you
shouldn't use the Build Freedom Trust. Nevertheless, three trust experts, including an
attorney, have indicated that the Build Freedom Trust is a very solid private contract
because it's compatible with common law and it includes a private dispute resolution
procedure. (Governments usually operate on the basis that they are a party to a
contract, because it's their function to resolve disputes resulting from the contract.
This is one of the reasons governments claim give them a right to intrude in the affairs
of a contract. In the case of the Build Freedom Trust they can make no such claim.
This also applies to the Pure Contract Trust.)
There is a very powerful legal principle you can apply to reduce the risk of being
attacked by government marauders. I call it "the embarrassing issue principle." I
recently heard a story about a prosecutor saying to a judge, "But your honor! You
can't allow this matter to be entered as evidence, because if you do, it'll destroy the
judicial system!"
Suppose you operate some business or activity which is perfectly legitimate, but
some bureaucrats don't like it, and they've passed some unconstitutional statute or
regulation prohibiting it. Suppose you have taken a certain legal precaution such that
if the government criminals haul you into court, they'll be unable to prevent you from
bringing one or more "embarrassing issues" before the court. As soon as they
discover your precaution, they may very well back down and leave you alone.
Hargis told me that there are certain issues that make the bureaucrats tremble. They
couldn't prosecute Hargis, because if they did, they would not have been able to
prevent Hargis from introducing certain issues into court as evidence. The
bureaucrats know that if these embarrassing issues are introduced in court, they will
most likely lose. So they just back off completely.
The Pure Contract Trust contains in the contract itself eight of these embarrassing
issues. If bureaucrats were to challenge the Pure Contract Trust in court, it would be
virtually impossible for them to prevent these eight embarrassing issues from being
raised in court.
The reason why this stratagem is possible is that certain "judicial irregularities" (to
put it mildly - judicial fraud is more accurate!) were perpetrated in order to subvert
the government system to its current degree of unconstitutional oppression. Many
senior bureaucrats are aware of what has been done to subvert the system. They don't
want the "judicial irregularities" exposed, because they know they can't defend them.
So, in the case of Anthony Hargis's free-enterprise bank, they backed off completely
with their tails between their legs, when their weak spots were challenged. Exactly
the same is likely to happen if they try to attack the Pure Contract Trust.