Explanation of Trusts and Expose of Government Lies

Warning: We have no further information on this file than what is presented here.  It comes from someone who calls himself Renegade.

We advocate the PT way of just getting your ass and your assets to a safer location.  But, if you insist on staying in the USSA, you might as well know some facts that they don’t want you to know.

And good luck, because you’re gonna need it!

Once Again, The Necessary Disclaimer!

One day, when I was a young boy, I was helping my grandfather out in the tool shed. We were rasping and sanding on some old logs that he was making into furniture. I’ll never forget that hot July day. A silly little ball of sweat hung off the end of his nose, and no matter how hard he worked that little ball of sweat just stayed with him; never falling. I asked him, “What are we making, Grandpa?” He was obviously working very hard to make something that would look nice.
He replied, “A chair for the President.” Suddenly, the project took on a greater importance. I too worked hard, even harder now that I knew who the thing was for. I checked and rechecked my sanding on the seat to be sure not to leave a single splinter. When we finished the chair, My grandfather put it in his living room next to the fireplace.

I was curious when the President was going to get his chair so I asked, “Grandpa, when is the President going to pick up his chair?”

“Probably not ever,” he replied followed by a puff on his pipe.

Suddenly, I got it. Grandpa had lied. I protested, “I thought the chair was for the President?”

“No, my son, the chair was for you. I created it to teach you a valuable lesson.”

“What lesson was I to learn Grandpa?” I asked.

“Just a little Midwest wisdom, boy. Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.”

Now, “pop” psychology would of course say that I have a trust issue and need therapy. Yet, the older I get the more the things my grandfather taught me, begin to make sense.

The same is true of other’s ideas. Before you act on anything that I have written, understand that you are traveling at your own risk. A person is hard pressed to find any consistency in our courts or laws today. A court rules one way for one person and the opposite for the next. There are some legal arguments that are sound and perhaps absolutely true, but none-the-less seldom receive a favorable determination, especially if it means going against the new King.

I’m very interested in preserving My unalienable rights to freedom of speech, religion and the press. If I don’t use them, I lose them. The information in this booklet is intended to be educational. If in the process of gaining an education, someone decides to exercise their constitutional muscles, (which are probably weak at best) then I’ll do anything within my God given rights to promote their lawful position. Together, perhaps we can muster some courage and regain some of the protections our forefathers intended us to have.

The Law is not what I say it is. It is not necessarily what you think it is. There are an endless sea of law graduates who haven’t a clue what it is, and most may never learn. Some of them will become judges. My understanding is that the Law is whatever the last judge to interpret it, said it is.



Whether or not trusts date back to King Tut’s days, we’re really not certain. What we do know is that they became very popular in England about the 11th century and developed out of a common-law scheme called a “use”. In fact, although the Statute of Uses has been set aside in England, it is still a part of our American Trust Laws to this day.

There are a lot of different kinds of trusts out there. Most people are familiar or have at least heard of living trusts. A living trust is usually revocable. It is often used to avoid probate. We will concentrate outside the Reformation of Trusts and focus in on the oldest trust form in America, The Pure Trust.

The trust is a very comprehensive institution. It is as general and elastic as a contract. 76 Am Jur 2 §1. (American Jurisprudence is a set of law encyclopedias like Corpus Juris Secundum, Bogerts on Trusts and Trustees and Words and Phrases. All of the reference books can be located in nearly any public law library.) In fact, one of the most sophisticated trusts which has been used by the wealthiest people in America is really nothing more than a “Contract and Declaration of Trust”. It brings together the elements of contract and agency. It is an Express or Technical trust, in so much as, it is usually created by the will of the settlor while he is alive. For that reason, it could possibly be considered a living trust but not in a statutory sense. A trust arises out of a settlor’s or exchangor’s intent to separate the equitable assets from the legal title.

A lot of people are paying lip service to UBO’s, Common-Law Trusts, Pure Trusts and the like. The IRS would lead us to believe that there isn’t any difference between those just mentioned and a corporation. If you rely on standard legal advice, you will probably concur that they are the device known and described by the IRS as an Unincorporated Organization or “UO”. Sometimes there isn’t any difference because the people who created the trust didn’t know what to do and what not to do. Too often people exchanged their assets for a Trust Certificate appointing some relative or close friend as the trustee and themselves as managers and beneficiaries. This creates a nice group of members for the IRS to attack. Few people, who have been sold trusts by these organizations, were ever informed that the trustee could be held personally liable for the torts of a business trust.


As we discussed earlier, the Pure Trust arises out of a contract. It is not created by statute. This is very important to understand. The Constitution of and for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the land. According to the The Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137, anything contrary to the Constitution is a “…mere nullity. …It purports to settle as though it never existed. The unconstitutionality dates back to its inception.” It is all because of Article VI, Paragraph 2. “…The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Now having said that, keep in mind that our Supreme Court has held that no judge is at liberty when applying the Laws with respect to our Constitution to search for meaning beyond the instrument, when the meaning and intent is clear on its face. Sometime you might want to read Am Jur 2d on the Constitution. How could anyone question what the framers of the Constitution intended under Article I, §10. “…no state shall pass . . .any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, . . .”


The economic problems that life presents to each and every living person are very much the same. They can be reduced to the following: Growing Too Old, Dying Too Young, Rising Prices, Devalued Currency and Taxes. A trust system may be used as a vehicle to organize your affairs and carry you through the problems of life.

I’m not saying that 80 is old, but for some of us it might just prove to be a bit too long to live. That sounds morbid perhaps, but few of us, if any, care to live to be a burden on our children. It’s safe to say that probably no one of a healthy mind would desire to out live their children. But all too often we become too much to handle; and in a few months everything we worked for, which we intended to pass on to our loved ones, is eaten up in nursing home care. What’s left, if anything, is devoured in probate. It’s not what we planned and it doesn’t need to be that way. If I irrevocably exchange my assets into trust I no longer own anything for either the nursing home or State to plunder. My successor trustee goes right on handling the affairs of the trust. “There are often assets in the gross estate that do not go through probate (i.e., jointly held property, life insurance proceeds, and trust assets).” BARRON’S KEYS TO ESTATE PLANNING AND TRUSTS, SECOND EDITION.


This is a problem that every parent has to consider. “What if something were to happen to me, or God forbid, to us. What about the children?” If a common-law trust is properly used, the insurance policies would name the trust as the beneficiary, and the people wouldn’t have any property to leave anyone. If a foreign trust is also used to create the system, the insurance payments could be distributed from the domestic trust to the foreign beneficiary thus there would be no gains or inheritance for the State or Federal Government to confiscate. A successor trustee could manage the funds and invest them for the children’s future. It could all be arranged to where you didn’t leave more than a dime behind. It is a sad thing to think that our government is waiting just behind the mortuary doors. But none-the-less, it is.

Now, for most people, if they could guarantee living a long life, then as they grew older they could simply give their estate to their children so long as it wasn’t too big. I have read a great deal about Howard Hunt. Many pure trust organizations claim that he set all his assets into a Pure Trust and in fact, it is rumored that his trusts now number in the hundreds. Whether that is true or not I don’t know. I have on reliable sources that when he died his personal estate was worth $477 million. He died without a will in 1976, paying 77% in death taxes. Keep in mind the first $600,000 of a person’s estate is not taxable ($1,200,000 in community property states). An estate tax is different than an inheritance tax. The estate tax is applied to the whole estate and the inheritance tax is applied to each individual parties inheritance. It is important to consider that all tax laws apply to citizens or residents of the United States. This will be discussed more fully later on.


These two problems of life go hand in hand. It is almost pointless to try and figure out if the problem is rising prices or devalued currency, or, rising prices and devalued currency. Everyone’s case is a little different. Some people can afford to create elaborate systems distributing millions to offshore trust accounts. Other’s never have those problems to deal with. One thing is for certain; our currency is losing its value. With the current debt crisis, it is only a matter of time before America is going to either raise taxes to the 84% that leading economists and Congressmen are projecting, or do away with the failing IRS and implement a real tax program based upon geography. Of course, to do that they are going to have to repeal a part of the Constitution.
An offshore trust might invest in strong foreign currencies or nontaxable government bonds. We can do some things offshore to hedge against the falling dollar that we can’t do in very many places here in America. Make no mistake about it; the dollars in serious trouble. You may try to buy some Japanese Yen at your bank and see what they say. Most can’t even order the stuff! I understand that there does exist a bank in St. Louis that offers foreign currency, but you still have a serious problem with privacy. Still others argue that when the American economy goes in collapse, the only thing that might be of value is gold, silver or some other precious metal.

With the new anti-crime bills and anti-terrorist legislation federal authorities can now search your bank records without even so much as notifying you that you’re under criminal investigation. Recently on I-10 in Louisiana, Authorities set up a road block and searched vehicles for large sums of cash. In numerous cases, vehicles and large sums of cash were confiscated.
Safe deposit boxes aren’t so safe either. One client told me that she was keeping thousands of dollars in a safe deposit box in hundred dollar bills. When I showed her the magnetic tape in the end of the bill that could be detected by a satellite from space she was outraged.


“There are only two things that I have to do; die and pay taxes.” We’ve all heard that one. But it is a phrase that I suspect was probably started by someone in the IRS. Leave it to the IRS to associate death with not paying “your fair share”. This brings us nicely into the 5th problem facing us today. According to recent congressional reports, the average American is now spending 41% on income taxes. In fact, middle class America is spending more on income taxes than they are on food, clothing and shelter combined. A trust system used properly may reduce or eliminate the government’s claim to your property.

Now perhaps you have been placed on notice of lien or levy by the IRS. If you set your property into trust the courts may set the conveyance aside stating you were only attempting to evade your creditors, i.e. the IRS. However, if you have received a “Notice of Lien or Levy,” you may be a victim of government fraud. To find out whether or not you actually have a lien or levy filed against you, send your name and Social Security Number to: Ms. Kennedy, c/o D.C. Treasury, Records of Deeds, 515 D Street NW, Washington D.C. 20001 and request a certificate showing no liens or levies. The charge is $30.00. Make your check or money order payable to D.C. Treasury and request it by certified mail. Once you have established that there is no real lien or levy filed against you by the Federal Government you might consider exchanging your assets into trust.

My investigation into this whole matter seems to come down to a jurisdictional issue. I have seen letters on two separate occassions written on IRS letterhead, one possessed by a lawyer and the other by a CPA, wherein it stated “Dear taxpayer” the IRS does not issue federal identification numbers for a pure trust as a pure trust has no tax reporting requirements. I’m quick to remember the advice of my grandfather when viewing such documents. However, the IRS is a statutorily created entity. Its foundation is found within the US Code and CFR’s. The US Code standing alone applies to everyone “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” But what does the United States have sovereignty over? It can be found in an endless sea of places but I have never seen it more clearly stated anywhere than in FUNDAMENTALS of LEGAL RESEARCH, a University Textbook Series. The United States has sovereignty over a relatively small number of territories, which are NOT among the fifty states. Each of these territories enjoys some degree of local autonomy, … It goes on to list the more important local sources of law in these territories beginning with American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. In the case of IN RE MERRIAM, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government was a foreign entity with respect to the fifty states. I personally have requested EIN’s on two separate pure trusts pointing out that they were pure trusts and formed under Art. I, Section 10 of the Constitution. Neither request received a response. Look up the definition of United States in Black’s Law Dictionary. You will soon see that the Federal Government has laws which it can apply to those “Citizens” subject to its jurisdicion (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Military Bases, Federal Enclaves and Washington D.C..) that the rest of us have to voluntarily agree to. We have Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights (though they are being eroded away while we sleep). Those people in those territories have Government Granted Privileges. For myself, I live at the common law.

It is important that to learn something about the common-law. For that information, I would refer you to Randy Lee’s materials on the Nonstatutory Abatement Process. Chances are, for an additional $30 and a little time you could avoid any future dealings with the Gestapo. He can be reached at Randy Lee, General Delivery, Canoga Park Post Office, Canoga Park, California. He is “Zip Exempt” and you may place that on the envelope where you would normally write a zip code.

You might be interested in using a trust to operate a business. It has tremendous advantages over a corporation. Remember, a corporation owes its existence to the State or Federal Government. A trust is created by your RIGHT to contract. That is an unalienable right that every American has. You owe no duty to the State since you get nothing from the State. “Anyone competent to contract may make such disposition of the legal title to his property as he pleases, may annex such conditions and limitations to its enjoyment as he chooses, and may vest it in trustees for the purpose of carrying out his intention.” 76 Am Jur 2d §20.


Well of course it can! However, you may want to be careful how you go about doing such a thing. Because the IRS is almost certain to want to attack a trust doing business. You should avoid doing business like a corporation. The trust could be set up so as to avoid membership flags. The best recommendation would be to use one trustee granting the trustee discretionary powers. The next thing would be to allow the trustee to name the beneficiary and to eliminate any power or control that the beneficiary might otherwise have. For this reason, we recommend using an offshore voluntary beneficiary who can offer a nonresident alien status as a benefit for investing purposes.
It is important that the trustee not have any power over the beneficiary and this can be easily and safely arranged. While the beneficiary may have a Certificate of Beneficial Interests representing 100 Units of the trust, they are nonnegotiable and nontransferrable without the consent of the trustee. Now that pretty well takes you out of the organization or association category. Let’s look at what the law books say and view the criteria the IRS must use to prove a UO should be taxed as a corporation.

Let’s take a look at Federal Taxation, 33 Am Jur 2d. Here we can see how the IRS may tax “Organizations” as Corporations. If two of the following four conditions are met, an Unincorporated Organization will be taxed on its profits without allowance for disbursements to its beneficiaries. The beneficiaries may be subject to tax again, just like the shareholders of a corporation. I DO NOT advocate that anyone should attempt to evade taxes. To evade or defeat a tax is against the law and contrary to public policies. DO NOT DO IT! However, it is legal to arrange your affairs so as to minimize or avoid taxable income. It is really important to understand the difference between avoiding the “income tax” and avoiding “taxable income”. One is legal while the other is dangerous to your freedom.
Section 2014. Continuity of organization. “Continuity of organization means that the death, insanity, bankruptcy, retirement, resignation or expulsion of any member will not result in a dissolution of the organization.”
Section 2015. Centralized management. “‘Centralized Management’ means that one or more members of a group (but not all) have the exclusive authority to make the management (as opposed to the ministerial) decisions for the business without ratification by the members as a whole.”
Section 2016. Limited liability. “There is limited liability only if no member is liable for the organization’s debts which cannot be satisfied from the organization’s assets.”
Section 2017. Free transferability of interests. “Free transferability exists only if each of the members who own substantially all of the interests in the organization is able to substitute for himself a third person who is not a member. The right to substitute must be complete. For example, it cannot be merely a right to assign a share in the profits without an interest in the management.”


Special emphasis has been added regarding the term “member”. It would seem to follow that a sole trustee who is not associated with the beneficiary does not constitute “members of a group”, association or organization. (That is if the law is not subject to interpretation when it is clear upon its face!)

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY states, “A trust can be created for any purpose which is not illegal, and which is not against public policy.” Collins v. Lyon, Inc., 181 Va. 230, 24 S.E.2d 572, 579.

If it were possible to guarantee a fair trial in America, we would all be safe to operate as nonresident aliens under the tax code, because that is how most of us are defined by Congress. There will be more on this issue a little later on.


One last problem which deserves notice is the problem of law suits in America; a child is bitten by your dog, a family member’s negligence causes an auto accident. Personally, this writer believes that this is a much over-rated area of concern. Having spent twenty years handling insurance claims, it is a rare case when an injured person brings an action for recovery in excess of one’s policy limits. The reasons are simple. In most cases it would involve the claimant’s attorney to actually perform some services and it usually isn’t worth their time. That doesn’t say much for the average plaintiff attorney but most are into quantity – not quality. It is simply easier for them to paint a dismal picture to their clients than it is to seek justice in the courts. What motivates them to be in such a hurry? When the value of a claim clearly exceeds the insured parties policy limits and liability is certain, the insurance company will write their insured a letter explaining that the claim may exceed their coverage and suggest that they hire their own attorney to guard their interests beyond the stated policy limits. Then the company instructs their attorney to “tender” their limits to the court. If the company can secure a release for their limits and they fail to do so, they effectively no longer have any limits. Therefore, the company is usually more than willing to pay their policy limits in strong cases presented against their insured’s rather than go the distance in court. To defend a law suit an insurance company is going to spend $25,000.00 to $250,000.00 or more. Now the plaintiff’s attorney would also like to settle out of court. His reasoning is that one is better to have a bird in the hand, rather than twelve in the box. Juries do some very strange things as any experienced litigator will testify. They are difficult to count on. For those reasons and more, most liability claims settle out of court and law suits aren’t as big a threat as some trust companies would have you believe. (Again, I’m not an experience litigator.)

On the other hand, to place your assets into trust does add an extra layer of protection. Suppose someone was to get a judgment against you. If you didn’t own anything, you could simply go bankrupt and end the matter. Bankruptcy is another good reason to place your assets into trust. After two years, it seldom occurs that a bankruptcy court will set aside the conveyance, so long as the original intent of the settlor was not to evade creditors. I have a close friend who went bankrupt with approximately $800,000.00 setting in trust. After the bankruptcy was over, the trust purchased a $325,000.00 house and allowed her to live in it for absolutely nothing. The trust even paid the utility bills.


Perhaps you want to get started by opening a bank account offshore. It is getting more and more difficult to do. In the Bahamas, you have to go there in person, fill out their request forms and then wait. It is a lot easier if you own property there and plan to be there several months each year.

If you’re a little more bold, you might choose to establish your own bank charter. That offers a wide variety of potential depending on your interests and creativity. From the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean to Vanuatu in the South Pacific, setting up your own bank can be accomplished for approximately 40 to 50 thousand dollars. The privacy and advantages of owning your own bank may exceed your wildest dreams. While success stories in the US have been severely tempered in recent years with the declining US economy; offshore they are a growing phenomenon. A lot of mis and dis information is put out by the US government. It appears they want to color everyone operating offshore as a criminal in the drug or gun smuggling rackets. However, the evidence seems to suggest that only the U.S. Government would dare attempt to run a drug and weapons business offshore from out of the basement of the White House. Remember Iran/Contra? Most private offshore businesses are legitimate and well intentioned.

It is well worth noting, that according to MODERN MONEY MECHANICS, published by The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, we as individuals don’t really own any money. We are merely the “holders” of the money in our possession. In fact, every time we sign a credit card voucher we create the very money we just thought we borrowed and then we pay someone else interests to use the money that we just created. Is anyone familiar with check kiting? Isn’t that the process by which a person writes a check to deposit in an account so as to cover checks previously written? According to the Federal Reserve, in 1990, we had created nearly 10 times as much money as we had cash to account for. I don’t know if they used real figures. What do you think?

There are tremendous advantages to having a checking account offshore. First of all, it takes 4 to 6 weeks for a check to clear an offshore bank. If you have an interest bearing checking account and use it to pay your monthly bills, it allows you to draw interest on the money until the check clears the bank. Study the Uniform Commercial Code and you’ll learn the difference between discharging and paying a debt. Since most lawful money (gold and silver coin) has been virtually eliminated, few debts in this country are ever paid; most are simply discharged by a check, Federal Reserve Note or credit card. So, you may use a check written on a foreign bank to discharge your monthly debts so long as its good. Should a creditor refuse to honor your payment, some courts would say the debt is no longer owed.

There are many offshore banks that offer debit cards. They work the same as US debit cards EXCEPT they don’t have a Social InSecurity Number attached. There are a number of laws and reporting requirements concerning offshore transfers. Your bank is supposed to report all check or cash transactions offshore in excess of $3000.00, however, I understand from talking the attorneys in the Bahamas that you may currently wire as much as you like to an offshore bank account without encountering government interference. (You should confirm this for yourself or simply ask O.J.) If you want privacy, you have to somehow pass beyond the boundaries of the US. Before the US Dollar falls, I strongly recommend moving out of the danger zone. There is little time left. I am excited to be a part of this time in history. While it is certainly scary on the home front, billions will be made in the offshore arena. New Ross Perots are coming but not from the American Dream.


Who are the Nonresident Alien Americans?

While one may turn arguing the law into a poetic art form; it is equally a science. One interpretation I found written inside the cover of one of my antique law books on the North Carolina Constitution stated, “The law is the latest interpretation of the law given by the last judge.” However, under the law, an individual should be able to apply the same set of rules to a given set of facts in a controlled environment and achieve the same results. The law should not be randomly applied and enforced. When laws are violated, resulting consequences should follow. Law is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. as, That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

The Federal Government (Corporate United States) has redefined many words. We can only speculate as to the government’s motives, but the implications are that they wanted to trick or coerce individuals into paying for something they simply didn’t owe. I believe that the law is not necessarily what the IRS says it is. It is what has been written down and approved by both houses and then signed into law and then published in the Federal Register. Unfortunately, a great many of the laws today are brought about by Presidential Executive Order which has very little to do with the “will of the people”.


In order to understand how tax laws are being misapplied, we must look to the law and see what it says. I am perhaps guilty of professing many childish beliefs. I often see myself, reflecting back over my childhood, sliding down the old tin roof on the back of my families barn. In the heat of the summer my brother and I would run barefoot through the tender spring below my house. In those innocent days of my youth I remember my grandmother telling me that God outlawed slavery and sent Moses to lead his people out of bondage. That through out history, God has always worked to free his children, and mankind has violently opposed Him. I grew up in a small town in the Midwest. I grew up believing in my Grandmother. Perhaps you did too. So, why not walk barefoot with me for a short distance. Perhaps in our journey, if we’re silent for a moment, we’ll become familiar with our own cries? Perhaps “we the people”, in this modern age will one day cross the great river of denial and find we’re still in slavery? Perhaps we’ll find ourselves feeling for the spirit of Moses, praying that we too are somehow delivered; rescued; saved? Perhaps?

Where do those Nonresident Aliens come from anyway?

How do you suppose the government would succeed at getting 180 million people to voluntarily become taxpayers? They may do it by redefining certain terms, like person, resident or citizen within the codes and regulations so that most people would never realize that they are no longer what they think they are. And, by remaining blind to the changes in the actual codes and regulations, having been given no reasons to change their beliefs, they unknowingly expatriated their Citizenship from the united states of America and become citizens of the United States (Corporate Government).

We will begin our look into this matter with the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701, Definitions. As you read the material from the Code, keep in mind that throughout the Constitution of 1776 and through the first 11 Amendments, (the first 10 of which formed the Bill of Rights), Citizen always began in upper case. Citizens have been ignored, without having ever been formally conquered, since 1868.

IR Code Sec. 7701(43)(b)(1)(B). Nonresident alien. An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)). (emphasis added)
The following three points or premises must be established in order to qualify as a nonresident alien:
1. Nonresident alien status applies only to individuals.
2. An “individual” cannot be a citizen of the United States.
3. An “individual” cannot be a resident of the United States.
In order to apply the above rules, definitions are required. Primarily, the definitions of “individual”, “citizen of the United States”, and “United States”. Remember, Congress has redefined certain words. While we think we understand the meaning we must caution ourselves not to take our definitions for granted.

What is an Individual?

An “individual” is not defined in the IR Code. The IR Code specifically defines “person” but not “individual”. Franklin Roosevelt once said that nothing Congress does is ever by accident. Our Congress has spent hours, days, weeks and even months rewriting legislation so that capitalization and punctuation was exactly as they intended. Congress, in a negative sense, did define “individual” in the IR code. In the Table of Contents of the IR Manuel, there is a section relating to “Individual Taxpayers” but “Individual Taxpayers” are not specifically defined in the IR Code either. However, in relating to the material concerning “Individual Taxpayers” it pertains to corporations, bankruptcies of all types concerning IR Codes and Regulations as well as Retirement Accounts and many other things involving artificial entities. The IR Code does not state that an “individual is a person”. It defines a “person” as an “individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation”. If the IR Code wanted to include an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation in the definition of nonresident alien, then it would have properly used the word “person” because “person” is defined in the code as such. Remember, nothing Congress does is ever by accident. They didn’t accidentally use the wrong word. They didn’t say “person” but mean “individual”. Did Congress believe that most people would reason that they were a “person” without ever looking to see how Congress defined “person”? Are you a “person”? According to the IR Code, I’m not. It is not within the readers ability, legally or otherwise, to alter the words in the published document so as to alter the intent of Congress. Therefore, trusts, estates, partnerships, associations, companies, corporations and Individual Taxpayers are excluded from the meaning of the word “individual” as it pertains to the nonresident aliens. We can see that according to the intent of Congress, a “nonresident alien” is first, a private or natural person, not an artificial, public entity of commerce.

We may find the definition for “Individual” in Black’s Law Dictionary. Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive significance is not necessarily inherent in the word, and it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See also Person. Applying the findings of the IR Code concerning nonresident aliens to Black’s Law Dictionary, we can safely define an “Individual”. Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association.

What is a citizen of the United States?

The first place in the Constitution that Citizen of the United States appears is Article I. Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Through out the original Constitution, when the phrase Citizen of the United States appears the “C” on Citizen is always upper case; no exceptions. The word Citizen is not used in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights refers only to “the people”. In Amendment XI, ratified February 7, 1795, it states, “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Again, the “C” is upper case.

The first place in the Constitution that “citizen of the United States” appears (citizen with a lower case “c”) is in Amendment XIV, theoretically ratified July 9, 1868. (Don’t you suppose President Johnson had his security council up all night trying to figure out, “How they were going to legally ratify a bill while the Southern States were still under martial law?”) This lower case “c” “citizen of the United States” stands out like a sore thumb, yet there appears to be little written on this subject. At first glance the opening sentence of Amendment XIV seems to include every American, but with a little focus, it is revealed that it really excludes nearly every American.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

“And” is a conjunction which requires both premises joined to be true in order to bring about the logical result. The syllogism would read something like this: John was born in Washington D.C. (the United States). John is employed by the Imperial Government. Therefore, John is a citizen of the United States. Prior to the 14th Amendment, people born in the United States whose parents were citizens of other countries, were not automatically considered either, Citizens or citizens of the United States. These individuals were not allowed ‘privileges or immunities’ for merely being born in the United States. (U.S. Sup.1915) The status of persons as citizens or aliens depends entirely upon the Constitution of the United States and the acts of Congress pursuant thereto. – (1913) Mackenzie v. Hare, 134 P. 713, 165 Cal. 776, L.R.A. 1916D, 127, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 261, decree affirmed 36 S.Ct. 106, 239, U.S. 299, 60 L.Ed.297, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 645. In the case of United States v. Sibray, 178 F.150, Where two children were born to a female alien after her entry into the United States, the children were citizens and not subject to deportation, either in proceedings for the deportation of the mother, or at all.- The alien mother was forced to file an action against the United States in order to maintain custody of her own children. In Sibray v. United States, 185 F.401, the court reversed it previous findings and allowed the mother to be deported with her children. The children qualified as ‘citizens of the United States’ by privilege of birth and not by any inherited right (by blood).

In United States v. Hom Lim, 214 F. 456, A Chinese born in the United States is, by virtue of the fourteenth amendment, a citizen of the United States, and he is lawfully within the United States and cannot be arrested without a warrant or on a warrant unless based on a complaint showing a statement of fact by some responsible person from which the charge of unlawful presence in the country may be deduced. This matter involving a citizen of the United States involved an arrest without a warrant and was reversed 223 F. 520, 139 C.C.A. 68. Warrants were matters pertaining to the 4th Amendment (The right of the people. . .) and did not automatically extend to ‘citizens of the United States’. The 14th Amendment did not specifically mention Warrants, or Oaths or affirmations, but merely due process of law. Due Process of Law. . . .Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. While both the 5th and 14th Amendments contain Due Process Clauses they differ in their application. Due Process clause. Two such clauses are found in the U.S. Constitution, one in the 5th Amendment pertaining to the federal government, the other in the 14th Amendment which protects persons from state actions. There are two aspects: procedural, in which a person is guaranteed fair procedures and substantive which protects a person’s property from unfair government interference or taking. Similar clauses are in most state constitutions. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

In Chin Wah v. United States, 43 App. D.C. 38, One born of Chinese parents domiciled in one of the states of the Union, and not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity, becomes at his birth a citizen of the United States, under Const. Amend. 14.

The Rights v. Privileges and Immunities argument resulting from the adoption of the 14th Amendment establishes two classes of citizenship. The first class is referred to in the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. They are the Citizens who were “endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable “(not able to lien or levy) “Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The second class created under the 14th Amendment is referred to as subjects . .and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . .” Citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Jurisdiction. A term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action. . . .Areas of authority; the geographic area in which a court has power or types of cases it has power to hear. . . .Scope and extent of jurisdiction of federal courts is governed by 28 U.S.C.A.§ 1251 et seq. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. 76 Am Jur 2nd, United States, JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY WITHIN TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF STATES. Exclusive jurisdiction over lands situated within the boundaries of a state vests in the United States in one of three ways: (1) by transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to Article 1, §8, Clause 17, of the United States Constitution; (2) by cession from the sate to the Federal Government and proper acceptance and notification of the latter; or (3) by reservation by the Federal Government upon admission of a state into the Union. Where the United States acquires property within the boundaries of a state without the consent of the state and other than by purchase, its jurisdiction may not be exclusive. Citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are those referred to as “citizens of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof; in the 14th Amendment”, “Citizens on federal land that the United States has jurisdiction over”, “Citizens who have somehow violated a federal law” and “Citizens who have knowingly and willingly entered into a contract in writing granting jurisdiction to the United States”.

How does Congress define resident of the United States?

In order to determine what a resident of the United States is we will examine Title 26, § 7701(b)(2)(A). Resident alien. An alien individual shall be treated as a resident of the United States with respect to any calendar year if (and only if) such individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or (iii):
(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Such individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during such calendar year.
(ii) Substantial presence test. Such individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).
(iii) First year election. Such individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).
The Substantial Presence test states that a person is considered a resident if an individual was present in the United States on at least 31 days and the sum total days exceeds 183. United States is defined in the IR Code.
7701(a)(9) The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. State. The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title. The Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, §17018 defines State as: The term ‘State’ includes [only] the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States. TITLE 28 § 1746 US Code: Unsworn Declarations Under Penalty of Perjury. (1) If executed without the United States: “I declare under penalty under the laws of the united States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature) (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)

“A Citizen of one of the 50 states, is not a citizen subject to its jurisdiction but a Sovereign” Citizens NOT born within a territory over which the United States is Sovereign, are not citizens “subject to the jurisdiction” and, except for the few matters specifically delegated it by the Constitution, the United States has NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY over them! Further, federal legislation (ie. the Internal Revenue Code) is NOT applicable to Citizens unless such legislation, specifically defines the term United States to include the 50 sovereign states. The term “State” in federal legislation means “Territorial States” under the exclusive jurisdiction of United States and DOES NOT include the 50 sovereign states! Following are two supreme Court decisions substantiating that fact:

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, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S.281 (1948).

The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Cahl v. US, 152 U.S. 211

What is a Foreign Estate or Trust?

In many instances, in order to understand what something is, it often helps to understand what it is not. A foreign estate or trust is not a “United States person” by the definition found in Title 26, § 7701(a)(30). United States person. The term ‘United States person’ means-
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(We have already covered this area in depth.)
(B) a domestic partnership,
§7701(4) Domestic. The term ‘domestic’ when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or any State. (See the term ‘State’ defined above)
(C) a dome corporation; and
§7701(3) Corporation. The term ‘corporation’ includes associates, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.
(D) any estate or trust (other than a foreign estate or foreign trust, within the meaning of section 7701(a)(31)).
7701(a)(31) Foreign Estate or trust. The terms ‘foreign estate’ or ‘foreign trust’ mean an estate or trust, as the case may be, the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includable in gross income under Subtitle A.

According to 7701(a)(31) a ‘foreign estate’ or ‘foreign trust’ is determined not by being in a distant land, but rather based on the source of its “income”. Now there are three more terms to be defined in order to determine what the law says. #1. We must determine what an “income” is; #2, we must define the phrase, “from sources without the United States”; and #3, we must find the meaning of the phrase, “connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States”.
Income. A general definition of income is not provided in the IR Code. The Supreme Court has ruled, “. . .Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of income, it imports something distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities… We must reject in this case… the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts, everything that comes in – are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income’…” – Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 330.

“…it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not ‘income,’ according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation, alter the Constitution, from which it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations, alone, that power can be lawfully exercised. …Income is Derived from capital the gain derived from capital, etc. Here we have the essential matter – not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value…severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being ‘derived,’ that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal — that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description…” Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.

“…it[income] should include ‘profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets’. There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress, that it was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court… In determining the definition of the word ‘income’ thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what is believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution…” Merchants Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509

There is a great deal of case law, political quotes and dictionary definitions to support the definitions offered. In short, “Income has been defined by the supreme Court to be a ‘profit or gain‘ derived from various sources.” Jeffrey A. Dickstein, Constitutional Tax Expert.

The second definition we seek is to understand the phrase, “from sources without the United States”. The United States which we have already determined means Washington D.C. and it’s territories and possessions of the United States. Without. Outside; beyond; in excess of. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. This phrase then means “from sources (origins) outside or beyond Washington D.C. and the territories and possessions of the United States.

And, “connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States” would simply translate into, “connected with the conduct of a trade or business inside the limits of Washington D.C. and the territories and possessions of the United States.

Now, with terms defined, let us look again at foreign estate or foreign trust:
7701(a)(31) Foreign Estate or trust. The terms ‘foreign estate’ or ‘foreign trust’ mean an estate or trust, as the case may be, the ‘corporate profit or gain’ of which, from ‘origins’ ‘outside Washington D.C. and the territories and possession of the United States’ which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business ‘inside the limits of Washington D.C. and the territories and possessions of the United States’, is not includable in gross income under Subtitle A.
All pure trust organizations that are properly formed under the common law are really outside the United States (Washington D.C. and the territories and possessions of the United States). By definition they fall under the category of ‘foreign trusts’. (Although, you are not likely to receive a fair determination in a US Court of Law.) According the Title 26, the IR Code, they need not be registered nor do they require a EIN unless they are earning a “source income” from within the United States.

The proper form for a ‘foreign estate’, ‘foreign trust’ or ‘nonresident alien’, (who is taking up housekeeping in one of the 50 states), to file is the W-8 and not the W-4. Do not use a taxpayer identification number on the W-8 or you will not qualify as a ‘foreign trust’ or ‘nonresident alien’. The Social Security Number or EIN makes you ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ and thus you fall under the 14th Amendment and don’t qualify to use the W-8 form.

In the financial world the legal implications of words such as ACTIVE AND PASSIVE and FORM AND SUBSTANCE are key words to consider. You may establish the form, but you must also create the substance. It’s not enough to get behind the wheel, but you must also put the car into motion. These are the areas where an aggressive government most often attacks. The more substance and action you can create, (such as offshore bank accounts for offshore trusts) the harder it is to set aside your conveyances. If your assets are sufficient, you may even consider hiring a management company to handle your offshore business. If your a real serious investor than maybe you should own a bank.

There are countless trust companies forming in the US offering common-law trusts. Many claim their trusts have some magical powers in dealing with the government. Many use fabricated Trust Identification Numbers that look and smell like a Government Issued EIN. We do not necessarily recommend this practice. As far as the trust documents go, there is really no mystery. Anyone can go to a law library and look up 17 Am Jur Leg Forms 2d and find an endless supply of statutory trusts already written. With a few modifications you’re probably looking at something very close to what everyone is selling. I have gone to the Bahamas, hired a Bahamian Attorney, and retrieved a copy of the Bahamian Trust Laws. I spent nearly $30,000.00 in travel and attorney expenses and invested 3 years studying the trust business. If you have the time and the money you can do it too. A foreign corporation can be set up in the Bahamas for any where from $1,500.00 to $2,500.00 and the annual maintenance fees begin around $650.00 per year. You’ll still need at least one foreign trust, preferably two; and they seem to start at $3,000.00 each with a minimum annual maintenance fee of $2,000.00. Oh yes, the minimum opening balance for a trust in the Bahamas by a Bahamian company is approximately $500,000.00. They like serious investors. We researched two of their larger trust companies and left with two concerns about each. First, they didn’t care much for Americans and told us so. Second, they didn’t understand our tax laws. Neither of the companies we talked with were aware of a 35% excise tax for direct transfers by a US person into a foreign trust or corporation.

I am not a lawyer, a tax expert or a CPA. I do not practice or do law, whatever that is. I am a student of Life. Prior to acting on any information contained in this works, it is your duty to confirm all premises put forth. You must draw your own conclusions and accept whatever risk, acting on those ideas may create. This work is my spiritual analysis of what the law says. No where has this writer ever seen it written, where anyone under martial rule is guaranteed a fair determination with regards to individual human rights. Whether you realize it or not, this country has been under martial rule and operated under the emergency powers executive orders of the President for 126+ years.

The Honorable Henry G. Conner stated, “The Convention, at its session in May, 1866, revised the Constitution of 1776, as amended in 1835, and submitted their work to the people, who rejected it by a vote of 21,552 to 19,570.. . . The Constitution was not acceptable to the conservative element, or the white men of the State. It was however, at an election held under military orders, April 24th, 1868, ratified by a vote of 93,118 to 74,009. Of the former a very large number were Negroes. The vote against ratification was entirely by the whites and would have been much larger but for the disfranchisement of a large number of them. . . .The working of the new system, which it would seem should have been, and, by many, was foreseen, constitutes an interesting, and by no means pleasant, chapter of our history. Within two years the inevitable results of a government “not of their own institution” were manifest to the people of the State. At the election of 1870 a thorough change was brought about in the personnel and political complexion of the General Assembly. Under power conferred by the Legislature (1868-9), the Governor had organized a military force, declared several counties in a state of insurrection, arrested citizens and refused to obey the writ of habeas corpus issued by the Chief Justice.” Henry G. Connor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in THE CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA – ANNOTATED.


I am contacted several times each week by people, who have been referred to me by word of mouth, who are interested in setting up a trust. Sometimes I help them but most of the time I’m asked to look at what they have already paid someone thousands of dollars for. There are people out there selling “Dry” trusts which are absolutely VOID. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Simply stated, a trust cannot exist if a “res” (property to be obtained) has not been established. Don’t allow your fears to drive you crazy. Hell you just as well give your money to the a dishonest government as some shyster. There isn’t two cents worth of difference.

Remember the words of Adolph Hitler, “How fortunate for those in power that the people never think.”

“I think I’ve put enough disclaimers on here, but in just in case I needed one more let me say this: Standing up to claim your rights can be one of the most terrifying experiences you’ll ever know. Personally, I think it’s one worth knowing, but you’ll discover, as I have, should you choose to stand, that you’re usually standing alone. When you’ve been silently branded by the government TC 148 Hold ISP and treated like some criminal or outcast without so much as a formal charge being filed against you, then you’ll know some of the Truth. When you’ve been taken in chains before the King’s Court and cast into a dungeon, perhaps you’ll pray like Brave Heart for the strength to endure the King’s torture. There are people in our prisons today serving time for a number of nonexistent crimes. The United States is becoming the punishment capital of the world. What better way for a corporate government to acquire FREE LABOR?”

Reporting for The Dream is Alive!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *