 | Friday, March 19, 2010
Christian Walters explains TRUST
2010 01 26 Money Banking and Trusts by Moving Titles in Commerce with Christian Walters.
Concise Explanation of NTT as a Remedy.
(Comments in [ ] are the transcriber's or additions to reference materials by Christian Walters.)
Talking about trusts and reading in the book Gilbert Law Summaries - Trusts by Albert C. Halbach, Jr.
It's all about trusts. A gentleman asked a question earlier and I would like to explain. Everything I've been doing in the past, I've realized it was debtor-creditor and I realized that we were doing everything all wrong and backwards. I really changed my whole focus. Everything is completely different now. I'm gearing everything towards trusts. It really makes more sense. Once you get into trusts and study trusts you find out a lot of what didn't jive under debtor-creditor all of a sudden makes sense under trusts. I'm switching everything into the trust mode. Instead of doing debtor-creditor I am going to stick with trusts. I'm going to live, eat, and sleep trusts. For those of you who haven't been in it since we started switching over back in November of last year, November, December, and January, I would suggest that you go back and check out my website, which is movingtitles.com. Keep and update on that sight as I'm putting different information on there and gearing that sight solely towards trusts. I'm leaving the debtor-creditor behind. Not that I might never use it as a hybrid, but you really can't get a remedy as secured party creditor. Your remedy is in trusts and it's commerce through trusts and equity. In a trust you are the lender of an asset held in special deposit and if you don't express the trust you are the debtor under the UCC debtor-creditor relationship. You would have to bond the case and the bond is really with the trust. A bond is a trust in a trust relationship. Here we have been talking about trusts all along but we've been construing it, along with everybody else because we never expressed it as a trust, so they are construing it and getting us to function under debtor-creditor, under UCC, Accept For Value/Return For Value (AFV/RFV), and everything like that.
We have things in trust that are similar to those, although I wouldn't call them Accept For Value. It's all really explained in Gilbert Law Summaries - Trusts as a basic primer for statutory trusts, which is really the black. The trust that we really are talking about is the white trust, which is opposite the black, but if I teach what the black is you'll know the white by sight. To give an example: The AFV/RFV under debtor-creditor, which in my opinion and the evidence I've discovered, which is not exactly strictly opinion but based on the evidence I've discovered, what we were doing by AFV/RFV was creating a lien, which was under UCC, which was a negotiable instrument and anything under negotiable instrument law is debtor-creditor and you are creating a debt. A debt is what we are using as money in the system today and it is functioning as credit. Credit is what we use as money. These liens that we are creating that we were putting our unqualified signature to, which is the rule of the signature that I go by in expressing the trust, but since we are not expressing it as a trust we are creating a lien, so what we are doing is just making a bigger debt to pay another debt. We got double debt upon debt. They love us for that because we are creating more money for them to utilize. Here all along we thought we were getting some kind of set-off and we weren't even touching the set-off on the private side. We weren't doing a discharge on the public side. We were just adding to the debt, the public debt. It is my conclusion that we no longer any AFV/RFV because there is a better route and that route is 180 degrees the other direction. I think that is what they were using to lead us down the path by giving us a few bones here and there of successes because I don't know anyone at all who can claim a 100% success rate on any methodology that they use out there. No matter from A-Z, whether it was litigation, redemption, OID methodology. Everybody has a success rate of about the same. That made me wonder why. Why is it that it looks like you could through a garbage can lid in there and get a remedy to some degree? When somebody could take somebody's success and duplicate it exactly the same way and they don't get a success. That made me wonder why.
Then with this trust stuff I was studying all along the more I studied trust my eyes got opened up to the fact that hey it's been trusts all along. All of us has been talking about trusts but we have been talking about trusts only in a protection method for protecting assets. That was just a device for protecting assets of the debtor from the creditor attacking him. We want to put it into trusts, treating trusts not as a defense move, but solely as an offensive move. I've been finding out that's what they have been coming at us with all along. It just looked like debtor-creditor because debtor-creditor and trust relationships are so closely related they look similar on the surface. When you dig down in there you will find out they are a little bit different. When you find out trusts are operating in a totally different world , in equity, and here we thought it was Admiralty all along, which is nothing more than debtor-creditor. They were taking you into Admiralty to force you into breach of contract but really there can't be any contract because there is no money. You can't give a value for consideration. Under trusts you don't have to give a value of anything, it's a thing. Whatever the thing is, the res, that is what is put into the trust. That's the principle, that is the property. That alone should tell us something. The fact that most of us were getting … The debtor-creditor relationship is so closely related to the trust that you have to dig down into a little bit. Plus, it operates solely in equity and that is where the trust power is. That was like the Admiralty coming at you under debtor-creditor, which was operating and taking you into equity and then for the enforcement. Then you got the breach of the duty under equity because equity is not compelling you to do the duty. When you didn't do the duty you wound up in jail or you owed a debt and they foreclosed. Really it is the same as the trust. What we thought was Admiralty, or debtor-creditor, was really trust. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it's a duck! We are talking about the actions of a trust. If it walks like a trust, talks like a trust, then it is a trust. That's the whole secret. No parties in the trust need to know they are forming a trust, including the Grantor, the Trustee, and the Beneficiary. That does not negate the fact that a trust was formed. If the law recognizes a trust then there is a trust.
As long as I have the Elements - intent, purpose, parties, and specific res, and one of the methods of formation then I have a trust. As long as I can prove that, after I've made a claim it's a trust, then I have standing to come in and make a claim as say the beneficiary and say that the trustee didn't make a payment, or disbursement. Then the burden of proof, after I get a prima facie case against the trustee, a court of equity assumes that the trustee is guilty.
prima facie, adj. Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted .
Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1228 (8th ed. 2004)
That is exactly what they were doing when they took you from Admiralty into equity. The same thing happened there. The strength comes in equity where the court is going to assume the trustee is guilty, didn't make a payment, and the only way that the trustee can prove that he is innocent is that if he has a record that he made a payment. The only thing a court wants to know at that point when are you going to make a payment. If you are not going to make a payment then you are in contempt. There is where the power of the trust comes in. It’s in equity. Here all along we were talking about a trust operating in equity with a different face mask, thinking it was debtor-creditor or Admiralty and it was not. They are tricking us to come under debtor-creditor, under UCC, creating these negotiable instruments thinking we are going to do a set-off or discharge and there is no way possible. How does one get a remedy then?
Even though the remedy is not in the creditor-debtor relationship, the secured party creditor, the remedy is in trust, commerce through trust. It's not knowing who you are as a secured party creditor. It has nothing to do with that. That is going in the opposite direction. Knowing who you are as Grantor is the important part. If you are the Grantor of the trust, and say the beneficiary in one case, or maybe the Grantor and the Trustee, then you've got different powers through the parties, whichever way you want to play it. The key is whoever is the signer on the instrument, that was the Grantor of the whole thing to begin with. That is where it all began. If you didn't express it to be a trust from the beginning, here it was a trust because there is no money, and everything has to be a trust. When you go to the grocery store to buy groceries you think you are paying for something with Federal Reserve Notes, and that is just your purchase, you aren't purchasing anything. You are forming a trust. The same way at the gas station when you buy gasoline for your car. You aren't buying gas, you are forming a trust. Everything today has to be a trust. We are forming hundreds of trusts a day probably in some cases. Are we treating them as trusts? Did we realize they were trusts? I don't think so. Now, if they give me an offer that comes in the mail in an electric bill I'm going to treat it as a trust. It's an offer for a debtor-creditor relationship only if you don't know that it is a trust. I'm going to express it as being a trust by forming the four elements necessary. I am going to have intent, purpose, parties, and specific res. I'm going to turn that offer into the specific res. I'm going to return it to them as the special deposit under trusts.
If you look under Black's 4th Edition Revised it says under the definition of trust deposit -
trust deposit - a trust deposit is for the purpose of the depositor to make a payment for an obligation or a debt, or some other purpose.
Whatever the Grantor wants to do he really can do, as long as it's for a lawful means. I could use that deposit to pay a debt or an obligation. I could give the specific order to do conversion and convert the assets to say money, whatever their money is, and take care of the debt. The remedy is really not in debtor-creditor it is under trusts. We are really moving titles in trusts functioning as commerce. My bond is my word and my word is really my bond and really we are talking about a trust, a pledge, a duty, an obligation for a party called the Trustee to do whatever the will or the purpose of the Grantor for the benefit of another party. The third party could be another party or it could even be the Beneficiary or the Grantor himself. So, what I liken to debtor-creditor under AFV/RFV is really in Gilbert Law Summaries - Trust on page 127 under A. there and §441 it is talking about the Alienability of Beneficiary's Interest. We also want to see §98 on page 27 for a tie in.
1. Right to Transfer - In General [§441]
Beneficial interests in a trust are freely alienable [that is a lien] by the beneficiaries, unless there is a valid provision to the contrary in the trust instrument. Thus, a beneficiary can assign, pledge, or encumber her interest, or even transfer it in trust for another. Also, if the interest is not conditioned on the beneficiary's survival, it will pass by will or by intestate succession.
a. Rationale
The beneficiaries are equitable owners of the trust estate; their interests [title] are property, and each therefore has power to transfer and convey her interest in the trust to the same extent that she could transfer her other property.
b. Transferee's right [§442] [Here is what is likened to AFV/RFV, but is not actually that.]
A beneficiary can assign only such interest in the trust as she has. The transfer is not a transfer of the trust res itself, but only of an equitable interest [beneficial title] therein. Whatever conditions or limitations [a lien] attached to the beneficiary's interest prior to the assignment apply against the assignee.
15:20 That becomes the hot potato. Whoever I give it to or assign it to now has the hot potato. That would be the person I would return it to. Once it's attached to the beneficiaries interest I flip it, flip the hot potato to the new assignee and that hot potato transfers with it. There is your AFV. That is how we would treat something similar under trust but it is likened to a debtor-creditor. It comes into being able to make the claim that there is a trust. What if the judge says, "I don't see a trust here."? You have to prove a trust. That was the Mac Truck door opening for you to drive that truck through when the judge says that. That is an opportunity to prove the case, that there is a trust. How am I going to prove that there is a trust? Intent and purpose is by the Grantor. That is pretty simple. The parties is also simple. There are only 3 parties to the trust, Grantor, Trustee, and Beneficiary. Since I am the Grantor making this out, signing everything, granting everything by my signature all I have to do is define who the Beneficiary is and who the Trustee is. Then the specific res would be the actual offer itself, or the case itself, what I would turn into the trust res by claiming by using the moving titles platform. If there was not a title I would have to create a title first, claim that title, then merge that and move that title if necessary if I wanted to terminate the case. Or, I could come in and compel the Trustee to do the duty for the disbursement if he didn't do it. There are two options there I have. The 3rd step is to collect on the disbursement, after I expressed and proved the trust in the 1st step. Step 2 would be creating, claiming, moving, and merging the titles. Then Step 3 would be collecting on the disbursement. Whichever way I do number 2 I'm going to end up with the same thing in number 3, collection on the disbursement. I've got the specific trust res as property. I'm putting it into special deposit, once I put it into special deposit for the purpose of whatever I wanted to use it for the Beneficiary. If I am the Beneficiary and the Grantor then the Trustee has to do the duty to say pay the obligation, which is nothing more than the same scenario on a mortgage. Everything is really operating the same way. Once we get the model down we can put the model up and apply it to anything at all, any kind of offer that comes into the mail, whether it be an indictment, a charge for a bill, or whatever you want to call it.
19:00 Proving that trust I am going to have to be able to create records that are evidence that are not objected to in court. I have to know a little bit about evidence rules and one of the things we use is a notary because a notary's record is self-authenticating and is outside the hearsay objection to hearsay rule. That is why we use a notary on everything. A notary is going to certify it and that notary record actually becomes the evidence I need to prove the trust because a trust forms upon the present transfer of the trust property (the offer). Whatever the trust property is, the specific trust res, when I form a record of a transfer, which is one of the methods of formation of a trust. When I have two records to substantiate the transfer then I've created a trust. There are 4 Methods of Creation of a trust. 1. Declaration by words or conduct; 2. Transfer, which is under UCC 3-200s, which is negotiation. a. endorsement, which is a signature. Anytime somebody signs that is an endorsement. b. delivery; c. assignment - that is what we are going to do on a UCC3 after we claim it on a UCC1; d. by operation of law. 3. Appointment. 4. Contract - which is going to be formed in the future in the trust. The one we are going to use the most is number 2. Transfer, which is going to be an endorsement and a delivery. I'm going to prove endorsement on a Green card sent by Certified or Registered Mail. When they get the Green card they are going to sign it. The signature is like an endorsement. It's going to prove also delivery, which is one of the methods under Transfer.
Here we have a method of Transfer representing Transfer, or method of formation of trust being endorsement. We have delivery and assignment on a UCC3. When I do a UCC3 after claiming it on a UCC1 that it is mine, I can do something with it, assign it to somebody. I going to assign it say to the Trustee, whoever that may be. The Trustee is going to be a present Transfer, proved by the endorsement and delivery with the Green card of a specific title representing the trust res. At that moment the trust is formed. I'm going to have a notary certify that it was done on a Presentment, endorsed and delivered on the Green card. I'm also going to have an assignment on a UCC3 and certified copies of that pulled out. I am also going to put a notice in the county of a filing [UCC1] and pull that out certified. Now I've got multiple records to prove that I transferred trust property. That is the main thing, to prove by record that you transferred specific property to the trustee. That is when the trust forms. Now we've got a trust! I can prove I've got a trust!
When I made the claim that I have a trust and came in and proved trust (this is in a court case). I am going to come in and do it specifically in one place, because everything I'm doing I'm doing administratively, it's all private, and if I bring that into court in the public side of the court I'm going to waive it and bring it back in and they can't stand that information in and the first shot across the bow that you are bringing something in they are going to say, "Hey, you need to go for a psych evaluation." That was the warning shot that you were going the wrong way. If you didn't take heed you are going to lose all your substantive rights because you are putting it into the wrong place. It needs to go in chambers and in order to get into chambers you are going to have to put a Protective Order on it because the Protective Order proves that it is CCI, which is Confidential Commercial Information, also known as Trade Secret Information. It comes under your discovery rules in your state. In Florida here it is under 1.280 under the General Rules for Discovery. Under c. that is the protective order and c7. talks about CCI and Trade Secret Information. The Protective Order establishes the fact that you have Trade Secret Information that can't be revealed into the public. Really it is State Secret and you need to look that up in Black's Law.
state secret. A governmental matter that would be a threat to the national defense or diplomatic interests of the United States if revealed; information possessed by the government and of a military or diplomatic nature, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest. • State secrets are privileged from disclosure by a witness in an ordinary judicial proceeding. -- Also termed governmental secret; government secret. See executive privilege under PRIVILEGE (3). [Cases: Witnesses 216. C.J.S. Witnesses §§ 361-364.]
diplomatic, n. See DIPLOMATICS.
diplomatics. The science of deciphering and authenticating ancient writings. • The principles were largely developed by the Benedictine Dom Mabillon in his 1681 work entitled De re diplomatica. -- Also termed diplomatic (n.).
Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1446 (8th ed. 2004)
You are foreign to the United States jurisdiction. They are foreign to you so everything that you do in intercourse with them is considered to be diplomatic relations. It would be "contrary to the public interest". They don't want the public to know about this stuff and that they can do it. It's State Secret Information. You can't bring this stuff in on the public side of the court. That is why they shoot the gun at you and say, "Hey, you need to go for a psych evaluation." It's a warning you have to bring it into chambers so once we have a Protective Order established on it, now it is established to be Trade Secret Information, CCI, and that gives you the reason for the in-camera hearing. If they don't grant you the in-camera hearing they are not allowing you to bring your evidence in to prove your case. What is that in violation of? That is in violation of due process. You mean to tell me we don't have any due process in this country left? I believe that we have at least some kind of substantive rights left that are functioning in the public. We don't have a total dictatorship, do we? If they deny me due process, on an appeal that is an automatic win. That is how we get information into the court. That information we put into the court is the proving and claiming of the trust. Once I get it in there I can give instructions to do the set-off and discharges and bring the accounts to closure and settlement. It all starts at the rule of the signatures, at the formation of the relationship of a trust and that is where we need to be gearing our minds into - where was the signature put on the first time?
A lot of people are having trouble with that because they are not coming back down to where this signature on a particular case was first used. That is where the trust was formed. If you didn't express it at that time, even if it was 5 years or 10 years down the road, you can still go back and re-express it and change it around to a trust. All these sub-trusts we are creating are really trying to gain access to the Cestui Que trust, which is the Social Security strawman account. When we fall into dishonor in a case in a debtor-creditor relationship they have the ability to access the account for the funds that are floating around for the face value of the complaint along with all the bonds that are attached in the background, the bid bond, the performance bond, and the payment bond, which is really what they are after. Those are the big-ticket figures. That is what is really paying all the fictions because the case value itself probably doesn't pay the electric bill on the courthouse. The bonds in the background is what they are after.
28:25 When I claim the trust as being the case, the trust res, and all proceeds therefrom, and therefore everything in one fell swoop is generated and tied to that case are mine. They go into special deposit also. They can not be touched by them because I didn't authorize it. I can't tell this stuff in open court on the public side. It must be explained in the paperwork in chambers because it is State Secret and CCI that is going to be a shock to the public. They don't operate like that in the public. We would have chaos then. That brings us back to that old TV show, Get Smart. Take control because we are all fighting chaos. He was in Getting Smart. The alienability of beneficiary's interest was a key thing. It also says her in §98 on page 27 under …
3. Alienability [§98]
Because trusts are created only by some form of transfer by the settlor (even if in the form of a declaration passing title from the settlor individually to the settlor in her fiduciary capacity), it is usually, if somewhat casually, stated as standard doctrine that the interest held in trust must be alienable [or transferable].
a. Common Law [§99]
At early common law, certain future interests (e.g., possibilities of reverter and contingent remainders) were nonalienable and therefore could not be transferred into a trust (although, e.g., the retention of a reversionary interest in the trust estate after transfer by the trustee of a fee simple determinable, or other interest in trust property that is less than that held in the trust, was permissible). Today, however, in most states all future interests are freely alienable and may be placed in trust; where this is not so, the old disability remains.
What are they doing? They are construing the trust because we never expressed the trust in 1776 The Declaration of Independence which basically says that we have all rights given to us by Yahweh and all those rights are unalienable. They can't be transferred. But, you see everything today is about commerce and moving titles so they tax the movement of the title. It's all about commerce and commerce can't deal with this kind of a narrow view. They have to make the titles transferable or alienable. Transfer is the same as a lien.
b. Inalienable property [§100]
Certain other types of property are not alienable, and hence cannot be transferred into a trust-e.g., certain tort causes of action in some states, or the interest of a beneficiary of a spendthrift trust [The Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a spendthrift trust.] (see infra, §§460-489)
(1) But note
Strictly speaking, the "standard doctrine" referred to above applies to transfers into trust and not to whether inalienable property can be held as a trust res; thus, if an inalienable cause of action arose in the trust, it could be held as a trust asset.
Since we are talking about the spendthrift trust lets go to §460 on page 131. It comes under B. Restraints on Alienation.
2. Spendthrift Trusts [§460]
A spendthrift trust is one in which, by stature (see supra, §443) or more often by virtue of the terms of the trust [remember, the terms of the trust is The Declaration of Independence.], the beneficiary is unable voluntarily or involuntarily to transfer his interest in the trust. In other words, he cannot sell or give away his right to future income or capital, and his creditors are unable to collect or attach such rights. This type of trust is usually created to provide an interest for the beneficiary that will be secure against his own improvidence.
So, even if you made a mistake and got into trouble you still couldn't transfer your rights under The Declaration of Independence. That is the estoppel. That stops everybody from transferring and coming at you. Is that what is happening today? Aren't they liening up your property? Then that must not be so. The Declaration of Independence must not be in effect then. Now we go to §498 on page 139. I don't know exactly when this came about but I would say sometime after 1861, the Civil War. Sometime between there and 1933 a protective trust came about. In Protective Trust it says…
4. Protective Trusts [§498]
A protective trust has long been used in England and is increasingly used in American jurisdictions (see supra, §493). A "protective trust" usually is an ordinary trust that pays out its income regularly but which, upon an attempted voluntary or involuntary alienation of the beneficiary's interest, becomes a discretionary trust, sometimes a broad one to apply the income for the benefit of any or all of a group that includes the original beneficiary (see infra, §500).
Any time someone tries to take the beneficiary's assets, attempts to voluntarily put a lien against it and tries to collect on the beneficiary's assets, a protective trust is now being construed because they are saying under the modern view that we don't have unalienable rights any longer under The Declaration of Independence. We have commerce coming in and re-construing things for the benefit of transferability to do commerce because now the creditors are saying you owe and we want to collect. But, a discretionary trust was formed after this protective trust due to this attempted voluntarily or involuntarily alienation of the beneficiary's interest. Now we jump to §490 on page 138.
3. Discretionary Trusts [§490]
A "discretionary trust" is one in which the trustee [U.S. bankruptcy trustee] is given discretion to make or apply (or withhold) distributions of income or principal or both to or for one or more beneficiaries, whether or not the instrument [The Declaration of Independence] provides standards for the trustee's guidance (but see infra,§501).
So, they are allowed to withhold. That explains why all along we are not any successful at getting our remedy under whatever method you use. It is per the discretion of the trustee. He has discretion to decide whether or not to do the set-off or the discharge solely for his own discretion. If he looks at it and says, "If I disburse the funds to the beneficiary as soon as I do the creditors are going to jump all over his assets. I can't do that because that would be in violation of the trust." All these assets were put into trust, say in 1933, to protect them from the creditors. The creditors were trying to cease the assets. In 1933 that is about when the discretionary trust came in. They voluntarily gave all the assets into this discretionary trust for protection. The really weren't enforcing The Declaration of Independence where all titles, rights, and interest were held in trust and were unalienable. It was designed to keep the beneficiaries from their own improvidence. So what is happening since then is by prescription.
prescription, n. 1. The act of establishing authoritative rules. Cf. PROSCRIPTION. 2. A rule so established. -- Also termed (archaically) prescript. 3. The effect of the lapse of time in creating and destroying rights. [Cases: Limitation of Actions 1. C.J.S. Limitations of Actions §§ 2-4.] 4. The extinction of a title or right by failure to claim or exercise it over a long period. -- Also termed negative prescription; extinctive prescription. 5. The acquisition of title to a thing (esp. an intangible thing such as the use of real property) by open and continuous possession over a statutory period. -- Also termed positive prescription; acquisitive prescription. Cf. ADVERSE POSSESSION. See (for senses 3-5) PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION. [Cases: Adverse Possession 1-95. C.J.S. Adverse Possession §§ 2-225, 263-299, 327-338; Conflict of Laws § 76.] 6. Int'l law. The acquisition of a territory through a continuous and undisputed exercise of sovereignty over it. 7. Oil & gas. A Louisiana doctrine that extinguishes unused mineral servitudes after ten years if there is no effort to discover or produce on the land or the land pooled with it.
Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 2004)
38:55 Nobody has claimed the trust, so there has been a failure to claim the trust, and they failed to exercise it and they are going to destroy and extinguish your right and title to do that. Isn't that what they kind of have done already, somewhat similar? They come up with this Patriot Act and they say there is no more habeas corpus and we can throw you into jail because we don't like the way you look. We can even torture you. What do we do? I'll tell you, if you look up in Black's law, that was the definition of prescription. They are going to extinguish the right by prescription, so you are being prescribed by prescription. Look up the definition of acknowledgment of debt. By the way, have you ever wondered why when you get a Debt Validation say like under UCC 9-210(a)(4) asking for a statement of accounting for debt validation … you ever wonder why they never respond to any of these? This will answer that also. Here is the bingo!
acknowledgment of debt. Louisiana law. Recognition by a debtor of the existence of a debt. • An acknowledgment of debt interrupts the running of prescription.
So, to put an estoppel on the prescription, just a simple acknowledgment of the debt puts a stop on it. Now I am going to assume it's probably going to be within 30-90 days before they time out. But, that is going to get you some time. You could even put in an acknowledgment of the debt and have it be self-renewing for a set amount of time until you get the paperwork put together. The reason why they never do a debt validation is because if they acknowledge there is a debt that would end the prescription and the prescription is the foreclosure! Now you are in agreement with them and if you are in agreement with them there is no controversy, no case, and they can't foreclose. Just a simple acknowledgment of the debt, which is an agreement with them which ties right in with the scriptures, "agree with your adversary quickly lest he take you into court and extract every cent that is due him." So, we put in an acknowledgment of debt and follow that with, or along with an order for a settlement. That right there would be an estoppel and give us time to put in the paperwork for what is needed to do the settlement. How are we going to do the settlement?
|  |
