 | 42:25 I've gone through this before, but I will do it again. If we drew a circle in the middle of a piece of paper and drew a vertical line right down the center of the circle and split it in half. On the left side is the public side, the minus side where the liability is. On the right side is the asset side, or the private side. I would draw a horizontal line on the bottom of the circle, straight across, and now what you have is the traditional upside down T account, which is nothing more than a ledger under accounting. You have assets on the right and you have liabilities on the left.
All those people who are going into the DTC are going to be falling into a potential trap. When they go into the DTC and they go in they answering questions and are not asking questions as king, because a king always asks questions. It is as-king questions as king. The one who asks the questions is the king. They are asking the questions of whether or not you know what you are doing in there. You are not going in as the king asking questions. They are asking the questions and they are the king and you are debtor. Those people who are successful to get in there think they are getting access to their accounts. Here is where the big benefit comes in and if you fall into the trap by taking the benefit you've never even got out and you got yourself into a bigger mess than what you got into. You are nothing more than a better paid slave. They are going to give to you all the treasury securities, the T bills, or gold certificates, and whatever is in that account. They are going to give it all to you. At that moment what you do with it is going to determine whether or not you are going to be succeeding in completing what you thought were starting out doing or whether you are never going to get out and you are going to increase the debt even farther and they are going to love you for it.
44:55 If you take those certificates, those T-bills, and spend them like money, like they hope you will, you are going to take the benefit, which is the debt, and you are going to spend it back into the debt system thinking you got access to your account and didn't. All those debt titles on the left side - we are going to draw another circle and put a capital T in there. T stands for titles. At the foot of that T we are going to put a small D. D stands for debt. It is the titles to the debt on the left side. We are going to do another circle on the right side and put a capital T in there also. That is the titles and at the foot of that T we are going to put a little A. A stands for assets. It is the title to the assets. If you take those titles to the debt on the debt side and you spend them you are just going to create more debt, double debt, paying debt and you can't pay debt with debt. It just keeps mounting up. That is why they are loving you. You are creating more problems than you realize. You are putting the final clinches on the collapse of the whole thing, but if you treat it as a trust and you take the title drawing a line from the Td up to another circle at the top. We are going to put SM in there. That is your Strawman account. We are going to merge the titles. We are going to move the title and draw an arrow to that SM. We are going to move that title to the debt into the SM Strawman account. On the right hand side, the title Ta , the assets, which is going to be the same amount as the Td on the left. They are going to be equal. We are going to draw a line from the up into that SM Strawman account.
47:00 Now what we have done is we settled the accounts and in effect we are closing it. You have the assets equally the debts and what happens when you take a minus and a plus and bring them together? It discharges on the public side and it sets-off on the private side. You bring the account to zero. Here is the thing. One penny of real money, lawful money, on the private side will discharge all debts, all fiction money, on the liability side. If I fell into the trap and used those titles to the debt as money I never did collapse the trust. I never did terminate the trust. The trust still exists. If I move both titles into the Strawman, the debt and the assets, the Strawman account terminates. The trust purpose has been fulfilled. There is no trust. What happens is the trust is terminated? The trustee must wind it up. He winds up the trust and terminates the trust. In other words, he has to disburse the funds, the real money that is still being held in private, minus say one penny. After we gave the order for the settlement we are going to give a discharge on the public side and we are going to give an order for the set-off on the private side. We are going to give an order to set up a new trust on the private side. Once that Strawman account is closed the remainder from that account is going to be transferred into the new trust.
In that new trust you are going to get a whole different kind of credentials for it. The Strawman account with its capital names and all the accounts associated with him are eliminated, they are gone. They are terminated, period. All your electric bill accounts, everything in that way, will no longer exist. You are going to form a new trust and another account. You are going to have the remainder of the assets being put into that. That is going to remain on the private side. You are going to come back over and order a new trust to be set up on the public side, e.g., an LLC. You are going to order the Treasury to do the trade or whatever they are going to do to generate the interest held on the property or the assets held in the private and deposit that interest into that LLC on the public side. We will live forever on the interest generated from that as long as you just use that interest to purchase goods and services consumed by the real man held in private. As long as you don't conduct a business with that new LLC you won't be commingling your funds again. You won't be creating any new debt. In effect you have taken care of the war debt, taken care of all past debts, all present debts, and then all future debts that may be in the future. You've discharged them on the public side and set them off on the private side. The remainder was transferred into this new account on the private side, which is generating interest on a new LLC on the public side and that interest is placed into that. You will write checks like that and nobody will be the wiser. It is not taxable because it is foreign source.
51:00 You will be given the credentials to identify this new trust entity and you will become whoever. You will be able to travel like you were before, probably with more freedom than you had before under today's terms. That is basically it in a nutshell. The documentation is simple as long as we do due process and notify all parties. They will never answer back. They never have. If they did they would be acknowledging the debt themselves and that would stop the prescription. So, we have to go ask questions because the one asking questions as king is king. The questions I want to be asking are, "Do you have all the necessary forms in your possession to close and settle this account?" If they say yes then say, "You've already got the order for the settlement, then close and settle it." If they say no then I would give them an order to give me the forms I need to complete the information so you can close and settle the accounts. It's as simple as that. I think we make things too hard under this debtor-creditor brainwashing that we continue to go back to like a dog to its vomit. We don't have to. That also explains the reasons why some of these 1099-OIDs that were put on withholding there and taxed it back to the principle and as soon as they got it back to the principle the IRS seized the funds or locked up the account. The IRS accountants could give the disbursement to the beneficiaries, who were debtors. As soon as the assets were transferred to them the creditors would jump all on them. What they had to do is seize the assets and apply it to the debt. That is why you didn't get any funds. Until we pay the past war debt, all the present debt, and the future debts that may be out there … and do the discharge on the public side and set-off on the private side and terminate that account. With that why don't we open it up with some questions?
55:15 CW With this explanation based on trusts it makes things a whole lot clearer. Bill - You said using UCC is not debtor-creditor instrument but you are still using the UCC1 & 3. CW - If you will notice on the UCC forms it says NON-UCC FILING. If you select that block it is no long a UCC filing. Bill - On the UCC 1 & 3 we keep on the private side and we acknowledge it by using the Registered Mail ID number? CW Right. What I am doing is everything I'm using I'm specifying that it is non-negotiable. As being non-negotiable that is being strictly private. Anytime I've got a negotiable instrument what I've done is put myself back under debtor-creditor. That's all we've been doing with all these bonds, set-off and discharge bonds, is operating under debtor-creditor. Money orders, promissory notes, all that stuff. We were just creating bigger debt. Bill - So what I've gathered on the bill I can just be the Grantor and transfer that to a trust and name a particular trustee for my benefit, is that what you are saying? CW Yes, right, under a special deposit, which is also know as a trust deposit. Bill - How does that work, a trust deposit? CW If you look up in Black's Law 5th Revised it says the trust deposit is where money or property is deposited, to be kept intact and not commingled with other funds of the property of a bank, and is to be returned in kind to the depositor, or devoted to a particular purpose, or requirement of the depositor, or payment of a particular debt or obligations of the depositor. Also called special deposit.
special deposit. A bank deposit that is made for a specific purpose, that is kept separately, and that is to be returned to the depositor. • The bank serves as a bailee or trustee for a special deposit. -- Also termed specific deposit. [Cases: Banks and Banking 153. C.J.S. Banks and Banking §§ 283-287, 290.]
Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 471 (8th ed. 2004)
Bill - So it is just a matter of specifying the purpose for the deposit of the res? CW Yes, and I believe under the Restatement of the 2nd Law and Trusts it is section 345 where it talks about conversion. I can convert trust property into say cash or credit and then order it be applied to the debt, or the obligation, or the purpose of the Grantor. Bill - Then the trustee has to do that? CW Yes, or else he is in breach of trust. Bill - In that case it has to be a non-negotiable? CW Yes, because it is non-negotiable if I tell them it is a trust or special deposit. That is non-negotiable.
59:00 Q We find that many educators are quite proficient at teaching them their knowledge but many don't apply it. I know this is pretty new to you and obviously you have spent a lot of time in studying it and as someone said last week, you were hot. I'll echo that sentiment this week. You are very clear and very concise from beginning to end. I got a little confused there as we moved into the DTC, but nonetheless you did an incredible job putting your knowledge forth concisely today. My question today is, have you indeed begun to apply this in the fashion you have, whether it with the court, bills, other people's debts, or have you not yet and if so why not? CW Yes, we have put it into effect in a limited way. We have one foreclosure that was on the sale block and going to be foreclosed and 2 hours before we put in some material and went up to the judge and asked him to get the thing pulled off. We thought we were unsuccessful at the time, but the sale was discontinued. That time we just put in an NOI in an expression of the trust. We didn't follow it up with the proof of the trust, which is the SOI. We took another case and we tried the same as we did in the first one and we went the next step and put the SOI in fact there and that case got closed down. Q You didn't have to go in-camera then, you were able to deal with it right there? CW No, we didn't get in-camera with it. Q You basically blew them out of the water without even needed to go private? CW Right, right. Q So, just two foreclosure cases to your knowledge so far? CW So far, yeah. We've got some others that are trying different things. I know they are trying it on themselves based on what we've been talking about. I'm not totally aware of what they are doing and some of the successes on that yet. This technology is totally new. This is getting in on the ground floor and we are just now starting to ride the wave. Q You've probably had some great number of months that you have been on these phones calls. I've only been with you 4-5 times over the past 6 weeks. I think you've done this for 8 or 10 months, haven't you? CW No, I've had the Money Banking and Trusts show for almost going on two years now. Q The NTT just came in November so you are real fresh in your knowledge? CW Yeah, I've been studying trusts since I started the show but I didn't put a label on it and coin the phrases and make it public, so to speak. At that point I saw the direction to go.
1:02:40 I would like to point out to everybody, it doesn't really rest on the fact that we haven't done any of this, whether it is me or anybody else. It's whether or not you've studied the facts, or the doctrine so to speak, and this is not theory. This is actually ripping off and exposing how they are operating presently and how they've operated in the past. It is explaining how they have been doing things. This is not theory. I would like to point out the fact that just because me or anybody else hasn't had any experience at it, don't allow that to stop you. If that is the kind of attitude or mentality we have then Edison would have never discovered the light bulb. Or, Christopher Columbus would have never discovered America. They would have said, hey, unless you've done it before then you can't be doing it. Unless you sailed out there and discovered America you can't go out there and discover America. Or, just because we didn't discover the light bulb we can't discover the light bulb. That kind of thinking is not quite right. It depends upon whether or not you believe on what we are talking about that makes it willing for you to step out by the belief, or the faith, based on sound judgment based on facts, not just on conjecture, but based on material facts to support you doing what you honestly believe in. I can see from studying trusts that it makes a whole lot more sense coming at it from the point of view of trusts than under the debtor-creditor stuff that we have done in the past. Really, the trust thing puts and explanation on why we haven't been successful. I really think that once we get this down and understanding the basics and its application and mimicking what they've already been doing and are presently doing we will have a greater success. We should be able to get up there to 100%.
1:04:45 In fact, I can see where we won't even have to go into court. The only way I'm going to go into court is if they drag me in there. I'm going to call a Treasury Directive Hearing under the IRS Treasury Directive 25-06 and under that USAM (U.S. Attorneys' Manual) 6-4.010. That basically says that Individual Master File (IMF) in the IRS - all other agencies has got to comport to that. Who sets up the information in that Master File? We do, you and I do. We self-assess ourselves and we sign the declaration forming a trust on the 1040 form that appoints our status as being Trustee on that trust. We did that. When that judge looks at that folder and sees that in there and we come in there as beneficiary say, then there is a conflict there. We've got to go back in and correct that master file, to the way that we want it, the way that we understand it. That would be in conflict with that Social Security Account if we are listed as beneficiary in that one account and our Master File lists us as the trustee on that one. If all the agencies, including Social Security, must match up with that one then we must be incompetent. We need to go back and get the records straight. Claim that trust in the IMF and from that point you have standing to come in and move the titles and terminate the trust. When you terminate the trust you get the disbursement. The paperwork is not that hard. I think trusts is a whole lot simpler. Now I need not to dance to their tune on their stage, using their tools, and expect to any results better than they are going to give me.
1:06:50 Eric - I've been listening to you a lot and doing lots of research to come up with some more questions. One of the things you said recently is to use non-precatory language. Non-precatory language is order, command, and direct. You were talking recently about when we send out a notice and demand, e.g., for the genuine wet-ink signature promissory note, should we be sending out a notice and command? CW Yeah, or direct, "I hereby order you or direct you to…" I don't like the word command. I like the words order and direct. It's not precatory. Eric - Could demand be considered precatory? CW - Demand? No, I don't think so. I would lean more to demand, direct, and order. Eric - Last night you were talking about the Treatise on Trusts that you are currently studying. The reason that you are focusing on that so much is because it is pre-1933 and … is that book for those of us who want to operate in the private? CW Yes, because Gilbert Law Summaries is the statutory black trusts and The Treatise on the Law on Trusts by Lewin is the white trust, the private trust. It's 1776, before the Statutes and Codes, before the United States formation. It is not under common law. It is under equity. Equity is not common law.
Eric - You brought up the term equity and I think there is a lot of confusion for some folks out there. Since I've been listening to you you've clearly emphasized that the in-camera, in-chambers, is the equity area, the man, the fair conscience venue that we want to be in. But then even when we are standing in the public open court room there is an equity component to that as well that has been merged with the Admiralty. If you could help us understand the difference of those two equities that we are dealing with that would be great. CW The pre-1933 equity that we are talking about is solely gained in chambers, but post-1933 equity has really been morphed into nothing more than Statutes and Codes because they redefined it. That is in the public, on the public side of the court. They have hidden the real equity in-chambers and they have given you something that is supposed to be equity but it is nothing more than Statutes and Codes and they are the bond of obligation, or statutory trust. Eric - That is what makes the people that are using the Tim Turner stuff so scared to get into the equity court because it is really just a bond of obligation. CW - Right, right. If I want to talk about 1776 equity like The Declaration of Independence where I have unalienable rights of the substantive man that is in-chambers, in private.
1:10:54 Eric - Where in that public court room - I've been there before on an event - they really talk like you are not even in the room. Is that because there is no conscience there and it is just a move forward for the corporates to gain their profits, is that really their agenda and nothing more? CW It’s all form, process, and procedure on that side. The real man can't show up because he is not the fiction. It seems the only thing they realize is not incompetent is one of their attorneys. Eric - Once we get into chamber, because your technology is so cutting edge and new and seemingly so grounded in so much doctrine and history … CW It's not doctrine and history. I'm just revealing it how they have been doing it all along up to the present. It's so much doctrine. I'm actually showing the practical application of it. That is not doctrine. Eric - Forgive me for using the wrong term. Also within the conviction of the people listening to you, one of the challenges we might face, even once people that are studying and listening diligently and following you diligently to be able to be effective for remedy, if we were to share this with someone else trying to find remedy, would it be possible for us to go into chambers and speak on their behalf? CW Quite possibly it might be, but I don't know about that. I would have to run through some research on that. You might be able to come in as the friend of the court, say. Pre-civil war, back then, you could defend yourself. You didn't have so many attorneys. You could come in yourself. Yeah, if that is being held in-chambers that stands to reason that you should be able to come in there with somebody else in-chambers. I think we've got enough things to worry about as it is without complicating with a few more twists - get it down to the bare essentials so we can get a finer grasp of what is going on and how to handle it, elimination of all possible variables - keep it down to as simple as possible.
1:13:50 Eric - You've spoken many times about perfect title. Perfect title would be the circle without the line going down the middle of it, which would also be allodial title. Once we finally do achieve the notification of all the agencies that you have spoken about and there is proper notice all over the place, and the IMF file is finally where we want it to be, at that point would it be possible to obtain allodial title on real estate?
CW I believe so, yeah, it has to be. That is when America, the common law, the Republic, comes back for at least that individual or as a group that does it, or all depending if we all do it. Or pay it for all, let's put it that way. Eric - With that one penny of real money you were talking about, for example. CW Yeah, yeah. Eric - One of the things I was reading about was about the merger of titles and how it says that the interests have to be exactly the same. One of the things that brought up - if you don't mind I'll read the text from [Gilbert Law Summaries - Trusts] Parties to the Trust if that is ok, Merger of title where sole trustee is also sole beneficiary [§159]… are one and the same person … the result is a merger of legal and equitable titles, defeating the trust and creating a fee simple absolute in the trustee-beneficiary... Interests must be exactly the same for merging to occur. My two questions about this are, 1. Who determines what those interests are, by whose decision? 2. How do we determine the nature of what the word exactly means in this context? CW As the king, he doesn't really sit down and know specifically everything that is being done so he kind of gives the order, so to speak as a general command, to do what needs to be done and then the grunts down below them, the servants of government, have to comply and do the detail work. The person I would go to that has to know the amount of the debt would be the IRS. They have to know the amount. Now maybe they might not tell me the amount, but I really don't care what the amount is because I've got unlimited source of credit, say, and the debt is - just take an equal amount of interest from the asset side and apply it to whatever the amount is on the liability side so that they are equal in interest, so that the titles can be merged, of equal value or equal interest. Then send me a receipt that it has been settled so I know it has been settled. Then the remainder, put it into that new trust. Then I order you to generate the interest and put it into this new LLC on the public [correctly: private] side that I can spend as I see fit on the consumables for the maintenance of the live man.
1:17:30 Eric - Once we have that set up where we can actually have an account at a local bank where we can write checks from it, as you said so no one would be the wiser, is there any, for example if we wanted to pay off a debt for a friend would there be any reason we wouldn't want to do that? Could we get into a situation … CW I wouldn't want to commingle funds now, although I could teach the other person how I did it. I would watch out about commingling funds because I don't want to be connecting that LLC with a US business or trade and find out I've just ruined everything I've done and put myself back under a debt situation again. You have to learn how to administer the trust once we've taken control of the trust. Eric - That's probably going to be one of the trickiest things to learn over the long term? CW I think it is really basically simple. As long as I stick with purchasing goods and services for consumption for the real man, if that is all I'm doing is being a consumer and I'm spending it with the interest that was generated then I've got no worries because I'm not commingling funds. As soon as I want to put that someplace else and go into somebody else's … commingled with the debt side again, like solve somebody else's problem with my interest then I think I'm going to commingle and I better watch out about what I'm doing. There could be a work around from that. I might form a separate corporation, or separate trust, totally different and then whatever profits it would generate it would be taxable. That would be a whole other ball game.
Eric - So, if we don't get into a situation where we are commingling directly with that LLC that you just mentioned then we wouldn't have a responsibility to file any tax return, right? CW Right - because it is foreign source. It's draw against the private side that's held in that new trust account in the private. Eric - If we wanted to, for example, pay someone's rent or their mortgage payment or whatever it would be a great idea to set up an additional entity so it would be a domestic organization that could commingle that would handle some of those issues. CW Right, and that might want to be a private charitable trust that would fund that with maybe some of the interest that I've got, but that is going to function as a separate entity and it's going to be responsible for its own taxes. Eric - there is the bridge that we are probably all been looking for. There are still a lot of hurting people out there that we would like to help. CW We are going to help them the best by getting them educated so they know and understand it's all about a trust. Then they can go do this process. They can claim their own trust because everybody has got a trust. Everybody who has a strawman trust has a birth certificate. Eric - I know, but a lot of people don't want to take their head out of the sand. You know what I'm talking about. CW Well, am I going to jeopardize my standing and my position to help somebody who doesn't want to know or understand? Then I think they are better off being a slave.
1:21:00 Eric - The term state secret that we've been talking about, where we can't disclose that in open court, is there any situation where we might find ourselves needing to maintain that CCI, that private information, besides when we go to court? CW Anything of a private nature can't be commingled with the public. You are commingling the terms, commingling the knowledge. You are in breach of the trust when you do that and that is why you are incompetent. Knowledge can be trust res. It could be intangible goods, intangible property can be intellectual property. It could be res. Any time I commingle it with the public then I'm in breach of trust. If I'm in breach of trust then I'm a debtor because the trustee breached. In that article we've been reading, right on the first page on that Treatise on the Law of Trusts it says that the trustee is the debtor. If I get into a debtor position I've breached the trust. Eric - You are talking about when you are interfacing with a public entity such as a court? CW Yes, either with knowledge or understanding or anything that is trust res at all. Interest or whatever.
Eric - Outside of, for example, a court, we would be functioning in our private capacity on an ongoing basis anyway so that wouldn't be an issue outside of a public type of venue, correct? CW Well, yeah but, am I talking to one of the strawman entities, so to speak, or am I talking to the private man outside some place? I don't know. It's kind of one of those touchy lines, a fine line of what is public and private. Eric - You know what I'm trying to sort out is how to keep a secret when it's appropriate to keep a secret? CW Private contract. Put in a special deposit. Treat is as a trust. Remember I said every time you approach somebody think about the relationship you are forming? Are you forming a debtor-creditor relationship or are you forming a trust? I can form a trust on intellectual property, just on general conversation or knowledge, giving it to you. Do you know right now we are forming a trust? Eric - We are? CW I'm trusting what I'm giving to you you are going to hold in the private and if you don't you are going to commingle and you are going to be in breach of my trust. Eric - Isn't the potential fee $100M? CW Under a commercial venue, yes. Eric - I think that is what you put out there.
1:24:15 Eric - One of the things in the method of trust creation that I'm trying to wrap my head around and see if it is even possible is contracted, because if there is no lawful money can we even enter into a trust by contract because there is no legal money, there is only legal tender? CW Right, that is why I say all contracts are really colorable contracts, which are just wrapping and hiding a trust at its core. We can't have a contract today. It's got to be a trust. Even if we think we are forming a contract what we are really forming is a trust. Although we never expressed it as a trust and it allows them to construe it and they are going to construe under debtor-creditor, under UCC. That is how they are going to foreclose on you.
Eric - I have several on the call with me that I brought into the call. I don't know if they have something they want to talk about. I'll remain unmated if anybody wants to come on the call and talk to Christian otherwise I'll mute out so the call will be clean.
1:2:53 Bill - We were talking about the trustee being a debtor, right? CW Correct. Bill - That is why we are the trustee and we have to go to a court action. CW That is only once the beneficiary makes a claim. If he is a performing claimant to the indenture he wouldn't be a debtor. If the indenture wasn't particularly worded say, like The Declaration of Independence, there is no specific wording other than we have unalienable rights, but now they are construing that because nobody expressed it as being a trust. They are construing it the way they want to because nobody is saying anything. Nobody is standing up and saying, "No, that is wrong. It's not that it is transferable. It says that it is not transferable, period." I think that is what the founding fathers had … they had enough of what the English has as charity and constraints against them and they designed that specifically in there for that purpose. They said, "…unalienable rights", non-transferable, period. Now, let's operate on how they've construed this. Let's give them what they want so I'm in agreement by acknowledging the debt to whatever they say I owe. Now the prescription has been stopped. There is an estoppel. I'm in agreement and there is no controversy. Now, later on, after everything has been closed and settled, let's go back to 1776 and correct this and go back to that. Bill - So the beneficiary has to indicate, either the grantor or beneficiary has to make a claim against the trustee, right? CW The grantor can't really make a claim unless he reserved some kind of rights or he is co-beneficiary. Only the beneficiary can make a claim. Bill - So, the beneficiary can say that I've been wronged by the trustee? CW Yeah. Bill - So there needs to be a burden of proof for that? CW Once you've made claim that there is a trust and proved that there is a trust all you have to do is make a prima facie case and a prima facie case is nothing more than an affidavit put into the court with a petition to claim that, "Hey, you breached the trust." The courts, under equity, will presume that the trustee is guilty because they are going to believe whatever the beneficiary says at that point. Bill - Then that ties him to the issue of commercial debtor-creditor? CW No, don't construe it being back under debtor-creditor under trusts. No, trust is different. Remember, the debtor-creditor that I was reading from, the trustee is the debtor, is out of that Treatise on Law of Trusts which was from 1888. That was before debtor-creditor, UCC, and all of that stuff we had after 1933. We still had at that time lawful money.
|  |
