Christian Walters explains New Trust Technology

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 transcribers 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.

Its all about trusts. A gentleman asked a question earlier and I would like to explain. Everything Ive been doing in the past, Ive 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. Im gearing
everything towards trusts. It really makes more sense. Once you get into trusts and study trusts you find out a lot of what didnt jive under debtor-creditor all of
a sudden makes sense under trusts. Im switching everything into the trust mode. Instead of doing debtor-creditor I am going to stick with trusts. Im going to
live, eat, and sleep trusts. For those of you who havent 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 Im putting different
information on there and gearing that sight solely towards trusts. Im leaving the debtor-creditor behind. Not that I might never use it as a hybrid, but you really
cant get a remedy as secured party creditor. Your remedy is in trusts and its commerce through trusts and equity. In a trust you are the lender of an asset held
in special deposit and if you dont 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 weve 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 wouldnt call them Accept For Value. Its 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 youll know the white by sight. To give an example: The AFV/RFV under debtor-creditor, which in my opinion and the evidence Ive
discovered, which is not exactly strictly opinion but based on the evidence Ive 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 werent even touching the set-off on the private side. We
werent 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 dont 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 somebodys success and duplicate it
exactly the same way and they dont 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 its 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. Ive been finding out
thats 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 cant be any contract because there is no money. You cant give a value for consideration. Under trusts you
dont have to give a value of anything, its a thing. Whatever the thing is, the res, that is what is put into the trust. Thats the principal, 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 didnt 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 its 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. Thats 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 Ive made a claim its a trust, then I have standing to come in and make a claim as say the beneficiary and say that the trustee didnt 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: BLACKS 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, didnt 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. Its 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. Its 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 youve 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 didnt 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 arent
purchasing anything. You are forming a trust. The same way at the gas station when you buy gasoline for your car. You arent 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 dont think so. Now, if they give me an offer that comes in the mail in an electric bill Im going to treat it as a trust. Its an offer for a debtor-
creditor relationship only if you dont know that it is a trust. Im 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. Im going to turn that offer into the specific res. Im going to return it to them as the special deposit under trusts.

If you look under Blacks 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 its 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 Beneficiarys 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
beneficiarys 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. Transferees 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 beneficiarys 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 its attached
to the beneficiarys 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
dont 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 didnt 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 Im going to end up with the same thing in number 3, collection on the disbursement. Ive got the specific trust res as property. Im 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 notarys 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 Ive 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. Im 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. Its 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. Im going to have a notary certify that it was done on a Presentment, endorsed and delivered on the Green
card. Im 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 Ive 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 weve got a trust! I can prove Ive 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 Im doing Im doing administratively, its all private, and if I bring that into court in the public side of the court Im going to waive it and
bring it back in and they cant 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 didnt 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
cant be revealed into the public. Really it is State Secret and you need to look that up in Blacks 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: BLACKS 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 dont want the public to know about this stuff and that they can do it. Its State Secret Information.
You cant 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. Its 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont 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 didnt 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 doesnt 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 didnt authorize it. I cant 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 dont 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 beneficiarys 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 cant be transferred. But, you see everything today is about commerce and
moving titles so they tax the movement of the title. Its all about commerce and commerce cant 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 couldnt 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? Arent 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 dont 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 beneficiarys 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 beneficiarys assets, attempts to voluntarily put a lien against it and tries to collect on the beneficiarys assets, a protective
trust is now being construed because they are saying under the modern view that we dont 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 beneficiarys 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 trustees
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 cant 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 seize 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. They really werent 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. Intl 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: BLACKS 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. Isnt 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 dont like the way you look. We can even torture you. What do we do? Ill tell you, if you look
up in Blacks 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 its 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 cant 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?

42:25 Ive 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 youve 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 you 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 didnt. 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 cant 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 equalling 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 if 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 dont conduct a business with that new LLC you wont be commingling your funds again. You wont 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. Youve 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 todays 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, Youve 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. Its
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 dont 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 principal and as soon as they got it
back to the principal the IRS seized the funds or locked up the account. The IRS accountants couldnt 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 didnt 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 dont 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 longer 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 Im using
Im specifying that it is non-negotiable. As being non-negotiable that is being strictly private. Anytime Ive got a negotiable instrument what Ive done is put
myself back under debtor-creditor. Thats all weve 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 Ive 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 known as a trust deposit.
Bill How does that work, a trust deposit? CW If you look up in Blacks 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: BLACKS 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 dont 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. Ill 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 peoples 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 didnt 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 didnt have to go in-camera then, you were able to deal with it right there? CW No, we didnt 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. Weve got
some others that are trying different things. I know they are trying it on themselves based on what weve been talking about. Im 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 Youve probably had some great number of months that you have been on these phones calls. Ive only been with you 4-5 times over the past 6 weeks.
I think youve done this for 8 or 10 months, havent you? CW No, Ive 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, Ive been studying trusts since I started the show but I didnt 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 doesnt really rest on the fact that we havent done any of this, whether it is me or anybody else. Its whether
or not youve 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 theyve 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 hasnt had any experience at it, dont 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 youve done it before then you
cant be doing it. Unless you sailed out there and discovered America you cant go out there and discover America. Or, just because we didnt discover the light
bulb we cant discover the light bulb. That kind of thinking is not quite right. It depends upon whether or not you believe in 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 an explanation on why we havent been successful. I really think
that once we get this down and understanding the basics and its application and mimicking what theyve 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 wont even have to go into court. The only way Im going to go into court is if they drag me in there. Im 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. Weve 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 get any results better than they are going to give me.

1:06:50 Eric Ive 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 dont like the word command. I like the words order and direct. Its not precatory. Eric Could demand be considered precatory? CW Demand? No, I
dont 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. Its 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 Ive been listening to you youve 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 Ive 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 Its all form, process,
and procedure on that side. The real man cant 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 Its not doctrine and history. Im just revealing it how they have been doing it all along up to the present. Its so much doctrine. Im 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 dont 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 didnt 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 weve 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 Youve 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, lets 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 dont mind Ill 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 doesnt 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 dont care what the amount is because
Ive 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 wouldnt want to do that? Could we get into a
situation CW I wouldnt 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 dont want to be connecting that LLC with a US business or trade and find out Ive just ruined everything Ive done and put myself back under a debt
situation again. You have to learn how to administer the trust once weve taken control of the trust. Eric Thats 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 Im doing is being a consumer and Im spending it with the interest that was generated then Ive got no worries because Im not commingling funds.
As soon as I want to put that someplace else and go into somebody elses commingled with the debt side again, like solve somebody elses problem with my
interest then I think Im going to commingle and I better watch out about what Im 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 dont get into a situation where we are commingling directly with that LLC that you just mentioned then we wouldnt have a responsibility to
file any tax return, right? CW Right because it is foreign source. Its draw against the private side thats held in that new trust account in the private. Eric If
we wanted to, for example, pay someones 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 Ive got, but that is going to function as a separate entity and its 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 its 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 dont want to take their head
out of the sand. You know what Im talking about. CW Well, am I going to jeopardize my standing and my position to help somebody who doesnt want to
know or understand? Then I think they are better off being a slave.

1:21:00 Eric The term state secret that weve been talking about, where we cant 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 cant 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 Im in breach of trust. If Im in breach of trust then Im a debtor because the trustee breached. In that article weve 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 Ive 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 wouldnt 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 dont know. Its kind of one of those touchy lines, a fine line of what is public and private. Eric You know what Im trying to sort out is how to keep
a secret when its 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 Im
trusting what Im giving to you you are going to hold in the private and if you dont you are going to commingle and you are going to be in breach of my trust.
Eric Isnt 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 Im 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 cant have a contract today. Its 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 dont know if they have something they want to talk about. Ill remain unmuted if
anybody wants to come on the call and talk to Christian otherwise Ill 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 wouldnt be a debtor. If the indenture wasnt 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. Its 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, lets operate on how theyve construed this. Lets give them what they want so Im in agreement by acknowledging the debt to
whatever they say I owe. Now the prescription has been stopped. There is an estoppel. Im in agreement and there is no controversy. Now, later on, after
everything has been closed and settled, lets 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 cant 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 Ive been wronged by the trustee? CW Yeah. Bill So there needs to
be a burden of proof for that? CW Once youve 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, dont 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.

1:29:54 Tim What do you think of the idea obviously we want to do this with the SS5 and go for the Cestui Que, what if one was to dabble their toes in
the water a little bit by dealing with foreclosures and other bills and such in this fashion? CW I think that your chance of success is going to be a higher rate
than say what we were under debtor-creditor methods. You might not achieve the higher rate that we want to achieve by getting the whole ball of wax, or
cutting the head of the snake off altogether. You still got the root in the ground and you still got these problems with the IRS, having yourself as being a debtor
in there and if you try to come in say as beneficiary in a court you may have some problems because the records dont match [ in the IMF]. Tim I see, so there
is a lot of groundwork to be laid first. Shifting a bit, you said before that if we had done something wrong here that it would put you back into debtor-creditor,
so if one grabs the whole ball of wax, as you just stated, is it possible at that time to do something wrong to put you back into d-c and then what happens, you
have to go grab a new card and new trust? CW Lets say you commingled after you got everything straightened around, I dont know what would happen. They
may try to come back at you and take the whole thing back. I dont know. Tim so youve got 10 Social Security cards to basically jump in there and start over
again maybe? CW Yeah, you may have to redo the whole process again. Really, the process is not the hard part. Bill Some are wondering if this is the right
avenue to be going down. Is there a way that you could mess this up and cause yourself a big enough problem in the future that you wish you had not done this
because you cant undo it. I just heard you say I think you could just grab another SS5 and go get number 3, or 4, or 5 card

CW This new trust probably wouldnt have a new Social Security number. Bill So youve got you new SS5 and done it By Grantor and CW The some
other way that they have set up and probably identifies this new entity as not being in their United States jurisdiction. Bill So this maybe does cause such a
problem shall we say is almost irreversible? CW How are they going to charge me under their Statutes and Codes if Im not under their Statutes and Codes? I
think it comes back down to as functioning as pre-1888 or 1889, to when the United States came into existence. We had common law and you were only
responsible for certain things if you hurt somebody. I dont think you could get out of that. You are back under you are your brothers keeper. You are under the
10 commandments. Things are a whole lot simpler. Now you getting back into commerce as far as getting the consumables you need, all the fancy cell phones
and telephones, all the cars and things you need. You dont need to dig a hole live in a hole the rest of your life because you got out. I need to have access to
those things that I need. That would be through that new LLC based on that interest that I would be buying the consumables that I consume.

Bill You had an analogy tonight about Edison you dont give up just because it didnt work, you just kept going. Im seeing this as very big and I have to
grasp this whole thing and get it right because if I mess it up Im in trouble, but tonight youve sort of brought my mind around to something different and the
idea that I might grab a foreclosure and work that in the court as youve shown that can be done, or some bill that Ive assigned over and done in this fashion,
and learn this in that way before I go for the SS5 trust. CW Right. You might not have the success rate that you hope for but I think that could be done. Bill
Im learning. Im figuring out this is not working and that is not working and I am learning this where before I was saying I didnt want to do anything before I
really grasped this. CW I think you cant do any better than everybody else. At least that I would say is probably is guaranteed. Whatever success rate
everybody is I think you are going to have at least the same success rate. Bill With the d-c? CW With the trust until you claim and pull the root out. If
anything, at least its another tool to put in the toolbox, but if it is the sole thing that has been running this whole thing all along and here it was disguised as d-c
because it wasnt expressed as a trust to begin with and they construed it to be d-c again, if it walks and talks like a duck, it is a duck.
Do you see trusts? I do. How come with the DTC, for example, which means Depository Trust Company, how come we are going in there under d-c? Why are
we going there under trusts? How come the IRS, which is Trust 62, how come we are doing d-c with the IRS? Why arent we doing trusts? It doesnt make
sense. Why would we fight something that is trusts coming in with some other kind of law form other than trusts? Trust is equity, pre-1933 equity, or post in-
chambers. It makes better sense. The more I study it I see more about trusts that was oh, my gosh, it was there all the time. The other teachers in this have
always said, its all about trusts, and bonds, and insurance, but yet they dont go down the trust path. They go down the d-c rabbit hole. Well, Im going down
the trust rabbit hole. Anybody who wants to follow me is welcomed. I see it as trusts and trust is the way Im going to treat it, 100%. Ive gotten away from d-
c. Ive successes under d-c, Accept For Value, Discharge. Ive done some of that stuff. I just wasnt satisfied how it was turning out. There was no rhyme or
reason, it was hit and miss until what I came across that it was just a success here and there that they gave everybody. It was just a ring in the bulls nose leading
them down the path that they wanted them to keep them from the true path, which was 180 degrees back the other way, under trusts.

1:38:25 Tim The WHFIT people, they were doing some calls and pulled in some fellows that had been working in trusts. One guy maybe 30 years setting up
trusts for multi-millionaires. Because of what these trust guys were hearing I think they came onboard and are probably working together to create a WHFIT
team larger than before. I wonder if you have experienced that sort of thing. Have you garnered the attention of people who have years of experience of
working with trusts? Have they come to you and given you an atta-boy and told you that you were on to something and/or have you had fellows like that come
your way? CW No, none of these that have said they know everything about it and said, yeah, you are on the right path. I have had people say that though. I
dont know whether or not they are operating in trusts. Tim You are sort of in a different realm of the whole trust thing. CW I think most people are using it as
a defense to protect assets from the creditor getting at the debtors assets. They are using a trust as a protective mechanism. That is not what Im using trusts for
at all. Im using trusts as an offense. Tim That would beg the difference I guess. CW Nobody has ever done that before, as far as I know. At least Ive never
heard of it.

Danny I think the guy that was just speaking was referring to people that think they know a lot about statutory trusts and they probably do, but you are the
only one that has been expressing the private trust. Ive been to quite a few different trust meetings and hearings and that sort of thing. Im realizing now it was
all statutory, not private. CW Right. Anything that is a statutory trust is operating under d-c in the public. Its really the black trust, which is this Gilbert Law
Summaries book, but I say that if I show you the black then if you see white youll know the white when you study it by sight. We are also studying the white
under A Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts by Lewin [downloadable here: http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018816110 or
http://books.google.com/books?id=OeXCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP9&dq=a+practical+treatise+on+the+law+of+trusts+vol.+I&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false for
Vol I and http://books.google.com/books?
id=lfHCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA845&dq=a+practical+treatise+on+the+law+of+trusts+vol.+II&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false for Vol. II]. There are some real
eye-openers in that, right on the first two pages. And then you tie that in with Select Cases and Other Authorities On The Law on Trusts by Austin Wakeman
Scott [downloadable here: http://books.google.com/books?
id=dya5AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+of+trusts+Scott&lr=&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false] and youve got some case cites to support that right
there is that Trustees manual anyway. You tie that in with Scotts on Trusts and youve got some dynamite stuff. Tie those books together. Thats the private
trust. Thats pre-statutory, pre-United States. This Treatise on the Law of Trusts is 1888. This was the first American version and based on the Eighth English
Edition from England. We are going to go back into the English version and go back to the Sixth to get you back to say 1776 and see what that compares to in
this 1888 version. Here is the confusing thing. They use all these old terminology like feoffement, offment, and feoffee to uses, cestui que to uses. What the
heck are these people talking about, we dont use that. That was the trick they are using the hypothecate and get us to pledge voluntarily our assets because they
no longer just change the definition of known words that we are using, theyve taken the definitions and switched the words. That made us go on a straight path
and they made a 90 degree turn and took a parallel [correctly: perpendicular] path with us. They made the switch. I always thought they jumped off the track
and formed a parallel [correctly: perpendicular], no, they tricked us to keep on going so we are thing we are onto this law form that we continued on in and they
actually made a switch by the definitions and putting new words on it because they were going by the old 1888 version. Just on the first two pages there were
some revealing facts on enlightening things. That book is actually the blueprint on how they have been operating all this time.

1:45:45 Eric You mentioned something a while ago about case cites, now when we are in the private is there a need to utilize case cites as our law in-camera?
CW You ever wonder why maxims didnt work on the public side? Its because maxims are in equity. So, well use maxims. One of the maxims is He who
claims trust must prove trust. Eric Do we need to utilize case cites in the private. CW I dont think so because under trust Im probably just going to use
equity, what is fair and just. Equity is a whole lot simpler. Equity is going to compel you to do what you should have done or to compel you not to do say a
breach of trust. Eric That really does make a lot of sense. Then we dont have to deal with all that case research. CW Right. The 900 lb. gorilla is trusts and
equity. Equity is the 900 lb. gorilla. Eric Gilbert being the statutory, when we are in the public court, if you were to be in a statutory trust, there still isnt any
conscience, even though there is a statutory trust, a conscience where they are going to recognize you as the real man because they cant? CW Right. Eric Are
you going to put together a list for people to study for the law on trusts and the treatise on trusts? CW That Treatise on Trusts is so choked full of information
but yet you have to use your decoder ring, your Blacks Law Dictionary with you, the 1st version of Blacks Law, the 1883 version. Thats going to get you
with the 1888 book and the terms they were using at that time. Have that with you. It is very slow going.

You have to look up almost every word because even the words that you think you know like in has a totally different meaning. It says here like, So the lord
who was in by escheat, a disseisor, abator, and intruder, were not amenable to the subpoena; for the first claimed by title paramount to the creation of the use;
and the three last were seised of a tortious estate, and held adversely to the feoffee to uses. In the lord was in by escheat the word in means under or based
on the law of, that is, to bring an action in contract. At that time we had valid contracts because we had lawful money. He was in by contract, and action in
contract by escheat. You have to be careful the words that you presume you understand you almost have to look up the little words and see what they are
talking about there. Eric They sure didnt teach us that back there in 1st grade. CW No, they didnt and they probably didnt want you to even go near there.
To me all that is fee, fi, fo, fum feudal times and that is what we are operating under today. Eric The gentleman that wrote The Declaration of Independence,
is that the brain that they are operating from and why that is such a great document to utilize because it is really from that whole frame of private? CW At one
time it was public but they put the whole public in trust and now they have formed the private vs. the public. Actually, when 1933 came around your Republic
American common law and everything got put into trust. It is still being held in trust but you can still access it through the in-chambers because that is where
the substantive rights of the real man still exists. Hardly anybody get in there. Once we merge the titles and terminate the trust now the Republic comes back.

Eric Could you talk about when we merge roles, for example, we are obviously always going to qualify our signature from now on with everything we sign
as the Grantor and if we get into a situation where we decide to merge can we be a grantor and a trustee or can we only be a grantor and beneficiary or the
only time the trust terminates is when we merge all three or is there a fatal combination that terminates a trust? CW You said three things there and its a yes to
all three things. Yes, you can be grantor and trustee under a certain situation, or you can be grantor and beneficiary under certain situations. Yes, when you
merge the title into one entity the trust terminates. Eric What about trustee and beneficiary if there is one in the same party? Would that terminate it? CW Yes.
Eric So, if you had multiple beneficiaries, one of the beneficiaries could be trustee and beneficiary or would you have to have multiple trustees and one
beneficiary or would that terminate the trust if one of the trustees was the beneficiary when you have multiple trustees? CW If you have multiple people you
have to take their rights and merge their rights. Are they holding everything equally or are they holding a percentage? If they held equally I think that any
single one would be able to merge the title for the rest of them because they all hold equally. If they are all holding each a share then they would all have to
come together and merge.

1:53:00 Eric Im looking at the word alienability and then we have the word alien. I was trying to figure out where that might have originated from. Do you
have any ideas on that? CW No, my guess is as good as yours on that one. Eric there are so many people dealing with different situations, whether it be that
they dont have any existing court cases or CW They are really in the best position because they dont have anything pressing on them. They can take the
time to study this and get this down so they know it like the back of their hand and they dont have to be under the gun because they have to know it tomorrow.
Eric That would be like the 1st person who would want to use The Declaration of Independence to express and then do the SS5 as Grantor, but what I was
wondering is maybe if you could put together a chart from the people that have no issues to the people who have court cases, to maybe people who have
mortgages and no foreclosures pending against them, to maybe everybody else who has an action in court as far as the way they may want to take action just to
get a chart of how we would to act based on where we are at? CW That is basically what Im trying to do put together a model that applies to whatever
situation that youve got, because it is all a trust. Trust operates the same way.

1:55:25 Eric The reason I brought that up is sometimes people are talking about their mortgage notes and bringing up the SS5 and thats not the right thing to
do and maybe they have a court case and talking about the SS5 or no court case CW Yeah, they are using it because they think they have to bring it back into
that Social Security account. No, you dont really have to. You can treat the case solely as a trust. Eric Maybe you could put together a visual model so
everybody can look at and say this is where I am and where I plug in to get an idea of where they are on the tree? CW They need to bring it back to the
signature. Where was the signature on the existing trust formed? Thats at the signing. Usually at the signing they get your signature by accommodation
signature rights under d-c because you fell silent or fell into a dishonor. Or, you are the holder of the instrument because you didnt do a return, a proper way of
returning it. They get you under that d-c thing and you are liable under that, but you are not expressing it to be a trust to begin with and that signature is really
how it all started. Maybe that OR bond that you signed or that acceptance of that indictment and you are holding that indictment because you never expressed it
to be a trust. Therefore, you fell silent and they got it to be construed under d-c and they got you under arrest or your property.

1:57:30 Eric When you fail to qualify your signature on a mortgage note and then you do your administrative process and then your declaratory judgment and
then your NOI to get into chambers where you can bring your creditors bill in equity, at that point to claim trust and prove trust because you dont have the note
that you originally signed and they havent brought it forward, what is the model you are going to use to claim the proof? Would it be the case you filed against
them? CW Most people have some kind of a copy of the note that they signed because they gave you copies. Eric A copy is just fine? CW Yeah, Im the one
who signed the note. Eric Thats all it takes is a copy to bring it into chambers? I was wondering if you had to have the original in order to claim? CW You
are not going to have the original and the closest thing I would get is a certified copy. If I cant get a certified copy then maybe I better protest I didnt get a
copy because I was a signer on the note. Eric I think that answers a lot of questions for a lot of people because I understood the process right up to getting
into chambers but then to prove and claim thats what our emphasis is going to be, to get a certified copy. CW I would form a Notice of a Declaration in the
county and put that on the UCC and form the two records to prove that I was established that I was the Grantor because I was the signer. If anybody can rebut
that they would have to what? Produce another note signed by somebody else. How would that happen if they cant even produce the note? Where is their
evidence to rebut my claim? Produce it. Davila v Shalala says unless you produce a record none exists. Eric Once you claim the proof, once you are in
chambers, then I can claim myself as the beneficiary? CW If I dont get any rebuttals to my claim then my claim stands. Now I have standing as
Grantor/Beneficiary and now come in with a prima facie case of the affidavit and now that I make the claim against the Trustee that he didnt make the
disbursement the court of equity is going to assume that he is guilty, and he didnt. They are going to treat him that way and ask him, When are you going to
pay? He doesnt have a record of a payment. Eric When he didnt make the disbursement he is in breach, right? CW Yes. That could compel him not to
breach the trust. Order him to make the payment! [This could be used as an offensive move to prevent a case going to court for breach of trust.]

2:00:25 Eric You said the affidavit a moment ago what affidavit were you talking about specifically? CW My affidavit is going to stand as truth of the case
and is going to be on the private side, in-chambers. Otherwise, on the public side an affidavit is nothing other than the lowest form of evidence that points to a
competent point witness that can be put on the stand and sworn in and cross-examined. Eric So it is going to be an affidavit of truth? CW An affidavit of
truth, yeah, put in on the public side that is going to state that Ive got the right to make the claim. But then I could also put in an affidavit on the public side
what do they do? They just make a claim on a foreclosure and they attach somebodys affidavit of assignment. Eric Did you mean private in one context there
and public in the other because you said public twice and Im a little confused? We were talking about private so you would put the affidavit of truth into the
private? CW Right, but it is going to be treated two different ways. Eric The one in the private how would you treat it? CW That would be the law of the
case. [This is what the judge, in-chambers, will have to rule for your benefit.] The one in the public is just going to be pointing to a fact that there is a witness
that needed to be put on the stand, say for example, would be me because Im making the claim. Im making the claim as the Beneficiary. That is the lowest
form of evidence in their realm, in the public side of the court. It only points to somebody that is supposed to be getting on the stand and testifying and subject
to cross-examination. Eric What would they look at as a higher form of evidence if we have to bring it in on the public side? CW Well, Im operating
colorable on the public side under their rules and regulations, but really Im operating dually on the private side in-chambers and I have a simultaneous process
running, simultaneously. Ive got a colorable claim on the public side, which Im stating that Im Beneficiary, but that really sets up the in-chambers
proceedings where my affidavit over there is going to be in a different realm and a different law weight.

2:02:50 Eric Once we get into chambers are the only people that are going to be there is going to be me and the judge or is the attorney for the plaintiff going
to be there, too? CW Possibly. It depends on how you can set it up. Eric For the CCI do I want to even reveal anything to the attorney for the plaintiff? CW
Really, the attorney is representing the other party, which privately I should have gave them all the documentation at one time. They should have had it. We
could play it like, They already have the documentation so there is no need for them to be in the hearing. This is for judges eyes only. Maybe they might
object and the judge wont allow it that way. Thats ok, they already got the information anyway. See, they dont hold any weight in-chambers. They are
fictions. Eric Oh, no conscience, they cant be recognized in-chambers! CW Right! Eric So no matter what they say the judge cant hear them just like he
cant me in open court? CW Yes, the same way in reverse, yes. Just the opposite, the mirror image. That why they couldnt acknowledge the debt when we
asked for a Debt Validation. They would be stopping the prescription. [See above definition on page 7 from Blacks Law 8th Edition.] Just like in-chambers
they cant be heard just like you cant be heard in the public side as a real man. Their fiction in-chambers cant be heard and your live man in public cant be
heard. Its the mirror image backwards. Eric But I can be heard when I go in as the plaintiff because Im not going in as a real man, Im going in as a fiction,
correct? CW Right, you are going in as a strawman. Eric Just to make sure everybody has a clear understanding that is how Im going to go in. When you are
talking about going into the public you are talking about going in for causes of action, correct? CW Right, causes of action is agency that they are accustomed
to see in their forum or in their process and procedures. Eric That would be the only reason for my going in there is for my causes of action, for example, as
we talked about like unfair business practices, anti-trust, etc. CW I would do that just so we can come into chambers on the private side and prove my case.

2:05:15 Eric So you are talking about, for example in a non-judicial state where if they filed against me I would have to come in there, not under my causes
of action, but I could come in just putting in a NOI to get a protective order just to get -in-chambers in that situation, correct? CW I didnt follow you there.
Could you clarify that a little bit again? Eric What I was saying is that I was thinking that the only reason that I would be in court in the public side is if I,
especially as the Beneficiary on the witness stand, is if I had filed a cause of action if I was the plaintiff that came in. In Florida, for example, where we are
obviously it is a judicial state when it comes to foreclosures so I wouldnt even have to file. What I am wondering is if I would even be on the witness stand as
the Beneficiary? CW That would be a counterclaim then, say in Florida. Eric Right. So you what you were talking about is if we were coming in as a plaintiff
in a non-judicial State to get it into court then we might be the Beneficiary on the witness stand because we were the plaintiff and we file a cause of action,
correct? CW You have to bring in a case, so you have to have some kind of independent action. Eric In Florida, for example, I wouldnt need to bring in the
causes of action so I wouldnt need to be on the witness stand as the Beneficiary, for example? CW You may never get to trial and get on the witness stand. If
you are making a prime facie case they may settle before it gets there because all you want to do is get it into chambers. Eric Thats right. As you said before,
whatever Ive got to do to get in there thats what Ive got to do. CW Keep in mind that in-chambers is the same as an in-camera hearing. They are
synonymous.

2:07:15 Tim You were talking there about foreclosures. I want to pick up some of these that people want to walk away from them. Putting it into a trust I
understand is the best way to go. Now I would be the Trustee on that new trust, but there is the matter of the old trust that is being dealt with. CW The old trust
would probably be incorporated into the new trust. You are bringing an independent action through this new trust you are forming with a cause of action. It
encompasses the old trust because you are going to incorporate it in there and turn it all into trust res and a special deposit. Tim Its workable then? CW Yeah.

2:08:15 Eric If we got away from a fiat currency system and actually went back to a gold currency system we were to have gold certificates or silver
certificates or some type of certificate for an intrinsically backed system, all this would continue to be just as valid because there would still have to be trusts
that we could go back and obligate? CW Yeah, there would still be trusts. Eric The only way this would be an issue if they would actually hold the intrinsic
value directly in our hand, correct? CW Trust does not have to have a value. Eric What I am getting at is the only way we would not want to utilize all of this
is because we would actually hold the gold in our hand because we dont have to trust the piece of paper in our hand is worth something? CW Really, I kind of
like the system the way it is if they would allow us to use HJR-192 in the way it supposed to be meant to do. Really, we have the ability to create as much
money as we need to get us through any crisis or situation that we could face. Then once that situation is abated then we could relieve the debt, release it, by the
release valve by doing the opposite on the other side and bring it down to more manageable levels like it was always meant to function as. The whole problem
is theyre not allowing us to do that. There are just some greedy people that are not allowing us to seek the remedy and the opposite, the set-off on the other
side. The discharge on the public and the set-off on the private, the relief value. Actually, that ledger sheet is nothing more than the House Joint Resolution.
You can pump up the public side, the discharge side, as much as you want to get you through any kind of emergency but then you set it off on the other side,
bringing the public side back down into a level that you could manage. I hate to get away from that because we have a perfect system, except it is being
misused. Eric I dont disagree with you on everything you just said, but they are talking about, for example, the Federal Reserve may go away so if things
were to change as far as the system we are currently in and I dont see that happening. CW They arent accountable to anybody but themselves. They are not
accountable to the people because they are still functioning in the Democracy, but I dont live in a Democracy. Im supposed to be living in a Republic but I got
hypothecated into a Democracy. Im trying to get out, just like everybody else. Eric Even if they were to get rid of the Federal Reserve unless we actually
carry gold everything that we are talking about in trusts is still going to be valid because we still have to trust that that piece of paper has value, correct? CW
Yeah, you have to have faith and confidence in something.

Eric There are a lot of people talking about, Whats going to happen if they get rid of the Federal Reserve? Are we even gong to be able to utilize all of
this? CW What they put into trust is by special deposit, in other words, in kind in, in kind out. What did you put in in 1933? Gold! That means that you must
get gold back out. If they are trying to give me some gold certificates that is proof that they commingled the funds and they are in breach of trust. Eric They
are really in breach of trust when they sold us gold-plated tungsten. CW OK, yeah well we have to watch out for those. Weve got dishonest people, whether
they are in government or out of government. Did people buy the tungsten gold and they really hold the real gold in trust for us? Dont know but it wont make
any difference to me because we are going to take the remainder from the termination of the strawman and we are going to form that new trust, by an order, and
have them put what was supposed to be there back into that new trust. So, it really doesnt make any difference to me whether the absconded with the gold or
not. Im giving them room to save face here. Put it into that new trust we are forming and now generate some interest for me on the public side and put it in that
LLC over there. Eric When you say interest, lets make sure we use that in the right context. When you are saying interest are you talking about if I have
$100 and its 6% interest or are you talking about interest because I actually have a stake in it? CW On the one side its because I have a stake in it but on the
other side its $50. Eric So again, the duality of the public and the private, is that what you mean? CW Right, right. Because the $50 they can recognize on the
public side but my interest is really on the private, which is the stake Ive got. One of those duality portal words but I think really all of these are portalling on
both sides with dual meanings. They are playing this game. They are causing havoc. Its the definition of legal fiction that I keep going back to. Eric Then
you read the first page on the document you were talking about with the word in in it, the Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts, and then most people
wouldnt read the first paragraph, much less read the whole book and understand it, so the havoc just continues because there is no true understanding of what
is really going on. CW Right, you have to have that decoder ring with you. Here is legal fiction, the last paragraph under Blacks Law 8th.

Legal fiction is the mask that progress [the strawman] must wear to pass the faithful but blear-eyed watchers of our ancient legal treasures [Our unalienable
rights]. But though legal fictions are useful in thus mitigating or absorbing the shock of innovation, they work havoc in the form of intellectual confusion.
Morris R. Cohen, Law and the Social Order 126 (1933).
What is intellectually confusing with these duality public/private thing and the switching of the words and stuff? It really wrecks havoc with our intellect. But
yet it is the face mask that you must wear to interface in to do commerce because youve got to get those colorable titles that actually are representing the real
thing held in the private. Youve got to come by way via the public. The only way you are going to interface in there is the private man, the real man, is putting
on the face mask of the strawman. Eric Do you know when that definition of legal fiction actually got put in the Blacks Dictionary? CW Yeah, that was
actually quoting from an 1819 I think it said. [correctly: 1933] Its actually making reference to the ancient law by oh this is by Morris R. Cohen, Law and
the Social Order 1933. The paragraph above that is by Henry S. Maine Ancient Law 1901. You ought to read that one. Get Ancient Law by Henry S. Maine.
You are going to be shocked. [http://books.google.com/books?cd=2&q=Ancient+Law+Henry+S.+Maine&btnG=Search+Books]
I did a show on that one. It goes back into Roman Law and the Capitus Deminutio. They are diminishing your status under Roman Law by the capitalization of
your name. Look that up in Blacks Law. [See also this forum entry: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread363550/pg1. Read the comments as well.]
capitis deminutio (kap-i-tis dem-i-n[y]oo-shee-oh). [Latin reduction of status] Roman law. A diminution or alteration of a persons legal status. Also
spelled capitis diminutio. See DE CAPITE MINUTIS.
Capitis deminutio is the destruction of the caput or legal personality. Capitis deminutio, so to speak, wipes out the former individual and puts a new one in
his place, and between the old and the new individual there is, legally speaking, nothing in common. A juristic personality may be thus destroyed in one of
three ways: (1) by loss of the status libertatis. This is the capitis deminutio maxima; (2) by loss of the status civitatis. This is the capitis deminutio media
(magna); (3) by severance from the agnatic family. This entails capitis deminutio minima. Rudolph Sohm, The Institutes: A Textbook of the History and
System of Roman Private Law 178-79 (James Crawford Ledlie trans., 3d ed. 1907).

capitis deminutio maxima (kap-i-tis dem-i-n[y]oo-shee-oh mak-si-m ). [Latin maximum reduction of status] Roman law. The diminution of a persons legal
status as a result of being reduced to slavery.

capitis deminutio minima (kap-i-tis dem-i-n[y]oo-shee-oh min-i-m ). [Latin minimal reduction of status] Roman law. The diminution of a persons legal
status involving a change of family, while both citizenship and freedom were retained.

capitis deminutio minor (kap-i-tis dem-i-n[y]oo-shee-oh mI-n r). [Latin minor reduction of status] Roman law. The diminution of a persons legal status
involving a loss of citizenship but not of freedom. Under the Empire, banishment for life to an island or other restricted area had this effect. Also termed
capitis deminutio media.
Cite as: BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 223 (8th ed. 2004)
Its almost like they publish this stuff in the later editions in Blacks so that its already posted and public knowledge of what they are doing and its like if you
dont read these then its your downfall because theyve given you public notice. Its voluntary ignorance. Eric read from Blacks 4th In Roman Law, a
diminishing or abridgment of personality. A loss or curtailment of a mans status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications. CW by capitis and capitis is
capital. Capitalization and when they capitalized your name they diminished your status. Eric It says capitis deminutio maxima. The highest or most
comprehensive loss of status. This occurs when a mans condition, which changed from one of freedom to one of bondage when he became a slave, which
swept away all citizenship and all family rights. CW Right, they are doing that by prescription. You didnt make the claim, therefore you are going to lose the
right and you are going to lose the claim. Eric One of the things that jump out at me there is all family rights. What do they mean by that? CW look up
familia.
familia (f -mil-ee- ), n. [Latin] Roman law. 1. All persons, free and slave, in the power of a paterfamilias. See PATERFAMILIAS. 2. Ones legal relations
through and with ones family, including all property, ancestral privileges, and duties.
The testator conveyed to him outright his whole familia, that is, all the rights he enjoyed over and through the family; his property, his slaves, and all his
ancestral privileges, together, on the other hand, with all his duties and obligations. Henry S. Maine, Ancient Law 170 (17th ed. 1901).
3. A family, including household servants.
Familia. A family or household, including servants, that is, hired persons (mercenarii or conductitii,) as well as bondsmen, and all who were under the
authority of one master, (dominus.) Bracton uses the word in the original sense, as denoting servants or domestics. 1 Alexander M. Burrill, A Law Dictionary
and Glossary 603-04 (2d ed. 1867).
Cite as: BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 637 (8th ed. 2004)
Under Roman Law they have diminished your status and created this legal fiction and everything has really been put in trust because a legal fiction is a trust. It
is a constructive trust. Eric So, when they capitalize your name they are creating a trust and that is really an agenda to take your household, your household
servants, your quantity of land, and whats sufficient to maintain your family. CW Yeah, its the vacuum cleaner that sucks all your assets from you. It says an
equitable remedy that the court imposes against one who has obtained property by wrong-doing. That is under constructive trusts in Blacks 8th.
constructive trust. An equitable remedy that a court imposes against one who has obtained property by wrongdoing. A constructive trust, imposed to prevent
unjust enrichment, creates no fiduciary relationship. Despite its name, it is not a trust at all. Cf. resulting trust. Also termed implied trust; involuntary trust;
trust de son tort; trust ex delicto; trust ex maleficio; remedial trust; trust in invitum. See trustee de son tort under TRUSTEE. Cf. resulting trust. [Cases: Trusts
91-111. C.J.S. Trover and Conversion 10, 12, 174-201.]
A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the
holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee. Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co.,
122 N.E. 378, 380 (N.Y. 1919) (Cardozo, J.).

It is sometimes said that when there are sufficient grounds for imposing a constructive trust, the court constructs a trust. The expression is, of course, absurd.
The word constructive is derived from the verb construe, not from the verb construct. The court construes the circumstances in the sense that it explains
or interprets them; it does not construct them. 5 Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher, The Law of Trusts 462.4 (4th ed. 1987).
Cite as: BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1546 (8th ed. 2004)
Eric So for people who want to keep their head in the sand and just continue on and not really pay attention, its like a truck running you over. CW Really,
yeah. There are too many grains of sand and they keep piling the grains of sand, the evidence, up and the next thing you know you have a mountain. For
somebody to deny the mountain of sand you have to be a fool, totally brain-dead. Eric There is no what that I could ever go into that public court again
Christian. CW I think that if I know how to operate under the strawman in the public, why would you be afraid to go into court? Eric Yeah, if you know how
to operate. Somebody told me its like going into a completely dark room, naked, and there is broken glass all over the floor and its also covered with CW I
liken it to a minefield, but you know in every mine-field there is a safe passage by a secret path. If I know the secret path I dont get blown up. Eric Just in
reading what I just did and why they developed the capital letter name CW Yeah, for the purpose of them getting you. Eric Yeah, that is the purpose
behind it. There is no other reason. So when I look at my drivers license and I see that on there I feel a whole lot differently now when I look at that. CW The
remedy to defeat them is really to agree with them, create no controversy, and then latter on get into a position and change it.

2:22:45 Eric So that would be if they leveled a charge against you say, Im here to plead guilty to the facts.? CW Right, because if there is no controversy
there is no case. Now I can go into chambers and tell you why judge that I, as the Trustee, didnt make the payment by legal means. My legal reason is we are
now under discretionary trust and I have discretion as the Trustee to withhold because the Beneficiary is bankrupt, insolvent. Eric If the judge says to you,
What facts are you pleading guilty to? CW I am going to agree with you that I am the Trustee. I am going to agree with you that I did not make a payment. If
it is operating by trust then Im in there as a Trustee/Defendant because I didnt make the payment then alright Im going to agree that Im the Trustee and Im
going to agree that I didnt make the payment. Now there is no controversy. While I am in there and explain to him it is a discretionary trust, Oh, by the way
your honor, here is a non-negotiable private instrument for the payment and now let me pay that so that the bankrupt Beneficiary is no longer bankrupt and then
I can disburse the total funds, make him solvent again so now I can fulfill the purpose. Im in a win-win situation, whether Im going to play beneficiary or
whether Im going to play Trustee, either way. Either way we are in a win-win situation. Here we were wearing the slippers all along, just like Dorothy was in
the movie. All we had to do was click our heels together 3 times rights, titles, and interest in trust and we are back in Kansas again, back at home.

Eric I have a case that I was involved in and I was acquitted back in the beginning of November, but there were a few things the were withheld adjudication
on so they could get the statutory fine out of me. CW Right, so it would keep running in the background the bid bond, payment bond, and performance bond.
Eric So I can turn them into a trust? CW Yeah, just get the main trust, the whole case, and that takes care of all the proceeds that are attached to it. Put it all in
special deposit. Order it to be paid and whatever is left tell them to give me the disbursement back and you get the funds. Eric So I could walk out of there
with a check? CW No, but what you do with that check is that going to be the temptation on the debtor side? Are you going to put that check back in under
special deposit back on the private side and tell them to generate you interest from that, or else you are back in the same situation? Eric At this point what
would I do, send a NOI to the judges chambers? CW Well, yeah, ultimately I like to feed directly into the IRS because the IRS the judge is going to have to
listen to the IRS. Eric The problem is the funds are due by the end of April. CW Then play the court route until you can get the IRS to come around and be
your big brother and tell them they have to close the account. Eric Go as them for more time to pay the fine until I get the IMF file changed over? CW Yeah,
you could do that. Eric What other choice do you think I have? CW Do the acknowledgment of the debt. That puts an estopple because of the agreement there
is no controversy and then put the order in for the settlement. Come in and make sure that youve got a special deposit claiming all those bonds in the
background and tell them to convert that to funds and make the settlement to close and settle that case. Eric So I can do that before the IRS file, the IMF, is
changed over? CW Yeah, then I could give that information to the IRS and tell them to check it out and make sure everything is all closed here. Eric How
would I do an acknowledgment of the debt at this point, would I do that directly to the court? CW Yeah, just put in an acknowledgment of the debt. Eric It
would be a notice and then I would CW Acknowledgment of Debt, that would be the title of the document. Eric Then as a real man I would acknowledge
it? CW Through your strawman you would, yeah. Eric Send that directly to the judges chambers or send it to his assistant to get a hearing in open court? CW
That would have to be on the public side. Eric But he is going to say you already acknowledged the debt the day I assigned it to you so what are we here for,
right? CW Alright, but the bonds in the background, that is where you need to discuss that in-chambers. That encompasses that and you are going to disburse
those funds convert that to cash and settle everything in the background. Eric So, do the acknowledgment so I can get a hearing so I can send in the NOI to
get into chambers? CW Right, to get your SOI into chambers.

Eric Then the SOI would be the case that would be turned into a trust and I would do that on a UCC-1 and 3, correct? CW Yeah, that would be the special
deposit. Eric So those are the documents, the UCC-1 and UCC-3, that specifically would be the SOI, correct? CW Along with the UCC-1 in the county also.
Eric So first I have to file it into the public record with a UCC-1? CW Yeah, first Ive got to claim it if I dont have a title. I have to create a title. If Ive got a
title, which is the case already, I dont have to create it. The case number is the title. Claim it on a UCC-1. Now it is mine. Create the two witnesses. The UCC-
1 and the county recorder. Now Ive claimed it. Now it is mine and we want to move [transfer] it, we want to assign it, transfer it. We are going to make a
special deposit under UCC-3. Do the UCC-3 and pull that out certified. That is one record. Do the county again and pull that out. That is two records. Now
youve got two records to prove you did the 3 transfer, the formation of the trust, making a special deposit, and you can back up on the 1 that you claimed it. It
was your property to move it. Now you transfer trust property. That is when the trust was formed. You now have the proof to prove you formed a trust because
you transferred property to a trustee. So, there was a document put out there, notice of claim on the UCC-1 and you changed the wording you only change
one word for that notice in the county. Instead of claim you put transfer. Then you put that same verbiage on the UCC-3 in the collateral block. Now you are
just making a transfer. There are only like three lines. The exact word was claim, but we changed claim on the 1 to put it on the 3, we changed it to transfer on
the 3. The same verbiage though.

2:30:25 Eric What verbiage are you talking about there? CW The Notice. The notice and the verbiage that goes in the collateral block, number 4. Eric
Right, but I dont have a model for that verbiage that Im going to need so Im wondering if you could tell me what the model of that is? CW Its really simple.
Its only 3 lines long. Eric While you are pulling that up, the judge that I have, they say he doesnt do in-chambers hearings. CW Yeah, right, does a bear crap
in the woods? Tell him there is a protective order on this stuff establishing trade secret information and we have to have an in-camera hearing. They will look at
your case and say, Well youve got nothing to put it into an in-camera hearing with. They may be right. You havent established CCI information by putting
in the Protective Order. So this is just Notice, write across the top. This is what goes into the county.

2:32:10 [Verbiage for the Notice to claim the title to be filed in the county.]

NOTICE

This is actual constructive public notice by Grantor[that he/she is]owner and holder of all right, title, and interest, with the non-negotiable instrument claim
number RA-____________-US with all attachments and proceeds therefrom as being held in the private. [The RA is a Registered Mail Number which you sent
to yourself previously, which was cancelled, and now is your private property to use as you see fit.]

If any information regarding this needs to be gleaned please contact the Grantor at the address below.

Then sign it,

By: Grantor
________________________
Address of Grantor

Eric That is the Notice [not sure if a separate Notice is needed for both the claim and the transfer] that goes into the county, but thats also what goes on the
UCC-1? CW Yes, put that in collateral block 4 on the UCC-1. Eric Then there is just one thing that changes on that collateral block 4 on UCC-1, one word on
that, right? CW Yeah, you change if from claim non-negotiable instrument claim number RA now you are making a transfer. You change claim to transfer
right, title and interest, with the non-negotiable instrument transferred by number RAwith all attachments and proceeds therefromand then you are
going to do a special deposit by transfer to the Trustee on a UCC-3. This goes into the county, pull this out certified, there is your Notice. That is one record.
Put this verbiage in the collateral block 4 on the UCC-3 for the transfer. Do the same thing on the 1, but change the wording back to claim on the 1.

[This verbiage is what goes on the Notice to claim the trust title filed in the county and on the UCC-1 filed with the Secretary of States office of your State.]

This is actual constructive public notice by Grantor[that he/she is] owner and holder of all right, title, and interest, with the non-negotiable instrument claim
number RA-____________-US with all attachments and proceeds therefrom as being held in the private.

[This verbiage is what goes on the Notice to transfer trust res property filed in the county and on the UCC-3 filed with the Secretary of States office of your
State.]

This is actual constructive public notice by Grantor [that he/she is]owner and holder of all right, title, and interest, with the non-negotiable instrument
transferred by number RA-____________-US with all attachments and proceeds therefrom as being held in the private.

2:33:50 Pull that out certified. Now there are your two witnesses right there. [Is a certified copy needed for a Notice of claim and a Notice of transfer, along
with certified copies of the UCC-1 & UCC-3? If so, that would be a total of four certified copies, two for a claim and two for a transfer.] There is your proof to
prove the claim that you formed a trust because you did a transfer of property on the 3. Any time you have a present transfer of trust res property to the Trustee
youve got a trust, as long as youve got Intent, Purpose, and other Parties established. Your specific res you are naming with the RA number and whatever is in
the case put all that documentation in the footnotes of any documents you put in with the case and that indicates its all the same thing. Anything with that RA
number is encompassed in that case. You could reference that RA number to be Case No. such and such. Connect it all together like tinker toys. Eric That RA
number Im going to reserve specifically for this case. Any other case Ill use a different RA number, correct? CW Different RA number, yeah, different trust.
Eric Ive got to do that because I cant see paying them that $468 and it would be a great opportunity to put this technology to work to get into an in-camera
hearing and have a real-world situation. If I do get an in-camera hearing and for some reason it doesnt go the way that I want to, can always go back and
express again and get another hearing? CW Yeah, probably with some new trust res. Eric What would be new trust res? CW Any new motions into the court
you could turn them into special deposits also and turn them into another trust. Eric At that point we could figure out a motion to do that maybe I cant pay
the fine because there is no lawful money? CW In-chambers, yeah, you could say that kind of stuff. Eric So that would be another motion to get back into
chambers? CW Yeah, you could try that. Eric Im going to utilize your technology Christian and I cant wait to report back to you. CW I think that you are
going to find out that when you get into chambers and the judge doesnt have the robe on they are going to be much more on your side because you arent
going to be on the side of the fictions in there.

2:36:20 Eric Whats the chances of me recovering the 3 grand I paid out to the lawyer for the trial that I had? Do you know of any method to do that? CW
Well, if youve got the bond in the background that was attached to the case that has all the derivatives from there you are going to get the disbursement from
that. If thats going on the assumption of say $4M on the county and $40M for the State and $400M for the Federal, per count, you are talking about a lot of
money. Eric These are misdemeanors, are they at that level? CW Yeah, thats what is really operating the courts. The value of your case on the public side
probably doesnt pay the judges lunch bill. Eric What you are saying is I could get the disbursement for this $400M? CW Yeah, for all the bonds that are in
the background. all the derivatives that are attached to this case, all the bid bonds, performance bonds, and payment bonds all attachments and proceeds
therefrom. This is going to encompass the whole thing; everything that is attached. Eric Im going to go into chambers and the case is going to be turned into
a trust, what procedure do I go in to get those funds into my hands? CW You are going to go in and put in the order for the settlement, just like we discussed on
the show, for taking the main account back. Its the same model. You are going to put in the order for the discharge on the one side and the order for the set-off
on the other side. You are going to put the order to merge the titles. Once the titles are merged then there is no trust. The Trustee has to give you the
disbursement, because there is no trust. Then he becomes personally liable because there is no trust protection for him. If he doesnt disburse the funds he
becomes personally liable.

Eric Since I havent changed over my Individual Master File [IMF with the IRS] if I increase the National debt by $400M I want to do that before I change
over my IMF because that is exactly what Im doing by getting disbursement its getting put on the debt, right? CW If they give you debt titles back you are
not going to put them back into circulation in the public. You are going to tell them, Hey, put the remainder, after Ive done the merging of the titles, if there is
anything left over there, put that in this new trust that Im going to establish. Then start generating some interest on the public side for that in a new LLC. Eric
So, for example, if I generate some interest, say 10% on $400M, I can write a check off of that 10%? Is that what you are saying? CW Yeah, if you could get
the interest into the LLC. You might be able to do it that way. What may hold you up is they may seize the funds anyway because you are still effectively
connected in as a debtor, because that original Master File might not be corrected. [Need to correct the IMF first.] Its the same reason why they are claiming,
or freezing up, the OID funds. Eric If they were to seize the funds, and they may not, as we talked about there being spotty remedy, right? CW Right. Eric If
they were to seize the funds then the chance of me recovering that 3 grand I paid out to that lawyer Ill lose that chance? CW Possibly, yeah. If you put that in
with the discharge that should take care of it though. That went into a special deposit. His fees and all of that should be discharged once you do the trust, once
you merge the titles and terminate the trust. Eric The lawyer has already been paid. CW Didnt you say there was something you owed yet? Eric Yes, $468
in statutory fines. CW Ok, then that is part of the trust deposit. That should be taken care of with this trust so if you dont get any funds back that is still taken
care of. Eric Right. I understand that. I was just wondering how I could get my 3 grand back? CW Really you didnt give him anything. You gave him
Federal Reserve Notes. They have no value. Eric They have value right now Christian.

2:41:05 Pete I just wanted to interject that I just found a book that I think would bring a lot of help to everyone. Its called Agency and Trusts for Payment of
Debts Under Private Arrangement. I think it will help both ways, like for special deposits, not only for us paying debts but other people paying our debts back.
CW Does it talk about special deposits in there, trust deposits? Pete Ive only just found it on the archive.org. It does talk about a soon to be published book
this book was published in 1868 and it says the soon to be published book is Prescription and Limitation of Time in Relation to Real Property of The Crown,
The Duke of Cornwall, and Private Persons. CW The prescription was dealing with the right over an extended period of time. Pete This book was printed at 3
Chancery Lane, which is the same street as the Public Trustee, the Solicitor General in England. Pete read some from the book. CW Remember, a BOE [Bill
of Exchange] is under d-c so you cant really use a negotiable instrument of any kind. But, what is likened to the BOE, but it would not be a BOE, is under
Section 159 on page 41 [Gilbert Law Summaries Trusts] read earlier about the merger of title. Merger of title acts like a BOE in exchanging the bill. You are
merging the titles. You are merging the two bills together, the debt bill and the asset bill. When you merge the two bills its the same as being a BOE, or
exchanging the bills, but under trusts you are merging it. Under d-c you use the BOE. How you make a payment under trusts is you merge titles. Under d-c you
write a BOE. Listen to the title for Chapter 2. Of Instruments for the Payment of Debts Without the Privity of Any Communication With Any Creditor. Its only a
short book. Its only 100+ [actually 54] pages. Thats crazy.