Jack Smith's Trust Solution

The nature, history and formation of Trusts.

Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby nameless » Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:56 am

I came across this last night. It is dated May 2009, nearly a year old.

Do You Understand Trusts? by Jack Smith May 2009
Fri, 05/08/2009 - 00:04 — Arthur Cristian

Do you understand Trusts?

To the extent that the beneficiary in a Trust is one who is there to receive whatever the trust provides. As a Trustee on the private side you’re a creditor but the living man is a beneficiary IN THE PUBLIC TRUST. Now in a law suit, in a court A PLAINTIFF IS A BENEFICIARY and a DEBTOR or DEFENDANT is a Trustee/DEBTOR. So the conundrum is that in the ‘Public Trust’ the people are SUPPOSED to be Beneficiaries which means they’re CREDITORS and the Trustees are SUPPOSED to be the Debtors and they are the PUBLIC OFFICIALS. However in a court case, civil and criminal why are the Trustees (debtors) THE U.S’ trustees? The Plaintiff that is suing the people (the beneficiaries) when that’s ASSBACKWARDS? Because THE PEOPLE are SUPPOSED to be the plaintiffs suing the government for a lack of performance as Trustees but every PUBLIC court case is BACKWARDS and the concept is that THEY ARE SUING ‘FORM’ TO TEST YOU.

What they do is they lay a COMPLAINT in your hand or a pleading and since you have a document in your hand (the complaint) you must be the (public) Trustee because you’re the defendant. The problem is that THEY HAVE INVERTED THE TRUST ON YOU and you don’t know what to do because the (Public) Trustee has become the plaintiff/BENEFICIARY and the public beneficiary (Men and women who are the True CREDITORS have become the DEBTOR/TRUSTEE – defendants and they are using an artifice to do that PLACING THE COMPLAINT IN YOUR HAND and the complaint they place in your hand is a CHARGE to do (perform) some task. Well it is the Trustee who has the responsibility to settle the matter in the ‘estate’ or in the Trust.

So when they place the paperwork in your hand they are co-appointing you as the (Public) Trustee in order to ESCAPE their responsibility as the Trustee. They (the govt) do what EVERY DEBTOR do and pass on their obligation to the third party – THAT’S YOU! So they have appointed you as the Trustee to them when then makes them the beneficiary to you. So they have appointed YOU to be the DEBTOR to SETTLE the problems that THEY are there to do. So if you then take the ‘ACTIVE ROLE’ as the defendant you have automatically agreed that you have become the public- trustee-defendant AND A DEBTOR and responsible to SETTLE THE CLAIM (whether it’s true or not). What you need to do is SIGN BY ‘BANKERS ACCEPTANCE’ the tender offer of the complaint.

You need to RETURN (the original) OFFER which now sends the matter of being the Trustee back to the public and you RE-ASSUME THE ROLE of beneficiary but in order to be able to do that when you return the document that you must send EVIDENCE that the duty of whoever is Trustee in that case, has been SETTLED & CLOSED by way of a ‘Tender payment consideration’ offer. However that ‘Tender payment consideration’ offer is not coming from you as the public beneficiary in the public Trust because you’re a Strawman and in public they can’t tender anything BUT you CAN be the AGENT for the Trustee in the PRIVATE TRUST who has already sent a ‘tender payment’ by way of the PRE-PAID account to settle and close the account.

Now since the ‘Private Trustee’ can never ‘APPEAR’ in the public Trust he needs an agent and how he/she gets the agent is that he/she appoints the public beneficiary/Strawman as his/her agent to bring in the solution/Remedy. So when the defendant-Beneficiary of the public Trust is laid a document in his/her hands to become the Trustee, he ACCEPTS IT and RETURNS it with a ‘BANKERS ACCEPTANCE’ and sends the payment that he got sending it back to an appointed Trustee for the public government and you request that that trustee ‘Process the foreign payment’ coming from the Private Trustee. Now you have RE-APPOINTED the public to a position of Trustee DEBTOR and watch them scatter and you have sent them the evidence of the payment which settles the claim and leaves the so called defendant as the only claimant beneficiary left in the matter. You have now INVERTED their INVERSION putting you back on top and then you STAY OUT OF THE CASE because beneficiaries cannot operate in the Trust or else you become the Trustee, once again.

THAT’S YOUR SOLUTION
Jack Smith May 2009
“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy."

Lord Denning
nameless
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby enegiss » Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:50 am

interesting post nameless, nice one. gonna have a few more reads of it. peace
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
enegiss
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby nameless » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:38 pm

Hi enegiss - yes it is rather convoluted. I have read it several times, and the bits I do comprehend do seem to make sense. I wonder, though, if an 'offer' were to be returned using this terminology, would anyone know what to do with it. Is this process just more theory?
“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy."

Lord Denning
nameless
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby holy vehm » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:03 pm

nameless wrote:Hi enegiss - yes it is rather convoluted. I have read it several times, and the bits I do comprehend do seem to make sense. I wonder, though, if an 'offer' were to be returned using this terminology, would anyone know what to do with it. Is this process just more theory?


Ive had a few reads through it myself and it kinda makes sense but i dont know enough yet to give comment.
I feel like i need a phd to understand some of this trust stuff, real head banger.

thanks for the post though

:peace:
hv
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby enegiss » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:28 pm

your not wrong hv, its a toughy for sure, peace
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
enegiss
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby the_common_law_reverend_kenny » Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:03 pm

‘Private Trustee’ can never ‘APPEAR’ in the public
i agree with that bit.......
SOVEREIGN: not controlled by outside forces: autonomous; self-governing; independent "a sovereign people" <> "by any peaceful administritive means necessary" - the way of the order.
the_common_law_reverend_kenny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:18 pm
Location: Fidach Diplomatic Outpost near You

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby nameless » Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:56 pm

the_common_law_reverend_kenny wrote:
‘Private Trustee’ can never ‘APPEAR’ in the public
i agree with that bit.......


Are there any other bits you agree with????
“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy."

Lord Denning
nameless
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby the_common_law_reverend_kenny » Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:08 pm

Are there any other bits you agree with????


I think its a creative use of various terms that we are all familiar with, but it mixes everything right up, all these terms in one pot, creditor,debtor,plaintiff blah blah, for such a short piece it is outstandingly complex, is it meant to be that way? some kind of smoke screen? Someone having a laugh? Like those hackers that release self replicating virus's for a laugh? imo.

r/ek
SOVEREIGN: not controlled by outside forces: autonomous; self-governing; independent "a sovereign people" <> "by any peaceful administritive means necessary" - the way of the order.
the_common_law_reverend_kenny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:18 pm
Location: Fidach Diplomatic Outpost near You

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby nameless » Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:47 pm

I agree with your definitions.

Regarding trusts in general, or what we want to learn specifically from them, it should be like debtor/creditor in its comprehension. If it's not simple, then it must be wrong.

I've been thinking a lot about Jack Smith's Trust Solution over the past few days, and wonder why I can't find anything else from where I found this piece, no follow ons. If it was an accurate method, surely this 'news' would have spread far and wide by now.
“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy."

Lord Denning
nameless
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Jack Smith's Trust Solution

Postby mark1963 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:54 pm

It sort of makes sense but my head swims a bit with the public/private bit still.

I have started reading Gilbert's so hopefully it will make more sense soon.
mark1963
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:50 am

Next

Return to Trusts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron