The Truth About Trusts . . . and the Courts

The Truth About Trusts . . . and the Courts

By Author and Publisher DAVID E. ROBINSON

Basically, courts are charging the all-caps NAME which is a TRUST. They hope that you will identify yourself as the trust — and give them access to the trust via your signature.

In the corporate Matrix, everything is held in a Public Trust, and the way the Elite get access to the trust, is to CHARGE the TRUST and then get you to admit that you are the TRUST/NAME.

Illegal aliens aren’t usually charged — unless it’s a common law violation — because they have no TRUST attached to them — so there’s no profit in charging them.

Observe the three “forms” of court. Remember what Jean Keating said about “substance and form”. You are the “substance” — and application and filing forms are the “form”.

Asking the Judge/Administrator, “Is this about substance or form?” is usually a show-stopper that should get you thrown OUT of Court and your case dismissed.

Our position has always been to never voluntarily go to court. Live men and women are never meant to be in a place designed for the business of fictional entities.

When we attend court we are deemed dead; they can only deal with legal fictions … trusts.

Court is for “titled persons” — judges, prosecutors, defendants, bailiffs, clerks, cops, and attorneys. Live men and women are not recognized in court; they are not “persons”(corporations).

Attorneys do not know how the system works, due to their indoctrination. If you can find an attorney who will do as you say then you will prevail, but most attorneys would rather keep their BAR cards, rather than behave in honor.

The only thing that dead, fictional entities want from us is our life energy, and they can only get that with our consent. They cannot function without us, so they want to get us into court to pay the debt which they created by charging the trust/name.

Common law courts no longer exist. The case has nothing to do with live men and women or “facts” so anyone who testifies (talks) about the facts of the case is doomed.

ALL courts operate in trust law — based upon ecclesiastical canon law — that manifests as commercial law — and we are in court to take the hit if they can get us to give them our consent.

To do this they use every trick in the book –– intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses to change the jurisdiction when they are losing, to make us admit that we are the name of the trust — the trustee — the one liable for administering the trust.

Therefore, until now, it has been a waste of our time and energy to go to a place where it is almost certain that we will be stuck with the liability.

We are told in our public-school indoctrination that judges are impartial, and have sworn an oath to this effect; that he must not favor the defendant or plaintiff. But experience shows otherwise— that he favors the plaintiff — a glaring conflict of interest.

The prosecutor, judge, and clerk (the cleric) all work for the state –– the owner and grantor of the CQV trust.

The case is not about “justice” — it’s about administering a trust.

They represent a trust owned by the state and, if we are the beneficiary, the only two positions left are the executor and trustee.

So if you detect a judge’s partiality — although I doubt the case will get this far — you could let them know that you are aware of these roles.

Under trust law you cannot be the executor or trustee of a trust while being the beneficiary, as that would conflict for the beneficiary cannot act for himself.

I recommend having someone go in your place so that you don’t become confused and consent to being the trust/trustee.

What’s the worst that can happen to your representative, when he can prove he is NOT the trust/trustee. The position of beneficiary may lack clout, but the other positions are liable.

The only way state employees can be the beneficiary of the trust is to transfer the liability they hold to us, because they cannot be both the administrator and beneficiary of the trust.

So trusteeship and executorship are the hot potatos that everyone wants to toss, so they can be the beneficiary of the credit of the trust.

When we were born, a trust — a cestui que vie trust (CQV) — was set-up for our benefit.

Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what was the value conveyed to the trust to create it? The value was our right to property via our birth into this world, our bodyvia the Live Birth Record, and our soul via Baptism Certificate.

The state that registered the trust is the owner and the trustee… the administrator of the trust.

Since they want to be the beneficiary of the trust, they must get us (the actual beneficiary) to permit them to charge the trust, by our signature on a document (a citation, application, etc.), and transfer trusteeship to us during the time that they want to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust.

A trust can be established anywhere and anytime the parties of the trust can be put into place.

And since the beneficiary cannot charge a trust (only a trustee can do so) it is the state, as trustee, that charges the trust, but they do so for their benefit, not ours.

So, under trust law, the only way for them to benefit from their charge against the trust is to get us to switch roles –– from beneficiary to trustee (the one responsible for the accounting), while they switch roles — from trustee to beneficiary (because no party can play both roles at the same time within the same constructive trust).

So, under trust law, the only way for them to charge the trust is to get our — the beneficiary’s — consent.

Why would we consent to switch roles when the trust is for our benefit? … And how do they manage to do this?

Well, the best way is to get us into court and trick us into unwittingly doing so. But if we know what has transpired, prior to our being there, it is easy to know what to say so that this doesn’t happen.

The court clerk is the key party, even though the key party appears to be the judge. The clerk is the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state. He or she is responsible for appointing the trustee and the executor for the constructive trust of that particular court case.

In a “last will and testament” trust, the opposite is the case –– the executor of the estate appoints the trustee.

So the clerk appoints the judge as the trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor as the executor of the trust (the one to execute the trust).

The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it was he or she who brought the case into court in behalf of the state (created the constructive trust) which charged the CQV trust.

Only an executor/prosecutor can initiate/create a constructive trust, and whoever creates the controversy holds the liability and must provide the remedy.

This is why all prosecutors are mandated to bring their check-books into court because if they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant (the accused), or the alleged defendant (the accused) does not accept the state’s offer of the liability of the charge, then someone has to credit the trust account in order to off-set the debt and discharge the charge, and the prosecutor is that “someone”.

Since the prosecutor is the one who charges the trust, the Prosecutor/Executor (PE) has to satisfy the charge.

When the Judge/Administrator/Trustee (JAT) calls the Name of the trust, JOHN DOE, we can stand and ask, “For, and on the record, are you saying that the trust, which you are now administrating, is the JOHN DOE trust?”

This establishes the fact that we know that The Name is a trustnot a living man.

What is usually the judge/administrator/trustee’s first question? “What’s your name?” or “State your name for the record”.

We must be very careful not to identify with The Name of the trust because doing so switches the roles and makes us the trustee and the judge the beneficiary.

If we know from the start that the judge is the trustee, then we know that the judge isThe Name for this particular constructive trust.

Now, think about all the times that judges become angered by our refusal to admit to being The Name that they issue a warrant for the “missing defendant” and as soon as the man leaves, he is arrested. How idiotic is that? They must feel foolish for saying, “John Doe is not in court so I’m issuing a warrant for his arrest,” and then the man whom they just admitted is not there is arrested because he is there.

Their desperation makes them insane, so they project that insanity onto us and order us to get psychological evaluations for THEIR insanity!!!

This is when we can ask, “By that order, are you suggesting that you do not know what I’m talking about? Are you admitting to your incompetence? Shall we get someone in here who DOES know what I’m talking about?”

They must get us to admit to being The Name, or they pay — and we must not accept their coercion, or we pay.

Because the judge is the trustee –– a precarious position — the best thing to say in that case is . . .

“JOHN DOE is indeed in the court!” pointing to the judge. “With all due respect, it is You! As the trustee, You are JOHN DOE today, are you not?!!”

We must remain respectful and polite, otherwise we end up sinking to their level. During the judge’s frustration over our not admitting to being The Trust Name –– the trustee/executor of the trust — we should ask who he is.

“Before we go any further, Sir, I need to know who YOU are.”

Address and question the clerk of the court –– the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state, “Are you the trustee who has appointed this judge to be the administrator/trustee of the constructive trust No. 12345? Did you appoint the prosecutor to be the executor of this constructive trust?”

Then pointing to the Judge, “So you are the trustee“and pointing to the prosecutor, “and you are the executor — and I am the beneficiary — so I authorize you to dissolve and discharge this constructive trust.”

“I now claim my body, so I am collapsing the CQV trust you have charged, as there is no value in there. You have committed fraud against all laws!”

Likely . . . we will not get that far before the judge will order, “Case dismissed” . . . or even more likely the prosecutor will call out “We withdraw the charge”.

We have exposed their fraud of the CQV trust that exists only on presumptions. The CQV trust has no corpus, no property . . . ergo, no value. Trusts are created only upon the conveyance of property and can exist only as long as there is value in the trust.

There is no value in the CQV trust, yet they continue to charge the trust. That is fraud!

The alleged property is we men and women whom they deem to be incompetent, dead, abandoned, lost, bankrupts, or minors — but that is an illusion — so when we claim our body, we collapse the presumption that there is value in the trust.

They are operating in fraud –– something we’ve always known — but now we know how they do it. Our having exposed their fraud, gives them only three options:

1. They can dismiss the case before they risk their fraud being exposed.

2. Or they can set-off the debt and leave us alone.

3. They can dissolve the CQV trust case — but they cannot dissolve the CQV trust itself — or the entire global system will collapse, for they cannot exist without our energy which they obtain via that CQV trust, and they do not want to disperse the trust funds to the beneficiary, who is us.

Now that they know that we are onto their fraud, every time they go into court to administer a trust account, they will not know if we are ones who will send them to jail. The trustee/judge is the liable party who will go to jail, and the executor/prosecutormust enforce this.

This is why they want us to accept both titles, executor/trustee, then not only do we go to jail, but by signing their paper we become the executor who enforces our own sentence.

They cannot afford to violate the ecclesiastical canon laws out of fear of ending their careers, so they are trapped with no place to run.

So what’s a court clerk to do?!! Soon none of these thugs will take any cases because the risk is too great. This will be the end of the court system. About time, eh? Knowledge –– not procedure –– is power.

Under commercial law — since the Code of Ur-Nammu (circa 2100 BCE) –– the use of another man’s property without his permission puts the user into dishonor making him liable for any accrued debts.

So our use of UCC forms, bills of exchange, AFV or bonds, FRN’s and other documents of the Roman System can create penalties, for this is trading with and using property which we do not own, becasue the birth-certificate “name” is the property of the corporation which issued it. We can process our papers perfectly, but in the end they say “Sorry, you’re not one of us because you’re real, and we’re not — we’re a fiction.”

But now we get to inflict fear onto them instead. When we are forced into court, knowing that the judge is the trustee and the prosecutor is the executor of the CQV trusts is empowering.

It gives us two choices:

1. We can expose the fraud of presumptions by which the CQV trusts exist — and have them dissolved it because the Trustee is the judge sitting on the bench. Dissolving one CQV trust dissolves them all.

2. We can know that everything the judge says –– even if it sounds like an order, a command, or a sentence –– is an “offer” that we can refuse to accept by saying, “I do not consent — I do not accept your offer”.

This is the Key principle of testamentary trusts — the beneficiary can accept or decline the offers of the trustee.

I have found no other solution in commerce because those who claim to have solutions still insist upon treating symptoms rather than curing the cause… the fraudulent CQV trust.

About David Robinson
REVISED: David Robinson is an Author and Journalist living in the mid-coast area of Maine. He is a Graduate and Alumni of the Brunswick Police Academy. He served as a JUROR seated on the Cumberland County, Maine, Grand Jury for the first four-month session of 2014. Publisher Robinson served 3 months of a 4-month sentence for Conspiracy to defraud the United States, at the FCI Berlin minimum security Satellite Camp in Berlin New Hampshire, as retaliation after he and a friend sued the IRS, unsuccessfully, for Unfair Trade Practices, under Title 15 of the US Code. +++ Maine Lawsuit Against The IRS: For Unfair Trade Practices (http://tinyurl.com/hm8gdls) +++ Failure to File & Conspiracy: United States vs. Messier & Robinson – No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH (http://tinyurl.com/gwdyaps) +++ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Maine / REPLY BRIEF OF ROBINSON (http://tinyurl.com/zyp9f3x) +++ Books by David E. Robinson (http://tinyurl.com/zrr9bxb)

Leave a Reply