_____ From: David L. Miner [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:15 PM To: email@example.com Subject: RE:Message 1 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004View Source
From: David L. Miner [mailto:dminer@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Utah Dist. Ct. on pro se repr. of trusts
You said: "A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. "
No, the Utah Court said that. Look at my highlight in your quote. I think the judge addresses what you talk about below.
Not true of an unincorporated business trust organization, sometimes called a pure trust or a constitutional trust. These types of trusts are created by common law right to contract and are not created by any statute. In fact, there are court cases that state these types of trusts are not subject to statutory law. Even the IRS has admitted in writing that these trusts are not subject to the Internal Revenue Code. One of the many advantages of business trusts over statutory trusts.
Don't know anything about pro se representation, I just know they are not statutory creations. Don't know of any court cases covering this particular issue. I'll do some research on it and get back to you.
Yours in freedom,
From: Legalbear [mailto:bear@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 6:51 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Utah Dist. Ct. on pro se repr. of trusts
A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. The licensing requirements to practice law are to "offer protection to the public." Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar v. Petersen, 937 P.2d 1263, 1269 ( Utah 1997). The rules governing the practice of law do not reach unlicensed parties. Thus, a real party in interest, in the instant case the actual beneficiaries of the trust, would not be able to sustain a malpractice action against a trustee representing a trust pro se. This result would be contrary to the stated policy of protecting the public against those that are not qualified to practice law.
The instant case is very similar to the Tradewinds Hotel case. Leonesio is claiming here that he is the real party in interest, although the Trust document submitted to the court indicates otherwise. The only other support for Leonesio's position are Leonesio's statements to the court at oral argument or are found in the pleadings where he stated that "Frank William Leonesio, as trustee, is by unalienable right and contractual obligation obligated to prosecute and defend the interests of In God We trust on behalf of its beneficiaries which are other irrevocable trusts." (Def.'s Objection of Motion to Strike Answer at 11.) However, as noted above, aside from these allegations, there is no evidence that Leonesio is entitled to represent the Trust pro se because he is the real party in interest or the sole beneficiary thereunder. In fact, it appears clear that he is not. Thus, the court finds that allowing Leonesio to appear pro se on behalf of the Trust not only violates 28 U.S.C. § 1654, but it would also result in the unlicensed practice of law. U.S. v. Cram, 82 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7413
PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley , CO 80634
BEAR'S WEB PAGES:
To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
In a message dated 7/1/2004 11:15:21 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Art.1, Sect. 10. USC essentialy proscribes license and zoning laws. ( .....pass any lawMessage 1 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004View SourceIn a message dated 7/1/2004 11:15:21 PM Central Daylight Time, bear@... writes:
Art.1, Sect. 10. USC essentialy proscribes license and zoning laws. (".....pass any law impairing the obligations of contracts.")
Does every reader see this?
Bear, Dave is correct here in that the U.B.T.O. is similar in nature to a Masachusett s trust, which is a non-statutory, pure, common law trust which isMessage 1 of 9 , Jul 3, 2004View SourceBear,
Dave is correct here in that the U.B.T.O. is similar
in nature to a Masachusett's trust, which is a
non-statutory, pure, common law trust which is outside
the IRC or any other governmental authority as it's
existance was not created by government, but by the
author of government itself.
The U.B.T.O. is known by several other names, which
the IRS has tried to hold as "illegal tax avoidance
schemes", or "abusive tax shelters", but to date, this
has not had a great deal of success as it is not the
"entity" itself which is abusive, but it is the way it
functions due to the ignorance of the participants in
it's operations that make it abusive..i.m.h.o.
From: David L. Miner [mailto:dminer@...]
> Bear --
> You said: "A trust is an artificial entity created
> by law, whether common or
> statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se
> as a natural person. "......
> Not true of an unincorporated business trust
> organization, sometimes called
> a pure trust or a constitutional trust.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!