Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [AUM] trusts

Expand Messages
  • Spence
    Gentlemen, listen to this man like he s the most Intelligent man you ve ever found. Ever. And I ve got a business degree. But ignore me and listen to this
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Gentlemen, listen to this man like he's the most Intelligent man you've ever
      found. Ever. And I've got a business degree. But ignore me and listen to
      this gent.

      Kind regards, Spence

      We have no creed and no religion and no nationality- Other than Masculist.
      [They teach you that at business school.][To have only one impetus]

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Allen
      Date: 16 August 2013 12:37
      To: aum@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [AUM] trusts

      From: Robert Cheney <rlcii007@...>
      To: "aum@yahoogroups.com" <aum@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:57 PM
      Subject: RE: [AUM] trusts



      Dear Spence,The courts, government, and attorneys, are going through trusts
      and transferring wealth like wolves guarding sheep. There are no
      protections in modern trusts, from Massachusetts to Irrevocable pure trusts
      and even common law trusts....they all do not work, nor can be reasonably
      defended. Designing these trusts will be prevaricated by both the attorneys
      and courts. Most of the trusts assets will vaporize through both the courts
      and their concomitant attorneys.I have discerned--that if a man has cash, it
      would be best to HIDE the cash (or property)--by any means possible.I would
      suggest, that if you want some legal vehicle to protect your property--do it
      by PRIVATE CONTRACT--with much ado regarding NON-DISCLOSURE. Hide your
      property by CONTRACT--then keep the contract secret.The best thing you can
      do with ALL assets, is to SIMPLY HIDE THEM. Keep property off the
      government radar.Hope this helps.JR

      To: aum@yahoogroups.com; backlash@yahoogroups.comFrom:
      rights4men.immediately2@...: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:50:53
      +0100Subject: [AUM] trusts
      Hi bros, I'm setting up a trust. Now say a gentleman wanted to set up a
      trust to store his cash in [just in case his wife left him]- then what sort
      of trust would he be best with? Kind regards, Spence
    • k_over_hbarc
      ... With respect, no one here can be sure that you have a business degree , or are trustworthy on this issue. Aside from the fact of living under different
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...> wrote:
        >
        > Gentlemen, listen to this man like he's the most Intelligent man you've ever
        > found. Ever. And I've got a business degree. But ignore me and listen to
        > this gent.

        With respect, no one here can be sure that you 'have a business degree', or are trustworthy on this issue. Aside from the fact of living under different laws, men might rationally not trust you also because the consequences of following you, and being wrong - i.e. getting in trouble for hiding assets - are worse than the reverse.

        And yes, I've admitted to my bias on this issue. Do you have one?

        Andrew Usher
      • Spence
        Oh no, Andrew; it s not hiding assets. Well that s not what we tell the gov. It s simply that they re put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in that- in
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the gov.
          It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
          that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
          when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

          Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my credentials.

          What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll give
          you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
          win.

          Men's taxes only for men's services.
          -----Original Message-----
          From: k_over_hbarc
          Date: 19 August 2013 03:59
          To: aum@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts

          --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Gentlemen, listen to this man like he's the most Intelligent man you've
          > ever
          > found. Ever. And I've got a business degree. But ignore me and listen to
          > this gent.

          With respect, no one here can be sure that you 'have a business degree', or
          are trustworthy on this issue. Aside from the fact of living under different
          laws, men might rationally not trust you also because the consequences of
          following you, and being wrong - i.e. getting in trouble for hiding assets -
          are worse than the reverse.

          And yes, I've admitted to my bias on this issue. Do you have one?

          Andrew Usher
        • k_over_hbarc
          ... The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is necessarily justified. I don t know enough myself to say whether it is or not,
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 21, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...> wrote:
            >
            > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the gov.
            > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
            > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
            > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

            The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

            Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it; since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm not just being lazy.

            > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my credentials.

            OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

            > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll give
            > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you win.

            No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

            Andrew Usher
          • laurence almand
              In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make sure
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 21, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
               
              In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make sure your children are protected.
               
              Laurence

              From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
              Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts
               
              --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...> wrote:
              >
              > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the gov.
              > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
              > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
              > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

              The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

              Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it; since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm not just being lazy.

              > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my credentials.

              OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

              > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll give
              > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you win.

              No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

              Andrew Usher

            • Robert Cheney
              Dear Laurence, et als: Irrevocable trusts don t work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers, judges and accountants say they work--but they don t. Please
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 21, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Laurence, et als:

                Irrevocable trusts don't work.  I know that various attorneys, lawyers, judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.

                Please note:  once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE, AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.

                I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust.  What is the court doing??  Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has formally resigned himself from that trust.

                He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be dissolved.  Does the judge obey the written trust?  Nope.  Has any person challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust?  Nope.  Can the TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions?  Nope.

                Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this?  Nope.

                Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR.  They devise a needless war to simply litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.  (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?)  The usual ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.

                Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.

                A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS.  I have one person down in LA whom used to produce movies.  He had both he and his wife (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.  All of the Parties signed off on it.  The attorneys signed off on it.  Even the Goddamn Judge signed off on it.  [It was about five million the wife was to received upon any divorce].

                Divorce occurred soon after the marriage.  The wife got 5 Million.  She put that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke.  What did she do?  She went back to court and asked for more money!  This was in VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.

                What did the court do?  Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law?  Uphold the rights of the Husband??  Nope.  She got an additional couple of Million, leaving my buddy screwed. 

                So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...

                I could go on and on.

                THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS.  IF ANY MAN ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY. 

                I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603.  It was PROTECTED under a Trust instrument. He got married.  Do you know whom now owns his family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for four-hundred or so years??  The wife!  He's out; his family is out--and now SHE owns it.  He could do nothing except watch as the government and its courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate. 

                His crime?  He was male.  His protections?  Both the Trust and the "Law."

                HA!

                I say this with alacrity.  As the modern man is under such transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious.  With courts transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT.  It is an IDENTITY that men are caught within a factual APARTHEID.  [I challenge anyone to produce another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than Fatherhood, or simply being male].

                It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions, FIRST ARTICLES, states:

                Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.  [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]

                So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  You have the RIGHT not only to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property. 

                This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within the lexicon of modern law.  You cannot protect private property through trusts any longer.  Period.

                So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle201 U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY.  You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United States government itself.  It cannot impede obligations of contract.

                ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle authority.

                Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.  Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences, and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely everything is taken away.  They can never pay, for what amounts to mere hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter, no less...

                It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...

                I'll say it again:  Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts; Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!

                As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by these criminal enterprises.

                What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.  They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST law.  Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly.  More importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can represent and/or protect these elderly people.  Again, I see this not as a California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide.  I've seen it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court systems.  I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.

                You want to protect your assets, your children, your property?  CONTRACT it into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT within that same contract.  Keep it silent, and keep it off the radar of the government.

                There is a controlling maxim of law, which states:  "The Act shows the intention of the doer."  If these courts keep acting and transferring wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.

                Once again, hope this helps.

                JR
                aka "Aaron Burr"


                PS

                These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal processes are being protected by our government.  Now someone is going to turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?

                I think not!




                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                From: laurencealmand@...
                Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts

                 

                 
                In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make sure your children are protected.
                 
                Laurence

                From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts
                 
                --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...> wrote:
                >
                > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the gov.
                > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

                The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

                Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it; since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm not just being lazy.

                > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my credentials.

                OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

                > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll give
                > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you win.

                No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

                Andrew Usher


              • Spence
                Hi Andrew Comments within the [brackets], below: Men s taxes only for men s services. ... From: k_over_hbarc Date: 21 August 2013 12:01 To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 23, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Andrew

                  Comments within the [brackets], below:

                  Men's taxes only for men's services.
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: k_over_hbarc
                  Date: 21 August 2013 12:01
                  To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts

                  --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                  > gov.
                  > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                  > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                  > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

                  The point is that men are going to be afraid of this

                  [Well, as the alternative's handing all their cash and their privates to a
                  Vile ex, it's pretty much a no-brainer. But point taken.]

                  , not that their fear is necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself
                  to say whether it is or not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

                  Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                  don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it?

                  [Mass of work, bro. Anyhows, every one has to apply the work to his
                  jurisdiction. And All I can give is the direction- it's up to those
                  interested to find out for themselves. I'd of Loved for someone to give me
                  this kind of heads up.]

                  Since you indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you
                  can write it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway
                  decent. If you know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be
                  able to do it; since you should know about all the long essays I've written
                  you know I'm not just being lazy.

                  > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                  > credentials.

                  OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                  away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

                  > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                  > give
                  > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                  > win.

                  No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                  think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

                  [Ok. Be interested in what yours is?]

                  Andrew Usher
                • Spence
                  Hi Robert Impressive, dude. I want to throw something out, for evaluation purposes. What about a gentleman keeping quiet and telling no-one about the trust
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 23, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Robert

                    Impressive, dude.

                    I want to throw something out, for evaluation purposes. What about a
                    gentleman keeping quiet and telling no-one about the trust he's set up?

                    Best regards, Spence

                    'once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of what the trust
                    is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. '

                    Men's taxes only for men's services.
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Robert Cheney
                    Date: 22 August 2013 02:54
                    To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts




                    Dear Laurence, et als:

                    Irrevocable trusts don't work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers,
                    judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.

                    Please note: once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of
                    what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
                    Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE,
                    AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result
                    of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face
                    that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL
                    PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.

                    I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento
                    County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can
                    disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust. What is
                    the court doing?? Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has
                    formally resigned himself from that trust.

                    He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to
                    resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be
                    dissolved. Does the judge obey the written trust? Nope. Has any person
                    challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust? Nope. Can the
                    TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions? Nope.

                    Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this? Nope.

                    Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy
                    the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR. They devise a needless war to simply
                    litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.
                    (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?) The usual
                    ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of
                    the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.

                    Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the
                    State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer
                    no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.

                    A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. I have one
                    person down in LA whom used to produce movies. He had both he and his wife
                    (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.
                    All of the Parties signed off on it. The attorneys signed off on it. Even
                    the Goddamn Judge signed off on it. [It was about five million the wife was
                    to received upon any divorce].

                    Divorce occurred soon after the marriage. The wife got 5 Million. She put
                    that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke. What
                    did she do? She went back to court and asked for more money! This was in
                    VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.

                    What did the court do? Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law? Uphold the
                    rights of the Husband?? Nope. She got an additional couple of Million,
                    leaving my buddy screwed.

                    So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...

                    I could go on and on.

                    THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS. IF ANY MAN
                    ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO
                    GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY.

                    I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of
                    which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603. It was PROTECTED
                    under a Trust instrument. He got married. Do you know whom now owns his
                    family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for
                    four-hundred or so years?? The wife! He's out; his family is out--and now
                    SHE owns it. He could do nothing except watch as the government and its
                    courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate.

                    His crime? He was male. His protections? Both the Trust and the "Law."

                    HA!

                    I say this with alacrity. As the modern man is under such
                    transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious. With courts
                    transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to
                    take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of
                    the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT. It is an IDENTITY that
                    men are caught within a factual APARTHEID. [I challenge anyone to produce
                    another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than
                    Fatherhood, or simply being male].

                    It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions,
                    FIRST ARTICLES, states:


                    Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
                    inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
                    liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
                    obtaining safety and happiness. [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]

                    So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to
                    protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID
                    ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT not only
                    to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property.

                    This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within
                    the lexicon of modern law. You cannot protect private property through
                    trusts any longer. Period.

                    So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle, 201
                    U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO
                    PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY. You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the
                    only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section
                    10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United
                    States government itself. It cannot impede obligations of contract.

                    ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that
                    contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle
                    authority.

                    Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.
                    Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences,
                    and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any
                    licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely
                    everything is taken away. They can never pay, for what amounts to mere
                    hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter,
                    no less...

                    It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...

                    I'll say it again: Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts;
                    Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT
                    WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!

                    As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is
                    to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by
                    these criminal enterprises.

                    What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are
                    also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.
                    They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek
                    protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST
                    law. Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting
                    about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly. More
                    importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can
                    represent and/or protect these elderly people. Again, I see this not as a
                    California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide. I've seen
                    it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking
                    about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of
                    legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court
                    systems. I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.

                    You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                    into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                    AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                    radar of the government.

                    There is a controlling maxim of law, which states: "The Act shows the
                    intention of the doer." If these courts keep acting and transferring
                    wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can
                    cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their
                    attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting
                    these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.

                    Once again, hope this helps.

                    JR
                    aka "Aaron Burr"


                    PS

                    These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich
                    and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal
                    processes are being protected by our government. Now someone is going to
                    turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your
                    private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?

                    I think not!




                    To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                    From: laurencealmand@...
                    Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                    Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts





                    In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about
                    irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make
                    sure your children are protected.

                    Laurence


                    From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                    To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                    Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts



                    --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                    > gov.
                    > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                    > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                    > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

                    The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is
                    necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or
                    not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

                    Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                    don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you
                    indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write
                    it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you
                    know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it;
                    since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm
                    not just being lazy.

                    > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                    > credentials.

                    OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                    away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

                    > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                    > give
                    > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                    > win.

                    No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                    think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

                    Andrew Usher
                  • Spence
                    Hi Robert I want to say something else, bro. What about- if the trust s set up for a charity? Would it be possible to keep it s assets hidden then? Or a
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 23, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Robert

                      I want to say something else, bro. What about- if the trust's set up for a
                      charity? Would it be possible to keep it's assets hidden then? Or a limited
                      company? I don't mean a trust for a lc, rather I mean just putting cash in a
                      lc? I spose, maybe with a lc an ex may be able to get a list of companies
                      from companies-house. Or would she?

                      And, if a trust's set up then how'd an ex know it exists?

                      Best regards

                      Spence
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Spence
                      Date: 23 August 2013 20:04
                      To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts

                      Hi Robert

                      Impressive, dude.

                      I want to throw something out, for evaluation purposes. What about a
                      gentleman keeping quiet and telling no-one about the trust he's set up?

                      Best regards, Spence

                      'once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of what the trust
                      is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. '

                      Men's taxes only for men's services.
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Robert Cheney
                      Date: 22 August 2013 02:54
                      To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts




                      Dear Laurence, et als:

                      Irrevocable trusts don't work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers,
                      judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.

                      Please note: once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of
                      what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
                      Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE,
                      AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result
                      of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face
                      that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL
                      PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.

                      I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento
                      County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can
                      disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust. What is
                      the court doing?? Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has
                      formally resigned himself from that trust.

                      He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to
                      resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be
                      dissolved. Does the judge obey the written trust? Nope. Has any person
                      challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust? Nope. Can the
                      TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions? Nope.

                      Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this? Nope.

                      Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy
                      the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR. They devise a needless war to simply
                      litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.
                      (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?) The usual
                      ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of
                      the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.

                      Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the
                      State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer
                      no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.

                      A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. I have one
                      person down in LA whom used to produce movies. He had both he and his wife
                      (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.
                      All of the Parties signed off on it. The attorneys signed off on it. Even
                      the Goddamn Judge signed off on it. [It was about five million the wife was
                      to received upon any divorce].

                      Divorce occurred soon after the marriage. The wife got 5 Million. She put
                      that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke. What
                      did she do? She went back to court and asked for more money! This was in
                      VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.

                      What did the court do? Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law? Uphold the
                      rights of the Husband?? Nope. She got an additional couple of Million,
                      leaving my buddy screwed.

                      So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...

                      I could go on and on.

                      THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS. IF ANY MAN
                      ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO
                      GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY.

                      I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of
                      which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603. It was PROTECTED
                      under a Trust instrument. He got married. Do you know whom now owns his
                      family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for
                      four-hundred or so years?? The wife! He's out; his family is out--and now
                      SHE owns it. He could do nothing except watch as the government and its
                      courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate.

                      His crime? He was male. His protections? Both the Trust and the "Law."

                      HA!

                      I say this with alacrity. As the modern man is under such
                      transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious. With courts
                      transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to
                      take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of
                      the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT. It is an IDENTITY that
                      men are caught within a factual APARTHEID. [I challenge anyone to produce
                      another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than
                      Fatherhood, or simply being male].

                      It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions,
                      FIRST ARTICLES, states:


                      Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
                      inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
                      liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
                      obtaining safety and happiness. [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]

                      So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to
                      protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID
                      ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT not only
                      to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property.

                      This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within
                      the lexicon of modern law. You cannot protect private property through
                      trusts any longer. Period.

                      So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle, 201
                      U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO
                      PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY. You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the
                      only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section
                      10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United
                      States government itself. It cannot impede obligations of contract.

                      ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that
                      contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle
                      authority.

                      Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.
                      Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences,
                      and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any
                      licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely
                      everything is taken away. They can never pay, for what amounts to mere
                      hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter,
                      no less...

                      It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...

                      I'll say it again: Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts;
                      Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT
                      WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!

                      As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is
                      to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by
                      these criminal enterprises.

                      What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are
                      also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.
                      They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek
                      protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST
                      law. Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting
                      about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly. More
                      importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can
                      represent and/or protect these elderly people. Again, I see this not as a
                      California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide. I've seen
                      it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking
                      about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of
                      legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court
                      systems. I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.

                      You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                      into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                      AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                      radar of the government.

                      There is a controlling maxim of law, which states: "The Act shows the
                      intention of the doer." If these courts keep acting and transferring
                      wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can
                      cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their
                      attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting
                      these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.

                      Once again, hope this helps.

                      JR
                      aka "Aaron Burr"


                      PS

                      These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich
                      and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal
                      processes are being protected by our government. Now someone is going to
                      turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your
                      private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?

                      I think not!




                      To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                      From: laurencealmand@...
                      Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                      Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts





                      In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about
                      irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make
                      sure your children are protected.

                      Laurence


                      From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                      To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                      Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts



                      --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                      > gov.
                      > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                      > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                      > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

                      The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is
                      necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or
                      not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

                      Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                      don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you
                      indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write
                      it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you
                      know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it;
                      since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm
                      not just being lazy.

                      > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                      > credentials.

                      OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                      away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

                      > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                      > give
                      > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                      > win.

                      No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                      think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

                      Andrew Usher
                    • Spence
                      Hi Robert Yea, I just came to the same conclusion. It s like with thieves- you Never admit to having money just in case someone decides to try and pinch it.
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 23, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Robert

                        Yea, I just came to the same conclusion. It's like with thieves- you Never
                        admit to having money just in case someone decides to try and pinch it.

                        Best regards

                        Spence

                        'You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                        into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                        AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                        radar of the government.'

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Robert Cheney
                        Date: 22 August 2013 02:54
                        To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts




                        Dear Laurence, et als:

                        Irrevocable trusts don't work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers,
                        judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.

                        Please note: once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of
                        what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
                        Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE,
                        AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result
                        of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face
                        that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL
                        PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.

                        I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento
                        County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can
                        disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust. What is
                        the court doing?? Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has
                        formally resigned himself from that trust.

                        He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to
                        resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be
                        dissolved. Does the judge obey the written trust? Nope. Has any person
                        challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust? Nope. Can the
                        TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions? Nope.

                        Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this? Nope.

                        Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy
                        the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR. They devise a needless war to simply
                        litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.
                        (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?) The usual
                        ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of
                        the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.

                        Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the
                        State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer
                        no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.

                        A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. I have one
                        person down in LA whom used to produce movies. He had both he and his wife
                        (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.
                        All of the Parties signed off on it. The attorneys signed off on it. Even
                        the Goddamn Judge signed off on it. [It was about five million the wife was
                        to received upon any divorce].

                        Divorce occurred soon after the marriage. The wife got 5 Million. She put
                        that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke. What
                        did she do? She went back to court and asked for more money! This was in
                        VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.

                        What did the court do? Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law? Uphold the
                        rights of the Husband?? Nope. She got an additional couple of Million,
                        leaving my buddy screwed.

                        So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...

                        I could go on and on.

                        THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS. IF ANY MAN
                        ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO
                        GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY.

                        I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of
                        which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603. It was PROTECTED
                        under a Trust instrument. He got married. Do you know whom now owns his
                        family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for
                        four-hundred or so years?? The wife! He's out; his family is out--and now
                        SHE owns it. He could do nothing except watch as the government and its
                        courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate.

                        His crime? He was male. His protections? Both the Trust and the "Law."

                        HA!

                        I say this with alacrity. As the modern man is under such
                        transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious. With courts
                        transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to
                        take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of
                        the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT. It is an IDENTITY that
                        men are caught within a factual APARTHEID. [I challenge anyone to produce
                        another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than
                        Fatherhood, or simply being male].

                        It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions,
                        FIRST ARTICLES, states:


                        Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
                        inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
                        liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
                        obtaining safety and happiness. [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]

                        So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to
                        protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID
                        ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT not only
                        to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property.

                        This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within
                        the lexicon of modern law. You cannot protect private property through
                        trusts any longer. Period.

                        So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle, 201
                        U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO
                        PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY. You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the
                        only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section
                        10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United
                        States government itself. It cannot impede obligations of contract.

                        ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that
                        contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle
                        authority.

                        Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.
                        Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences,
                        and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any
                        licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely
                        everything is taken away. They can never pay, for what amounts to mere
                        hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter,
                        no less...

                        It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...

                        I'll say it again: Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts;
                        Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT
                        WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!

                        As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is
                        to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by
                        these criminal enterprises.

                        What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are
                        also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.
                        They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek
                        protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST
                        law. Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting
                        about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly. More
                        importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can
                        represent and/or protect these elderly people. Again, I see this not as a
                        California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide. I've seen
                        it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking
                        about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of
                        legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court
                        systems. I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.

                        You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                        into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                        AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                        radar of the government.

                        There is a controlling maxim of law, which states: "The Act shows the
                        intention of the doer." If these courts keep acting and transferring
                        wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can
                        cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their
                        attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting
                        these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.

                        Once again, hope this helps.

                        JR
                        aka "Aaron Burr"


                        PS

                        These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich
                        and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal
                        processes are being protected by our government. Now someone is going to
                        turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your
                        private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?

                        I think not!




                        To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                        From: laurencealmand@...
                        Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                        Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts





                        In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about
                        irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make
                        sure your children are protected.

                        Laurence


                        From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                        To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                        Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts



                        --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                        > gov.
                        > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                        > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                        > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

                        The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is
                        necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or
                        not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

                        Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                        don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you
                        indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write
                        it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you
                        know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it;
                        since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm
                        not just being lazy.

                        > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                        > credentials.

                        OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                        away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

                        > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                        > give
                        > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                        > win.

                        No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                        think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

                        Andrew Usher
                      • Spence
                        Question, if you had a charity or trust set up then is there any way the courts find out you re chairman or trustee? Why would you want to? Well, how else can
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 23, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Question, if you had a charity or trust set up then is there any way the
                          courts find out you're chairman or trustee? Why would you want to? Well, how
                          else can a man stop an ex stealing all his cash?

                          Best regards

                          Spence
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Robert Cheney
                          Date: 22 August 2013 02:54
                          To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts




                          Dear Laurence, et als:

                          Irrevocable trusts don't work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers,
                          judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.

                          Please note: once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of
                          what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
                          Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE,
                          AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result
                          of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face
                          that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL
                          PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.

                          I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento
                          County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can
                          disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust. What is
                          the court doing?? Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has
                          formally resigned himself from that trust.

                          He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to
                          resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be
                          dissolved. Does the judge obey the written trust? Nope. Has any person
                          challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust? Nope. Can the
                          TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions? Nope.

                          Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this? Nope.

                          Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy
                          the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR. They devise a needless war to simply
                          litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.
                          (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?) The usual
                          ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of
                          the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.

                          Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the
                          State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer
                          no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.

                          A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. I have one
                          person down in LA whom used to produce movies. He had both he and his wife
                          (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.
                          All of the Parties signed off on it. The attorneys signed off on it. Even
                          the Goddamn Judge signed off on it. [It was about five million the wife was
                          to received upon any divorce].

                          Divorce occurred soon after the marriage. The wife got 5 Million. She put
                          that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke. What
                          did she do? She went back to court and asked for more money! This was in
                          VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.

                          What did the court do? Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law? Uphold the
                          rights of the Husband?? Nope. She got an additional couple of Million,
                          leaving my buddy screwed.

                          So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...

                          I could go on and on.

                          THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS. IF ANY MAN
                          ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO
                          GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY.

                          I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of
                          which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603. It was PROTECTED
                          under a Trust instrument. He got married. Do you know whom now owns his
                          family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for
                          four-hundred or so years?? The wife! He's out; his family is out--and now
                          SHE owns it. He could do nothing except watch as the government and its
                          courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate.

                          His crime? He was male. His protections? Both the Trust and the "Law."

                          HA!

                          I say this with alacrity. As the modern man is under such
                          transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious. With courts
                          transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to
                          take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of
                          the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT. It is an IDENTITY that
                          men are caught within a factual APARTHEID. [I challenge anyone to produce
                          another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than
                          Fatherhood, or simply being male].

                          It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions,
                          FIRST ARTICLES, states:


                          Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
                          inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
                          liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
                          obtaining safety and happiness. [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]

                          So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to
                          protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID
                          ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT not only
                          to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property.

                          This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within
                          the lexicon of modern law. You cannot protect private property through
                          trusts any longer. Period.

                          So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle, 201
                          U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO
                          PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY. You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the
                          only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section
                          10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United
                          States government itself. It cannot impede obligations of contract.

                          ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that
                          contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle
                          authority.

                          Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.
                          Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences,
                          and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any
                          licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely
                          everything is taken away. They can never pay, for what amounts to mere
                          hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter,
                          no less...

                          It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...

                          I'll say it again: Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts;
                          Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT
                          WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!

                          As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is
                          to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by
                          these criminal enterprises.

                          What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are
                          also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.
                          They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek
                          protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST
                          law. Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting
                          about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly. More
                          importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can
                          represent and/or protect these elderly people. Again, I see this not as a
                          California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide. I've seen
                          it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking
                          about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of
                          legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court
                          systems. I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.

                          You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                          into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                          AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                          radar of the government.

                          There is a controlling maxim of law, which states: "The Act shows the
                          intention of the doer." If these courts keep acting and transferring
                          wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can
                          cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their
                          attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting
                          these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.

                          Once again, hope this helps.

                          JR
                          aka "Aaron Burr"


                          PS

                          These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich
                          and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal
                          processes are being protected by our government. Now someone is going to
                          turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your
                          private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?

                          I think not!




                          To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                          From: laurencealmand@...
                          Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                          Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts





                          In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about
                          irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make
                          sure your children are protected.

                          Laurence


                          From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                          To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                          Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts



                          --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                          > gov.
                          > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                          > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                          > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

                          The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is
                          necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or
                          not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

                          Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                          don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you
                          indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write
                          it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you
                          know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it;
                          since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm
                          not just being lazy.

                          > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                          > credentials.

                          OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                          away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

                          > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                          > give
                          > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                          > win.

                          No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                          think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

                          Andrew Usher
                        • Robert Cheney
                          Dear Spence, Trusts are a particular instrument. They obtain their power and legality through the state. What the state gives, it can take away. The trust
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 23, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Dear Spence,

                            Trusts are a particular instrument.  They obtain their power and legality through the state.  What the state gives, it can take away.

                            The trust also has to be recorded, or "presented" into government to be adjudicated or decided--and LO! there are requirements, that all trusts MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY IN COURT!  [Because they are 'incorporate'--and an artificial creation of government].

                            The well-documented problem of ANY TRUST, is that there are too many entities whom have their finger in the pie.

                            There is also the well-documented problem that the ATTORNEYS and courts are no longer obeying the law.

                            Your right to contract, however; is a natural and unlimited right, that is constitutionally protected.  Its performance does not depend upon others--but rather; as to what each party agreed to, and to what is either written or orally stated.

                            To me, the choice is clear.

                            JR


                            > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                            > From: rights4men.immediately2@...
                            > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 20:04:48 +0100
                            > Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts
                            >
                            > Hi Robert
                            >
                            > Impressive, dude.
                            >
                            > I want to throw something out, for evaluation purposes. What about a
                            > gentleman keeping quiet and telling no-one about the trust he's set up?
                            >
                            > Best regards, Spence
                            >
                            > 'once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of what the trust
                            > is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. '
                            >
                            > Men's taxes only for men's services.
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Robert Cheney
                            > Date: 22 August 2013 02:54
                            > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Dear Laurence, et als:
                            >
                            > Irrevocable trusts don't work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers,
                            > judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.
                            >
                            > Please note: once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of
                            > what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
                            > Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE,
                            > AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result
                            > of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face
                            > that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL
                            > PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.
                            >
                            > I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento
                            > County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can
                            > disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust. What is
                            > the court doing?? Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has
                            > formally resigned himself from that trust.
                            >
                            > He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to
                            > resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be
                            > dissolved. Does the judge obey the written trust? Nope. Has any person
                            > challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust? Nope. Can the
                            > TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions? Nope.
                            >
                            > Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this? Nope.
                            >
                            > Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy
                            > the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR. They devise a needless war to simply
                            > litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.
                            > (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?) The usual
                            > ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of
                            > the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.
                            >
                            > Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the
                            > State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer
                            > no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.
                            >
                            > A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. I have one
                            > person down in LA whom used to produce movies. He had both he and his wife
                            > (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.
                            > All of the Parties signed off on it. The attorneys signed off on it. Even
                            > the Goddamn Judge signed off on it. [It was about five million the wife was
                            > to received upon any divorce].
                            >
                            > Divorce occurred soon after the marriage. The wife got 5 Million. She put
                            > that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke. What
                            > did she do? She went back to court and asked for more money! This was in
                            > VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.
                            >
                            > What did the court do? Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law? Uphold the
                            > rights of the Husband?? Nope. She got an additional couple of Million,
                            > leaving my buddy screwed.
                            >
                            > So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...
                            >
                            > I could go on and on.
                            >
                            > THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS. IF ANY MAN
                            > ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO
                            > GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY.
                            >
                            > I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of
                            > which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603. It was PROTECTED
                            > under a Trust instrument. He got married. Do you know whom now owns his
                            > family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for
                            > four-hundred or so years?? The wife! He's out; his family is out--and now
                            > SHE owns it. He could do nothing except watch as the government and its
                            > courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate.
                            >
                            > His crime? He was male. His protections? Both the Trust and the "Law."
                            >
                            > HA!
                            >
                            > I say this with alacrity. As the modern man is under such
                            > transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious. With courts
                            > transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to
                            > take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of
                            > the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT. It is an IDENTITY that
                            > men are caught within a factual APARTHEID. [I challenge anyone to produce
                            > another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than
                            > Fatherhood, or simply being male].
                            >
                            > It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions,
                            > FIRST ARTICLES, states:
                            >
                            >
                            > Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
                            > inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
                            > liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
                            > obtaining safety and happiness. [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]
                            >
                            > So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to
                            > protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID
                            > ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT not only
                            > to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property.
                            >
                            > This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within
                            > the lexicon of modern law. You cannot protect private property through
                            > trusts any longer. Period.
                            >
                            > So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle, 201
                            > U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO
                            > PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY. You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the
                            > only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section
                            > 10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United
                            > States government itself. It cannot impede obligations of contract.
                            >
                            > ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that
                            > contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle
                            > authority.
                            >
                            > Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.
                            > Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences,
                            > and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any
                            > licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely
                            > everything is taken away. They can never pay, for what amounts to mere
                            > hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter,
                            > no less...
                            >
                            > It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...
                            >
                            > I'll say it again: Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts;
                            > Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT
                            > WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!
                            >
                            > As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is
                            > to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by
                            > these criminal enterprises.
                            >
                            > What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are
                            > also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.
                            > They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek
                            > protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST
                            > law. Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting
                            > about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly. More
                            > importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can
                            > represent and/or protect these elderly people. Again, I see this not as a
                            > California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide. I've seen
                            > it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking
                            > about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of
                            > legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court
                            > systems. I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.
                            >
                            > You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                            > into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                            > AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                            > radar of the government.
                            >
                            > There is a controlling maxim of law, which states: "The Act shows the
                            > intention of the doer." If these courts keep acting and transferring
                            > wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can
                            > cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their
                            > attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting
                            > these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.
                            >
                            > Once again, hope this helps.
                            >
                            > JR
                            > aka "Aaron Burr"
                            >
                            >
                            > PS
                            >
                            > These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich
                            > and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal
                            > processes are being protected by our government. Now someone is going to
                            > turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your
                            > private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?
                            >
                            > I think not!
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                            > From: laurencealmand@...
                            > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                            > Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about
                            > irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make
                            > sure your children are protected.
                            >
                            > Laurence
                            >
                            >
                            > From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                            > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                            > Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                            > > gov.
                            > > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                            > > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                            > > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.
                            >
                            > The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is
                            > necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or
                            > not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.
                            >
                            > Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                            > don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you
                            > indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write
                            > it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you
                            > know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it;
                            > since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm
                            > not just being lazy.
                            >
                            > > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                            > > credentials.
                            >
                            > OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                            > away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.
                            >
                            > > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                            > > give
                            > > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                            > > win.
                            >
                            > No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                            > think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.
                            >
                            > Andrew Usher
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > The Masculist Trinity
                            >
                            > http://qimtunes.freewebpages.org/masculisttrinity.html
                            >
                            > Howard Schwartz's Great Anti-Feminist Articles:
                            > http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/schwartz/Papers.htm
                            >
                            > Posts to the list do not necessarily reflect AUM or list memebership's beliefs.
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/
                            >
                            > <*> Your email settings:
                            > Individual Email | Traditional
                            >
                            > <*> To change settings online go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/join
                            > (Yahoo! ID required)
                            >
                            > <*> To change settings via email:
                            > aum-digest@yahoogroups.com
                            > aum-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > aum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                          • Robert Cheney
                            Spence, Please reference my prior post. Once again, it is an impossibility to keep any trust secret. JR To: aum@yahoogroups.com From:
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 23, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Spence,

                              Please reference my prior post.  Once again, it is an impossibility to keep any trust secret.

                              JR


                              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                              From: rights4men.immediately2@...
                              Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 00:13:23 +0100
                              Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts

                               
                              Hi Robert

                              I want to say something else, bro. What about- if the trust's set up for a
                              charity? Would it be possible to keep it's assets hidden then? Or a limited
                              company? I don't mean a trust for a lc, rather I mean just putting cash in a
                              lc? I spose, maybe with a lc an ex may be able to get a list of companies
                              from companies-house. Or would she?

                              And, if a trust's set up then how'd an ex know it exists?

                              Best regards

                              Spence
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Spence
                              Date: 23 August 2013 20:04
                              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts

                              Hi Robert

                              Impressive, dude.

                              I want to throw something out, for evaluation purposes. What about a
                              gentleman keeping quiet and telling no-one about the trust he's set up?

                              Best regards, Spence

                              'once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of what the trust
                              is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. '

                              Men's taxes only for men's services.
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Robert Cheney
                              Date: 22 August 2013 02:54
                              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts

                              Dear Laurence, et als:

                              Irrevocable trusts don't work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers,
                              judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.

                              Please note: once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of
                              what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
                              Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE,
                              AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result
                              of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face
                              that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL
                              PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.

                              I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento
                              County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can
                              disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust. What is
                              the court doing?? Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has
                              formally resigned himself from that trust.

                              He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to
                              resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be
                              dissolved. Does the judge obey the written trust? Nope. Has any person
                              challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust? Nope. Can the
                              TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions? Nope.

                              Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this? Nope.

                              Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy
                              the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR. They devise a needless war to simply
                              litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.
                              (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?) The usual
                              ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of
                              the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.

                              Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the
                              State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer
                              no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.

                              A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. I have one
                              person down in LA whom used to produce movies. He had both he and his wife
                              (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.
                              All of the Parties signed off on it. The attorneys signed off on it. Even
                              the Goddamn Judge signed off on it. [It was about five million the wife was
                              to received upon any divorce].

                              Divorce occurred soon after the marriage. The wife got 5 Million. She put
                              that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke. What
                              did she do? She went back to court and asked for more money! This was in
                              VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.

                              What did the court do? Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law? Uphold the
                              rights of the Husband?? Nope. She got an additional couple of Million,
                              leaving my buddy screwed.

                              So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...

                              I could go on and on.

                              THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS. IF ANY MAN
                              ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO
                              GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY.

                              I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of
                              which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603. It was PROTECTED
                              under a Trust instrument. He got married. Do you know whom now owns his
                              family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for
                              four-hundred or so years?? The wife! He's out; his family is out--and now
                              SHE owns it. He could do nothing except watch as the government and its
                              courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate.

                              His crime? He was male. His protections? Both the Trust and the "Law."

                              HA!

                              I say this with alacrity. As the modern man is under such
                              transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious. With courts
                              transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to
                              take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of
                              the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT. It is an IDENTITY that
                              men are caught within a factual APARTHEID. [I challenge anyone to produce
                              another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than
                              Fatherhood, or simply being male].

                              It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions,
                              FIRST ARTICLES, states:

                              Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
                              inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
                              liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
                              obtaining safety and happiness. [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]

                              So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to
                              protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID
                              ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT not only
                              to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property.

                              This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within
                              the lexicon of modern law. You cannot protect private property through
                              trusts any longer. Period.

                              So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle, 201
                              U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO
                              PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY. You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the
                              only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section
                              10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United
                              States government itself. It cannot impede obligations of contract.

                              ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that
                              contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle
                              authority.

                              Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.
                              Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences,
                              and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any
                              licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely
                              everything is taken away. They can never pay, for what amounts to mere
                              hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter,
                              no less...

                              It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...

                              I'll say it again: Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts;
                              Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT
                              WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!

                              As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is
                              to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by
                              these criminal enterprises.

                              What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are
                              also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.
                              They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek
                              protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST
                              law. Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting
                              about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly. More
                              importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can
                              represent and/or protect these elderly people. Again, I see this not as a
                              California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide. I've seen
                              it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking
                              about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of
                              legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court
                              systems. I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.

                              You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                              into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                              AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                              radar of the government.

                              There is a controlling maxim of law, which states: "The Act shows the
                              intention of the doer." If these courts keep acting and transferring
                              wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can
                              cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their
                              attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting
                              these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.

                              Once again, hope this helps.

                              JR
                              aka "Aaron Burr"

                              PS

                              These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich
                              and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal
                              processes are being protected by our government. Now someone is going to
                              turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your
                              private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?

                              I think not!

                              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                              From: laurencealmand@...
                              Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                              Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts

                              In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about
                              irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make
                              sure your children are protected.

                              Laurence

                              From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                              Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts

                              --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                              > gov.
                              > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                              > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                              > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

                              The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is
                              necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or
                              not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

                              Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                              don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you
                              indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write
                              it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you
                              know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it;
                              since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm
                              not just being lazy.

                              > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                              > credentials.

                              OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                              away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

                              > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                              > give
                              > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                              > win.

                              No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                              think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

                              Andrew Usher


                            • Spence
                              Hi Again Robert; what s meant by that sentence? For us ordinary folk that is. Tks Best regards Spence CONTRACT it into safety, then as a condition of the
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 24, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Again Robert; what's meant by that sentence? For us ordinary folk that
                                is.

                                Tks

                                Best regards
                                Spence

                                'CONTRACT it into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a
                                NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT within that same contract.'

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Robert Cheney
                                Date: 22 August 2013 02:54
                                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts




                                Dear Laurence, et als:

                                Irrevocable trusts don't work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers,
                                judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.

                                Please note: once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of
                                what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
                                Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE,
                                AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result
                                of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face
                                that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL
                                PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.

                                I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento
                                County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can
                                disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust. What is
                                the court doing?? Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has
                                formally resigned himself from that trust.

                                He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to
                                resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be
                                dissolved. Does the judge obey the written trust? Nope. Has any person
                                challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust? Nope. Can the
                                TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions? Nope.

                                Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this? Nope.

                                Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy
                                the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR. They devise a needless war to simply
                                litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.
                                (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?) The usual
                                ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of
                                the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.

                                Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the
                                State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer
                                no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.

                                A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. I have one
                                person down in LA whom used to produce movies. He had both he and his wife
                                (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.
                                All of the Parties signed off on it. The attorneys signed off on it. Even
                                the Goddamn Judge signed off on it. [It was about five million the wife was
                                to received upon any divorce].

                                Divorce occurred soon after the marriage. The wife got 5 Million. She put
                                that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke. What
                                did she do? She went back to court and asked for more money! This was in
                                VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.

                                What did the court do? Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law? Uphold the
                                rights of the Husband?? Nope. She got an additional couple of Million,
                                leaving my buddy screwed.

                                So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...

                                I could go on and on.

                                THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS. IF ANY MAN
                                ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO
                                GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY.

                                I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of
                                which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603. It was PROTECTED
                                under a Trust instrument. He got married. Do you know whom now owns his
                                family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for
                                four-hundred or so years?? The wife! He's out; his family is out--and now
                                SHE owns it. He could do nothing except watch as the government and its
                                courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate.

                                His crime? He was male. His protections? Both the Trust and the "Law."

                                HA!

                                I say this with alacrity. As the modern man is under such
                                transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious. With courts
                                transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to
                                take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of
                                the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT. It is an IDENTITY that
                                men are caught within a factual APARTHEID. [I challenge anyone to produce
                                another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than
                                Fatherhood, or simply being male].

                                It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions,
                                FIRST ARTICLES, states:


                                Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
                                inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
                                liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
                                obtaining safety and happiness. [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]

                                So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to
                                protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID
                                ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT not only
                                to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property.

                                This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within
                                the lexicon of modern law. You cannot protect private property through
                                trusts any longer. Period.

                                So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle, 201
                                U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO
                                PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY. You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the
                                only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section
                                10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United
                                States government itself. It cannot impede obligations of contract.

                                ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that
                                contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle
                                authority.

                                Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.
                                Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences,
                                and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any
                                licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely
                                everything is taken away. They can never pay, for what amounts to mere
                                hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter,
                                no less...

                                It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...

                                I'll say it again: Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts;
                                Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT
                                WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!

                                As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is
                                to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by
                                these criminal enterprises.

                                What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are
                                also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.
                                They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek
                                protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST
                                law. Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting
                                about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly. More
                                importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can
                                represent and/or protect these elderly people. Again, I see this not as a
                                California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide. I've seen
                                it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking
                                about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of
                                legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court
                                systems. I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.

                                You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                                into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                                AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                                radar of the government.

                                There is a controlling maxim of law, which states: "The Act shows the
                                intention of the doer." If these courts keep acting and transferring
                                wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can
                                cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their
                                attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting
                                these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.

                                Once again, hope this helps.

                                JR
                                aka "Aaron Burr"


                                PS

                                These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich
                                and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal
                                processes are being protected by our government. Now someone is going to
                                turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your
                                private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?

                                I think not!




                                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                                From: laurencealmand@...
                                Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                                Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts





                                In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about
                                irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make
                                sure your children are protected.

                                Laurence


                                From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                                Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts



                                --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                                > gov.
                                > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                                > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                                > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.

                                The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is
                                necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or
                                not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.

                                Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                                don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you
                                indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write
                                it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you
                                know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it;
                                since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm
                                not just being lazy.

                                > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                                > credentials.

                                OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                                away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.

                                > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                                > give
                                > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                                > win.

                                No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                                think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.

                                Andrew Usher
                              • Spence
                                Hi mate, Trusts I don t know too much about, but I ve run a charity for 8 yrs now and when money goes in then no-one takes it out. Or that s been the case so
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 24, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi mate, Trusts I don't know too much about, but I've run a charity for 8
                                  yrs now and when money goes in then no-one takes it out. Or that's been the
                                  case so far.

                                  Now, I'm sure- like if the gov got wind of it- then they'd have it stripped
                                  Forthwith. But That's not been my experience. Also, the government officers,
                                  in the UK, are known for using charities to get and keep their money. So,
                                  sure- Nothing's invulnerable, but a charity [and possibly trust too] are the
                                  safest place I can find to keep cash.

                                  We're not discussing what's perfect [as there is noting perfect], but
                                  pragmatically- where's best to keep cash?

                                  Best regards

                                  Spence
                                  'Trusts are a particular instrument. They obtain their power and legality
                                  through the state. What the state gives, it can take away'
                                  '
                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Robert Cheney
                                  Date: 24 August 2013 04:53
                                  To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts





                                  Dear Spence,

                                  Trusts are a particular instrument. They obtain their power and legality
                                  through the state. What the state gives, it can take away.

                                  The trust also has to be recorded, or "presented" into government to be
                                  adjudicated or decided--and LO! there are requirements, that all trusts MUST
                                  BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY IN COURT! [Because they are
                                  'incorporate'--and an artificial creation of government].

                                  The well-documented problem of ANY TRUST, is that there are too many
                                  entities whom have their finger in the pie.

                                  There is also the well-documented problem that the ATTORNEYS and courts are
                                  no longer obeying the law.

                                  Your right to contract, however; is a natural and unlimited right, that is
                                  constitutionally protected. Its performance does not depend upon
                                  others--but rather; as to what each party agreed to, and to what is either
                                  written or orally stated.

                                  To me, the choice is clear.

                                  JR
                                • Robert Cheney
                                  Spence, The sentence means: A.) Make the CONTRACT. B.) There are appx. 10 elements to a CONTRACT. 1 Parties must be competent to contract 2 There must be
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Aug 24, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Spence,

                                    The sentence means:

                                    A.) Make the CONTRACT.
                                    B.)  There are appx. 10 elements to a CONTRACT.
                                          1  Parties must be competent to contract
                                          2  There must be FULL DISCLOSURE between the parties
                                          3  There must be a CONSIDERATION
                                          4  There must be MUTUAL CONSENT or MEETING OF THE MINDS
                                          5  The CONTRACT must be effected (PERFORMANCE)
                                          6  The CONTRACT cannot be based upon an IMMORAL CONSIDERATION or VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY
                                          7  There must be a quid pro quo for each party
                                          8   There must be a TERM for the CONTRACT
                                          9   Each party must adhere to all terms and conditions
                                          10  There must be some writing or conditions that are instituted upon any failure or violation to the CONTRACT

                                    So, once you make the contract with any party--then; the performance of listing and protecting your private property--then, one of the final elements in the CONTRACT with all parties--IS TO KEEP THE CONTRACT SECRET.

                                    Then your property is protected by the CONTRACT by the NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT within the that contract.

                                    Both government and corporations use these non-disclosure agreements, every day of the week.

                                    JR



                                    > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                                    > From: rights4men.immediately2@...
                                    > Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:45:38 +0100
                                    > Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts
                                    >
                                    > Hi Again Robert; what's meant by that sentence? For us ordinary folk that
                                    > is.
                                    >
                                    > Tks
                                    >
                                    > Best regards
                                    > Spence
                                    >
                                    > 'CONTRACT it into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a
                                    > NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT within that same contract.'
                                    >
                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > From: Robert Cheney
                                    > Date: 22 August 2013 02:54
                                    > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Subject: RE: [AUM] Re: trusts
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Dear Laurence, et als:
                                    >
                                    > Irrevocable trusts don't work. I know that various attorneys, lawyers,
                                    > judges and accountants "say" they work--but they don't.
                                    >
                                    > Please note: once the court, or attorneys, or government, get a hold of
                                    > what the trust is: THEY DO NOT OBEY THE TRUSTS WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
                                    > Once again, (this is from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO DEFEND OLD PEOPLE,
                                    > AND FATHERS' INTERESTS IN TRUSTS WITHIN THE CURRENT COURTS), that the result
                                    > of a trust, is that the aforesaid enemies, (stating with a straight face
                                    > that they are upholding the law and even that they are 'helping you')--WILL
                                    > PEEL OPEN THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST LIKE A ROTTEN ONION.
                                    >
                                    > I have a case even now, of an 'IRREVOCABLE TRUST' before the Sacramento
                                    > County court where the TRUST INSTRUMENT SAYS WITHIN IT, that the TRUSTEE can
                                    > disqualify himself and resign and therefore terminate the trust. What is
                                    > the court doing?? Throwing everything in the way of the TRUSTEE whom has
                                    > formally resigned himself from that trust.
                                    >
                                    > He is in fact, the TRUSTEE, the IRREVOCABLE TRUST says he has the right to
                                    > resign from that trust, and upon that resignation that the TRUST will be
                                    > dissolved. Does the judge obey the written trust? Nope. Has any person
                                    > challenged the legal terms and conditions of that trust? Nope. Can the
                                    > TRUSTEE enforce the TRUSTS terms and conditions? Nope.
                                    >
                                    > Does the judge even proffer his legal reasoning for doing this? Nope.
                                    >
                                    > Every "trust" I have gotten involved with--the courts and attorneys destroy
                                    > the intent of the GRANTOR/SETTLOR. They devise a needless war to simply
                                    > litigate the trust, to where the trust assets get billed over and over.
                                    > (Gee, could that occur as a systematic process in our courts?) The usual
                                    > ending to these procedures, is that the attorneys subsume the major part of
                                    > the trust, or they wind up owning the property outright.
                                    >
                                    > Please understand, that the TRUST INSTRUMENTS and PROTECTIONS within the
                                    > State of California, have been consummately PIERCED, and remove; and offer
                                    > no protections to any citizen, especially any Father.
                                    >
                                    > A similar fraud is also found throughout PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. I have one
                                    > person down in LA whom used to produce movies. He had both he and his wife
                                    > (with SEPARATE ATTORNEYS) formulate and design the terms of the pre-nupt.
                                    > All of the Parties signed off on it. The attorneys signed off on it. Even
                                    > the Goddamn Judge signed off on it. [It was about five million the wife was
                                    > to received upon any divorce].
                                    >
                                    > Divorce occurred soon after the marriage. The wife got 5 Million. She put
                                    > that 5 Million it up her nose within five years, and was then broke. What
                                    > did she do? She went back to court and asked for more money! This was in
                                    > VIOLATION of the LEGAL and SETTLED pre-nupt agreement.
                                    >
                                    > What did the court do? Uphold the pre-nupt? Uphold the law? Uphold the
                                    > rights of the Husband?? Nope. She got an additional couple of Million,
                                    > leaving my buddy screwed.
                                    >
                                    > So much for hiring an attorney to protect you...
                                    >
                                    > I could go on and on.
                                    >
                                    > THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE MODERN COURT SYSTEMS. IF ANY MAN
                                    > ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT, TRUST, CONTRACT, OR ANYTHING--HE IS GOING TO
                                    > GET HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM, AND HIS PROPERTY SUMMARILY TAKEN AWAY.
                                    >
                                    > I have another friend in New England, whom lived in his Family home, of
                                    > which he and his family owned, and lived there since 1603. It was PROTECTED
                                    > under a Trust instrument. He got married. Do you know whom now owns his
                                    > family estate, which was in the sole possession of he and his family for
                                    > four-hundred or so years?? The wife! He's out; his family is out--and now
                                    > SHE owns it. He could do nothing except watch as the government and its
                                    > courts transferred the wealth and ownership of his ancestral estate.
                                    >
                                    > His crime? He was male. His protections? Both the Trust and the "Law."
                                    >
                                    > HA!
                                    >
                                    > I say this with alacrity. As the modern man is under such
                                    > transfer-of-wealth duress--we must state the obvious. With courts
                                    > transferring wealth at record rates--the best thing I can suggest, is to
                                    > take your property, and make a simple contract, with one of the elements of
                                    > the contract being, NOT TO DISCLOSE THE CONTRACT. It is an IDENTITY that
                                    > men are caught within a factual APARTHEID. [I challenge anyone to produce
                                    > another crime throughout the aegis of law, that produces more penalties than
                                    > Fatherhood, or simply being male].
                                    >
                                    > It also must be noted, that approximately 80% of all State Constitutions,
                                    > FIRST ARTICLES, states:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
                                    > inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
                                    > liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
                                    > obtaining safety and happiness. [Const. Calif. 1849, Article I, Sec. 1]
                                    >
                                    > So when someone state's that you are violating the law by doing anything to
                                    > protect your property, they are in fact, (not you) areVIOLATING AFORESAID
                                    > ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT not only
                                    > to own, but to PROTECT and DEFEND private property.
                                    >
                                    > This 'constitutional protection' and 'secured liberty' is no longer within
                                    > the lexicon of modern law. You cannot protect private property through
                                    > trusts any longer. Period.
                                    >
                                    > So your reasonable redress as stated under the case of Hale v. Henkle, 201
                                    > U.S. 43 at 89; 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906); is that you have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO
                                    > PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY. You have the UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT, and the
                                    > only person precluded from piercing that contract under Article I, Section
                                    > 10 of the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791)--is the United
                                    > States government itself. It cannot impede obligations of contract.
                                    >
                                    > ...so yeah...a Private Contract with a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, within that
                                    > contract is eminently legal under constitutional, and Hale v. Henkle
                                    > authority.
                                    >
                                    > Murderers, on average get approximately, seven years 'real time' in prison.
                                    > Men caught into these communist courts: are charged to lifelong sentences,
                                    > and can own nothing, not any property, not their own children, nor any
                                    > licensing, not their own homes, the can't fish, hunt, or vote...absolutely
                                    > everything is taken away. They can never pay, for what amounts to mere
                                    > hearsay and accusations...what starts merely as a fraudulent civil matter,
                                    > no less...
                                    >
                                    > It is also civil murder...it's treason...and it is eminently illegal...
                                    >
                                    > I'll say it again: Irrevocable Trusts; Pure Common-law Trusts;
                                    > Massachusetts cestui que Trusts; etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum; DO NOT
                                    > WORK WITHIN THE CURRENT SOVIET COURTS INHABITING THIS NATION!!!
                                    >
                                    > As far as I can see, all these trusts do for the attorney's and court's is
                                    > to merely list all the assets of the TRUST, to be transferred and seized by
                                    > these criminal enterprises.
                                    >
                                    > What is very sad concerning this criminal activity, is that OLD PEOPLE are
                                    > also having their property outright stolen from them, using these trusts.
                                    > They made these trusts 20, 30, even 40 or so years ago, and now they seek
                                    > protections from any attorney or a court, to simply obey their own TRUST
                                    > law. Instead, they get ruined and lose the property, without much reporting
                                    > about these criminal transfer-of-wealth schemes against our elderly. More
                                    > importantly; there are no cogent or effective legal assistance, which can
                                    > represent and/or protect these elderly people. Again, I see this not as a
                                    > California alone problem--I believe it is happening nation-wide. I've seen
                                    > it over and over--so my asseveration here, comes not from blithely talking
                                    > about irrational statements--but what I propound here comes from decades of
                                    > legal experience, within the front lines of our modern (read corrupt) court
                                    > systems. I've seen it first hand, and I am sickened by it.
                                    >
                                    > You want to protect your assets, your children, your property? CONTRACT it
                                    > into safety, then as a condition of the Contract, make a NON-DISCLOSURE
                                    > AGREEMENT within that same contract. Keep it silent, and keep it off the
                                    > radar of the government.
                                    >
                                    > There is a controlling maxim of law, which states: "The Act shows the
                                    > intention of the doer." If these courts keep acting and transferring
                                    > wealth, if the follow the Ten Plank's of the Communist Manifesto, if we can
                                    > cite case after case and example after example of the courts, their
                                    > attorneys and the general government are criminally doing and effecting
                                    > these acts, then it is an IDENTITY, that the ARE HOW THEY ARE ACTING.
                                    >
                                    > Once again, hope this helps.
                                    >
                                    > JR
                                    > aka "Aaron Burr"
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > PS
                                    >
                                    > These procedures I have described, are the exact things that the super-rich
                                    > and multinational corporations are doing in this nation--which such legal
                                    > processes are being protected by our government. Now someone is going to
                                    > turn around and tell you these same legal processes for You protecting Your
                                    > private property are now somehow illegal when you implement them?
                                    >
                                    > I think not!
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                                    > From: laurencealmand@...
                                    > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:05:35 -0700
                                    > Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: trusts
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > In regard to trusts for your children, I suggest you do some research about
                                    > irrevocable trusts - one of the safest ways to shield your assets and make
                                    > sure your children are protected.
                                    >
                                    > Laurence
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                                    > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
                                    > Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
                                    > wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Oh no, Andrew; it's not hiding assets. Well that's not what we tell the
                                    > > gov.
                                    > > It's simply that they're put in charities or trusts. Nothing illegal in
                                    > > that- in fact all of our government officials do it. Totally legal. Even
                                    > > when found to be hiding assets- it's just a slap on the wrist.
                                    >
                                    > The point is that men are going to be afraid of this, not that their fear is
                                    > necessarily justified. I don't know enough myself to say whether it is or
                                    > not, which is why prudence dictates believing it.
                                    >
                                    > Now if you've done your research on this, and consider it important, why
                                    > don't you present (or at least link to) good arguments for it? Since you
                                    > indicated your interest in my Men's Wiki, I'll tell you that you can write
                                    > it there if you want, and I won't delete it if it's halfway decent. If you
                                    > know as much as you seem to be implying, you should easily be able to do it;
                                    > since you should know about all the long essays I've written you know I'm
                                    > not just being lazy.
                                    >
                                    > > Re my degree, ok. But all the guys I've protested with know my
                                    > > credentials.
                                    >
                                    > OK, but when you're just a username or the internet you really can't get
                                    > away with arguing from claimed credentials. That's nothing personal.
                                    >
                                    > > What was your bias? Did you work for the gov?- Well stick around- we'll
                                    > > give
                                    > > you emotional security and you can critique what we say. We win, and you
                                    > > win.
                                    >
                                    > No, nothing so irrational! As I've repeated, my bias is that I don't really
                                    > think it's much of a solution even if all you claim is right.
                                    >
                                    > Andrew Usher
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > The Masculist Trinity
                                    >
                                    > http://qimtunes.freewebpages.org/masculisttrinity.html
                                    >
                                    > Howard Schwartz's Great Anti-Feminist Articles:
                                    > http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/schwartz/Papers.htm
                                    >
                                    > Posts to the list do not necessarily reflect AUM or list memebership's beliefs.
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/
                                    >
                                    > <*> Your email settings:
                                    > Individual Email | Traditional
                                    >
                                    > <*> To change settings online go to:
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/join
                                    > (Yahoo! ID required)
                                    >
                                    > <*> To change settings via email:
                                    > aum-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                    > aum-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > aum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.