RE: [AUM] Re: trusts
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: email@example.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
> Best regards
> '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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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."
> 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
> 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.
> aka "Aaron Burr"
> 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: email@example.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.
> From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01 AM
> Subject: [AUM] Re: trusts
> --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...>
> > 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
> Howard Schwartz's Great Anti-Feminist Articles:
> 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:
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> (Yahoo! ID required)
> <*> To change settings via email:
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: