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

Utah Dist. Ct. on pro se repr. of trusts

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. The licensing
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. The licensing requirements to practice law are to "offer protection to the public." Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar v. Petersen, 937 P.2d 1263, 1269 ( Utah 1997). The rules governing the practice of law do not reach unlicensed parties. Thus, a real party in interest, in the instant case the actual beneficiaries of the trust, would not be able to sustain a malpractice action against a trustee representing a trust pro se. This result would be contrary to the stated policy of protecting the public against those that are not qualified to practice law.

      The instant case is very similar to the Tradewinds Hotel case. Leonesio is claiming here that he is the real party in interest, although the Trust document submitted to the court indicates otherwise. The only other support for Leonesio's position are Leonesio's statements to the court at oral argument or are found in the pleadings where he stated that "Frank William  Leonesio, as trustee, is by unalienable right and contractual obligation obligated to prosecute and defend the interests of In God We trust on behalf of its beneficiaries which are other irrevocable trusts." (Def.'s Objection of Motion to Strike Answer at 11.) However, as noted above, aside from these allegations, there is no evidence that Leonesio is entitled to represent the Trust pro se because he is the real party in interest or the sole beneficiary thereunder. In fact, it appears clear that he is not. Thus, the court finds that allowing Leonesio to appear pro se on behalf of the Trust not only violates 28 U.S.C. § 1654, but it would also result in the unlicensed practice of law.   U.S. v. Cram, 82 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7413

       

      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.  For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

      www.legal-research-video.com
      www.legalbears.com
      www.freedivorceforms.net
      www.irs-armory.com
      www.legalbearswebmarketing.com
      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

    • John Wilde
      Question. Does Utah still issue a license to practice law or are they like most states and have a membership in a closed shop private union? Arizona s public
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Question.  Does Utah still issue a license to practice law or are they like most states and have a membership in a closed shop private union?  Arizona's public charter for the "Arizona Bar Association" was sunset in 1984.  Since then they have been a private corporation and membership in the corporations union is required in order to "practice law".  The problem is defining who can practice law involves substantive right.  Arizona's Supreme Court authored a rule for the creation of the Arizona Bar Corporation, even though its rule making capacity is limited to procedural rules.  Their rules cannot define substantive rights.  That is the product of the legislature and has openned a question of separation of powers.

        g'day
        John Wilde.

        Legalbear wrote:

        A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. The licensing requirements to practice law are to "offer protection to the public." Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar v. Petersen, 937 P.2d 1263, 1269 ( Utah 1997). The rules governing the practice of law do not reach unlicensed parties. Thus, a real party in interest, in the instant case the actual beneficiaries of the trust, would not be able to sustain a malpractice action against a trustee representing a trust pro se. This result would be contrary to the stated policy of protecting the public against those that are not qualified to practice law.

        The instant case is very similar to the Tradewinds Hotel case. Leonesio is claiming here that he is the real party in interest, although the Trust document submitted to the court indicates otherwise. The only other support for Leonesio's position are Leonesio's statements to the court at oral argument or are found in the pleadings where he stated that "Frank William  Leonesio, as trustee, is by unalienable right and contractual obligation obligated to prosecute and defend the interests of In God We trust on behalf of its beneficiaries which are other irrevocable trusts." (Def.'s Objection of Motion to Strike Answer at 11.) However, as noted above, aside from these allegations, there is no evidence that Leonesio is entitled to represent the Trust pro se because he is the real party in interest or the sole beneficiary thereunder. In fact, it appears clear that he is not. Thus, the court finds that allowing Leonesio to appear pro se on behalf of the Trust not only violates 28 U.S.C. § 1654, but it would also result in the unlicensed practice of law.    U.S. v. Cram, 82 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7413


      • Legalbear
        Wait a minute. Yhe diffinition of a liciense is .... permission by commpent authorty, and that permision was given in the corpus of the trust. So there is his
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment

           

           Wait a minute. Yhe diffinition of a liciense is .... permission by commpent authorty, and that permision was given in the corpus of the trust.

           

          So there is his liciense. Am I right or am I off the wall with this??

           

          I know I am off the wall BUT........

           

          For one thing, you can’t write a contract that violates the law.  This judge believes that the law is that trusts must be represented by an attorney.  If you end up in front of him, what would you tell him? 

          A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. The licensing requirements to practice law are to "offer protection to the public." Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar v. Petersen,

           

          PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.  For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

          BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

          www.legal-research-video.com
          www.legalbears.com
          www.freedivorceforms.net
          www.irs-armory.com
          www.legalbearswebmarketing.com
          To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

           

           

           

           

           

           

          ____________________________________________________
            IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

        • Legalbear
          _____ From: David L. Miner [mailto:dminer@freedomsite.net] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:15 PM To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE:
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment

             


            From: David L. Miner [mailto:dminer@...]
            Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:15 PM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Utah Dist. Ct. on pro se repr. of trusts

             

            Bear --

             

            You said: "A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. "

             

            No, the Utah Court said that.  Look at my highlight in your quote.  I think the judge addresses what you talk about below.

             

            Not true of an unincorporated business trust organization, sometimes called a pure trust or a constitutional trust.  These types of trusts are created by common law right to contract and are not created by any statute.  In fact, there are court cases that state these types of trusts are not subject to statutory law.  Even the IRS has admitted in writing that these trusts are not subject to the Internal Revenue Code.  One of the many advantages of business trusts over statutory trusts.

             

            Don't know anything about pro se representation, I just know they are not statutory creations.  Don't know of any court cases covering this particular issue.  I'll do some research on it and get back to you.

             

            Yours in freedom,

            Dave Miner
            www.FreedomSite.net

             

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Legalbear [mailto:bear@...]
            Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 6:51 PM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Utah Dist. Ct. on pro se repr. of trusts

            A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. The licensing requirements to practice law are to "offer protection to the public." Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar v. Petersen, 937 P.2d 1263, 1269 ( Utah 1997). The rules governing the practice of law do not reach unlicensed parties. Thus, a real party in interest, in the instant case the actual beneficiaries of the trust, would not be able to sustain a malpractice action against a trustee representing a trust pro se. This result would be contrary to the stated policy of protecting the public against those that are not qualified to practice law.

            The instant case is very similar to the Tradewinds Hotel case. Leonesio is claiming here that he is the real party in interest, although the Trust document submitted to the court indicates otherwise. The only other support for Leonesio's position are Leonesio's statements to the court at oral argument or are found in the pleadings where he stated that "Frank William  Leonesio, as trustee, is by unalienable right and contractual obligation obligated to prosecute and defend the interests of In God We trust on behalf of its beneficiaries which are other irrevocable trusts." (Def.'s Objection of Motion to Strike Answer at 11.) However, as noted above, aside from these allegations, there is no evidence that Leonesio is entitled to represent the Trust pro se because he is the real party in interest or the sole beneficiary thereunder. In fact, it appears clear that he is not. Thus, the court finds that allowing Leonesio to appear pro se on behalf of the Trust not only violates 28 U.S.C. § 1654, but it would also result in the unlicensed practice of law.   U.S. v. Cram, 82 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7413

             

            PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.  For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

            BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

            www.legal-research-video.com
            www.legalbears.com
            www.freedivorceforms.net
            www.irs-armory.com
            www.legalbearswebmarketing.com
            To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
            tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

             

             

          • jm367@bellsouth.net
            How in creation can a natural person appear pro se ? As counsel ?
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
               
              How in creation can a natural person appear pro se ?  As counsel ?
            • lookin
              Wait a minute. Yhe diffinition of a liciense is .... permission by commpent authorty, and that permision was given in the corpus of the trust. So there is his
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                 Wait a minute. Yhe diffinition of a liciense is .... permission by commpent authorty, and that permision was given in the corpus of the trust.
                 
                So there is his liciense. Am I right or am I off the wall with this??
                 
                I know I am off the wall BUT........
                 
                 

                A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. The licensing requirements to practice law are to "offer protection to the public." Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar v. Petersen,

                 

                PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.  For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

                BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

                www.legal-research-video.com
                www.legalbears.com
                www.freedivorceforms.net
                www.irs-armory.com
                www.legalbearswebmarketing.com
                To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
                tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                 


                 
                ____________________________________________________
                  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
              • David L. Miner
                Bear -- You said: A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person.
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bear --
                   
                  You said: "A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. "
                   
                  Not true of an unincorporated business trust organization, sometimes called a pure trust or a constitutional trust.  These types of trusts are created by common law right to contract and are not created by any statute.  In fact, there are court cases that state these types of trusts are not subject to statutory law.  Even the IRS has admitted in writing that these trusts are not subject to the Internal Revenue Code.  One of the many advantages of business trusts over statutory trusts.
                   
                  Don't know anything about pro se representation, I just know they are not statutory creations.  Don't know of any court cases covering this particular issue.  I'll do some research on it and get back to you.
                   
                  Yours in freedom,

                  Dave Miner
                  www.FreedomSite.net

                   
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Legalbear [mailto:bear@...]
                  Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 6:51 PM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Utah Dist. Ct. on pro se repr. of trusts

                  A trust is an artificial entity created by law, whether common or statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se as a natural person. The licensing requirements to practice law are to "offer protection to the public." Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar v. Petersen, 937 P.2d 1263, 1269 ( Utah 1997). The rules governing the practice of law do not reach unlicensed parties. Thus, a real party in interest, in the instant case the actual beneficiaries of the trust, would not be able to sustain a malpractice action against a trustee representing a trust pro se. This result would be contrary to the stated policy of protecting the public against those that are not qualified to practice law.

                  The instant case is very similar to the Tradewinds Hotel case. Leonesio is claiming here that he is the real party in interest, although the Trust document submitted to the court indicates otherwise. The only other support for Leonesio's position are Leonesio's statements to the court at oral argument or are

                • Nilbux@aol.com
                  In a message dated 7/1/2004 11:15:21 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Art.1, Sect. 10. USC essentialy proscribes license and zoning laws. ( .....pass any law
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 7/1/2004 11:15:21 PM Central Daylight Time, bear@... writes:

                    Not true of an unincorporated business trust organization, sometimes called a pure trust or a constitutional trust.  These types of trusts are created by common law right to contract and are

                     
                    Art.1, Sect. 10. USC essentialy proscribes license and zoning laws. (".....pass any law impairing the obligations of contracts.")
                    Does every reader see this?
                  • Bob law
                    Bear, Dave is correct here in that the U.B.T.O. is similar in nature to a Masachusett s trust, which is a non-statutory, pure, common law trust which is
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bear,
                      Dave is correct here in that the U.B.T.O. is similar
                      in nature to a Masachusett's trust, which is a
                      non-statutory, pure, common law trust which is outside
                      the IRC or any other governmental authority as it's
                      existance was not created by government, but by the
                      author of government itself.
                      The U.B.T.O. is known by several other names, which
                      the IRS has tried to hold as "illegal tax avoidance
                      schemes", or "abusive tax shelters", but to date, this
                      has not had a great deal of success as it is not the
                      "entity" itself which is abusive, but it is the way it
                      functions due to the ignorance of the participants in
                      it's operations that make it abusive..i.m.h.o.
                      Later,
                      Bob L.


                      From: David L. Miner [mailto:dminer@...]
                      >
                      > Bear --
                      >
                      > You said: "A trust is an artificial entity created
                      > by law, whether common or
                      > statutory, and as such cannot appear in court pro se
                      > as a natural person. "......
                      > Not true of an unincorporated business trust
                      > organization, sometimes called
                      > a pure trust or a constitutional trust.



                      __________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
                      http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.