From a lecture on January 26, 2009.
It’s all about trusts. A gentleman asked a question earlier and I would like to explain. Everything I’ve been doing in the past, I’ve realized it was debtor-creditor and I realized that we were doing everything all wrong and backwards. I really changed my whole focus. Everything is completely different now. I’m gearing everything towards trusts. It really makes more sense. Once you get into trusts and study trusts you find out a lot of what didn’t jive under debtor-creditor all of a sudden makes sense under trusts. I’m switching everything into the trust mode. Instead of doing debtor-creditor I am going to stick with trusts. I’m going to live, eat, and sleep trusts.
... I’m leaving the debtor-creditor behind. … You really can’t get a remedy as secured party creditor. Your remedy is in trusts … through trusts and equity. In a trust you are the “lender” of an asset held in special deposit and if you don’t express the trust you are the debtor under the UCC debtor-creditor relationship. You would have to bond the case and the bond is really with the trust. A bond is a trust in a trust relationship. Here we have been talking about trusts all along but … because we never expressed it as a trust,they are construing it and getting us to function under debtor-creditor, under UCC [Uniform Commercial Code], “Accept For Value/Return For Value” [AFV/RFV], and everything like that. We have things in trust that are similar to those, although I wouldn’t call them Accept For Value.
It’s all really explained in Gilbert Law Summaries: Trusts [(2008 Edward C. Halbach, Jr)] as a basic primer for statutory trusts, which is really the “black [statutory public trust]”. The trust that we really are talking about is the “white trust,” which is opposite the black, but if I teach what the black is, you’ll know the white by sight.
To give an example: The AFV/RFV under debtor-creditor…what we were doing by AFV/RFV was creating a lien, which was under UCC, which was a negotiable instrument and anything under negotiable instrument law is debtor-creditor and you are creating a debt. A debt is what we are using as money in the system today and it is functioning as credit. Credit is what we use as money. These liens that we are creating that we were putting our unqualified signature to, which is the rule of the signature that I go by in expressing the trust, but since we are not expressing it as a trust, we are creating a lien, so what we are doing is just making a bigger debt to pay another debt.
We got double debt upon debt. They love us for that because we are creating more money [“Two Faces of Debt” (1963), “Public Debt, Private Asset”] for them to utilize. Here all along we thought we were getting some kind of set-off and we weren’t even touching the set-off on the private side. We weren’t doing a discharge on the public side. We were just adding to the debt–the public debt. It is my conclusion that we no longer any AFV/RFV because there is a better route and that route is 180 degrees the other direction.
I think that is what they were using to lead us down the path by giving us a few bones here and there of successes because I don’t know anyone at all who can claim a 100% success rate on any methodology that they use out there. No matter from A-Z, whether it was litigation, redemption, OID methodology–everybody has a success rate of about the same. That made me wonder why. Why is it that it looks like you could through a garbage can lid in there and get a remedy to some degree? When
somebody could take somebody’s success and duplicate it exactly the same way and they don’t get a success. That made me wonder why.
Then with this trust stuff I was studying all along the more I studied trust my eyes got opened up to the fact that hey it’s been trusts all along. All of us has been talking about trusts but we have been talking about trusts only in a protection method for protecting assets. That was just a device for protecting assets of the debtor from the creditor attacking him. We want to put it into trusts, treating trusts not as a defense move, but solely as an offensive move. I’ve been finding out that’s what they have been coming at us with all along. It just looked like debtor-creditor because debtor-creditor and trust relationships are so closely related they look similar on the surface. When you dig down in there you will find out they are a little bit different. When you find out trusts are operating in a totally different world, in equity, and here we thought it was Admiralty all along…