2009 11 07 NTT Part A Transcript.

doc

Christian Walters - host of Money, Banking, and Trusts by Moving Titles in Commerce.
NTT - New Trust Technology Audio Part A 11-07-09
(Comments in [ ] are the transcriber's or additions to reference materials by Christian Walters.)

NTT will revolutionize the commercial remedy industry. Focusing on the approach will be trust
relationships and trusts alone. NTT will view everything as a trust first and not as a construed
debtor/creditor relationship 14th Amendment citizen under UCC Law Merchant Law in commerce. Instead
of just mentioning a trust, e.g. HJR-192 or a Strawman SS Trust account exists, it is learning through NTT
to express the trust, act and function as a trust all the time in the public. NTT is first how to express the trust
so it is not construed through weak wording and, more importantly, how to administer the duties and actions
of an officer of NTT trust relationship with the key focus on the rule of signatures and rule of forms.

Over the last 1 1/2 we have been talking about creating and claiming and moving titles, which is really the
platform for which NTT is riding on. This is a graduate class. If you have missed all the previous shows you
need to go back and listen to them to get up to speed. If you don't know how to create a title, claim a title,
and move a title then you will have no idea what we are talking about. That is the basics first. We are
utilizing, in commerce, A4V, UCC and GSA forms, and IRS forms in expressing the trust. It is all about
expressing the trust.

Why have they done what they have done? It all comes down to the definition of legal fiction out of Black's
Law.
legal fiction. An assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue, made esp. in judicial reasoning to alter how a legal rule operates; specif., a
device by which a legal rule or institution [a trust] is diverted from its original purpose to accomplish indirectly some other object. • The constructive trust
[Cestui Que trust or Strawman/SS account] is an example of a legal fiction. -- Also termed fiction of law; fictio juris. [Cases: Trusts 91. C.J.S. Trover and
Conversion §§ 10, 12, 174, 195.]

"I ... employ the expression 'Legal Fiction' to signify any assumption which conceals, or affects to conceal, the fact that a rule of law has undergone alteration, its
letter remaining unchanged, its operation being modified.... It is not difficult to understand why fictions in all their forms are particularly congenial to the infancy
of society. They satisfy the desire for improvement, which is not quite wanting, at the same time that they do not offend the superstitious disrelish for change
which is always present." Henry S. Maine, Ancient Law 21-22 (17th ed. 1901).

Legal fiction is the mask that progress must wear to pass the faithful but blear-eyed watchers of our ancient legal treasures. But though legal fictions are useful in
thus mitigating or absorbing the shock of innovation, they work havoc in the form of intellectual confusion." Morris R. Cohen, Law and the Social Order 126
(1933).

privity of contract. The relationship between the parties to a contract, allowing them to sue each other but preventing a third party from doing so. • The
requirement of privity has been relaxed under modern laws and doctrines of implied warranty [trusts] and strict liability, which allow a third-party beneficiary
[trust term] or other foreseeable user [trust term] to sue the seller of a defective product. [Cases: Contracts 186; Sales 255. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 610-611;
Sales § 240-241, 284, 288-289.]

"To many students [infancy of

society]and practitioners [bleary-eyed watchers] of the common law privity of contract became a fetish [you are
supposed to agree or have knowledge of a contract to be liable student practioners]. As such, it operated to deprive many a claimant of a
remedy in cases where according to the mores [dead with no vision and can not see] of the time the claim was just. It has made many learned men believe that a
chose in action could not be assigned. Even now, it is gravely asserted that a man cannot be made the debtor of another against his will [by common law
disrelished]. But the common law was gradually influenced by equity [through trusts where no disclosure be given - a trust wrapped in the color of law
contract] and by the law merchant [the UCC], so that by assignment [a UCC3 filing] a debtor could become bound [by the act or actions of silence]
to pay a perfect stranger to himself [even if he had no privity of knowledge], although until the legislature stepped in [they came in with HJR-
192 and Public Law 73-10 giving you a remedy through a trust/treaty relationship], the common-law courts characteristically made use of a
fiction [trusts] and pretended that they were not doing that which they really were doing." [This is what they do not want you to know!] William R.
Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 335 (Arthur L. Corbin ed., 3d Am. ed. 1919).

privity of estate. A mutual or successive relationship to the same right in property, as between grantor and grantee or landlord and tenant. -- Also termed privity of
title [Warranty Deed, a trust with you as Grantee or Trustee filed with the county from a previous owner as Grantor in a successive
trust] ; privity in estate. [Cases: Landlord and Tenant 20. C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant §§ 27, 202(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10), 203.]

Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 913 (8th ed. 2004)

Expressing the trust by our signature, or autograph, with an A4V. A trust exists from 1933 when the gold
was taken from the backing of the Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) a contract could no longer be completed.
Page 1 of 6
2009 11 07 NTT Part A Transcript.doc

No consideration for value can be given or exchanged to complete a contract. Common law vanished in the
public. So, all contracts become colorable contracts or lies. A trust rushes in to fill that void. Now every
colorable contract is wrapping and hiding a trust as the core. Everything now is trust and the gifting of the
res, or principal, into the trust forming the corpus of the trust. Your signature is the representation of the
trust and all your past, present, and future labor are your assets. Your signature is the res, the value, the
principal. Every trust, no matter what it is called, technically fits into two types of trusts. Black's Law
Dictionary lists these two kinds of trusts. These are: 1. an expressed trust, 2. an implied trust. Every trust fits
into one of these two classifications.

trust, n. 1. The right, enforceable solely in equity [operates in a court of equity] , to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person holds the
legal title; a property interest held by one person (the trustee) at the request of another (the [grantor or] settlor) for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary).
• For a trust to be valid, it must involve specific property, reflect the settlor's intent, and be created for a lawful purpose. The two primary types of trusts are
private trusts and charitable trusts (see below). [Cases: Trusts 1. C.J.S. Trover and Conversion §§ 1-9, 14-18.] 2. A fiduciary relationship regarding property
and charging the person with title to the property with equitable duties to deal with it for another's benefit; the confidence placed in a trustee, together with the
trustee's obligations toward the property and the beneficiary. • A trust arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it. See FIDUCIARY
RELATIONSHIP. 3. The property so held; CORPUS (1).

express trust. A trust created with the settlor's express intent [expressing the trust voluntarily], usu. declared in writing; an ordinary trust as opposed to a
resulting trust or a constructive trust. -- Also termed direct trust; declared trust. [Cases: Trusts 1-61.5. C.J.S. Conflict of Laws §§ 73, 85; Trover and
Conversion §§ 1-9, 14-127, 143.]

An implied trust is also a constructive trust.

constructive trust. An equitable remedy that a court imposes against one who has obtained property by wrongdoing. • A constructive trust, imposed to prevent
unjust enrichment, creates no fiduciary relationship. Despite its name, it is not a trust at all. Cf. resulting trust. -- Also termed implied trust; involuntary trust; trust
de son tort; trust ex delicto; trust ex maleficio; remedial trust; trust in invitum. See trustee de son tort under TRUSTEE. Cf. resulting trust. [Cases: Trusts 91-
111. C.J.S. Trover and Conversion §§ 10, 12, 174-201.]

"A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the
holder of the legal title [the 9/10s possessory title] may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest [sole ownership or remaing 1/10th -
the actual title], equity converts him into a trustee." Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 122 N.E. 378, 380 (N.Y. 1919) (Cardozo, J.).

"It is sometimes said that when there are sufficient grounds for imposing a constructive trust, the court 'constructs a trust." [because we didn't express the
trust first] The expression is, of course, absurd. The word 'constructive' is derived from the verb 'construe,' not from the verb 'construct.' ... The court construes
the circumstances in the sense that it explains or interprets them; it does not construct them." 5 Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher, The Law of Trusts § 462.4
(4th ed. 1987).

Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1546 (8th ed. 2004)

The court construes the terms, it interprets them. Why? Because we didn't express the trust first and we
dropped the ball. When we drop the ball they are waiting for us to do something, express that trust and we
don't do it, so they must pick up that ball and do something with it. Naturally they are going to construe it on
a biased bent on their part and we are going to fall under liability and public policy with requirements to
make payments with FRNs. If you have expressed the trust yourself you could have set up the law of the
trust, which is the intent of the Grantor, and you could have set the trust expressing it to be payment with
private credit and private instruments. Instead you got construed under debtor/creditor law instead of trust
law under equity. That is where the substantive rights of the real man rest and lie still today. The Cestui Que
trust, or implied or construed trust, or constructive trust. See examples of trust above. An example of a
Cestui Que trust is the Social Security number trust account, a.k.a. Strawman. A Cestui Que trust is a
beneficiary trust of the Foreign Situs trust, the birth certificate, by the courts construing the trust because
you did not express the trust after the age of 18. It's like a spill over trust. The Foreign Situs trust spilled
over into the SS trust. At 18 it took effect and you didn't come back and accept it. So, the Cestui Que trust,
or constructive trust, is the remedy through which the court of equity finds justice for the one who has lost
his property to one who does not legally have the right to the property. You are being construed as the one
holding the property illegally because you didn't make the payments. He is holding the property illegally in
such circumstances that the holder of the legal title, or possessory title, may not in good conscience retain
the beneficial interest or the beneficial title and in equity converts him into a trustee. Isn't it said that all
prisoners in prison are trustees? Isn't that a trust term?
Page 2 of 6
2009 11 07 NTT Part A Transcript.doc

26:35 You are construed to be an illegal holder of the property because you didn't express the trust at the age
of 18. You were supposed to assume the role of Trustee, through your expression of the trust, and you didn't
because you didn't know you had to - you dropped the ball, waiving all your rights to expressing the trust as
to law form, parties, duties, etc. allowing them to pick up the ball and construe the trust with a biased bent
for them because it was not clear in what your intent was. The courts then construe you as a trustee and
breach of trustee duty to pay them as beneficiary in FRNs. If you would have expressed the trust with your
intent under 1776 law form, which is pre-United States and pre-statutes and codes, being able to pay with
private credit of NDIs, negotiable debt instruments, you would be safe making private payments with
private credit but you didn't. You waived your right by dropping the ball and they had to pick it up and do
something with it. That is why they ignore your presentments of private credit and put you under public
policy statutes and codes to pay with FRNs. You goofed up, not them. They are culpable for what they are
doing wrong by blocking your remedy, but you had the first move and didn't. You can always go back and
correct the problem. You come back in, even in the re-expression of the trust, even in an irrevocable trust
because the Grantor has all the power.

28:20 If you make payments with your private credit you can always correct that problem. e.g. under the
Restatement of the Law on Trusts, 2d, Section 332, which is entitled Power of Revocation or Modification
Omitted by Mistake, the settlor can reform or modify the trust to reflect his original intent even when the
courts construe the trust to be irrevocable because you didn't express it being revocable, or modifiable. See
what power you have as a settlor and you didn't even know it?

Let's talk about some basic trusts. Since trust law is new to most people the place to start would be in a line
of study to understand the law of trusts would be to understand the legal mechanisms of the Federal Income
Tax system, or the Traffic Code, or the Municipal Courts, or the Property Taxes, to identify a few of the
trust agreements we've been induced into voluntarily signing. I can recommend the books The Law of
Trusts and Trustees, by Bogart and Bogart, and Scott on Trusts, and the Restatement of the Law on Trusts,
2d. Wills and Trusts in a Nutshell is another one. In those states in which there exists a trust code there
would also invaluable information for you regarding trust law. Look that up on the internet.

Some key foundational points regarding trust law. He who claims trust must prove trust. "The burden of
proof is on the party who asserts the existence of a trust." Bogart Section 50 at 102. That proof of the trust is
really by expressing the trust. So regarding these scams, or blocking a remedy, since they are typically the
fiduciary, or the trustee, and don't even know that we have volunteered for the role or position, the threshold
burden of proof will be on the party claiming to be the beneficiary. The beneficiary seeking obtain a relief
for obtaining a breach of trust must plead and prove the facts which show the existence of a fiduciary duty
or trustee duty and the failure of the trustee to perform it. The court should grant the request of remedy.
Bogart Section 871 at 156. Where the beneficiary fails to prove the damages there is no recovery.

31:00 What must a party claiming trust prove initially? There are basically four elements to a trust.
1. parties - grantor, trustee, beneficiary
2. a specific res property
3. intent
4. purpose

Intent and purpose is from the grantor. The trustee holds the trust property and is subject to equitable duties
to deal with the benefit for another and the beneficiary, to whom the trustee owes equitable duties to deal
with the trust property for his benefit. The res, which is held by the trustee for the beneficiary. Moreover, a
fiduciary relationship arises when the government assumes such an elaborate control or force of the property
belonging to the Indians say, all of the necessary elements of a common law trust are present, a trustee, a
beneficiary, a trust corpus, etc. A trust must have both a beneficiary and a trust property, the res, and if there
Page 3 of 6
2009 11 07 NTT Part A Transcript.doc

is no beneficiary or no trust res then there is no trust. If there is an absence of a fiduciary or trustee a court
of competent jurisdiction may apply a fiduciary. Equity will not allow a trust to fail for a lack of trustee.
Acceptance of the benefits is presumed under Bogart 169, notice of and to the beneficiary and at 191
acceptance is presumed. This is to say that there is nothing that an alleged beneficiary of these scams need
to do to confirm formally acceptance of the role of beneficiary, the beneficiary may disclaim under Bogart's
170-172, the disclaimer and its effect, and 170 at 205 proof of acceptance or disclaimer, where conduct by
the beneficiary which is inconsistent with a trust for his benefit may amount to an implied disclaimer. A
disclaimer amounts to a refusal to accept a gift of the equitable property right, Bogart 170 at 207. In the
absence of a statute governing the matter the problem is often whether the beneficiary, by his words or other
conduct, (silence is conduct) accepted the equitable interest or has indicated that he has rejected such
benefits. Since acceptance is normal a claim of renunciation must be supported by clear evidence, Bogart
170 at 205 - Proof of Acceptance or Disclaimer. Disclaimer operates to and back to the date of the
agreement. Bogart 172 at 227-28 the phrase nun pro tunc may appear in this area of discussion. It means
"now and for then". Conduct by the beneficiary which is inconsistent with trust for his benefit may amount
to an implied disclaimer and statutes which require surrender of such trust will be in writing do not apply
since a surrender is based on giving up of an equitable interest, whereas a disclaimer amounts to a refusal to
accept a gift of equitable property rights. Bogart 170 at 207. ….

35:35 No one may be compelled to be a fiduciary or trustee. The only way to be a trustee is voluntarily. This
term is included for one main reason. There is a moral level of response to the repulsion that those in
government feel the need and authority to run these scams against us. These scams feel like fraud. If the
choice of law was the law of the land then it would be fraud, but the choice of law is not the law of the land
and therefore we need to move through that feeling as quickly as possible under the choice of the law by
which these scams are being evaluated. All the trusts that are part of the scams are 100% voluntary. This
does not mean that one should not assert these defenses. It just means that those who feel compelled to
assert claims or defenses for fraud or duress or coercion are strongly encouraged to also assert claims and
defenses that may actually be heard. Under the common law standards the agreement would be to evaluate
per the subjective standard. Per that standard the relevant question would be along these lines, "Did you
understand that you were creating a trust when you signed that document?" However, under the standard for
this state, which standard is the objective standard, about the only relevant question is, "Is this your
signature?" In other words, in an agreement evaluated per the choice of law of this state, one is presumed to
know the nature and consequences of what he signs. While this presumption is not necessarily irrebuttable,
we have a choice to focusing solely on the state standard, which is signatures really, or of also digging
deeper into the substance of the matter so as to deal with the legal reality of the matter.

In this day and age of the statutes of fraud the trust agreement must be in writing and signed by the parties to
be charged. For our purposes here that party would be a fiduciary or trustee. An example of this idea we find
under Texas Property Code, Section 112.004, Statutes and Frauds, a trust in either real or personal property
is enforceable only if there is a written evidence of trust terms bearing a signature of the settlor or the trust
authorized agent, the trust consisting of personal property however is enforceable if created by 1. transfer of
the trust property to the trustee who is neither settlor nor beneficiary if the transferor expresses
simultaneously with the prior to the transfer the intentions to create a trust; 2. a declaration in writing by the
owner of property that the owner holds the property as trustee for another person for the owner and another
person as the beneficiary. If the beneficiary makes a prime facie case the burden of contradicting it or
showing a defense will then shift to the trustee. Bogart 871 at 156-57.

The burden of proof issue is the one of the distinctions and characteristics about trust law. There is no
obvious transition from the threshold burden phase to the substantive burden phase. This is where we want
to compare the case of US v. Snepp where the CIA came against Snepp, who was a 15 year employee of the
CIA. He signed a contract that he wouldn't write any information and publish it without prior written
consent from the CIA. He quit. Before he quit he signed another contract to the same effect. They had two
Page 4 of 6
2009 11 07 NTT Part A Transcript.doc

written contracts with written signatures on the contracts for not publishing any kind of data which would
not be approved prior to that publication. You would think the CIA would come against Snepp under
contract tort law. No, they sued him under trust law. I wonder why? Continuing … However, where the
party claiming trust is the beneficiary … what happens is there is a shift in the burden of proof … thus it is
where beneficiary who is asserting trust and the beneficiary is the party expected to be the party who is
filing suit of the claim, because the threshold burden of proof is on the beneficiary, then once the beneficiary
satisfies the threshold burden the burden of proof shifts to the alleged trustee. What then does the trustee
have the burden to prove? The fiduciary then has the duty to prove compliance or non-breach. He has no
evidence that he can prove unless he made the payment. They go on the presumption, "Why would a
beneficiary make a claim if he got paid?" The trustee would have that proof … why would they make that
claim unless the trustee has not paid? The point to make here about the evidence, and that is the key, the
beneficiary has paid, so the evidence and burden of proof is that once the threshold of burden is satisfied the
law of trusts presumes that the fiduciary, or the trustee, is wrong or is guilty or has breached the agreement.
The fiduciary must prove, which he can't unless he has made a payment, that what he did was consistent
with the applicable trust agreement. That is the Grantor's intent. Thus, in the civil context (commercial), the
trustee is quite literally presumed to be guilty or presumed to have breached. He must prove that he was
within the terms of the trust and within the applicable trust laws that he is not guilty. He can't do that
without proof of performance, which he didn't do. The terms of the trust determined by the grantor, who sets
up the law of the trust, e.g. make payments with private credit through the Strawman trust account.

How do you prove up a prime facie case? That is simple. Do like they do in a mortgage foreclosure. Come
in with copies and make an allegation. It's all prime facie. It is presumed that you are guilty. While it is
indispensable that the trustee show burden of compliance with the trust agreement, it is just as indispensable
that such burden doesn't even exist until after the beneficiary carries the threshold burden to show 1. that the
claimant is the beneficiary; 2. managed by the alleged fiduciary, or trustee; 3. of a trust with a trust res. In
other words, express the trust.

45:20 This is the unknown beneficiary problem, which can be your defense. Where the alleged beneficiary
is unknown then the alleged fiduciary trustee has no obligation to find such a party and to pay. When you
walk into court and they construe you to be the trustee, in breach of trustee duty because you didn't pay,
what would your defense be? Would it be the unknown beneficiary problem since the trust wasn't expressed
on either parties part. Then how would you know who the beneficiary was? As a construed trustee you
could claim the unknown beneficiary problem and hold the payment indefinitely until the other party tells
you or identifies who the beneficiary is. Or you could come back in and re-express the trust to modify it to
your liking and express yourself as the beneficiary. So the typical identification here, which would include
the name and address so you could identify who the party was that needs to be paid. That's Bogart 161 at
133 & 34. So the breach of fiduciary duty can be a criminal act. In other words, trustees go to jail as
trustees in prison. That is misapplication of fiduciary property or property of a financial institution. I can
also see embezzlement and willful misappropriation. Sometimes the term fraud includes embezzlement and
defraud derives from common law and embezzlement is statutory concept and generally known to common
law also. Larceny on the other hand is a common law concept unless in general where defraud takes its
meaning from the common law it would include larceny, but not embezzlement. In the statutes defraud can
also include embezzlement. In this case for example under 18 USC 371 where defraud includes
embezzlement. To conclude this little article Primer on Trusts, let's look at one example to facilitate
understanding this example. Let's add one more foundational concept from trust law. The trustee must act
under the terms of the trust agreement and how would they know what the trust agreement was unless you
expressed it someway? Keep in mind that expression of the trust can be oral or be in writing. Your silence
can be construed as an act or your conduct and your agreement to the trust. He must be able to prove that he
is acting in compliance with the terms of that trust agreement, however, the fiduciary may act in
contradiction to the agreement where all beneficiaries agree to that deviation.

Page 5 of 6
2009 11 07 NTT Part A Transcript.doc

48:20 Let's say there are several beneficiaries and the fiduciary wants to make a donation to a new charity,
which was not previously named the beneficiary of that trust and let's say that all but one of the named
beneficiaries supported the idea of making that donation out of the trust property. Can the fiduciary or
trustee make that donation? No. Because it would be a distribution of trust property to a non-beneficiary
without unanimous consent of the named beneficiaries. When a fiduciary makes an unauthorized
contribution from the trust that is called embezzlement.

Page 6 of 6