Well welcome everyone to another abundance group trusted advisor call for Tuesday, September 20 2022. And as promised today, this is a bonus call to trust advisor training that I have invited all clients to join us for, because we're going to be talking about Weiss's concise, trusty handbook. And with that, I am celebrating Galena, who does such a fantastic job of keeping up with learning and educating herself about trusts that she brought this to us. And I am also grateful for you, Galina. Thank you. Thank you. So before we get started any celebrations today?
I think Lou and the crew made it to DC.
A good celebration. So,
if you guys have done your homework and read the concise trusty handbook, I would love to hear some takeaways from it. Kevin, I know it made an impact on you. You want to get us started?
Well, I don't know where to start, because I'm actually still I'm only two thirds of the way through really, because I've scanned the obviously all of it. But I'm actually only at footnote number 101.
Notes are meaty.
Yeah. And I've actually I've been downloading, downloading most of them as I find them. And we'll have to, and I'll get you more. So I know you have some of the ones I've sent you. But I don't know if you've actually read some of the ones I've sent you yet. Several of them, because I think you're gonna start to start enjoying some of the ones that I'm finding they're actually pretty good. So I think maybe what would help us and what maybe, because what this is sort of draw drew the curtain back on is some of the different legal things, not that we need to know it but it's nice to know. And this is where you can share some of your wisdom and learning on jurisdiction and venue. Because I think that's one of the key things, because I definitely the other distinction that a lot of the different footnotes are raising is a distinction of association and I know that was the one that I found most recently that I think I sent you in that last email and and that because I know that's another whole sort of can of worms, if you will, but in a good way.
I don't think I've finished only I read the last one you sent me. And that's okay.
And what it is,
is there something else?
So the one that I'm referring to is in the the Massachusetts one so it's full
know when you're talking about
okay, it's one of the earlier footnotes Yeah, the footnote six so some of the older 1900 stuff where they were sort of grappling with this prior to you know Teddy doing trust busting?
Yeah, how trust really got started here in America because of real estate. And it talks about portable real estate. Portable real estate being gold and silver was just really kind of an interesting idea. I've never really thought about precious metals as portable real estate and to issues of portable real estate. They created the Massachusetts one trust. I don't know if Luke can actually talk today. But Lou is probably way more knowledgeable than me on that topic.
That might be Bruce actually signing in since he didn't. But in any case, yeah, Bruce definitely knows about from some of their training. But this like I said sort of what what it opened up the sort of Pandora's box on is that there's a lot of common law knowledge Ah, that's sort of been lost, since the 1900s, is what I'm sort of seeing with some of these and diving into some of the older documents, especially like with what brochs does, is saying. So that's another thing where I just didn't know if any of your training and reading, when you were doing law review or other stuff, in the case law basically helped you sort of have a sense that maybe you could sort of share. Or if it's actually, you know, even discussed anymore, that might be sort of on purpose as well.
So, one of the things you learn in first year law school first semester, is, even though the United States and our legal system is not as old as, say, the United Kingdom's legal system that has case law dating back 1000s of years, I think it still is old enough that there's major history. And history really is important in the law. Even cases that are from the 1800s can have relevance in today's world, even though it is so drastically different 200 plus years later, if the legal issues are similar. So that's helpful to know. And it's helpful in practice. Common Law is our legal system got started. But today, our courts are considered Courts of Equity, not courts of common law, even though the entire system of jurisprudence is based on common law as a foundation. So it's really important to understand that when we're talking about a contractual trust in that is that utility trust, when we're dealing with statutory things, doesn't matter whether it's a trust, an LLC, a C Corp, whatever it is, if it's given its power through statutes, whether federal or state, or local, doesn't really matter. When it's given its power through statute, the older case law usually doesn't apply. Because the only relevant case law is from the date the statute was created forward, I want to stay under. But when we're talking about contract law, in a common law trust, especially, then even older cases, can have value. Because we're not talking about statutes that have either been modified, or reason more recently enacted. So it really does give the trust, a wealth of information that it can rely on. Because we have such a long history of case law here in the US, when it comes to contracts, especially. That makes sense, Kevin?
Oh, yeah, no, definitely. And that's a good way of looking at it. I just was just sort of opened my eyes in terms of there's definitely yes, I I understand that what you're saying and the point, but it's just bringing us back.
Teasing. That's David. So you mentioned venue and jurisdiction. And in the book on page 39. Is a diagram on analyzing jurisdiction. Yep. What specifically? Were you interested in hearing about? Well,
it's, it goes to one of the footnotes in it. I just wanted to get your take from the because you have different perspectives, from all of your research and other stuff, but it's more of Do you Do you have a take on because it's sort of we have to wear different hats based on what hat a judge's wearing, if we, you know, I know we're going to basically we've talked about if we ever were sued or have to defend the trust, we basically just give them the certificate, you know, the certificate, but it's a scenario where it also depends on what hat then the judge is wearing. Because if we're dealing with a you know, where the trust is contracting then We're dealing with the Admiralty sort of hat that he's wearing. And the different aspects and that was what I was meaning about jurisdiction is sort of how do we sort of dance in those different scenarios as the trustee.
The jurisdiction is a very, very complex legal issue. In law school, you have a minimum of two years worth of courses, talking specifically about jurisdictional issues. There's a couple different parts to jurisdiction. The first is considered territorial. The second is considered subject matter jurisdiction, and they're different. So really good example of territorial is my divorce. When Bill first left and filed the divorce, he filed it here in Florida. Although my body was in Florida, at the time I was served and at the time the lawsuit was filed. My residence was not Florida, we had been full time our viewers for 10 years, our RV had broken down four years earlier. And when it did, it was a really big mass, like $68,000 worth of repairs, and we don't know them for 48 days. So we ended up in an attempt in a lawsuit to try and get that remedied. And while we were trying to make that happen, Bill decided to leave. It has always been our intention to go back to full time RVing once we got the money back from the RV that we put almost $500,000 into. So we did not have Florida driver's licenses. We had Indiana driver's licenses, and we had always kept our Indiana residents. It was important, especially for me as a Medicare patient. Because the health insurance policy that I had, was only available in Indiana, it was not in Vail, available in any other state. So Bill files for the divorce here in Florida. He includes in the divorce complaint, a statement stating that he wants $4,000 a month in alimony. And I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay him $4,000 A month in alimony. So I went, I retained an attorney. And I said to the attorney, I do not want you to respond to the complaint that got filed. I want you to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. She says how what are you talking about? Well, territorial jurisdiction is based on whether or not you can even get good Service of Process on the person. Because they may or may not be subject to the laws of that territory. In this case, Florida law, because it's a Florida lawsuit that got filed. We had to basically say that although my body was in Florida, I was not a Florida resident, I was an Indiana resident. And because I never did anything to volunteer to belong to the Florida legal system, the judge to throw the case out of court. Well, when you do it that way on a motion to dismiss, you're not dealing with any of the merits of the case at all, all you're dealing with is just the jurisdictional issue. It took almost two years. But we were able to fight it based on a lack of jurisdiction. And when and the judge dismissed the complaint. So divorce goes by by Well, I was thinking that if we got rid of the divorce the bill and I would have a longer period of time to get back together and it would be a grand thing. Well, not so much. So immediately after the Florida dismissal. Bill decides to go get a new driver's license in Ohio because he was living with his first wife in Cincinnati. So he then waits the prescribed 90 days that you have to wait before you're allowed to file a lawsuit in the state of Ohio and then filed for divorce again in Ohio.
Again, he asks for $4,000 a month alimony. So I again hire yet another attorney this time in Ohio. And I say, I'm not an Ohio resident, he might be, but I'm an Indiana resident, and my body is in Florida. And I haven't done anything to put myself into a position of having the Ohio laws applied to me. My lawyer did a bunch of research, and she came back and she said, Well, that's a good argument. But the outcomes gonna be different than it was in Florida. I'm like, Okay, I don't understand why. She says, Well, this is apparently happened in Ohio before. And she pulls out bunches of Ohio Supreme Court cases, many of them dating back to the 1800s. And in it, it basically says, unless the defendant in the divorce, which is me, has done something to volunteer to be subject to the laws of the state of Ohio, then the judge cannot say, Okay, we're gonna force that person to come into Ohio, because of this complaint that got filed. But the case law also says that, no, Ohio residents should be forced to stay married if they don't wish to be married. So on the books of the statutes in the state of Ohio, there is a law that says, in the event, there is a lack of jurisdiction over the individual, which is territorial jurisdiction, then the judge cannot force me to accept the jurisdiction being Ohio. And the judge must not allow the plaintiffs in this case, Bill, to continue to stay married, if they choose not to. So the judge had the power to sign a divorce decree, but was not allowed to do anything on the merits to separate the property. Well, if that had happened, and I allowed the divorce to just be okay, we're no longer married. But none of the property issues would have been resolved, then I'd have an even bigger problem. Because unless I volunteered to be subject to all while there was no court that I could go into, in order to get the properties, issues resolved, I could have gone back to Indiana, and tried to file there, but it wouldn't have been in divorce court what's called Family Court, in most jurisdictions, it would have been in civil court, which would have been a shit show big time. So jurisdiction is a very complicated issue. And in that story, I just told you, there's also subject matter jurisdiction. So what the Ohio statutes basically say is, they can't force me to be party to Ohio laws, because I've done nothing in Ohio other than be born there. So that's territorial jurisdiction. But subject matter jurisdiction, is what relates to we're not going to require an Ohio resident to stay married if they choose not to be married, and therefore allow the divorce to happen, but without having any property split up or anything. So it really does break down into two parts to jurisdiction. When we deal with common law, it gets trickier still. There's the territorial jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction wise, because all of our legal system is based on a common law. Technically, any court in the country is considered a common law court. And with our site is being these United States of America. Any court could have jurisdiction, but subject matter jurisdiction needs to be considered as well. Under subject matter jurisdiction and a common law trust,
even if the courts accept jurisdiction over the common law trust, because technically, it's okay. There wouldn't be subject matter jurisdiction in any court, except for the one common law court that still exists up in upstate New York. Other than that, it is possible that a court could find If there is territorial jurisdiction, but there isn't subject matter jurisdiction, because the judge isn't sure how to apply common law, in which case, it's possible to get it dismissed. And that's the first argument you would make if the trust was ever sick. So in a Commonwealth trust, that's a very helpful thing to have.
Okay, well, and that's good to know that, that it's that complicated, because that was what I was starting to see with just even that diagram, and stuff. But that's, that gives at least is a good sort of frame of reference, and a good example to sort of, you know, understand the differences.
So, talk a little bit more about what you started to bring up with maritime law, what the heck? Well,
that's the whole rabbit hole that I started to realize. I guess the easiest way for everybody to sort of be on the same page, because I know you, I think you understand what I'm saying. But basically, what appears to have happened in the US is that we were common law. And then the reason we went to equity is the the legal system got together and in the past and decided to go and deal with everything in commerce. So that's why we switched from common law to equity. And so since everything is, is basically business we're dealing with, then everything in an Admiralty jurisdiction. And so that's why I'm talking about the different hats when I made my statement. And so it's a case where when we go into the court, the judge actually has multiple hats that they can wear, depending on what the issue at hand is. And that's what I was sort of asking about in relation to the trust.
That starts in footnote 24. In case you read it, it is in that section of the deck called the declaration of the Express trust.
And then, and that was, I guess, the thing that was sort of intriguing is the
well, there's a lot of stuff in this, but it's, it's more of, I guess, I don't want to go off into the weeds too much. I want to let you go back on to some of the points just to go through this. But it's ultimately the thing that I think that all of us are sort of, you know, concerned about is, you know, at least based on, you know, previous calls, goes more into them later powers and duties and the trustee, which you've talked to us about, and then our liabilities and whatnot, those few pages. But I guess the reason I asked about the distinction of sort of a association is is there was a, an I maybe have to reread that section, but the discussion about where the trust can, or the trustee in their duties can actually we want to be careful about an effect having a third party sort of relationship. And I'm trying to see if I can find it again. And it was even in some of the some of the older footnotes see if I can find it where basically the the issue was the it can actually invalidate. And that was where I know you've sort of talked to us about various things for us to be careful about and that's why you give us sort of certain rules. Prior to having this document.
Hey, Johanna up the section that says in a report submitted to the tax Commissioner's of Massachusetts on unincorporated associations. This study was conducted as part of a legislative investigation into the economic effect on the state in 1911. Pages six to 70 offers the following definition. Express trusts put the legal estate entirely in one or more persons, while others have a beneficial interest in an out of sale, but are neither partners or agents, this simple adequate common law right, any person or group of persons may exercise. The trustees issuing certificates of beneficial and capital interest divided into shares, as well as issuing bonds and other obligations as freely as they open a bank account, have a passbook and draw and circulate checks, or make whatever contractual relations are allowed to persons as a natural right. Is that part of what you're talking about?
Yeah, that's the association. So the question there was, I guess, in the law, the timer in the discussions in the case law at the time, they were trying to make the Massachusetts trust, since that was sort of prior to the Illinois Land Trust, sort of history that the Chicago title created. Trying to make it basically, because I guess there was some settled case law or law regarding associations, as far as I can tell. And so what this was sort of what the author, what Weiss is trying to point out is that, well, hey, this guy who was a noted legal scholar basically figured out based on doing the study for Massachusetts, that no, they should actually be just considered individually, you know, as a trust as a common law trust and not in association. And he, and this is part of that backup. But that was also just opening up another sort of thought, in terms of well, do we want to utilize that distinction ever from a from a protection standpoint? So maybe it's, it'll, it'll come up later in the future. But it got me thinking related to the business trust, since this is sort of applicable to both contracts. And so that was why I brought up the question. So it's something we maybe have to think about a little bit. But the other point I was getting at was more footnote 84. Where it's
paid before you go to footnote 84. Yeah, so the section I just read, as a footnote, number seven. And footnote number seven, has big implications when it comes to the business trust. I mean, just read this section. Mr. Chandler lucidly brought to the attention of the Massachusetts Tax Commission, the misapplication of the term voluntary association to the Express trust, it is well settled that the term association for income tax purposes, taxable as a corporation embraces business trusts, and what Congress did not intend to embrace within the term association was a pure Express trust, that is a trust of traditional pattern where property is conveyed by will deed or declaration to a trustee. It was on this day, the Court made it clear that an express trust, active and functioning as such as standing in law as a trust and not as an association. So what does that mean? Right. Just that a business trust, can choose how it wishes to be taxed.
Yes, even in
a complex business trust, and that it is possible for a business trust to get taxed even as a partnership or corporation. Now, that's a very interesting thought.
Well, and that's where as I'm in some of these footnotes, in the older references, there's, there's actually some additional inquiry on trust, and I'm trying to think of how they phrase it, but there's a whole sort of like I said, I can, I've read so much now I'm trying to keep it all straight. But it's basically the authors are sort of arguing it seems for the trust to just be a trust and to operate as a trust. And so basically, like I said, I have to go back to some of my history have like the railroads and things like that. And I know where some of these different cases are coming up as the because, you know, various either individuals or other corporations were suing various of the trust's that were out there. Because, you know, they became in vogue in the 1800s, you know, after Massachusetts started putting it in, you know, putting real estate in and creating, you know, creating companies and things like that as a trust, but the bigger question I was bringing out with the business trust here is, it seems like when we do like joint ventures other stuff, there might be a way of of, like you said, being able to sort of either choose the taxation as but away from corporations.
Under Ron, Dr. Amy? Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. My I can I shut off my phone? My microphone?
Yeah, I'll do it for you. 919. Yes. There we go. Thank you. Oh, maybe I didn't get the right person for 10.
For sorry,
for 10 just made you
don't see it.
Kevin, I just made you. There we go.
I got it. Anyhow. So where I left off was just the question of within the business trust. Since we talked about JV relationships, do we? Do we want to ever make that choice? Because I think because a lot of the stuff that I've read so far in the older text, are saying, you know, they're arguing sort of against that to basically not have the, the IRS sort of in your businesses at work, because I think all the stuff that we've been talking about that especially with that line you found with the 1041, we actually have a much better sort of way of going forward without having to worry about that.
But especially in the case of joint ventures, I have personally experienced joint ventures where the JV partner wants it to be taxed a certain way out, obviously, you want it to be taxed as a complex trust, because it's going to benefit you in the most. But if your JV partner is Pooh poohing the trust, doesn't have a trust and they want it taxed in a different way. Then I will not do you go forward with the joint venture. Right? Exactly. So what if a flexibility that we built into the trust instrument would allow for a division to be taxed as a partnership and all the other divisions to be taxed as complex trusts?
That's a good one. Yeah, Laura likes that. Setup.
Andrew, would you mind muting?
Oh, no. He asked. He asked if it's set up that way. I think.
Andrew, did you ask that question? Yeah, but I know the answer. Of course, you set it up that way, right? Well, of course I set it up. You may not realize this, but I have been known as the JV Queen for 25 years. Of course, I'm going to set it up with the greatest flexibility looking toward JVs specifically, it's who I am. It's what I did.
It's also just pretty cool to see
how you have arrived at the flow through, you know, the basic flow through. Well, that was new to me today. Thank you.
Yeah, pretty cool. So you have that flexibility in your business just which excites me like you wouldn't believe.
Do we just put that in the operating rules? You do? Exactly.
You absolutely do. And because it is not you as the beneficiary in the division, the interest holder, it is your personal trust. Let's say you have a JV and they want to get taxed as a partnership. Everything gets taken care of that. Profit gets distributed to your personal trust, and maybe they want it sent to their LLC or even their C Corp for that matter. Does it change how you're going to get taxed at all? Nope. No, because the tax is done through the personal trust, not the business trust on purpose.
And the flow through then helps us with that as well. Right? Is that Yes, the thing, okay, then that it connects the dots for me? Yeah,
absolutely. And you get the benefit of the fantastic asset protection that the business just will provide if it happens to be real estate. I just love this stuff, if you guys can't tell. And having read the trustees handbook that galena found, prior to drafting of our trusts, now reading it, I'm like, giddy, all entire book going, I didn't know this, this would have made it so much easier to draft.
Well, the other thing, too, is as I as like I was mentioning a moment ago and stuff is some of these references are old. And then in finding, like carry on trust. And there's some of these other references where there's another, there's multiple versions. So like, I had, you know, been introduced to Scott on trust. And I know he since passed away, and it's now being shepherded by a new professor. But it seems like there's always sort of like in a various set of generations a version of a document like that. And, like I said, parried on trust was for this generation in the 1800s. And then there was a guy even before that. And go back
to the 1600s. So exactly, you'll find stuff going that far back in Europe, not here. But in Europe. I think there's even one in German, if I'm not mistaken.
Sure, sure. But that's the thing is, is like even broke, actually did go back and even in some of his documents, pull references from from some of the English cases.
And they're just as relevant because it's a common law trust. So who else has comments to make as a result of what they read or even questions for that matter?
I have the heck Delena of this book involves a lot of legal documentation. And so the documents require more time to learn, but I just want to share my bottom line and simplify it as much as again and please correct me if I'm wrong, I will. When you are in position of trustee, you are you act as a man of a natural person, and you step out of being a citizen of United States operation. And when rescue follows, follow rules, we have some legal of different protection kinds of immunity.
Yes, because your fiduciary,
yes, and this helps a lot if you know all related laws, if you know your rights. So like you said you one person were to hertz or maybe we have to say we fly from one planet to another planet. And then as the planet is solid, behave in Unity independent we have power and for to be on second planet we need outcrossed. Yes. And
it is. And even if you aren't skilled in the law itself. In the law of common law trusts, the rules are in the trust instrument itself. So if all else fails, and you don't know where to go find the quote unquote, Law. Read your trust. And as long as you as a trustee, follow the rules outlined in the trust instrument itself. You will always be protected
is this handbook in the conveyances folder?
It is not but it is available at abundance group.com forward slash concise handbook abundance group.com forward slash concise handbook.
Think it's in the chat guys. Yeah. And Galena, you did you don't worry about all of the different references. The only reason you know, some of us are, you know, since a lot of us are nerds on this call, in a good way, regarding, regardless of sort of what other things we've done, I know Dr. Jean is a law nerds and she became a lawyer. But it's one of those things where the the references just, they're trying to give us trying to bolster the arguments that are being made. But basically, what you brought, what you found is, is this particular gentleman and all the different references the two, the two key ones that I've seen that are sort of key are the brokes that, you know, Dr. Gina and I have sort of were mentioning, that one's a good one to sort of help you. If besides this document, sort of get the history and some of the the thinking behind it, because he did a very good job. And this what you found was basically something that helps bolster the the sovereign concept that's out there. You know, what we've also talked about on other calls, that Cynthia has mentioned. Cynthia Shriver has mentioned regarding the state nationals sort of concept. Yes.
On page five, and one of the footnotes, it says that no state shall pass any laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Yep.
Just going back to the Constitution. He was
really good. That is straight out of the Constitution. Yeah, I like that a lot. And it's also true, right? Absolutely, no way, can they impair our right the contract period. And that's why I love it contractual trust so much more than a statutory trust. statutes are bad in ways for trusts, because they're subject to change. And the law of common law trusts, it's been the same for century after century after century. It has not changed one iota. That's pretty cool. I don't know why I'm so resistant to change, but I am. And I think for most people, unless you really are a massive risk taker, which isn't typical of people in our circle. I think most people are resistant to change. We like our comfort zone. And it's nice to be able to operate both your life and your business with in a fairly unchanging environment. And yet, one that is so flexible that if you choose to have change, it can wow, that's rare.
Who else has questions, comments?
Who is Weiss? who is wise,
the author of the concise book, of course. So if we go up to the top, Carleton, Albert voices his name, and let's Google him and see what we find.
There was a lot of really good information on page 19, too. Yeah, there was Yeah.
I just
didn't want multiple markers on that page.
Just isn't calm commerce a way of life by Carlton, a. Weiss. I was asked to write a few paragraphs on the specific advantages of living your life as a trustee and everything you do, as opposed to as a sovereign or secured party. I was asked to cover all related bases, that's included a constant comparison to show how each choice would hold up in commerce, when I came to realize is that there was only one way of life in its own category that enhances all others. All the others are actually disadvantages when it comes to commerce. At that time, I had just developed a surefire way of purchasing pure trusts. And I was on my way to finally uncovering the pivotal slot in federal contracts trusts. What my clients were asking for me at the time was a technology that would allow a statutory entity like an LLC, to sniff out minimum contacts people had that bound them to legislative jurisdictions, which would obviously allow the client to overcome the burden of establishing jurisdiction in their lawsuits against those people. I had no guilt about this because my philosophy is that ignorance is never an excuse. Equity compels performance. Regardless, I only assisted with cases that involve people claiming to be sovereign secured parties, general managers, managing directors and other players in the entities like fair trusts federal contract trusts, and corporations. In each instance, there was always a common theme contradiction. Every single one of the people like cracked to have contradicted themselves by their stated position, compared to their actual position. Every single one of them non statutory entities I helped peers was a contradiction by its intended nature and its actual nature. sovereigns were nothing more than beneficiaries. Secured parties were nothing more than people with split personalities reflected in a commercial recording. Even though I understood where they went wrong, the way that they went about it was so rife with contradictions, you get the sense that they had a screw loose, they couldn't really be helped because they wanted to be respected as creditors when it suited their needs, if they wanted to be absolved of liability like Ward's of the court when the pressure was too much. Likewise, pure trusts were really nothing more than unincorporated associations calling themselves trust. And most federal contract trusts are nothing more than partnerships, wishing that they had the protection in the federal courts under Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution. They were contracts indeed, but they contradicted the original intent of the constitutional clause they sought protection under, because the participants were exercising a franchise, either during the formation or life of the trust these strategies I was seeing and continue to see, please all the eggs in one basket. The really sad thing is the basket was made to hold bread. So the eggs never really make it to market all sovereignty Mission Impossible. The sovereigns I studied with, studied with during my research initially at a good point, and the good case law to backup the point. However, as I slice my investigative dogs on the case, the peeled back one layer after another of confusion, I saw the truth about the strict confines of any sovereignty role in the nation or kingdom of which he is that I was somewhat transplanted into the mind of the judges who had decided the cases most sovereigns rely on today, it became apparent that the case law actually shot sovereigns in the foot by holding over their head, an internationally recognized standard they couldn't practically live up to with their limited financial and natural resources in today's commercial arena. In the end, they didn't even need the site legal authorities to prove this to them. Through things like George Mercia is invisible contracts. Richard land sales benefits accepted equals jurisdiction. James Montgomery is the United States is still a British colony. The informers fallacy and myth of the people being the sovereign and timeless classics like William windings, or powers certainly had. The problem most of them faces they invested a lot of time and funds into something that turns out to be false. They thought they held sovereignty, but they could now see they voluntarily contracted themselves under
suzerainty. I don't even know what that word means suzerainty, at best to be truly sovereign. In olden times, you needed nothing less than a plot of land that you had absolute dominion over a fortified castle strategically placed on the land so as to protect you, the sovereign and military to protect the castle and land workers to do maintenance on the castle and land the stockpile of weapons high powered enough to wipe out any threat, a stockpile of gold or silver or material or natural resources to pay the militia the workers and sustain the economy, a full sense of how to negotiate with other people who are in the same position as you sovereigns, especially those who have bigger weapons. Today, not much has changed except for what the electronic age is made possible. To be truly sovereign nowadays, you need nothing less than a pound added land that you have absolute title to a fortified compound, a militia to protect the compound in land workers to maintain the compound and land a stockpile of weapons or technology powerful enough to stop a modern military offensive against you. The stockpile of coin that gold and silver to keep you from having to use Federal Reserve notes, a full understanding of trust law as it pertains to sovereigns as trustees, and merchants as beneficiaries, contract law, National Security Law and negotiable instruments law, as well as Laws of Power relating to the sovereigns and other heads of state so that you can negotiate with the United States and state governments in a way that doesn't get you dead, conquered or in prison, because those sovereigns had more powerful weapons than yours. Otherwise, you'll end up like the Native American nations, many of which give up their sovereignty to engage in commerce via gambling halls and casinos, is a very interesting article, and I'd read this before, which is why I read so much of it to you out loud, I remember correctly, I think
it's suzerain. And that basically as a feudal Overlord, your your feudal lords and fealty, as do, I just
didn't pronounce it correctly. could have sworn that this was the article I had stumbled across that had I don't see the thing I thought it had a biography for bliss. See if I can find the one that I read did have the biography.
So suffice it to say he at least is a is an attorney as I would imagine, yes. Correct. Based on all of his the way he wrote everything.
I did a Wikipedia This is Bruce. He seems to be a doctor and schooled.
Did some doctor but he's also an attorney.
I guess not say this in the Wikipedia. Thank you, Gina. Yeah, I did some internship and studying overseas Viana. Cool. But I don't see anything here and with the PTE that says that he was an attorney, though, why would you write this unless you work? So that certainly makes sense to. Okay,
I have so I have some stupid questions.
This is the Emily. No, such
is Land Trust, and express trust.
How would you answer your own question? No.
Yeah.
How would you answer it Kevin?
So in the grantor, so since the grantor trust, I would say it is as long as it's actually been formed correctly.
So as long as it has been formed correctly, but that is really important, as long as it has been formed correctly. If you guys think about our trusts with our trusts, it's not just the trust instrument that has to be formed correctly. The most important thing is has it been implemented correctly. Think about all the instances where we've had conversations about, oh boy, did it get done correctly, and all the things that are able to invalidate your trust by accident. Even something as minor as having a husband on one side of the fence as a trustee and a wife on the other side of the fence as a beneficiary, even though they were already married, when the trust was created and implemented, can cause big issues that can invalidate them on grantor status. So, when it comes to the types of trusts that we use Express trust, equally important, are both the trust instrument because it's the rulebook. And I owe the trust is implemented, implemented, and all the trust is operated once it has been implemented. All three can create issues
Okay, I think so. So Emily, don't get confused. I think ultimately, so I'll let you Sorry, I just the quick interruption I was gonna make was that the one thing this is I think uncovering, you know, and like I was saying before, sort of, yes, we're all nerds to a degree but, but that's actually a good thing because we all like to read and understand things. So what this basically helps us identify is that we have some more. What this is showing for me is there's a lot to learn here. But then a good way in that it's actually forcing us to go back to the Constitution and actually all of our and making sure we're, we're clear, like Lena said, and what our rights are. So she said it, I think very succinctly and very nicely. And, you know, I applaud her and I know you, Emily, and she, you know, English is your second language, but it's like you guys are doing very well in a lot of these things and have very good questions.
Thank you. It's very hard to read. And I keep seeing the word called ordinary trust. And what is the difference between the Express trust and ordinary trust?
Really don't know how the what the legal definition of an ordinary trust would be do you haven't? Because the two types of trusts are expressed and implied. I believe in most places that I've seen the term ordinary trust, they're referring to statutory trusts and not contractual trusts.
Yeah, I think that's what they're referring to. Because he's making them in throughout the handbook of distinction to the contract itself. So. So Emily, the key thing to realize, if you go back and look at the Constitution, like Caroline mentioned a moment ago, you know, some of the different footnotes, there's a section in the Constitution where if you really sort of let it you know, you read it over and over that, I think it's clause One, Section 10. And it's even one of the footnotes. Basically, contract law is the way the founders have it set up supersedes state or federal law, so that people can actually contract amongst each other. And the state cannot interfere with that. So that one that Gina mentioned, or that Carolyn read about it not being interfered with, or, you know, there can't be laws to do that. That was another another emphasis in the Constitution.
Right? And also does this trust and the page and it when I was reading it, I was wondering, does the trust can I trust be recolonizing foreign countries? If I have the trust here, does it was every colonizing other countries? Or just being America?
If it was a statutory trust, probably wouldn't even be recognized in a foreign jurisdiction as foreign as another state? Because statutory trusts are created under state law. But when we're talking about a common law trust how would you determine if it would be okay in a foreign country? It looked to the rulebook, wouldn't ya? Right. So, so long as the rulebook does not disallow it to be used in foreign countries than it can be used in foreign countries. I dream of a day and I work on this periodically in between all the other stuff I work on. I dream of the day, when I can have a truly international trust that will work in any common law jurisdiction. So many countries are common law based jurisdictions, to both provide the asset protection that we get with the trust, provide the tax mitigation that the trust affords us, and most importantly, provides the legacy that our trusts provide by virtue of the fact that they're here for many generations to come. A dream of the day. Not that ours can't be used in other jurisdictions. But it might not give you as big of an ironclad asset protection as we have here in the States. And most common law jurisdictions, it's still going to be pretty close to ironclad, and almost every jurisdiction I've looked that that's a common law country. The tax mitigation though, from one country to the next tax laws are so so different. And if we have a common law country that is similar to the US, and makes use of statements like what's found on line eight of Schedule B on a 1041 return form, that specifically states enter accounting income for the tax year, as determined by the trust instrument and local law. We have another jurisdiction, where the tax mitigation is based on what the trust instrument says. And it'll have exactly the same level of tax mitigation as we have here on the state's if we have jurisdictions that don't have something like that, then it's going to be a gamble as to whether the trust provides the same level of tax mitigation that it provides here in the US. But every time I do a little more research on having a truly international version of the trust, I find some other BS that I go, you know, I think this can happen. I haven't seen it truly international trust yet, but I promise you, you guys will be the first to know when I do it. Does it all happen during my lifetime.
And also on page 10, under trust the basics. And the second paragraph, it says a sentence said the trustee should it be stationed with the jurisdiction of the core of equity enrich this state is located doesn't mean that, for example, the house is located in Philadelphia, then the trustee shouldn't be stationed in Philadelphia, or living Philadelphia or I just told you I'm misunderstood what it means.
Look for the sentence that you just referred to, is it in the footnote of the body?
Isn't the body
the PDF or page 10? On the book? Oh, page
10 on the book.
Just the basics.
Second paragraph towards the bottom, the trustee should be stationed with a jurisdiction with a court of equity in which the state is located.
Yeah. So you have a common law TRA? Where's the state located?
Oh, United States of America, lower capital,
the geographic region and not the country to the corporation. So if the trustee should be in the jurisdiction that this state is in, what does that mean for the trustee?
Should it be united in United States? Or united? Yeah.
I keep thinking about okay, it's not. It's not state. It's United States. Okay. That makes sense.
So if you decide to move to Florida, you can leave your property there and you can still have the trust.
Right.
Hmm. I have Oh, my goodness, I keep reading with a very narrow mind.
Because it's a paradigm shift, right? Yeah, it is. So many of all of you, when you came into this world of a common law trust, your context for trusts was living trusts. Living Trusts, as you all know, are statutory. So in a statutory trust, a situs is usually at a state level. And in Pennsylvania, if you've got real estate in Philadelphia, it may even have a site as at a city level, not just a state level, because of the weirdness of Philadelphia's local laws. But with that living trust, having a sight as at least at a state level. You move from Pennsylvania to California, what happens to your living trust?
Ira? No, we just like to be
updated. Yes. Okay. There's what works in Pennsylvania is probably not going to work in California. Right. And then if you move two years later to Texas, guess what you're gonna have to do all over again.
Updated again? Yeah, what a pain in
the butt. Having these United States of America gives you There's so much more freedom anywhere in these United States of America, the geographic region, no problem. You don't have to update the trust. Pretty darn cool, if you ask me
is, and also have a question on page 26 of the body. And
before we leave this page, so the last line of this page of the beginning of the next page, but where the trust corpus is portable land, the trustee need not be stationed within any single jurisdiction. You remember the definition of portable land from earlier in the book?
Gold and silver? Precious Metal?
Yeah. So how was your trust funded? If you got it from abundance group trust?
The portable land?
Why was it funded with portable land? Anybody?
To keep it basically a common law trust.
Yeah. And that's why I'm like giddy reading this entire book.
Well, and you also were being you were being what's the word? The fidelity towards the Constitution? Because that is the clause. Yes.
Absolutely.
But Dr. Gina dis does. So this definition of portable wind does not extend to cash, only metals. Correct. So how does that impact it? Does that mix change the jurisdiction? Is there an advantage to trust? So
you did
Gordon just does not fund it with cash? Your trust is funded with silver.
Okay, but if I sell cash to the trust,
that's not funding the trust? Oh, I see. Okay, funding the trust is done by gift. And there is only one time that there is a gift made to your trust. It's one it is created by this. See?
So maybe it's a good idea for us who had the trust the prior to G Dr. Gina, we should just get some silver coins to put in there pretend that the settler, actually that that, should we do that?
Well, that would be you putting silver or gold into the trust not yourself. If you have a relationship with yourself, and you go to your settler, and ask your settler to get some silver coins, to put it into the trust, and return whatever they originally give to to the trust and replace it with silver, you could do that. But technically, once the settlers signs off on the trust, the role is complete. They can't have anything to do with it again. Got it? Okay, so what was your next page you want me to go to?
It's on page 26. On the very top of the body, it says the trustee should also obtain or separate business necessary, including phone services and utilities. And obviously, I'm using my own cell phone. I'm using, you know, the UPS Box address for everything and anything including myself and I don't have separate ones. Is there something we should do?
Have your email address? Yeah, that's
right. Do not separate them before.
Want to know an easy way to get separate? Everything's for the trustee.
Okay, yeah.
Good, go to google.com. Open a new account, it will create a Gmail address. Let's use my trust as an example abundant ones trust. That could be a o t@gmail.com, or abundant one's trust@gmail.com. But now you got an email address. Right? Because you did that. Because you have a Google account. You also have a Google Voice account. Which means you can go set up your Google Voice account with a new phone number. Right? It automatically rings your cell phone. Right.
But it each trust Need a separate phone service? You know, with somebody in our group has 100 trust@gmail.com
abundant ones trust@gmail.com Instead of cheap Google Voice numbers not so hard. They all ring the one cell phone.
Yeah, feel bad for people had 200 properties now.
Why do they need 200 of them?
Oh, I just assumed, you know, if somebody has a divisions do we have you know,
remember we need one divisional trustee must also be a trustee of the overall business trust. Okay, so could you just do it once for the overall business trust and make that the one that that divisional trustee is going to use? And all the divisions are?
Okay, so you only need to? Because one business trust no one personal trust? Yeah.
No. For really ironclad protection. If you're gonna get, especially if you're gonna get ein numbers for each division, then it might be a good idea to get a separate set up setup just for that division. But if they're all operating under the EIN of the business, just just one.
Good thing to ask Emily. Good job. Thank you. Who else has questions? Comments?
Oh, I have another question. So if we ever get sued and go to the court, and the judge say, Tell me about your trust, who fought who formed the trust, I just say, Well, my friend formula, give
it to me. How would you even answer that question?
Well, it's very unlikely the judges gonna say that. Okay.
So come up with a trust name, why it's called this trust. That actually was a question I being asked.
I don't know. I'm not the settler of the trust.
I like the answer better than my,
what was your answer? I like the name. Oh, no.
I know. After I answered that was like, Oops,
ah. Who can tell me why that's not a good thing to answer, especially in a court or a lawsuit.
Because that basically, could reverse it to a grantor trust?
Yeah.
Okay. That's really knowing now.
Now, this just came up yesterday. And I'm not done with my research yet. But along the same lines, we've had a few people who decanted their trusts in the art trust. And because wherever they got their trust originally, didn't necessarily do a great job of training them on the trust, which is why they're now deaky into into our trust. We've had situations like one that I can think of off the top of my head that happened yesterday. The settler of the trust was the clients mom. Well, fast forward a couple of years, and now mom's health has declined and dad has passed away. And now the client needs to financially help mom. So she wants to make mom a beneficiary in the trust. Can she do that? No. No. So she's in tears. How can I help my mom, I can't just let her be homeless. So the question came up. Can we change the settler in a trust? And silly me did not realize this until yesterday, but I believe there is a aid to change the settler NHS. Where that's really, really, really helpful is with the Cannings? Especially if we're decanting a grantor trust into a division of a business trust, and the business trust is any non grantor trust, not a grantor trust. I'm thinking land trusts here, guys. When we can't the land trust and the personal property trusts into divisions of the business trust. It's always bothered me that we're going from a grantor trust to a non grantor trust, and the grantor. It's not usually the client, but it usually is going to be the trustee who ends up being a divisional trustee in the Division of the business trust. I've been scratching my head about that off and ongoing. It just doesn't sit really well with me. But I now know that there is a way to change the grantor so more than likely as they build the system for decanting of land trusts and personal property trusts to the business trust division. We will add a step for those who really want to be true to the non grantor not self settled piece of the trust so that you can change your settler or grantor to a sapper which would be very helpful.
So how would we do the land trust then
is still do the decanting. But once it's bindi candid, there's a form that is filed with the IRS to name and modify the grantor as the responsible party of the trust to a new settler, who is not a responsible party to the Trust for tax purposes. So,
like with me, I'm the only person on the deed. So who could give it to the land trust besides me?
Sophie, you're setting up in a land trust? Nobody? Okay. But I'm not talking about when you set up the land trust I'm talking about when the land just gets Diganta do a business trust division. Okay. In your case, there's no need for the land trust just goes straight from you into the business trust division. Why do you need the land trust in between?
I don't know. I was always told to do that. That's all.
We're told to do that when you didn't have the new trust, elite, personal plus business trust back then. Yes, absolutely. Use a land trust. It's better than having all your eggs in your own name. One basket way better. Okay. But once you set up the personal plus business trust, it's gonna be even better stuff. All of the benefits you get with the land trust, you now have within divisions of a business just great. You don't lose anything.
Okay, that's great. Thank you. Yep.
Who else has questions or comments?
I still have more, but I need to read some more. And it's like,
Mulligan always just opened up do. Yeah.
I think some of the folks that Miss today will definitely want to do it. I have another opportunity. So maybe down the road, we can revisit this again.
With this particular handbook. We could probably do six or seven calls easily unjustice. Why agree handbook?
Well, there's that one document. I don't know if you got a chance to read all the group stuff that by itself was oh
my gosh, yes. Totally agree with you on that. Kevin. Totally agree with you. Galena look at the impact you are having on all of us in this family. Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I thank you very much for your education for your wisdom.
You're very welcome. And use this as an open invitation that every single person on the call right now and listening to the replay in the future. Please go be Curious the way that galena is curious and go see what you find. And if you find something like the wise, concise handbook for trustees, bring it to me, if it's as great of a resource as this is to help further and deepen the level of understanding and peel back many layers of the onion, we'll do calls like this on that resource do the way that I have learned as much as I know about trusts, from one client, to the next client, to the next client to the next client, after I got out of law school, and when I started working with the trust again, several years ago, I kept getting asked questions, and I'm not the kind of person that's just gonna say, Oh, let me just tell you how that works. When I haven't even heard of it before. When I get asked a question, and I don't solidly know the answer well enough to explain the answer. I say, you know, that's a really good question, give me a couple days, I'm gonna go do some research. So I could do some research. And the research leads me to a deeper understanding, and I peel back another layer of the onion. And in most cases, that research leads to a better understanding, which makes me go do a another batch of research, which leads to another understanding, which makes me go do more research. And the more conversations I have with prospects and clients, the deeper I go in the layers of onion. So please, use that as an invitation for all of you to get out there. And be curious, because that's how galena found this. It was just a curiosity, wasn't it?
Absolutely, yes.
And it's not the first time you've brought something like this to me, you've had many times where your curiosity has led you to ask questions and share resources that you found. This one just happened to be a massive homerun. But even the uniform principal and income act, I did not learn that from a tax attorney. I did not learn that from a CPA. I did not learn that from an old, an enrolled agent. I had a client one day a prospect on a consult, and they said, what about what about fiduciary accounting? How does that work with the trust? And I'm like, I don't know. I'm not a CPA. I'm not a bookkeeper. I don't profess to be one. And I didn't even know there was such a thing as fiduciary accounting. So let me go see if I can figure out the answer to the question. And oh, my God, when I went out and did that research, holy cow was I blown away. Bruce probably remembers the day I called them and said, Oh, my gosh, wait until you hear what I just found. It was a massive aha moment. And it made so many more things make sense? Did nippers?
Yep. Yep, things fell into place. It was great. So please,
please, please, please be curious. And fill me in on your curiosity and what you found ask questions. We will all become much, much better fiduciaries, and serve not just our current beneficiaries, but the beneficiaries who aren't even born yet. So much better. So thank you so much, everybody. Any takeaways from today's call?
You have to keep learning you can ask questions.
Totally agree. When I did my undergraduate degree at DePaul University, I went through their adult education program. And it's a very different program because in college, most college programs are based on credits. You have to have this many credits in this area that many credits in that area. And when you get enough credits, you get to pass and you get to go get your degree, not into Paul's adult education program. It is a competency based education. So first semester, you take two courses that help you better understand how people learn. Figure out how you learn and better understand what it means to be competent. And by the end of that semester, you've designed the areas in which you need to be competent. And in order to go down the career path you have chosen, it was fascinating. But the biggest takeaway I had from that first semester, was that I realized, I am a lifelong learner. The day I stopped learning is the day I die. It's, it's a beautiful thing. And it's so true. We learn whether we're out doing things on purpose, or whether we're just being in life. All of us on this call are old enough to remember the date that cell phones didn't exist. And laptops didn't exist and iPads didn't exist. Well, just living life, we learned about all of them, did we not? They just kind of showed up in our world. Some of us took a little deeper dives, some of us not so deep of a dive, but just living life you learn. The day you stop learning is the day you die. So you get to decide how much learning Do you want between now and then. Who else has takeaways?
No takeaways.
I echo llenos take away that lifelong, and like you just said, lifelong learning is definitely the key. And I think that's actually something this group is up for.
Totally agree. I think that's what has brought you to the trust's and gotten all of you involved in this family that we've created together. It's your passion for learning. And being open minded enough to learn new things, especially when they involve paradigm shifts. Any other takeaways?
Yes, learning is clarity. And clarity gives us the ability to educate others.
Ooh, good. One verse. Good job. Thank you. Thank you so much, everybody. I promise you many more calls like this one.