Welcome everyone to this Saturday April 24th edition of Money, Banking, and

Trust, by Moving Titles in Commerce. Welcome to NTT as New Trust Technology.

I'm your host Christian Walters and, uh, we'll get started on. People have been
asking what kind of, uh, trusts or what kind estate you're holding and I'd like to tie
that in with what I was talking about earlier several months back and it was really
tying in with the key rule of signatures. We want to look out for what type of
relationship you're forming at a particular time, moment by moment, when you're
meeting people, especially signatures, because the key is the rule of signatures in
expressing the trust and tying that in with really is the same thing as what type of
estate are you holding your property in?

Again, what kind of estate or freedoms(?) am I granting or what kind of estate am I

holding real and other property in? Is it an equitable trust? A common law trust? A
statutory trust? (??) versus debtor/creditor relationship, which is all commerce,
including all the relationships associated with it, and those examples being, say,
agency, administrator, d/c, bailment. They're all under an estate of
debtor/creditor and all in commerce. So then what form as to the time-frame and
the tenure in prospective or retrospective, and I hope people have looked up those BOOM!
two words – prospective and retrospective, were the same for the unconstitutional THIS ENTIRE
means, which means the extinguishment – extinguishment of a right to
prescription. And are they not making or tricking us to a grant to uses and to hold SECTION LAYS
under use as trustee season, considered as legal owner subject to the rent, the fees OUT THE CRUX
and dues of the benefit of another? And what then is our status, our position, in the OF THE
relationship being granted, and what is the grant and purpose to the thing or DECEPTION.
something in application employed for service, and that application would be to
contract with the indenture or the whoever employed, which would really be to a
service and also ask about length versus the temporary possession, or the season,
and the length of tenure, which is the time-span of the relationship. So, we've been
tricked from the 13th century forward to present, to present time; we have
been in feudal times all along in grant-to-uses as a popular mode of conveyance
or method of trust formation of the state, employed and subject to the service 'employed'.
under debtor/creditor relationship, whether by misconstrument or a lack of think 'employee'.
execution in expressing the trust by not objecting to protect our CCI – our trade
secret matters, thereby waiving the confidentiality and subjecting ourselves to the
jurisdiction of the court in holding a debtor/creditor estate, after the right has been
vested interest in the estate. So I grant you uses. In other words, in hiding the
trust you granted them to the feoffee and fee to uses, or in other words, a grant
to the trustee to use where the beneficiary or beneficiary/landlord has the right
to take, the right to take, take the rent, or foreclose on the possession for
non-payment of the fee for the use of the estate or world property held in
tenure – the time. And we, as trustees in possession are held in service or
employed of the beneficiary/lord to use their property for a fee or a rent in return for
their use/possession. And again, what type of estate are you holding property in?
Tying that in together with the moment that you signed something. That's the
question we need to be asking. Heed the rule of signatures. Form a trust with

your signature, really. So let's go into really basic definitions. Black's Law 8th
edition again. ”Give”. ”Give” means “to voluntarily transfer of property to another
without compensation”. And compensation could also be consideration. An
example could be my interest. Now “Gift”. “Gift” in Black's Law, 8 th edition.
Exactly the same definition as “give” – “to voluntarily transfer property to another
without compensation.” The two are the same. And it has a second definition – “to a
thing so transferred” and the thing would be the something that we were talking
about two minutes ago – the res. Now “Merger”: “Merger” – “The act or the
instance of combining or writing“. ”Merger” again, ”The act or instance of
combining or writing” and, under (2), under contracts, the substitution of a superior
form of contracts for an inferior form, as when the written contract supersedes all
oral agreements and prior understanding. Now, let's talk about “Engagement”.
“Engagement” – a contract or agreement involving mutual promise. And however
we all cherish those words, they were engaged. I'm going to jump back to
“Merger” again. So, “when two parties have made a simple contract for any
purpose and afterwards have entered into an identical engagement by deed, the
simple contract is merged in the deed and becomes extinct. This extinction of a
lesser in the higher security, like the extinction of a lesser in a greater interest in
land, is called a merger.” and that was from Black's Law, quoting from William R.
Hansen, Principles of Law of Contract, 85, and author of Horvin. He was the editor
on the 3rd American edition, 1919. But going back to the rule of the signatures.
How would you sign? Alright, well everybody has been asking about “lets put this
more in practical sense”. Then they want to know how to, you know, apply for bills
and things, but lets come back to really, if you want a practical application let's talk
about the rule of signatures, because this is where it all takes place. It either
diverges from trust or goes into trust and you're the one that's in control. You're the
one that's setting the play. You're the one doing the act. So, uh, an example here.
I'm going to go form something. So let me see what we got here. I got an example.

Uh, well, I would say have a police stop, something happens and a police officer
comes up to you. You roll down the window and he says “Let me see your driver's
license”, “Give me your driver's license and your insurance”. Or maybe another
example could be maybe you're in court, and in court the judge says “Give me your
name”. Right then and there what type of a relationship are you forming? What
type of estate are you going to be holding your property in? From that moment on,
because from the definition that we cough up, the judge asked you “Give me your
name”. Now the definition of “give” again was ”to voluntarily transfer property
to another without compensation.” When you give him your name or you give
him the driver's license and insurance you are voluntarily transferring your property
to another without consideration or compensation. So your name, your signature,
that is your interest. That is your property. And you're being tricked to give or gift
that property. And you're forming a debtor/creditor relationship because you're not
executing and expressing a trust by claiming trust and proving a trust. So how about
this as an answer back: “I'll give you my name in confidence for future return
with my interests.” Or how about I'm going to sign an agreement where I just put
down “I give you my signature, or my name, in confidence for future return
with my interest.” Although trust terms involved there, I could have put in there “I
grant my signature”, but I could change “grant” to “give” because it's really the
same thing. So I give you my signature or I give you my name in confidence, and in
confidence and (??) as we've been going through that – A Treatment of Trust – it
said that the early trust was, a simple trust was a confidence. It was a confidence. So
if I give you my signature or my name in confidence, I'm really saying that I'm
giving you my name in trust and I'm really making a special deposit, and that needs
to be a special deposit in order to get it back for future return. That's asking for it
back with my interest. So everything is in there necessary to express a trust. “I give
you my signature in confidence for future return with my interest”. And I could
say that, or I could put that in writing, and I could sign “By: Grantor” and then my
signature, or I could sign by “By: Grantor/Beneficiary”, or I could sign “By:
Grantor/Trustee” depending on how I understand which part that I want to play or
I could just sign “By: Grantor” again all by itself.

GRANT ONLY THE 'USE & OCCUPANCY' OF THE BC BACK TO 'THIS STATE'
THIS WAY SO YOU CAN USE IT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE SHOULD YOU NEED TO.

So “Give me your name”, the judge says. [ALSO "WHAT'S YOUR NAME"
OR "STATE YOUR NAME" IS THE SAME THING.] “Give me your name” –
that's the claim. And you didn't come in with a counter-claim. The judge says
“Give me your name” – that's the claim. That's the non-expression of trust and a
misconstruing a debtor/creditor relation under statutory realm, the statutory trust
also, which is nothing more than debtor/creditor or commerce. It's the claim
“Give me your name.” You're being tricked. So, what would your comeback be?
What would your claim be? If I was just given a claim, how do I give a
counter-claim? He asked you a question. You can ask him another question – a
counter-claim. “Your Honor, are you taking my name?” “Your Honor, Are you
taking my name?” ”What gives you the right to take my name?” “What makes you
think I'm the Trustee?” Now he would have to prove that he was the beneficiary in
order to take for use because only the Beneficiary has the right to take under a use,
remember, it's Cestui Que use and feoffee to uses or trustee to uses. So the only
one who has the right to take anything is a Beneficiary, but he who claims trust
has to prove trust, but they're misconstruing a trust and you're not expressing a
trust. You're executing a trust. So he has the claim ”Give me your name.” The
counter-claim is “Your Honor, are you taking my name?” “Because unless you're
taking, you know, I might not want to give it to you. And remember, “giving” is to
voluntarily transfer of property to another without compensation. But I like to be
compensated, so then I put in there, you know, “I give you my name in confidence
for future return with my interest.” Now, “with my interest” – that's a
consideration and that's a compensation. I want my signature back and I want it
back with interest, and my interest is that it's mine. But you purport that into the
debtor/creditor, it spills(?) over to principal plus interest and then the interest is, uh,
$50 or $500 or $50,000 or $50,000,000.

So again, the key to the rule of signatures is how am I expressing and executing
the trust at the time of signing when somebody asked me for my name, or they
asked me for my driver's license and registration and insurance card. So that's the
claim. Are you coming back in with a counter-claim and asking “Well, are you
taking my insurance card, my driver's license and registration?” “What gives you
the right to take my name?” “All those things.” “So what makes you think that I'm
the trustee?” Because I could express it as “I'm the Beneficiary”, but they're being
construing it as they're the Beneficiary because you're not expressing the trust, so
therefore they go into debtor/creditor realm and gets enforced under statutory trust,

How does a 'statutory trust' create a debtor / creditor relationship?

Shouldn't it still be a trustee / beneficiary relationship, albeit a 'statutory' one?
which is nothing more than debtor/creditor anyway. How? Why?

So I give you my name, Christian Walters, in confidence for future return with my
interest. I could say that or I could sign “By: Grantor” with my signature, but then
I'm going to come in with a counter-claim, executing the expression of the trust.
Now that's in equity, and the claim they trust and prove a trust, and correct a
misconstrument of the debtor/creditor which is the statutory—the opposite of the
equity. And, by the way, the Bingo here is “claim a trust and prove a trust” and
how you claim a trust and prove a trust? Well, .. with the UCCs and the County
Recorders. Those are all your trust receipts. Under definition of “trust receipt” in
Black's law, “trust receipt” – a pre-UCC security device now governed by Article
9 of the code, and we're going to skip the in-between there. Today there must
usually be a security or via trust indentures thing, coupled with a filed financing
statement. Now I read through the Bank Officer's Handbook and I was going to
look it up but I didn't have enough time before the show. Really, a “deed of trust”
is a more modern term. A more antiquated term back under the Bank Officer's BOOM!
Handbook a “trust receipt” was also known as a “deed of trust”. A “deed of
DOT = a receipt.
trust” was a “trust receipt”. Or “deed of trust” is a “trust receipt”. So now my
claim, if I claim a trust and prove a trust, that is by the UCC. Now that's the “trust
receipt”, that is my “deed of trust”. That's the Bingo! “Deed of trust” is nothing BOOM!
more than recording of an act that was done, and that would give notice, which
would be the UCC in the county, and then go after the interest, which is the proceed DOT = a receipt.
therefrom of my signature, the bonds, and liquidate a counter-claim and go after
triple damages. And a counter-claim, look up UCC 8-507. Entitlement holder BOOM!
under a counter-claim. Again, it's the bingo, it is the claim of trust and proving
'entitlement holder' IS
trust. It is the execution of the expression of the trust. And that's all done in equity.
And that will overcome the statutory debtor/creditor. Facts and definition of KEY CONCEPT!!
“Merger” again. Tie this in with this definition again. “The act or the instance of
combining or uniting now two contracts”. The substitution of a superior form of
contract – that would be the equitable trust – for an inferior form – that's the
debtor/creditor relationship, as when a written contracts supersedes all oral
agreements and prior understanding. “When two parties have made a simple
contract – that debtor/creditor contract – for any purpose. Purpose is one of the
things necessary for trust, remember. And afterwards have entered into an identical
engagement by deed. Remember, deed is the act and really the merger by deed of
trust and, remember, “trust” is “confidence”. So again, entered into an identical,
by deed. The simple contract is merged in the deed. Remember again, the deed is
merged by the deed of trust, or the confidence. So the simple trust, or the simple
contract is merged in the deed and becomes extinct. This extinction of a lesser in
the higher security. Under the Lewin the security was a confidence – the trust; it
was the pledge. This extinction of a lesser in the higher security, like the
extinction of the lesser in the greater interest in lands is called “merger”.

[ @ 0 hr : 19 min : 53 secs ]

Now, if they don't send me my special deposit back, which is my original written
out form with my signature on it, there's a breach of trust, and I can come at them
for failure of consideration in the breach of trust and that's the colorable positive
action. And that's the failure of consideration on the public side for the failure of
consideration for the private trust.

So, let's say, let's say that the judge takes your name anyway, but only if he's the
beneficiary can he take, and he's operating under a public trust on behalf of, or as
co-trustee or agent, say, on behalf of the beneficiaries – We The People. But he
would also be in breach also. But remember, the claim “Give me your name”,
remember, has to be followed by the counter-claim “Why are you taking my
name?” “What gives you the right to take my name?” Or “I could just give you my
name in confidence for future return with my interest”. I don't care how you play it.
You could win, win this situation either way, because you see, we're not asking for
the originals back – the name with the signatures on it. The original name and
signatures. We're not asking them for them back under a trust deposit or a special
deposit and enforcing this under our breach of trust. Instead, we've been using the
1099OID under debtor/creditor and we've been trying to get it returned, uh,
returned as special deposit, which was done under trust all along and we're trying
to get it to be returned back to the principal source by the 1099 under
debtor/creditor, and this is not going to work under debtor/creditor. It's only
going to work under trust. We're not claiming and proving a trust; we're not
expressing a trust, executing a trust.

Remember to come in with the counter-claim, being execute the expression of the
trust, which is under equity. Claim a trust and prove a trust, which is
your Bingo, your deed of trust. It's the act, and correct the mis-construment of the
debtor/creditor statutory, and then go after the interest, the proceeds therefrom –
the bonds, and liquidate the counter-claim, and liquidate the bonds, go after
three-times damages on top of that, under 8-507, UCC.

Again, what type of estate are you holding your property in? Real or otherwise? The
key, the rule of signatures at the moment you're signing. What are you executing.
Debtor/creditor estate? Or are you executing equitable trust estate? The choice is
yours. Are we not asking for the originals back? The originals signed signatures
with my name on it, or as a breach of trust, breach of special deposit. We're not
asking for the interest back, because we're not expressing it to be a confidence – a
trust, and I gave them my signature under debtor/creditor instead of giving it to
them under trust, under confidence. Or remember, trust deposit, where money or
property is deposit to be kept intact, and not commingled with other funds or
property of bank, has to be returned in kind to depositor or devoted to a particular
purpose or requirement of the depositor, or payment of a particular debt or
obligation of depositor, also called special deposit.

So, remember when they say “Give me something”. That is a voluntary transfer of
property to another without compensation. It's “gifting”, which again is the same
definition as “giving” – to voluntarily transfer property to another without
compensation. It's a thing so transferred – res principal. And that's the same as
“granting”. “I grant to you my signature” or “I give you my signature” – same
meanings. But if I say it “in confidence” and I don't say it's “in trust”, “in
confidence means” the same thing. Now I could put in there “by special deposit”
if I don't want to tip my hat I could do that. If I put in there ”by special deposit, for
return, future return, with my interests”, but if you want to keep it more
secretive keep out “by special deposit”, because without that in there is no trust
res really in there, and I doubt very seriously that anybody would know there was
trust being formed. ”I give you my signature or my name in confidence for
future return with my interest.”

So why don't we open up for some comments and questions. Press *6. State your
name, where you're from.

[ @ 0 hrs : 26 min : 23 secs ]

B :: Hello.

CW :: Yes, who's this?

B: Hi, Christian. How're you doing? This is Bill speaking from New Jersey. How
are you?

CW :: Ok. Good. And you?

B: .. you were talking about .. I was trying to think about how .. get into trust. What
I hear you saying is that if you sign a waiver of contract, like a commercial
contract .. you absorb them into trust. Is that what happens?

CW :: Yeah, that's what that definition was saying.

B :: So where does that come from?

CW :: That comes from the definition from Black's Law, 8th edition, under the
definition of “Merger”.

B :: ..

CW :: .. an identical arrangement by deed, the simple contract is merged in the deed

and becomes extinct .. of the lesser in the higher security like the extinction of the
lesser in the greater interest in lands is called a merger.

B :: But what is an identical act. What is that?

CW :: Well, when the two of them enter into this trust relationship, then we have an
identical act and remember, no party needs to know that a trust is being formed.

B :: ..

CW :: But they both entered into an act here, and that act, that's a deed, and that's a
deed of trust. Your deed of trust is your trust receipt. A receipt is a record of a
payment.

B :: Right.
CW :: Merge the titles under trust and there the lesser became extinct and the higher
security, or the pledge, as Lewin puts it, under the, the, uh, trust book, the higher
security, the security is the pledge. The pledge is really talking about the confidence,
and that's the trust.

B :: .. Ok, so, so, in other words, the confidence of the contract is .. .

CW :: Yes, it's under .. it says that Equity is superior to Common Law. If there's any
conflict between Common Law and Equity, Equity is going to take precedence.

B :: So that's why you say that we've been in feudal law all along.

CW :: All along .. and we .. gone over .. debtor/creditor realm .. and we're living in
the public realm.

B :: Even, even, even when we think about contracts .. they still have to go under
the equity because contracts are commerce. .. into equity.

CW :: Right.

B :: Oh, very interesting. And .. to say about the claim “Give me your name.” “I
give you my name on condition blah blah”.. Well, that is .. I'll give you my name ..
way of telling them.

.CW :: .. and we didn't know that “give” by definition is “voluntary transfer of

property to another without compensation”.

B :: Right, well how did we know? We didn't think about it. <<laughter>>

CW :: That's right. We didn't think of our name being property.

B :: Exactly, right, right.

CW :: When you just transferred your property, you transferred your name for them
to use without any compensation.

B :: Well, now here's an issue. Uh, some people say that we can claim our name ..
our name. Uh, now we have a title to our name, I guess, uh, birthright. Uh, how
does that, you know, uh, how does that work .. as being ours .. ?

CW :: I would say that .. special deposit ..That's a, that a res, that's a principal, that's
a thing.

.B :: well, so then .. So you're saying that .. our, our .. would be our name as well.

CW :: Because I'm going to grant the use of my name, but only the Beneficiary can
take the use. The use being the rent and fees for the usage of this property, and the
only person who can take that is the Beneficiary.
B :: Well, what I'm saying is if, if we .. names in a trust .. exclusive use for the
Beneficiary and someone else uses it .. we have a breach of trust that is a remedy
against those people who abuse our trust. And that's ..

CW :: Yes, if you express the trust and claimed trust and proven a trust because
you've executed a trust, yes.

B :: Right, so what I'm saying is ..

B :: .. of, you know, by claiming a UCC-1 .. to our advantage to include our name.

CW :: Yeah, that would be trust res .. talking about all along. Your signature is your
most valuable asset.

B :: Wow, right.

CW :: Months ago I was talking about the same thing because I was talking about
the rule of signatures.

B :: Right, right.

CW :: That, that signature is my most valuable asset.

B :: .. that is your asset.

.CW :: Yeah, so if I'm going to grant my signature, I'm gonna want some kind of
interest for the use of it. But the only .. or fee for that is the Beneficiaries. So they ..
because I'm the Beneficiary and they gotta be able to prove that they are the
Beneficiary, but remember, he who claims trust must prove trust and they don't
claim trust although they may be operating under trust .. If I'm gonna claim the
Beneficiary. .. then the whole power of the trust becomes available to the
Beneficiary .. because the burden of proof shifts .. because the Beneficiary doesn't
have to prove a claim once he's established it through trust.

.B :: So in that case, in that case .. as you said before “Are you the Trustee, or are
you the Beneficiary?” Possibly the opposition .. require ..

CW :: Yeah, he would have to be Beneficiary in order to take my name.

B :: So...

CW :: .. can't take my name unless your Beneficiary .. Beneficiary first.

.? :: Christian? In fact, it might be a good question to ask him right away.

CW :: “Yes, Your Honor, Are you taking my name?”

? :: Yeah, “Are you taking my name because you're Beneficiary?” or...

.CW :: “What gives you the right to take my name, Your Honor?” .. like that.

? :: Oh, ok.

.B :: .. is taking my name as Beneficiary.

.C :: .. you did that .. because you've given .. now if you say it that way.

.CW :: .. I would state that I was the Beneficiary.

B :: But what I meant was .. make a question to that effect.

CW :: ..

B :: .. a question ..

CW :: .. Your the Trustee. Are you the Beneficiary?

B :: Yeah, because that puts them in a situation to prove it.

CW :: Right.

? :: Or at least give you an answer.

B :: .. cases ..

CW :: .. Well, I'm not claiming a trust. Then what do you do? The judge says well,
I'm not claiming a trust .. “Well I'm not claiming a trust.”

B :: Well, then, by what authority .. to give my signature?

CW :: He's gonna take it under debtor/creditor unless you don't do something.

.B :: .. claim a trust.

.CW :: Yeah, .. executing a trust .. prove that you're the Beneficiary.

B :: So then, what, what, what language would I use then?

.CW :: Well, then you're going to have to .. and claiming a trust, but then if you're
talking statutory trust you can keep it public. If you're talking private trust .. put a
protective order .. in chambers with that .. public trust .. on a traffic stop .. in
violation of the public trust, statutes and codes, .. .. under misconstrument because
you're not expressing the statutory trust of which you're Beneficiary.

.B :: .. we're not claiming a trust, then you could say, ok, “I am.”, and I, “I'm
Grantor of that trust.”.

.CW :: Yeah, uh, but the Grantor has no right to make a claim, see? Unless you
wanna come in and .. You could do that.

B :: Yeah, ok.

? :: .. anyone?

CW :: Yeah, you could put in the paperwork, or you could do this orally.

B :: Well, .. it's best you always do it in advance.

CW :: I would say I would have it in advance, yeah.

B :: .. , you know, documents lined up .. paperwork .. you know, ..

? :: That's why we're doing this now so we don't have to .. ok, look. We anticipate
what we say, what we do. To prevent that ..

CW :: Right. Ahah. And I was thinking you could do that orally in court, but you
could bring your written documents to prove it so.

? :: Yes, .. I agree with you .. have written documents.

CW :: Ok, yeah. .. written down script, yeah.

B :: Well, I mean, it gives us elements, it gives us proof.

CW :: We never really did, really , you know, think about traffic stop when a guy ..
“Give me your driver's license.” The judge asks you to give your name. “give” was
voluntary transfer of property to another without compensation.

B :: .. What about the issue of... .. What about how does the Constitution of the
Republic fit into this whole scenario, with respect to a traffic ticket .. charge . ..
How does all that work?

CW :: .. the Constitution as being, say, another public a trust or another contract that
they took an oath to, .. that they'd be working on behalf and enforcing for the
benefit of the beneficiaries – We the People – on this public trust.

B :: .. public trust side, yeah.

CW :: Yeah, but now they misconstrued it and they're .. United States. Nobody is
coming in and expressing that they're Beneficiaries on this statutory trust, this
Public Trust.

? :: Now, this all... Keeping in line with .. many people .. under common law .. you
need to have a victim for a crime, but then we said that equity is a higher form of
law, so the Common Law .. submerged by the higher form security.

.CW :: Right.
.? :: .. ok? So does that mean that issues that jury do not apply?

CW :: If they're operating under true equity, then you'll get equity results.
Otherwise you'll get .. statutory redefinition of equity, which is nothing more that
statutes and codes.

? :: But what about the jury?

CW :: Same thing. .. they must rule on.

? :: What I'm asking is if you go to equity, do we still have the right to trial by jury?
Do we need the right to trial by jury?

CW :: Well, I think under equity you get to set the law. You are the law of the case.
<<silence>>

.? :: Christian?

.CW :: Anyone got a comment or...?

.> :: Yah.

.CW :: Go ahead.

.> :: Um, what about, um, what if you set up a trust before you got stopped and you
had your name in a traffic trust and then you signed .. “By Grantor” and he was
Grantor of the trust .. of the traffic trust .. had your name.

.CW :: Yeah, your name is already in trust ..

.> :: .. you come up .. with another name for another trust for a purpose, for an
intent – your intent .. purpose of being stopped you had a separate trust that was in
your name that was set up just for traffic stops.

CW :: Yeah...

.> :: .. I mean as whatever you want to be .. to set up .. records for .. records .. sign ..
name .. stop.

.CW :: Ok, but then let's proceed a little farther. What are you gonna do with it,
then?

.> :: Well...

.CW :: You're gonna make a difference .. in say, the court appearance .. the judge
asked you for the fees because of the assumed trust .. the use, fees and the rents for
it?
.> :: Well, if it was already a trust then. .. your signature on the ticket .. already paid
for.

<<garbled>>

P :: When did you give it to the Trustee?

> :: Um, the Trustee, you'd have to make the judge the Trustee. And so...

P :: The judge ..

> :: The judge ..

P :: You can't make a trust in the future. There's nothing like that.

S :: Or maybe you could .. What I would do is make Department of Motor

Vehicles .. of Secretary of State .. the Seriff's department .. Let them be the trustees
and co-trustees; put then on notices.

P :: .. you have ..

> :: You, you, you have many trusts.

P :: Let's concentrate on one.

> :: Pete, Pete. It's like God .. he has a separate name ..

P :: It's not like God at all.

> :: Sure it is.

P :: .. on a tangents. Let's just .. claiming the trust, but you can't set up a trust in the
future. It's that simple. If you're claiming a trust that you know you have and you
can prove then you can use that one .. into the future, you can't because the Trustee
hasn't got the trust property yet and .. getting the trust property then there's no trust.

> :: Right, but what I'm saying is that you set up a Traffic Trust.

P :: Well, that's fair enough, but you already have one, by way of, by way of ..

> :: If you wanna prostitute that name, you have one.

P :: If you wanna what?

> :: name

P :: Prostitute the name?

> :: .. sacred name that you're given .. for.

.P :: What?

> :: I said if you don't want to prostitute a name that is special, given to you, there's
no reason you can't have more than one name.

P :: Well I'm not saying that you can't .. trusts .. how does this relate to .. what we're
talking about?

> :: Because you're gonna have to give a signature or else he's gonna pull a gun out.

# :: .. the conversation and I agreed with you, Pete, because we gotta keep focus ..
Sorry to interrupt .. and Christian, you're doing some great work tonight .. Thank
you .. Can we focus tonight on this?

CW :: Yeah, I, I tend to agree, yeah, yeah.

# :: Thanks.

.P :: .. Christian, but Jacob, you need to .. name .. study more of Christian's

recordings and read up on stuff. I do wanna assist.

.> :: .. understand why I can't have a separate trust for traffic.

P :: Whatever you can claim then claim it, but you can't put one into the future. End
of story.

? :: .. future.

P :: Well, let's, let Christian get on with what he's talking about because .. you
haven't got a valid point

? :: Ok, I agree. .. a possibility.

CW :: Yeah, I would agree with the possibility, but I don't see making another
trust .. one that you could work with and I don't need to form it. .. what you're
saying is that, if I understand, that you want to make separate trust with a separate,
different name...?

? :: Um.

.CW :: ...not yours?

? :: Well, um.

CW :: And that's what I think you're driving at.

? :: .. brainstorm .. use your name a little bit different.. three names .. It was A, B, C.
and then the trust for traffic was only A and C ..
CW :: Let's stick to the point that most people are going to go by their assumed
names and they're gonna .. under debtor/creditor and they're going to pay the debt
under that assumed name. .. that scenario first.

? :: Well, I already do that. I already have a traffic trust. And I never sign my name.
I sign the name .. I already do that. I was just wondering what you guys thought
about that. I mean I already operate like that. Have for some time. I have a separate
name for my driver's license.

CW :: Alright, but many people don't have that.

? :: I know .. So, let's stick to the normal, by all means.

CW :: Well, anyway, the “merger” definition, the “gifting” definition, .. that

“merger” definition .. happening in the county also with the warranty deeds. Uh,
that was an example that we put in already put in already where a fella kicked off
the lien in the county by doing a, uh, land patent – alloidal title, but I don't thing
he realized that he was actually merging titles when he did that, but by definition of
“merger”, in Black's Law, this is exactly what he did, and the two parties have
made a simple contract for any purpose .. entered into the identical engagement by
deed and simple contract merged into the, the deed but becomes extinct, and this
extinction was lesser, so the, higher, the higher security, like the extinction of the
lesser in the greater in the lands is called a “merger”. So I see that that's exactly
what had happened in the county. Comments?

<<feedback noise>>

B :: Yeah, this is Bill again, Christian. So, uh, back to the Constitution,
<<feedback noise>> all the Amendments .. trust. Is that what your saying?

CW :: .. feedback noise here .. Let me mute out. ..

B :: Ok.

CW :: Alright, uh, press *6. What was your question again?

B :: My question again was with respect to .. of the Amendments .. corporate trust

indenture .. Is that, is that how it would work?

CW :: Yeah, I would say that's probably a, uh, .. by definition of “Constitutor”..

Black's 8th. That was .. find it here real quick. <<short silence>> “Constitutor” is
Latin. Uh. A person, who by agreement becomes the .. of another person's debts ..
so really we think that the Constitution, but it's really not ours; its theirs. .. to be
responsible to pay our debts. Are they paying our debts? I don't think so. .. a
misconstrument, as they assume they're Beneficiaries .. and correcting the
misconstrument. So if you look at the Constitution as being a trust, yeah, I could
say that it needs to be .. re-expressed as a misconstrument and needs to be
straightened out .. liken it to that public trust, again, which can also be the statutes
and codes. Is, is that how you see it?

B :: Yes .. the Constitution belongs to the Republic. Is that private? .. and we have
the public and private sides. We have the United States .. is that private trust?

CW :: The United States, I think, is the public.

B :: Yes.

CW :: It all has to do with public trust .. benefit of We The People strawmen.

B :: Exactly.

CW :: ...in that realm

.B :: .. realm are responsible to .. duty .. statutes and codes did not break .. bad
faith .. of that public trust.

B :: For the benefit of the Beneficiaries.

.CW :: That's which is We The People .. strawman realm. They .. codes .. faith ..
breach of trust.

B :: Well, what about the Republic side?

CW :: The Republic side?

B :: .. Constitution is a trust and now we have .. because we have inalienable rights

that can't transfer, right? So...

CW :: It all goes back to the Declaration of Independence for that .. because we got
all the rights .. because the Constitution is not mine; it's theirs.

B :: Right. The reason of the Constitution was to pay our debt.

CW :: Yup. .. make them responsible for .. debt.

B :: So, therefore, we wanna go back to the Declaration of Independence, because

that states our rights ..

CW :: Right. Uhah.

B :: So then, the Constitution of the Republic – is that a trust or not a trust?

CW :: Well, I think it's a trust – a statutory trust on the, on the public realm.

B :: Interesing. Ok. Because it's a commerical venture, is that why?

CW :: Yeah, I'd say commercial more than anything else .. commerce.

B :: .. So, then, then, then goes, uh, the Amendments. How do they play into that?
Or do they have any value or worth if it's a public type trust?

.CW :: No, I think commerce is governed by UCC. That's what's really running the
whole thing, unless otherwise by agreement. There's always that caveat. You can
always get somebody in agreement and that nullifies UCC.

.B :: .. Amendment.

CW :: Yeah, that's, uh, possible. That could be a way to get to the private.

.B :: .. because you have the whole .. Amendments .. associate, press, or whatever

else it is.

.CW :: .. When you keep .. under confidence, you keep them secret .. You keep
them private. That is the trust.

B :: Right.

.CW :: I, I think that the ability to get in, into the private, is right before us. It's all
over. It's everywhere. .. I think it ties in with the confidence. The confidence – that
is the, the thing that we must keep priveate, and by keeping it private .. in
confidence, then you've accessed the private.

B :: And that's why they say you don't have to, you don't have to tell you're forming
the trust.

.CW :: Right, because it's private.

B :: Wow, lots to think about. Thanks for answering my questions.

CW :: .. look up “confidence”, “confidentiality”. We did that last Saturday. Uh,

those definitions, but when you protect something by giving a protective order,
manifest some way to .. keeping it private, you're setting up a confidence that
means you gotta keep it in private. If you bring it in the public you've breached my
trust. Now I get to sue you for breach of trust.

B :: So would, would that be your .. de facto court. .. I give you my, um, liberty, on
the condition that, in confidence if you promise to give it back to me? Is that how it
works?

.CW :: Yeah, ok .. my signature in confidence, and I could put it for the purpose
that I specified and that could be to pay the debt that your asking me for.

B :: What do you think the court would do in that case – the public court .. statutory
court?
CW :: They may do what we asked. They may not, but if they not I'd have to be
prepared to enforce the breach of the trust and allow equity to force the issue.
<<silence>> Remember, the, the onus probandi shifts from the, uh, shifts from the
Beneficiary to the Trustee. That equity is gonna assume that he's guilty once the
Beneficiary has made a prima facie case .. proving a trust. Now .. a prima facie
case for a claim .. . Now .. disbursement and the court of equity is .. to pay ..
because you're guilty. And the only way to prove this is .. When are you going to
pay?

B :: Right.

CW :: Equity is going to force him to pay, or else he'll be in contempt and he's
gonna go to jail.

B :: ..

CW :: .. I give you my name in confidence. .. use the name is the Beneficiary .. is

the only one with the right to take my name.

B :: Right.

CW :: Now they're assuming I'm Trustree, but that's a misconstrument .. thing. Uh,
the Trustee to uses, Beneficiary to use. So from left Trustee to the middle, to uses,
and from the right, Beneficiary to the, to the left, to use. In the center is the use of
the res.

B :: Right.

CW :: And the only one who gets the, the use, or the rents and the fees is the
Beneficiary, because the Trustee has got possession of the property held in trust for
the Beneficiary, but they're assuming they're Beneficiary under misconstrument. I
can always go in there and, and, uh, get it switched around.

F :: Uh, Christian?

CW :: Yeah, Floyd. Go ahead. How're you doing tonight?

F :: Just fine, thanks. Uh, I was talking with .. the other day and he brought up a
good point .. and I gave him an answer in regard to what we're talking about here,
but, uh, where on the front of the bill that we get from whoever is .. or credit card
company, whoever it may be .. put private non-negotiable special deposit and put
on the back “Without Recourse” paid to blank as Grantor or Trustee sign your
name for strawman, and then you put your, uh, social security number in the private,
without the, uh, blanks, um... That, that, that's to show that it is a private action, isn't
it?

CW :: Yeah, because you put in there .. non-negotiable, which is private .. by

special deposit .. That means private.
F :: Right, so, so, so then you're putting in your private security number or tracking
number, however you want to use it at this point.

CW :: Yeah, because you're the depositor.

F :: Yeah. Right, ok. That was, that was the reason, that was the reason I thought we
did it that way .. and so evidently that's true. Along those lines, again, um, I, uh, I,
would, I have two questions. One is, uh, I would be putting, eh, a letter of intricate
instruction with my submission of the, uh, uh, instrument, and, and, and I could say
“Hold my interest till further notice.” Would that be right?

CW :: Yeah, that's the same as “for future return”, you know.

F :: Yeah. Right. In other words .. but I want to take, but I'm taking possession of
that until further notice and then I'll tell you what to do with it.

CW :: Uh, you might want to put in there “for future return” though.

F :: Oh, ok. “for future return”, ok. And now I was wondering if, if you should...

CW :: .. who you wanted it returned to .. maybe somebody else besides myself and
that someone else is the Beneficiary.

F :: Ok.

CW :: I want it back. I want my, my signature, my name, my property of my

whatever .. I want it, I want it back. So that sets it up as a deposit.

F :: Ok. So then when you, when you send them the next, the next part of the
instruction, then you could say .. “Use the deposit”, uh, let's see... “Use the deposit”,
uh, uh, how could we say, “Use to return to, uh, the bill or payment or whatever.”
How would you say that?

CW :: .. “I want interest” and that way I could get the principal back and only the
interest gets applied to the debt.

F :: Even though it would be, even though it doesn't matter if you're doing this as a
one-time, uh, thing for the next two years?

CW :: <<cough>> Yeah, it could because when I say .. signature .. for future return
with my interest. Everybody's assuming that interest is the principal. No, it could be
the interest was generated off the principal .. what it was because I want the
principal back, and the principal being “That was my signature.”.

F :: Uh-hah.

CW :: That's just another way you might want to do it.

F :: Ok.
.CW :: If I made my payment with .. then I'm not gonna get my principal back,
because I've already used it up on a payment.

F :: Yeah, right. Ok. Well, that would give you a little leeway. Uh, because that's,
because at the end of the, uh, two years when you start making payments again, you
don't have to make another trust, or you don't have to activate another trust,
however you're looking at it.

CW :: Yeah, you could also put in there that this is a self-renewing contract, or a
self-renewing account.

F :: Ok, ok. Alright. Alright, that, that's a good idea.

.? :: .. ?

CW :: Yeah.

.? :: One of the guys we're working with, we had one of the first cases .. using
special deposit already and, and what the guy did is he used a special deposit to
pay two credit cards companies and he opened up a case .. both credit card comes ..
independently at him. .. and then he used the trust res .. he appointed the judge as
Trustee and neither one of the attorneys showed up in court and the judge actually
closed the case – didn't even dismiss it.

CW :: Oh, well, that's interesting, because, uh...

F :: .. way because there's some proof already, you know. That it seemed to work.

? :: So, so what, what exactly did he put in as, uh, did he put in, a, an instruction to
the, to the company, or...?

F :: To be honest, he did it in a statutory way and it, and it worked perfect, did it
that way.

? :: Well, if the attorneys would have shown, would it have worked, worked as
trust?

F :: Yeah. He, he used a special deposit.

.? :: Ok.

F :: He ordered the county to .. It .. and it went exactly like what Christian said. ..
you know, it took him a long time though; it took three years.

? :: Well, I don't think we have to take three years if we do it the way Christian ..

C :: .. already been done ..

C :: I did one on my house and it, it stopped them cold. Absolutely cold. They were
gonna, they were gonna put it up for sale and .. in the week before they postponed it
indefinitely.

? :: Well, what did you send in, Chris?

? :: Uh, that's part of the Ambassador's information. I can't divulge that, unless, uh,
Christian wants to share that information .. Christian?

.CW :: Why don't we just talk about it, you know, Floyd, .. get a hold of me on
Skype or something.

.CW :: .. privately, more privately.

.F :: .. you give the ok and I'll help him.

? :: Ok. That would be good because, uh, my, uh, I have, I have a daughter that
needs to have help with, with her mortgage and I want to help her.

.CW :: Well, why don't we review what's been done first, uh...

? :: Ok.

? :: I don't think really had a chance to talk about it ..

CW :: Yes, go ahead.

? :: Can a person be class action suit .. and a trust?

[ @ 1 hr : 09 min : 50 sec]

CW :: Yeah, I believe so, because I was thinking before that we could use the, uh,
uh, what do we call that? An Attorney General could do a class action suit on a
breach of trust – the Private Attorney General.

? :: Ok. Well, what about, you know .. put something together, so somebody's like
the Grantor .. the Beneficiaries...?

CW :: Yeah, it's possible to do a class action suit, but it might be better to do if you
did it through a Private Attorney General. That's what I was thinking.

? :: So, uh, you could do a joinder. Uh, when you do a joinder .. as opposed as to
as an individual .. as opposed to action, class action equity gets divided per person
for what the settlement is. With a joinder .. each one of the individuals gets
granted .. that could vary from one to the other.

.CW :: And actually the real Attorney General, or not the Attorney General. The
Colorable Attorney –he's the one that prosecutes, right?
? :: Is this information in Gilbert's?

CW :: Uh, no, this was, uh. You know, there is such a thing as a Private Attorney
General and, uh, if the person comes... Well, Chris, can you explain that a little
better to him?

C :: Yeah, uh, Private Attorney General. It's 42 at 1983 to 1988 .. is that you .. if
you challenge .. the state, you have to give them an opportunity where you do a...

.? :: where .. . ..

.C :: that they're not acting on your behalf. Therefore it activates, uh, Private
Attorney General status. You can come in without mentioning papers. It's fine and
dandy. You can also come under 42 at 1983 till 1988 as a whistle blower, uh,
which is identical to statutes, but not claiming yourself as a permanent Private
Attorney General. Private Attorney Generals have the ability to take cases right
to the grand jury and actually act in capacity of prosecutor and also be able to
testify and work on the investigation for the conclusions from a grand jury. They're
the only person, uh, and I'm talking about statutory person that has the ability to do
that. A prosecutor, a DA and a Attorney Generals cannot do that.

? :: Alright, I'm gonna Skype you, Chris. Thank you.

CW :: Yeah. <<silence>> Ok. Anybody else? Uh, question, comment?

? :: Um, yeah, I, I had, I had another question and I forgot what it was. I was gonna
ask you. Then I got sidetracked, uh, after I talked to, after I talked to Chris it went
out of my head .. think about it again. It had to do with, uh, with, oh, yes. What it is
is this. Um, in the, in the information I put on the back of the, uh, of the bill, uh,
when I, when I put “pay to”, if I know who to pay to, I can just put their name in
there, can't I?

CW :: Yeah, you can, but if you leave it blank it leaves it a bare instrument .. makes
it a bare instrument and they can pass it on ..

? :: Uh, ok.

CW :: ..

? :: Because I found out who the Chairman, CEO and the CFO are, the President ..
are .. are all together in this one man, under this one man.

CW :: .. and they're tempted to take and use it and make it so that they don't have it
any longer .. when I asked for it back, if they don't have it, they'd be in breach of
trust.

? :: Ok, but in my case I, uh, I want the, I want the, um the, I want the res apply to
payment of the, .. payment .. my name ..
CW :: .. instructions .. instrument and use for, convert it and pay the debt.

CW :: Ok, .. Now if they're in breach maybe because they've sold it, you know, so
they're gonna have to .. If not, they're still in breach.

? :: .. Well, I wasn't gonna wait .. I was gonna do it within two days, or something
like that of each other.

CW :: Yeah, .. maybe by separation of one day.

? :: Yeah, uh, because that they're going to, that they're going to .. that kind of
action. They would probably still be holding it, so <<garbled>>.

CW :: So I could even cut it even finer .. to the timing, to just prove that by time it
happened after the first one. .. a time-stamp .. as long as it was past .. on the second
one. If I can do that with a time stamp .. do it within minutes of each other. .. If I
could prove that .. Otherwise to play safe .. dating .. two different dates.

? :: Ok. If I sent it registered mail that would time-stamp it.

CW :: Are those time stamped or not? .. I know they go by dates. Do they actually
go by hours?

? :: .. I did send the registered mail one day, uh .. I have, I have the RA number but I
don't have the, uh, I don't have the, uh, time, or anything like that.

CW :: As long as I can make it .. sequence .. and one came after the other.

? :: Ok.

CW :: That's about as close as you could cut it .. and make sure they have a
different date.

? :: Yeah, I can always do one-day separation .. is due May the 2nd, so I have this
week to do it.

CW :: .. we're talking about is merge the titles .. one thing over another. ..and
separate it by minutes then I'm playing it safe .. that close, then I want to do it just
by date. Separate it by the date.

? :: Ok.Yeah. I'll do it .. That should work.

? :: Delivery Confirmation has a time on it.

? :: Um,

> :: The Delivery confirmation has that .. 11:24 delivered.

CW :: Yeah, but if I was going by that, by the time they found out they got it it
might be three days later.

> :: Yeah, that's true, yeah.

? :: I'm just, I'm just gonna register and then I'll register the second one, and then I'll
register the second one. And then I'll know .. It'll cost extra that way, but at least I'll
be in control of it.

CW :: Ok, another one? Got another one Floyd?

F :: Ah, no, uh, no. I'm done, thanks. Right now I don't have any questions.

.CS :: Ok.

.F :: .. I'll let you know how it works out.

CW :: Well, anybody else?

P :: Yeah, Christian. I got one for ya.

.CW :: Pete, go ahead.

.P :: .. you give it a Title number and everything. Then, as the trust is going along,
you know, things are happening within the relationship, so you document
everything .. paperwork you want to bring to the judge .. for any one of these to the
judge. So, as far as I'm aware and I would like to think that, that it is like this is that,
because the claimant .. public .. your evidentiary documentation, so I sorta keepin' a
diary of what's happening in the trust relationship .. Is that documentation, then,
sorta bypass the hearsay rule because .. you know, .. the GSA rule, because ..

CW :: .. Notary keeps a .. that registry is really the record. And, some states don't
require that, but other states do, so that independent record-keeping, that record –
yeah, that's the actual record – that's a diary that's kept by a third party that's
independent, got clean hands and is in arm's length .. have a Notary that can do
that .. arm's length .. they can keep a record, that diary – that record – would be, you
know, a third witness.

P :: .. an .. and things like that?

CW :: Yeah, yeah. Maybe you could take it to one of the lawyer notaries over
there .. they notarize .. make it a public document, then?

P :: Yah.

.F :: Christian .. doing?

.CW :: Yeah, go ahead.

? :: .. we found out that notaries were getting into trouble for doing this paperwork
for us .. we put .. together .. is to have a third party .. have a jurat that that person is
putting in .. under notary seal and not .. the notary liable for it. It's just effective and
it .. the notaries .. liable party. Do you understand what I'm saying?

.CW :: .. particular problem there .. Over there the notaries are actually lawyers.

? :: Oh, really?

CW :: Uh-hah. And they charge and arm and a leg for notarizations.

? :: .. wanted to put that in there .. we're having our notary .. by the state – the
Secretary of State .. for presentment, so we get .. serve the documents and have that
jurat .. a notary .. right there on the spot .. liability of the notary.

CW :: Ok. Ok, uh, Pete?

? :: .. anyway.

? :: .. you have the Church of England, right?

.P :: Yeah.

? :: What about an ecclesiastic, uh, person, because they're considered to be ..

.P :: .. in good faith.

? :: Maybe, because when you historically .. ecclesiastically ..

P :: Yeah, sure, yes. Eh .. What I wasn't sure of was, if I'm gonna go to the courts
with documentation, you know, whether it be .. to when I've claimed the trust and
that's when I give them public notice, or can I continue that documentation on as
what's happening within the trust, so knowing .. if a third party, eh, you know,
keeps that documentation, then that's a great help.

F :: .. That might be a source to look at .. because they're supposedly .. faith, or ..

P :: Yeah, yeah, definitely I will. I will look at that aspect. I know the Archbishop of
Cantebury, he is the head notary in England.

P :: Yeah, he's the head of the Notarial Society.

? :: Oh, cool.

CW :: .. Are there exceptions to the hearsay rules?

? ::

CW :: .. seal .. That's the exception to the hearsay rule .. public document that's
outside the hearsay rules.

P :: That's interesting too.

CW :: .. exceptions to the hearsay rules.

P :: I will. You know I found a document today .. what document I found today ..
subpoena ..Obama .. and he put in some evidence .. a witness under protective order
and then the judge .. It wasn't sufficient criteria to come under protective order ..
remove the protective order .. information over to you .. That was in Chicago, in
Illinois

.CW :: I wonder if it had the, the element necessary for the protective order.

P :: It didn't. It says that in the footnote.

CW :: Yeah, yeah. <<silence>> .. conform to what .. protective order with the

number of elements necessary that fits that jurisdiction.

P :: Yah.

? :: Yeah, I actually did the same thing, Pete, in one of my matters and you can .. It's
purely discretionary .. like we have a bit of a template here that you can use .. And
they list all the elements that you should claim in a protective order. But it's still up
to the judge to determine if he thinks it's relevant and worthy being protected. That's
why .. makes me really hesitant to put that into public because he can automatically
waive that for you. So, the idea of the notice, .. notice .. and then withholding
everything else. I think it's just .. bump up against it, evidentiary rules, uh, whether
or not . .. notice .. but actual evidence . So, it's... You're playing with releasing it
into the public .. release it because he doesn't deem it CCI .. it because it's not, uh,
entered into evidence.

.CW :: Ok. Here's what I see here right now. I think their going under .. the Trustee,
as per his discretion can go either way.

.P :: Oh...

.CW :: Knock him out of the box as being Trustee.

.? :: .. I mean could you make that by affidavit or court pleading .. stating that in this
court .. trust in that indenture? .. plead that?

CW :: He does not have discretionary powers!

.CW :: Put it in the indenture that he must recognize CCI information, or .. Trustee ..
that way he has no discretionary powers at all.

.? :: .. Beneficiary.
.CW :: .. neutral party .. can be an Agent.

.? :: Ok, because you're coming in as Grantor and if you're gonna make yourself
Grantor/Trustee, then won't you...?

.CW :: .. keep him as Trustee .. then don't him discretionary powers .. CCI
information as secret.

.P :: .. he's a co-trustee .. by way of the indenture that you've given him and ..

[ @ 1 : 29 : 11 ]

CW :: We are the Grantors. We are the law of the case. If we're not getting what we
want, change the law!

P :: Yeah .. intent.

? :: .. as Grantor you can be Beneficiary and as Beneficiary tell the Trustee what to
do anyway.

.CW :: Right. .. mistake. If you made a mistake .. you did it wrong .. go back and do
it again. This is how we straighten things out. This is how .. a misconstrument,
sorry. You don't have discretionary powers.

P :: .. situation if you come in with a .. the judge ..

CW :: .. is to get you for breach of trust on the public trust.

P :: In this public office?

CW :: Yes.

.P :: So where, how would you move that way? Would you put a complaint .. court
association.

CW ::

P :: Sorry, someone just came in ..

.? :: .. complaint into the courts ..

.CW ::

CW :: .. express

P :: ..

CW :: .. a charge .. bad faith on the public trust, which would be the breach.
? :: Is that going to be a breach of his oath to the public trust?

CW :: Yah, yup.

.? :: It's also .. oath to support the Constitution.

.CW :: Mm-hm.Well the oath is an obligation to not breach any statutory law, same
thing – breach of trust. Breach of public trust.

P :: So you're acting in your case under the 14th Amendment and, and as a man.
How are you coming in as Grantor? Are you coming in as Grantor or as the citizen?

CW :: .. in that realm anyway .. you're gonna have to come in as a a fiction Grantor,

once you keep it private.

? :: Christian, you bring up a great .. that we were talking about today .. you .. that
we were talking about today. Some associates and I were talking about ..
declaratory judgment injunctive relief .. under the old debtor/creditor .. before the
trust technology started to developed .. and you're coming in public .. your asking
the courts to declare that you are a living man. You are not a government employee,
all these other matters...

CW :: Yeah, on the At Law, which is not equity ..

? :: .. The presumption is that that because it's a .. that's non-binding on the other
courts .. the courts are going to rule in your favor because you're going to put in
enough evidence into the court that day .. that they will try to refute that. .. in
today's courts, um, .. smarter .. and the patriot movement. I think that they'll, uh,
destroy those arguments and .. So, my, my intent in working with these types of
declaratory judgments and injunction actions was to try, to try to figure out how
to do just what you said .. The petitioner .. or making a claim, and seeking the court
to rule on certain matters, only with respect to, uh, um, petitions to the strawman ..
matters .. in relation to corporate fictions. Because .. So, now, in the background
you might have a couple .. where I need to refine this, but .. You know, .. where you
are declaring that, you know, .. that there's a somehow a trust in existence and you
are acting as the, uh, Beneficiary/Grantor .. for, you know, for more, and that's
gonna be kept in the private .. who this party is. You know, you can't even have
three parties on the complaints anymore. You can't have this living man .. Grantor
coming in there because they will just remove that caption set .. and replace it with
the straw-parties – the corporate fictions .. a declaratory action, coming in colorably,
but still getting the same remedy, which .. declare the distinction into between the
living man and, uh, and, uh, d/c.

CW :: 3rd party intervener?

.? :: ..

CW :: That 3rd party is being fictional also, though.

? :: .. actually .. is they literally strike that 3 rd party out of there, stating their
non-existence and then just use the straw-party .. .. versus the .. and that's how they
get rid of it, so they don't even acknowledge it. .. they may consider that a mistake
of parties.

CW :: Do I really need to put anything private on there anyway?

? :: Well, no. That's, that's my claim. .. public recognition of certain matters, but I, I
would also, as long as we're .. $350 to rock into court and file an action, why can't
we then file, as long as we have something colorably in the public .. send to the
private side all of the documents that claim and prove the trust and that is that the
trust exists and that the .. and that living man are two different parties and get some,
get some kind of relief that way.

? :: .. a public recognition of that .. public court?

CW :: No. To recognize the real man, you mean?

.? :: ..

? :: Well, public recognition that the straw-party plaintiffs .. two different entities.

CW :: I don't think we make any reference to the real man .. like if you did that,
you'd be breaching your own trust.

.P :: Could you name, could you name the name .. just keep naming it as the
account? .. that's technically where it is.

.CW :: .. I mean, that's that's the pass-through. That's like .. I mean that's where ..

.? :: .. way of resolving that was coming in, um, and always talking about .. and
whenever I talked about me – the living man – I would, I would say “the
undersigned, ellipse, signature, and so .. at least to the extent that .. as little as
colorably as possible, uh, and to me that worked. .. the undersigned .. I would say
“The undersigned appearing for blah, blah, blah, .. petitioner .. same thing .. and
pleading .. the undersigned .. and the undersigned is qualified by the signature.

.CW :: Ok, yah. But why, why do we have to keep the distinction, if we're just
going to make it all colorable? Is there a purpose for setting .. that paperwork other
than... Because everything private would be in-chambers.

.? :: .. public court pleading that you're just gonna sign .. unqualified signature for
the petitioner?

CW :: Yeah, it would be qualified with the ellipses, yeah.

? :: Ok.
.> :: .. in the beginning of the call, about qualifying the signature to the court.

.CW :: Yah.

.> :: So what I think .. say was .. protect myself .. to protect themselves with the .. “I
give you my name or my signature .. under certain conditions that the .. someway
by .. that situation.

CW :: Well I could put, you know, “I give you my signature, or my name, in

confidence, for future return, with my interest.”

.> :: .. another .. that would indicate to the court, the magistrate, that you were
claiming trust.

.CW :: “.. I give you my name, in confidence, for future return with my interest.”

.> :: Excuse me?

.CW :: “I give you .. with my interest.”

.> ::

.CW :: .. Now he can construe it any way he wants to and the only way he's going to
construe it colorably, which is what I want him to do. And then when it comes to
signing .. and sign with the elipses. .. nobody can change my intent other than
myself. .. I intend it to be a trust and nobody could say otherwise, as long as I'm
alive.

.? :: ..

.> :: ..

.> :: .. do that. You knw ..we would have some leeway.

.CW :: .. because that was indenture .. “I give you my signature, in confidence, for
future return with my interest.” and I sign it.

.> :: .. would be expressing .. trust.

.CW :: .. I can put that right before my signature .. “Without recourse” .. like a
disclaimer in there.

.> :: .. and he's modified statutory trust ..

CW :: Mm-hm, right.

.> :: So, would that be .. what was it, JC?

.JC :: Yes.

.> :: .. Was that what you were trying to say?

.JC :: .. because CID is we're coming in, .. when you walk into court , presenting
your Birth Certificate .. You can ask any questions you want. Um, it's similar to
that .. these pleadings .. You're dong that by .. the undersigned .. elipses and your
signature qualifying that .. I like what you're saying .. that statement .. for future
return with interest .. that maybe perhaps .. for your signature in closing. What I
was driving at in the declaratory action, I'm, I'm just simply trying to re-write the
old debtor/creditor pleadings that come clearly .. the public trust .. by exclaiming
that they're not a 14th amendment citizen and not a government employee .. and do
that ..

.CW :: .. by doing all that stuff.

.> :: .. to make it so that we get a declaratory injunction against certain things ..

and then we can use the same action .. a venue to go to the judge in chambers and
get private things settled, so that once we have trust things established we come in
and prove it, uh, demonstrate it to him and have him declare that, you know, you're
right .. I don't see how paperwork or demonstrates to me anything other than that
this trust exist .. that you're the Beneficiary .. that you're not the Trustee and these
other actions so therefore .. how to figure out how to come into the public .. put that
in his orders or for his final judgment. And, and he may not have to be .. to make
that transition .. we're covering some new grounds trying to get the courts to
maneuver in our favor.

CW :: Right, right. Um, yeah, that way there is nothing private on it. Everything is
all colorable and can be construed as colorable.

.> :: Like for example .. forgive me for botching this up a little bit .. You can come
in and you can make a statement like “Petitioner is, petitioner is a resident of ..
venue .. blah, blah, blah. The undersigned herein after known as, or the undersigned
more, more clearly identified via exhibit A, held in, uh, private .. confidential
information .. on and on and on .. including exhibit A, which is all the CCI about
who the living man is in relation to the 14th Amendment .. a single statement that ..
attach it or include it or if you do .. by notice and then you send it .. judge in
chambers, in private, .. a protective order for that matter and there's a couple of
ways to go about doing that .. That's another way to consider that, so the
undersigned further .. recognized .. exhibit A .. attached to. What do you think
about that?

.CW :: You review that again... that last paragraph?

.> :: So you're, you're coming in and .. stating .. as a petitioner colorably and as, as
put forth by the undersigned, um, more clearly described by and through exhibit A,
status of standing documents of undersigned, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. And then that exhibit A has stamped CCI all over it .. living
man .. and that's what talks about .. of not being .. being .. true, that will not be able
to be rebutted, so that's what's going to be held in confidence, but you've stated it
and incorporated it by reference into your public pleading .. didn't breach the
confidence .. state “The undersigned .. described by and through exhibit A.”

.CW :: Right. .. exmaple .. This is a, talking .. attorney-client privilege .. work

product and trade secret .. so the fact-work is traditionally protected information, or
traditionally protected information that relates to cases and stuff .. whereas
“ fact-work is subject to discovery upon a showing of a need or an undue hardship
or work-product is other stuff and is different, but .. put on here .. it says .. supreme
court recently ruled that .. a rule that .. product privilege is specifically, uh, bounded
and limited to materials not intended to be used as evidence or as an exhibit at trial,
including rebuttal. So, uh, evidence, an exhibit at trial. It says down farther .. or the
exception prevails “to minimize the tread of corporations' cloaking information with
attorney-client privilege to avoid discovery .. would be subjected to a heightened
level of scrutiny” and then it goes on to “most .. expedicious .. procedure for
handling .. of attorney-client or trade secret objection may be a request for the court
to conduct an in-camera review.” And then there's a, a footnote that references, and
it says “see Dack(?) vs. Dumas .. 1998” .. where the trial court departed from
essential requirements of the law .. in ordering disclosure of trade secrets procedure
for determining procedure .. to conduct an in-camera review .. to determine the
validity of party's assertion of an attorney-client privilege and another case cite
where when work-product .. court must hold an in-camera inspection of discovery
material at issue to rule on applicable privilege. So it could be just a requesting an
evidentiary hearing – that is you camera, that is your in-camera review.

.> :: That, that's the only issue is that's it's discretionary. He doesn't have to grant an
evidentiary hearing .. as soon as you attach an exhibit, then, you know, .. then all of
a sudden it's in public and there for everyone to view and you waived it.

.? :: What about you, you, .. trust .. a trust .. that you put that requirement in your
indenture?

<<silence>>

CW :: Ok, say that again.

? :: In other words, before you said that before we said that if we don't get what we
want, we put it in the indenture of the trust .. into court .. claim the trust and he puts
into his trust that the court will .. CCI in camera. That's part of the Trustee's
responsibility.

CW :: Right, right

.? :: Well, would that .. ?

.CW :: I would think so. Yeah, I think that would.

.> :: It would, provided that the judge .. breach of trust and subject him to penalties
and, uh, litigation and (3) he's concerned in any way, shape or form about your
ability to enforce that litigation .. and when you mark that .. judge was .. he
wouldn't care about your patriot, uh, litigation because the other court is going to
back him up and probably throw that away and not give you or me a remedy, eh,
and I'm just trying to looking at the, uh, brotherhood of the roads as protected by the
banks.

.CW :: Right .. equity side of the court, so you can't get in there.

.? :: .. so that that would be deprived of due process, right?

.CW :: Yeah.

.? :: Ok, so now are not the courts, uh, responsible to, to provide the citizens with
Due Process? That's, they can't go .. to do that to the Constitution of the United
States.

.CW :: Yeah, that would be .. Due Process .. They'd be doing bad faith and they'd
be in breach of the public trust .. attach them on the public side.

.? :: Right. So yeah .. involved in this, uh, this private loophole .. because in that
second piece of litigation you're gonna claiming a breach of trust and, and ..
evidence that they allegedly breached, which is still your CCI, and that's your Due
Process, and so they breached the trust. They breached your .. and .. and kept in
confidence and it gets sticky and tricky through that whole process of how you, you
could slip up at any one of these steps.

.> :: .. nobody said it would be easy.

.? :: So I'm saying that the civil rights are different from constitutional rights. You
know, Constitutionally, I mean, the judges .. an oath to support .. to protect Due
Process .. On the face of the matter, you know, .. do that .. then that alone is
sufficient. The other .. our CCI .. sorta like secondary .. constitutionally .. your, you
oath of office.

.> :: And you're right. I misspoke .. It's Constitutional. That was my quick tongue.

.? :: So, anyway, um, I think .. fascinating .. maybe these comments can help give
you some, uh, directional shape.

.> :: .. They all help .. they are .. pearls .. not ..

.? :: Yeah, right .. I see, I see your dilemma, and it's a good one and, you know, uh,
we all have that potential to have waiting for us.

> :: The 600-lbs. Gorilla.

? :: Yeah, right.
CW :: Well, if you can't get into equity, you ain't got any gorilla.

.> :: Well I know. I was looking at the course of that 600-lbs. gorilla. When we're ..
at least a 900-lbs. gorilla .. matter of getting seen.

.CW :: .. that we have to take three steps backwards and look at this again from a
different angle and maybe we'll see something different through trust eyes that we
didn't see before.

.> :: I mean, again, .. no one needs to know trust is being formed .. things in our
indentures as it were .. trying to negate your .. then maybe .. an easy fight, but at
least you have it on paper .. well, no, .. We put energy in with our, you know,
indentures saying this is what we want .. stronger position .. than not have anything.

? :: What is that first indenture you referenced? What do you imagine that being?

.? :: I would look at, you know, what you want to do. Which, which, which
objection .. name .. protect your name, right? .. , that's your seat – or your res .. want
to grant you right to go into chambers with your CCI. You want them to give you
the rights to, uh, to protective order, whatever else you think they're gonna knock
you down with. That's what I would do.

.> :: .. all .. it's like making the .. know? You anticipate the objections before they
come up, so there are no objections, that you can think of, anyway.

.? :: And are you gonna submit that indenture .. in pleading ..to the judge in
chambers, creating a trust with the judge .. a limited power of attorney and Trustee
for this matter?

.? :: I would go private as best I could .. use the UCC-1 to do the, the filing, but I
wouldn't necessarily divulge that, you know, it's all the stuff we're been talking
about. Lets say that you wanna get relief on this first level, but you can have it
recorded that it's there. .. the first magistrate doesn't , you know, go by the rules, but
you still have it on appeal. You still there?

.> :: Yes, I like that. Putting the judge under contract in advance of his
rulings. ...trust...

.CW :: Well, .. there, you know. We are the law of the case. We get to set the law.

.> :: Right, but the other thing now. The judge – he is a public official. He cannot
disclaim trusteeship, is that right?

.CW :: Uh, there are two ways of looking at it. Under trust, he does have the right to
disclaim .. in a worse position if he didn't. .. successor trust.. and if he doesn't do
that, he'd be in breach of the bench, so that we've really got him, you know, in both
situations.

? :: ..
.CW :: Right .. they can just disclaim and then sit there, but then it's up to us to take
the next move.

? :: So you're assuming that .. JC's going in .. and just saying that .. state a claim. ..
the court .. will not make a move and thereby stalling the claim.

.CW :: .. he'll just give it back and say “I don't have to do this.”, so he disclaims by
doing that.

? :: Oh, I see. Ok. So what will we do then?

.CW :: .. he doesn't say that a resulting trust forms. .. so then it's up to us to .. the
breach of the, of the bench. Or, uh, sometimes breach of the trust.

.> :: Would you do that by, by way of an interlockatory appeal on .. private .. so

you can't do an interlockatory. .. pending the resolution of breach of trust ..

.? :: .. You'd have to, you know .. ten-day resolution of that trust .. colorably on a
breach of trust and bring it to the private, but you'd have to figure out how to
pause your first court case long enough for it to sink some teeth into the judge.

CW :: Right, right.

.? :: ..

.CW :: .. without a writ of mandamus injunction, or injunctive relief.

.> :: And, and that breach of trust is all CCI that you'd have to that three-panel
judge – three-judge panel. So that's probably .. interlockatory ..

.CW :: That might actually be much more better .. than these people downstairs in
the lower courts. .. maybe that's the way it's supposed to go – upstairs.

? :: Mm-hm.

> :: Now, equity, is that on the At Law side or state side?

.CW :: Either one

.? :: Because the Federal courts .. In that regard state courts...

.CW :: .. easier to get state courts than in Federeal for equity.

? :: Why do you say that?

[ @ 2 : 01 : 45 ]

.CW :: Um, .. state citizenship .. the states take precedence over the Federal. The
people are on top of the state .. The state over the Federal .. Today it's flip-flopped.

.? :: On the other hand, though, ..

.CW :: Yeah. Uh. Well, that's the whole thing .. whether it's a corporate state ..
whether it's in chambers .. to get true equity.

.? :: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's seems I'm going back to the constitutional
thing because maybe .. we do have some, some, uh, maybe uh...

.CW :: .. if you look at that Constitution as being a trust .. they have a sworn duty to
uphold that trust .. breach of trust.

.? :: Exactly.

.CW :: But then you're gonna .. prove that that was a trust .. breach of trust .. so
we're back on the same problem again.

.? :: .. a trust?

.? :: Christian, there is something here that I'm looking at .. that you guys might
want to do some research on.

CW :: Alright. How many hundred pages is it?

.? :: It, it's pretty long .. a lot of different .. You're right. If they are not under oath ..
of a .. and they're breaching that in any way, including trust, they're in contempt of
trust.

.CW :: Is, is it this public trust? Are they saying it's the codes and statutes of the
Constitution?

.? :: I was mostly pointing my finger at trust for .. how to address the court. Uh,
with this situation you're describing, and if the judge is not following, pursuing ..
dictates .. those dictates that would be a breach of public trust ..

.CW :: It's like how do we equate that, really. People have a confidence .. uphold
justice, say, statutes and codes .. that would be the public. That would be the public
trust.

.? :: That's right, and anytime they fail to do their job, .. breached the public trust ..

.? :: ..

.CW :: .. , but can we prove that that was a trust .. based on what was just said?

.? :: Well, based on the fact that they swore an oath... That oath you can take and
accept for value .. and endorse it as your trust agreement with them. .. failing ..
breach.
CW :: Uh-hah.

<<long silence>>

<<garbled>>

? :: I'll do some research on it and I'll post it up there on your site.

CW :: Ok, so we wanna carry this a little further on the, uh, enforcement side?

.> :: .. enforcement .. I mean like .. Enforcement side is like a wide open territory.

.CW :: .. like JC was saying, how are we going to get an in camera hearing ..
recognize our CCI information?

.> :: Exactly ..

.S :: Hey, Christian, can you hear me?

CW :: Yes, Shane. Go ahead.

.S :: .. one quick question .. about this approach .. but, um, this is, .. Are you
saying that you can take d/c and, uh, when their asking for your name .. basically I
give it to you in exchange for something?

CW :: Well, what are you getting at?

.S :: Well, you said like when they ask you for your name .. to them like .. ask them
the question .. basically set it up that you are willing to give them the name in
exchange for something.

.CW :: Uh, yes, for payment of the debt ..

.S ::

.CW :: .. but yet they're not paying the debt and they're trying to get you to pay the
debt by going to prison.

.S :: .. say “Sure, in exchange for a settlement, or ..

.CW :: There was no consideration given at the time of the taking, uh, ..
consideration at the time of giving.

.S :: .. like that, like sure .. you know .. to ..

.CW :: Well, I don't give my name, uh, without compensation.

.S :: So, um, just because we're being nice we just say “in exchange ..”
.CW :: Yes, “I grant”, or “I give my name for the purpose, in confidence, for
settlement and closure of the account.”

.S :: Uh, yeah, ok, I was hoping ..

.CW :: And I would also say “I want it returned with, with interest” – with my
interest.

.? :: .. what .. copyright laws .. just use my name you're going to have to have
permission .. ?

.S :: Not necessarily, no. I like my approach because .. should just be .. basic honor ..
I mean you're trying to go for .. because technically there's no interest that they
could basically accept it and .. how to monetize it, so .. trying .. to go .. ATM
machine .. and that's not the point. .. I think .. were creating .. more complicated to
visualize.

.CW :: But when I come in with a counter-claim, which is, you know, “what gives
him the right to take my name?” .. and if they take it then .. trust .. so I would come
in with a counter-claim, you know, .. and claim and prove the trust and then correct
this misconstrument of this debtor/creditor statutory mistake they're making, but the
Bingo was .. .. a claim of trust and proof of trust .. same as a trust receipt .. and
that's just the act – the act of forming the trust and proving the trust .. That is the
receipt for the debt, in exchange for consideration, at the granting of the signature.
Because that was in confidence and I want that back because it's my interest.

.P :: One thing, one thing .. that junction is in .. given the consideration, which is the
name. Now, I was reading, eh, about some cases there and it was saying that sorta
the performance is the consideration, whereas otherwise it'd be more like favor, so
it'd have to be written somewhere so it could be seen in public.

.CW :: That would be on the notice. You'd be giving notices.

.P :: As long as it's written like people are aware then that can be seen in public,
like.

.CW :: Yeah, so I'm gonna voluntarily transfer my property to them, except this
time it's going to be with compensation and the compensation is going to be .. in
exchange for the .. the asset being .. my signature .. , really .. that they can utilize it
in their debtor/creditor realm, but really I'm merging the titles. I'm merging an asset
title with a debt title.

G :: Hey, Christian, how you doing? This is Gamba.

.CW :: Hey Gamba!

G :: I got a quick question for you. .. Wouldn't you agree with that? ..
.CW :: .. signifies an equitable asset. It's a thing, its a res.

.G :: .. I agree with that.

.CW :: .. it's an asset title on one side, but it's the other thing in the colorable realm.

.G ::

.CW :: .. simultaneously .. now I'm in control of both sides and I can colorably .. or
trust.

G :: Mm-hm.

.CW :: Under the difinition of “merger”.. debtor/creditor contract for any

purpose .. have entered into .. engagement by deed .. the simple contract is merged
into the deed and becomes extinct. And that deed .. by deed of trust .. and the trust –
that's confidence. .. the colorable thing that we all .. No, under trust that's
confidence. .. interest .. like the extinction of the lesser in the greater interest. So,
the lesser interest .. under equitable trust – the confidence.

G :: .. That clarifies it for me.

CW :: Yeah, that's Black's law, 8th edition, under “merger”.

G :: Right.

.CW :: .. I think we got a problem .. that we're operating in .. due to our social
conditioning, our brainwashing, but now if we start .. the only key we're missing ..
Now that we understand debtor/creditor awfully well, I would say, by now. And
we .. apply trust to it ..

.G :: Yes, yes. I definitely agree with you on that.

.CW :: All we gotta do is tweak it a little bit this way or another.

.G :: .. even under trust, it's not, it's not what we need .. I do not believe it should
be .. than what it is .. I'm glad we got .. like last week we talked about .. I don't
know why. I can explain it to you why .. why I believe .. at a very high level ..
because it's unarguable. There's no arguing .. When you try to ..
there's nothing to discuss.

.CW :: Right, uh-hah.

.G :: .. the last couple of weeks before we got on the call .. really, um, .. I had a
couple of questions .. week, but I want to try and ..

.CW :: Uh, yeah, basically I agree with you, except that .. trust .. Trustee. I see a
possible defect there that...
.G :: .. the creditor would be the Beneficiary.

CW :: Say that again.

.G :: I say the alleged creditor would be Beneficiary. .. the Grantor would be

different .. setup trust .. the Beneficiaries could be anybody. An you don't have to ..
The Trustee .. different from the Grantor .. parties .. There's ways to .. You'll have
to do it .. trust party .. that way because otherwise .. it's a joke. It's really being
construed as a joke and .. ego.

.CW :: .. the really wouldn't see that ..

.G :: Because it's in the private?

.CW :: If we kept Grantor and Trustee .. should be ….

.G :: .. litigation .. and they're gonna attack the trust .. defend that trust. How would
you do that?

.CW :: Well, .. been attacked so many times to reveal that formula, but they, they
have never...

.G :: .. That's something .. you're gonna have to order a private statutory or whatever.

The Trustee is going to have to come out of hiding .. if you're operating in
Grantor/Trustee capacity ..

.CW :: .. Trustee on the public side, yeah.

.G :: .. Trustee .. Yeah, yeah. You would definitely have to stay out of the court.
You could do it. .. operate completely on the private side.

.CW :: But just like you said, you could .. arm's length .. LLC or something.

.G :: Alright, alright .. individual .. that are around them .. that are capable of, um,
handling that, .. Grantor/Beneficiary and Trustee. You know, because every party
has to have, has to operate in each of those capacities. And it's like, you know, .. it's
impossible for him to get any property .. anything

.CW :: Right.

.G :: .. It has to be structured the right away .. and .. around .. say that .. you have to
be low down like these people, or otherwise you'll lose .. because ..

.CW :: .. complex things .. to enter into .. some of this stuff is still being choked on,
uh, just the basic stuff, so...

.G :: Again, that's why I would like to talk to you on a more private call or maybe ..
made .. that you feel are competent enough to handle this .. they'll get it, and I have
no problem sharing it .. trust. So, you're my .. some of the .. you have and .. come
over to remedy .. we getting eighty percent ..

.CW :: Right .. Eric and JC?

.G :: Yeah, I was supposed to send Eric some information. Again, .. overwhelmed,

you know, with people contacting me and so I definitely .. sending ..

CW :: If you make contact with them I could get you contact through them and we
can all get together.

.G :: Ok, that's not a problem. .. Go ahead and continue with the call .. I'm really
getting educated.

.CW :: While you're on I have .. you said that, you said the creditors are the
Beneficiaries, right?

.G :: .. We name them .. We name them all the time .. A lot of my partners, they
thought I was crazy. “Why are you doing this?” You're gonna get a lot of feedback
from a lot of people .. I said I'm gonna try this and I believed it would work.

.CW :: .. beneficiaries ..

.G :: .. What it does .. Beneficial interest .. a living trust .. as Beneficiaries with

entitlement to the property, but at the same time, at the same time .. as
beneficiaries .. ..properties held in trust. .. trust declaration that pretty much lets
them know that the party cannot be removed from trust .. if you comply you get
paid. If you don't comply you don't get paid .. you comply, you get paid .. in a
situation .. compliance .. seriously, we have no problem. .. 30 days upon proof .. of
claim upon compliance .. and .. within 30 days.

.G :: I think I'm getting ahead here.

.CW :: .. I'll mention to you next time I talk to you, so the Beneficiary, eh, if he can
make a claim .. once he makes the prove, the onus probandi shifts to the Trustee.

.G :: Yeah, it does, immediately ..

.CW :: I was thinking that .. maybe a lot of problems, because that's shifted ..
through a beneficiary to prove that he is Beneficiary .. as long as he proved that and
claimed a trust .. trust that there was a trust and he could make a claim as
Beneficiary to the Trustee ..

.G :: .. prove it. It's like, it's like poker .. prove it .. proving ..

.CW :: If, if the Beneficiary claims trust and proves that there is a Trust and he is
Beneficiary on that Trust, that's all he needs to set up Beneficiary status .. now he
can make a claim to the trustee .. the court will presume that the Trustee is guilty ..
and all the Beneficiary has to do is make a prima facie case.
.G :: .. we're in a little bit of disagreement .. we're not disagreement that ..I heard
this on of your shows before. Uh, it's just like with a child. When the child is 10
years old and the mother sets up a trust with an attorney .. when the child turns 18
years old, uh .. trust, trust fund, but he has to have, he has to have a high school
diploma. .. Now at 18 years old he can make a case all he wants .. high school
diploma .. He ought to know that he's the Beneficiary of the trust. The bottom line
is that .. does not have to give that Beneficiary shit, excuse my language.

.CW :: .. that indenture is not what I was talking about. Let's prove, let's say that
he's the Beneficiary. And he has a high school education.

.G :: This is what we want, Christian. This is .. acceptance for value .. I believe in

pure acceptance .. and we have a formula that been working and has been getting
results through the Federal Reserve Bank. We want to produce the evidence, please,
please.

.CW :: You have to produce the evidence that he is the Beneficiary.

.G :: Yes, please, please.

.CW ::

.G :: I will get on that .. I'll disclose to you and I'll have a couple of my partners ..
no question.

.S :: .. suppose ..

.G :: Yup, yup. We're not talking about 50/50 results. .. we're talking about getting
results, and I believe this is a way to get it.

P :: Gamba...

.G :: Yeah.

.P :: Are you talking .. equity .. overruling .. court .. ok, Beneficiary, then prove
your claim, prove the, prove the trust.

.G :: What I'm saying is I'm, I'm in agreement with Christian .. through declaration
or indenture. I don't care about any of their rules, regulations, or any .. all that stuff ..
I'm gonna have prima fascie evidence against you ..

.CW :: Here's, here's what I see .. that could cause a problem for you. Uh, .. make a
claim in equity, you got problems. Because now the onus of probandi is shifting ..
Trustee .. and that Beneficiary doesn't have to prove anything .. presumed to be
guilty .. how the Beneficiary knows what law form to choose .. comes at you under
equity, now the Trustee ..

.G :: .. .. you believe .. ?
.CW :: .. Then you're gonna have a problem, I see.

.G :: But how easy would that be .. to prove that we actually own the property, that
was conveyed to us by the, by the party who actually ..

.CW :: .. then you got a problem if he comes at you under equity.

.G :: Ah, well all he has .. does not have the right to legal title it. Now if. .. court ..
actually use the property for personal benefit, I'd like to hear that.

.CW :: I don't know how the indenture was .. so I can't say. .. under equity.

.G :: .. legal title .. for our personal ..

.CW :: .. protect the Beneficiary .. that he gets to use the property.

.G :: .. trust declaration .. you want it because it your law, your rules .. and they
can't claim .. trust information .. they can't make you breach your fiduciary
responsibility ..

.CW :: .. indenture .. then the Beneficiary ..

.G :: .. He knows your rules .. making you commit a crime .. We've had a judge we
told this to. ..

.CW ::

.G :: .. has he read the trust declaration? .. Can you hear me?

.CW :: Yes, yes.

.G :: I think I kinda got a little broke here.

.CW :: like what we were saying on the writing of the indenture, that if the judge
disclaims .. that he can't use .. discretion for ruling, then our CCI should be put in.

.G :: Yeah, he has no discretion .. again, I agree with you totally with that, because
he has no discretion to do anything .. or make you breach your fiduciary
responsibility .. trust declaration
.. because that is your law .. making you commit a crime.

[ @ 2 : 30 : 38 ]

.CW :: Right, right.

.G :: And, and he can't do that. He knows he can't do that because that is, that is
your constitution .. when you are Trustee .. You have fiduciary duty to that trust and
that's it. .. That's what your job is everyday, and so there's nothing that judge can to
do breach that. And if it's written in the provisions of that trusts .. trust
declarations. .. trust declarations .. You have to know how to write these things and
script these things how to fit your situation.

.CW :: .. construe them .. so.

.G :: Yeah, so, that's my opinion. .. everyone has one .. just my opinion.

CW :: Well I appreciate you and I was putting in too.

.G :: .. I'm gonna let you continue, Christian. ..

.CW :: Ok, thanks.

<<garbled>>

.P :: Yup, yup. .. The thing was muted. So, I think .. we're up to was, em, is coming
in to the court under the protective order. No, we got past that didn't we? Oh, there
is an interesting .. If, if we need to come claim a trust and then prove a trust, why
did we not have to do that in equity?

.CW :: Uh, we .. waiving it .. commingling and breaching the trust ourselves, if it

was a statutory trust.

<<silence>>

P :: Okay.

.CW :: It's like this, this trust is public and we don't have to worry about anything
private .. This public trust is public and we don't have to worry about anything
private .. always .. anyway.

.P :: .. Sorry, if you wanna finish.

.CW :: If you .. then you won't have to worry about coming into chambers.

.P :: Right, I see, yeah, you get them on public trust. .. If I go into public office
and I ask, you know, the official to perform me, and .. beligerence and they refuse
to do what I ask, which, you know, I feel is wholy reasonable – my request of
them. .. obviously, so if they .. and pass me on to another party .. in that regard, or
can they claim that .. ignorance or...

.CW :: If the recorder, the county recorder refused to file your documents .. and
they said “Here's the reason why.” .. they broke some kind of statue; they didn't file
your documents .. would just complain .. was really under the debtor/creditor
courts and they just did a cause of action and they got, they got chewed up; nothing
happened. .. they would come at them under trust for breach of public trust and treat
it as a trust, they might have gotten other results, I think.
.P :: You think there's any places of say place?

.CW :: I don't know. We've done a lot of research .. you know, different entities
under trust. We need to look under trust cases .. Snepp(?) vs. the CIA or US. And
there's gotta be others.

.P :: Yeah, yeah, and all the trust books, they cite hundreds of cases. But then we'd
have to be careful with our interpretation. Would you agree on that?

.CW :: Well, there's a lot of case cites from .. private DCA .. stick with those.

.P :: The which courts , sorry?

.CW :: The District Court of Appeals. .. the Appelate courts .. decisions.

.P :: Cool. .. That's

.CW :: And the Supreme Courts' decisions.

.P :: You have to furnish your documentation .. cases in my opinion – cases and

publications.

.CW :: I say especially on a statutory trust .. breach of a statute then .. public trust
breach instead of just breach of duty .. they didn't do their job under debtor/creditor.
But yeah, we need more research more time .. more thinkers .. debtor/creditor .. We
need them on trust lines.

.P :: Definitely. That's scary, but at least it's all new ground. And people .. Uh, you
know, this is totally new grounds, and then, not only is it new grounds we're coming
in on, but it's also a new technology that's being proposed to use; that's big news.
It's quite a big jump.

CW :: Right.

.C :: Christian?

.CW :: Yeah, go ahead, Chris.

.C :: I had .. but didn't have a response. .. The 14th Amendment is .. status ..

debtor/creditor .. along with the Constitution .. trust res, merge the titles.

.CW :: How would you go about using it? ..

.C :: I don't know. It just dawned on me that when they divided .. living party .. they
deposited of, uh, into two sides with the 14th amendment. .. I'm saying within the
bounds of most people believe they're citizens of the United States .. I understand
that, but that 14th Amendment. .. There's a division between .. shouldn't that be
considered with what we're thinking about doing with .. ?
.CW :: .. I think that's a sub-trust run off the Master Trust, and the Master Trust
being the Declaration of Independence.

.C ::

.CW :: I haven't .. I don't thinn so. I don't know. I haven't seen evidence to support
anything different. Let's put it that way.

.C :: .. we missed that and I wanted to make sure ..

.CW :: Yeah, I kinda .. I look at that Constitution as being a sub-trust against that
Master Trust. That Master Trust thing. I got unalienable rights. I got all the rights.

.G :: Can I say something here?

CW :: Yeah, go ahead.

.> :: .. Is there anybody on this phone call. Is there anybody on this call besides us?

CW :: No, I don't think so.

.G ::

CW :: I don't hear anybody.

.> :: .. is there .. these .. they perverted everything into trust.

.CW :: .. yeah ..

.> :: .. Quit talking about it; it's irrelevant.

.CW :: .. maybe, uh, a sub-trust.

.> :: .. It's a, it's a, it's a piece of paper that you could wipe your ass with. Excuse my
language .. it has nothing to do with anything .. it's talking about. That's it, my
input .. constitution, so again, don't waste your energy on that, brother. .. brothers
before me .. Everything's been perverted into trust. .. Everything is trust.

.M :: Gamba, that's where it all started and this is where we have to all go to. It all
started with the Constitution.

.G ::

M :: No, this is Michael.

.G :: Ok.

.M :: It started .. 1933 was changed everything over into the trust. We have to go to
the beginning, to declare that.

.G :: Can you .. to do that?

.. :: ..

.G :: .. Can you script that to the point where .. Can you script that?

.CW :: Of the Declaration? Yeah, I probably could, yeah.

.G :: No, I'm talking ..

.M :: I agree ..

.G :: If you can script that .. use the Constitution ..

.CW :: I looked at the Constitution and we really did. I have looked at the
Constitution and I didn't really see much in it.

.G :: Yeah, how do you think they're getting away with violating it every day? And
I'm sure everybody on this call is .. violating the Constitution every single day.

.CW :: .. you stick with the Declaration of Independence and allow that to be our,
our Master Trust.

G :: Well, they violate that as well.

.CW :: Yes, but we have to have someplace to start and we chose The Bible and the
Declaration of Independence as our starting point .. 1776.

.G :: ..

.CW :: We figured that that's .. United States citizens would be supportive of.

.G :: Well, yeah, I agree with that. I can agree with that. Um, from your standpoint ..
You have to stick with the .. you .. because they're violating that piece of paper
every day. And you're talking about trust .. piece of paper .. as that piece of paper. I
mean I've dealt with these people a number of time .. you know, the one who run ..
the IRS .. So, I mean I know this .. I come on these calls and I'm not trying .. not
to come on these calls and cause conflict, But I'm telling you what I know ..

.CW ::

.M :: You don't know what we know.

.G :: Yeah ..

.M :: You need to listen.

.CW :: Let's get, let's get back on topic, you know we were talking about before.

.C :: Christian?

.CW :: ..

.C :: Last week .. the Beneficiary, and you came across that when you order them,
uh, to, uh, pay the promissory note with the trust res, the remainder of the .. you
came up with this .. remainder beneficiary .. interest off the note, uh, for whatever
sweat equity or whatever .. that you could give them an order, uh, to the remainder
Beneficiary to return the remainder of the interest and payment, you know, back to
you, but my friend who already with the .. special deposit .. use of a remainder
trust... Well, I was wondering if you know of a remainder trust.

.CW :: Yeah, I think we covered that .. Gilbert ..

.C :: A remainder trust .. charitable trust or remainder trust.

.CW :: I think it was just a remainder trust.

.G :: Charitable.

.C :: .. Charitable .. ?

G :: Yeah, it was a charitable remainder trust. <<silence>> Pretty much a trust that
generates income over the years.

.C ::

.G :: That's charitable remainder trust. ..

.C :: But this is a remainder trust for .. interest off your trust res.

.CW :: But now how are they using it?

G :: Huh?

CW :: How are they using it?

C :: I don't know.

.CW :: You, you, your, you want to get .. from the .. proceed to the signature, right?

.C :: .. Remainder Trust if there's a remainder Beneficiary ..

.? ::

.CW :: .. just as Beneficiary is order it, order the stuff back. ..

.? :: .. and not be concerned about Remainder Beneficiaries?

.CW :: Uh, uh, 8-507 was the entitlement order. .. That's like the Beneficiary ..
entitled to the proceeds. They just have to call it back. And so you're going to get all
the proceeds back and all proceeds generated from it with all the interest. All the
bonds, everything in the background. .. said earlier .. with the counter-claim – the
execution of the .. .. correct that misconstrument .. and then you're going to go after
the interest, or proceeds from the bonds and liquidate the counter-claim, which is
your 8-507 .. also you could do that.

C :: As a Remainder Beneficiary?

.CW :: Well, it's not so much as a Remainder Beneficiary. It's just that, you know, ..
He's supposed to get the disbursement. He hasn't received any disbursement. ..
remainder of the res. .. Say, like a note would .. the house .. remainder of the res
which would be the interest that was generated – all the proceeds that were
generated off that note .. call that back and that goes to the Beneficiary.

C :: And how do you call it back?

CW :: Well, look at 8-507.

.C :: ..

CW :: Order the surrender of the note and all the proceeds therefrom.

.C :: Yeah, but I mean, the remainder .. check .. Grantor?

.CW :: .. is the Beneficiary. .. go see the Beneficiary. The Beneficiary is the

ultimate owner of the trust.

.C :: .. is the same as the original of the Grantor trust?

.CW :: Well, it could be, if it was private but...

.C .. if it was private, ok. And so you have, you have, you have the, you have the
possibility of it getting converted to, uh, statutory trust if things don't go
accordingly in court?

.CW :: Well, you don't want to make it. If you have a private trust, you don't want to
commingle it .. to the public and breach it yourself.

C :: Right.

.CW :: If you want the proceeds, you're gonna have to order the proceeds back, ..
claim them first and then order them back, all under trust. Trustee is not doing the
duty – he's not releasing the funds. .. Beneficiary .. bringing a claim against the
Trustee .. But first you're going to have to give the orders.
.C :: To the Trustee?

.CW :: Give the order to the Trustee to release the distribution .. all the proceeds
therefrom.

.C :: .. a little confused .. you wanna remove the Trustee and make the bank the
Trustee.

.CW :: Uh, right. Now when you merge the titles in one entity .. bank ..
disbursement, he's in breach of trust ..

.C :: Ok, but, but, you know, you wanna, um, remove the Trustee and make the
bank the Trustee.

.CW :: .. you gotta wind up the trust; you gotta do the disbursement. ..

.G :: But at that point .. that the bank has used ..

.CW :: .. the Trustee..

.G :: The Trustee .. This can last a little bit longer, but he has to wind up the ..

.CW :: Yeah, .. in breach, though. .. Beneficiary ..

.G :: Right. Christian, um, so .. when you deal with .. you don't deal with them. I
mean, what I'm trying to get the clarity with everybody on this call as far as trust is
concerned. You, you, you deal from a Cestui Que Trust viewpoint?

.CW :: Well, we're playing both sides. In this particular situation .. on how the bank
was setting it up, and we're treating this note as a special deposit they absconded
with; this was in the trust all along. Uh, the bank was Beneficiary on the Note.
That's why they appointed an escrot agent for closing because they know they
couldn't be Trustee and Beneficiary at the same time .. so that would knock out the
Escrot .. Trustee .. title company, say, .. rescinded the contract and .. do a
reappointment of a Trustee position .. Now they're both entities, the trust terminates
and they should do a disbursement of the funds along with all the proceeds .. so that
the guy keeps the house, say, .. proceeds back. .. the Trustee should do .. they ..
proceeds from and give it back to the Beneficiary.

G :: I, I, I agree with that.

.CW :: He was forgetting the reappointment of the bank to be Trustee .. they're

Beneficiary already .. They do the, the ordering of the surrender of the note back
and the proceeds.

G :: So you do private trust as well as statutory, blended, like it's a one simultaneous
trust that you could set up?
.CW :: Yeah, you could .. separate, so... Some people can't handle ..

.G :: .. There are certain states that will allow you to do it. Well, most states will
actually .. Texas, Delaware, Whyoming .. Wisconsin, that will allow you to ..
foreign business trust. They will allow you to stay private as well as be statutory at
the same time .. act as a title .. private and statutory.

.CW :: Right, right.

.G :: .. paperwork the proper way .. but you could .. them both ways .. You have to
mirror image. If you're fighting a fight, you have to mirror-image the people that
you fight. You know, .. step up. .. Use some of the things .. We are .. They, they
will claim that they are but they're not. .. for themselves because .. so you set up
your trust .. that they set 'em up .. and you go to work on these people. I mean that's
what I guess I'm saying .. Constitution .. and I apologize to ya, brother, for that, but
it's .. We have to .. till we understand that ..

.M :: Gamba... See, what you do is close down the trust, merge the titles, and get the
interest and all the money they made back in our pocket. This is what we're trying
to do. We understand what you've done .. working for you excellently .. funds
they've been trading on the international market back in our pockets, because they
have used our promissory notes to do this ..

.G :: .. my brother ..

.M ::

.G :: .. The reason I come to these conclusions is because they were difficult .. back
to the drawing board, you know. .. rethinking .. and revamping .. And that's what I
did .. People didn't understand that, but it was all trusts, from the beginning, so
that's what I'm trying to tell you .. They're not as strong as you think. .. What
happened when Dorothy and the rest of them .. TIN man .. screaming and .. ?
Remember the guy, the Oz?

.CW ::

.G :: .. midget ..

.M :: We understand that. We understand that...

.G :: People are in fear of their own efforts .. however .. the way you wanna set it up.
You construe the language.

.CW :: Yeah, but we're trying to get the whole ball of wax ..

.G :: .. and I understand that .. leave at .. a lot of people that's understanding that.

I'm sure you do.

.CW :: Well, that's our main focus, really. .. main root ..

.G :: Ok. And I apologize for .. I get a little .. but that's something that's something
that people need to get into.

.CW :: .. problem and all this other stuff .. that's more important one is to pull the
whole root out. .. the whole Cestui Que Trust .. after that.

.S :: Isn't... Hey, Christian, .. offset stuff and the idea of trying to extract funds out
of it is, is maybe not as easy ..

.CW :: Well, to setoff .. and then it's a discharge on the public, and the two don't
mix.

.S :: Yeah ..

.CW :: .. It's merging titles and making a payment, making a payment...

.C :: Christian? .. When we're doing research on the equity .. trust .. any of that
stuff .. gonna be in chambers and there's not gonna be any record of that stuff ..

.CW :: It has to be kept private. ..

.C :: How do you research that?

.CW :: Say again.

.? :: How do you find out anything about that? .. privately from mouth to mouth.

.C ::

.CW ::

.P :: Lewin's is a big help, isn't it?

.CW ::

.? :: .. trust for fifteen years.

.CW :: Yeah, but .. statutory trust under protective assets, you know.

<<dog barks>>

.? :: .. They've already done it.

.CW :: ..

.? :: They've already done it. They're showing it to me. I've seen half of it already.

.CW :: Well, when you get the rest of it let me know. Is Carlos on the call tonight?
Carlos, you out there? <<silence>> Eh, no. <<silence>> Ok. Where were we?

.P :: We were talking about doing the Master Trust. At that place .. the history of
things is that whenever there's been some sort of crime commited by, eh, the Jewish
communities in England because of the relationship that the King has with the, the
Jewish community .. the King has taken them as his property .. the vehicle where
they can use the usury system in banking in the Chrisian land, and it seems to me
that what they've done is that they've created the legal fictions .. license to trade ..
like the Christian doctrine against usury, so they've created the fiction and now
they've got a vehicle to operate outside Christianity.

.CW :: Well, they, they still operate under the private trust, uh, and they tricked us
to come into the debtor/creditor .. trust realm.

.P :: .. trust realm?

.CW :: .. since early times.

.P :: No, it hasn't .. so essentially .. early. .. even...

.CW :: .. we've been operating all this time under private trust.

.P :: Now, if they're doing it .. private trust .. we can't come at it from a public side.
We have to also operate in the private. .. we have to know what we're saying.

.CW :: Right. .. that's where the Lewin book comes in.

.P :: Sure .. and take some years of study, I'm sure, to get it down right.

.CW :: Well I think that once we get past the first twenty pages, the, uh, ...

.P :: the foundations

.CW :: .. multiply. It's getting all those funky terms down.

.C :: Well, where did English Law come from?

.P :: .. people of England when the Romans came ..

C :: Way before then, come on.

.P :: .. Romans had conquered .. and they were using Roman civil law .. already the
laws set up amongst the tribes.

.C :: But didn't the Norsemen come like in 1066, down there?

P :: But that was a thousand years later.

? :: Right. Well, did they change it a little?

.P :: .. they brought Roman Civil Law .. the two law forms .. side by side .. William
the Conqueror didn't want to encroach on the, on the law of the land .. and give the
people of England, you know, their, their Common Law .. because of the conflicts
in the law. And that's how the trusts came about .. They were all .. They just started
to be recognized in the Roman Law form.

C :: Where did Roman Civil Law come from?

CW :: It came from Babylon.

P :: Yes.

.CW :: Roman Law and Lex Mercatoria

.P :: Yeah, Merchant Law.

.CW :: .. two forms of law there.. one was trying to .. and one was trying to take it
from the people?

.P :: .. Roman Civil Law is to get the people under the state.

.CW :: Right.

.P :: Whereas .. the law and the language of England is of the people.

.C :: .. where does private law come from?

.P ::

.CW :: Well, ..

.C :: Well, where does it come from?

.P :: .., whoever the parties are .. they agree upon .. law which is the contract.

.CW :: .. private law is anything goes .. democracy .. then there's really, there is no
law.

.C :: Well, I mean the body of law that .. be in equity

.CW :: Then we're talking moral law – God Law, then.

.C :: .. equity come from?

.P :: .. law of biology .. it's the law of accountability – Universal Law. It, it can't
be, it can't be denied. It exists.
.G :: Equity is fairness. It's fairness, man.

.P ::

.G :: It's fairness. I mean, I mean if you're gonna let the banks steal what you put
into your property ..

P :: But if you agree to it, then it's fair.

.G :: Yeah, then it's fair.

.CW :: .. Lex Mercatoria again.

.C :: ..

.> :: It's Law Merchant – UCC.

.G :: .. name that they used way back, way back ..

.M :: .. It's a Talmudical Law, it's a Talmudical Law, Jacob ..

.CW :: And they got it from Babylon.

.C :: .. from Babylon.

.? ::

.CW :: .. Then Rome brought it to England and England brought it to America.

That's the tracing of it.

. ? ::

.CW :: .. Rome, that's Consantinopole .. There's your Catholic Church.

.? :: ..

.CW :: Yes.

.P :: He was an Emperor.

.? :: So, Pete, may you know .. most secret law – that is Druidic Law. ..

.P :: Druidic?

.? :: from the Druids.

.P :: That's from India .. based around Hinduism.

.? :: Really?
.P :: which is Natural Law again. ..

.G :: Pretty much.

.? :: .. That's law and they agreed to this.

.P :: .. Natural Law ..

.G :: .. That's law and they agreed to this as a nation ..

.C :: .. enemy law ..

.G :: .. hamburger ..

.G :: .. you don't like a hamburger, don't go in there .. if you don't like hamburgers
then don't go in.

.C :: .. private equitable trust .. to be up on then is then the UCC.

.G :: That means you have to know how to build your own McDonald's to make
your own hamburger ..

.P :: .. UCC .. under trust, because equity is the overriding law form, when we can
prove it, and operate in it.

.P :: .. how to use it then it's mute.

CW :: Well, Jacob, UCC is debtor/creditor – it's commerce.

.J :: .. It's the opposite of equity trust, right?

.CW :: Yes. UCC is public – debtor/creditor.

.J :: .. like water and oil or day and night.

.CW :: .. terminate the trust and now the .. comes forward ..

.G :: Now thing .. not to cut you off .. again .. don't use the Uniform Commercial
Code as it, as it, as it relates to, uh. Use the state commercial code .. my opinion ..
don't use the Uniform commercial code ..

.CW :: No, we just use the intent.

.G :: .. I would use the state .. don't use the Uniform Commercial Code .. maybe the
Texas Uniform Commercial Code, or .. that particular state code .. all the same ..
to have better results than .. as a whole.

.J :: I, I'm not as smart as you guys, but the way I see it...
.G :: I talked to you the other day. You seem to be pretty smart.

.J :: Don't we have to exhaust the state remedy before were allowed to go to the
Federal Court?

.G :: .. into court .. I mean ..

.J :: So when he says .. state's commercial code, you're forced to ..

.G :: .. to the court .. how much of a .. party .. Which one are you? Are you ..
weak-willed people .. which one are you?

.CW :: We're just going into court to get a DIB hearing so we could get them to ..
recognize the termination of the trust.

.J :: I think what happened with my friend was that .. the attorney didn't show up.
And, uh, it appears to me that that I was looking for that .. as a witness.

.CW :: Then you won. .. certified it

.J :: Certified?

.CW :: Yeah, he won if they didn't show up. He should have won on a default.

.J :: Um, .. actually he said it got closed.

.CW : Then he won.

.J :: .. won.

CW :: He had his DIB hearing ; he had his recognition.

.J :: That would've been a DIB hearing ..

.CW :: Yeah, the court's a DIB hearing.

.J :: .. but no-one showed up.

.CW :: .. That's fine. He won by default. The court certified it, closed the case
down.

.J :: Yup.

.CW :: Public witness. ..

.J ::

.CW :: .. That's all it is.

.CW :: Public witness ..

.J :: Public side recognition of whatever he did.

.J :: Yeah.

.CW :: Ok. Anybody else? Any questions .. ?

? :: Christian, I'll put .. if possible .. get in touch with you?

.CW :: .. get in touch with Eric or JC there and, because I talk with them .. through
them .. We could pass your contact information ..

.G :: .. together ..

.CW :: .. much time this week ..

.G :: .. I'm busy .. put it together I'll contact Eric tomorrow .. we can do this.

.CW :: Ok.

? :: Can you hear me?

.CW :: Very low. Speak up.

.? :: Oh, you can't hear me, uh? ..

.CW :: Carlos? <<silence>> Is Carlos out there? <<silence>> Ok? Anybody? One,
two, three. .. <<laughing>>

.P :: .. , Christian.

J :: Yeah, Christian. Thank you kindly.

CW :: Ok, everybody. Have a great night.