Mid-Atlantic

• Privacy
• Asset Protection
• The ability to engage in any lawful business anywhere
• Diversification of assets and activities into separate "watertight compartments"
• Rendering yourself virtually judgment-proof
• Elimination of probate and estate taxes
• Reduction or elimination of attorney's and accountant's fees.
• The elimination of ‘Capital Gains Taxes’.
• Reduction of time-wasting, bureaucratic reporting.
• The elimination of business licenses
• Greatly reduce income taxes
• Constitutional protections

            /         Exchange         \

[PROPERTY]  ----------------------------  [CERTIFICATE(S) OF

            \                          /   CAPITAL UNITS]

• The Pure Contract Trust is a contractual agreement. It contains an offer and an acceptance between competent parties of legal age - the Creator and Exchanger, who enter into the basic contract that creates the trust. They also appoint the Trustees.
• Consideration is paid between the Creator and Exchanger.
• The first part of the Pure Contract Trust consists of eight Stipulations. These Stipulations provide the basic legal foundation of the Contract, based on the U.S. Constitution, Common Law, and certain Court Decisions.
• Property can be exchanged into the Trust in return for certificate(s) of capital units. (Though capital units are not shares, they are similar to shares.
• The Pure Contract-Trust is irrevocable.
• The Pure Contract-Trust has a legal object or purpose.
• The Pure Contract-Trust has a termination date, but is renewable.
• The Pure Contract-Trust involves no grantors and no gifts.
• There are no beneficiaries and no certificates of beneficial interest.
• The capital units are non-voting.
• The certificates of capital units confer neither legal nor equitable title to the trust property, nor any voice in the management and control thereof.
• The certificates of capital units have no determinable value.
• The Pure Contract Trust has a profit motive.
• The Pure Contract Trust can be used for a variety of purposes, including, but not limited to, owning property and other assets, owning one or more businesses, managing or running one or more businesses, and providing consultation or other services.

• The trust contract is filed with the county recorder and becomes a public record. This part of the trust documentation contains a record of initially exchanged property, such as "a desk and four chairs."
• Personal assets can subsequently be exchanged into the trust. Such exchanges are recorded in the trust minutes, a private set of documents completely under the managing director's control.
• The public record contains no references to you as managing director. Yet, as managing director you have complete practical control over the assets and affairs of the trust. Your appointment as managing director is included in the trust minutes, a set of private documents over which you have complete control.
• In the same way you can manage one or more businesses owned by such trusts.
• The county recorder filing number can sometimes be used to open bank accounts and investment accounts. These accounts can be set up so they don't have any "number" that can be easily linked to you. Whatever the bank reports is about the trust not about you.
• You can close all bank accounts bearing your personal name and social security number.
• This structure maximizes your privacy.
• It enables you to organize your affairs so you pay as little or as much tax as you choose.
• Through the trust minutes you appoint successor managing director(s) who take over control of the trust, its assets, and affairs, according to conditions you specify, under the direction of the certificate holder (s). The trust need never "die" - so there is no probate and never any estate taxes.
• Professionals such as doctors and dentists can reduce or eliminate their need for liability insurance. By exchanging their assets and practices into Pure Contract Trusts, they reduce their own ownership to little or nothing. Different assets can be exchanged into separate trusts - individual "watertight compartments."
• No attorney is necessary to set up the Pure Contract Trust structure. In fact, practically all U.S. attorneys are statutory attorneys. They swear an oath to uphold a State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. Most attorneys know little Constitutional/Common Law. They are unfamiliar with Pure Contract Trusts.
• Every aspect of the Pure Contract Trust is lawful. As you will see in the following pages, the Pure Contract Trust is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, many Supreme Court decisions and other court decisions.
• It is unlikely that the "ruling elite" will change the rules in the near future to disallow such trusts. It is precisely through similar trusts that many of the richest families of the "ruling elite" - the Rockefellers, Kennedy’s, Hunts, etc. - have conducted their affairs in privacy, while reducing or eliminating taxes. The "ruling elite" do not shoot themselves in the foot!
• A doctor recently commented, "The protection of liability alone is beyond my dreams, not to speak of the other benefits that the Pure Contract Trust system offers, such as tax control and no need for a will, nor any worry about probate and inheritance taxes, as they are neatly avoided by the trust arrangement. It was also great to see that property could be exchanged into the trust without a hitch and no sales or excise tax being charged by the County, which surprised me. I strongly recommend the Pure Trust to anyone in a professional or business position. No corporation can protect the principals like a Pure Contract Trust does. The rewards and benefits are enormous... "

(A) CREATOR/EXCHANGOR _______\ (B) PURE CONTRACT

     & TWO TRUSTEES          /    TRUST DOCUMENT

           |                            |

(C) SEPERATE, PRIVATE               FILED WITH

    CONTRACT APPOINTS             COUNTY RECORDER

           |

           |

           |

          \|/

   (D) MANAGING   _____\ (E) TRUST  _____\ (F) CERTIFICATE

     DIRECTORS(S)      /    MINUTES      /      HOLDER(S)

• "It [The U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456.
• "Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) - Justice Bronson; and State v. Simon, 2 Spears 761, 767 (1884) - Justice O'Neal.
• The U.S. adopted the Common Laws of England with the Constitution. Coldwell v. Hill, 176 S.E. 383 (1934).
• "The United States is entirely a creature of the Federal Constitution, its power and authority has no other source and it can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
• "The rights and liberties of the citizens of the United States are not protected by custom and tradition alone, they are preserved from the encroachments of government by express/enumerated provisions of the Federal Constitution." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
• "The prohibitions of the Federal Constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be nullified by the executive or by the executive and the senate combined." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
• "Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
• "Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution." Eisner v. McComber, 252 U.S. 189 at 207.

• "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
• "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2nd 906 at 910.
• "Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381; and Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471.

• "No State shall... pass any bill... or law impairing the obligation of contracts... " U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10 (1787).
• A trust is a legal entity. Burnett v. Smith, 240 S.E. 1007 (1922).
• A Trust has a legal right to own property, to sue in its own name and be sued. Goldwater v. Oltman, 292 P 624.
• A Pure Trust is a contractual relationship in Trust form. Berry v. McCourt, 204 N.E. 2d 235 (1965).
• A Trust organization created under the U.S. constitutional right of contract cannot be abridged. The agreement, when executed, creates a Federal organization not under the laws passed by any of the several (State) legislatures. Crocker v. MacCloy, 649 U.S. Sup. 39 at 270 .
• A Pure Contract Trust is not subject to legislative control. The U.S. Supreme Court holds that Trust relationship comes under the realm of equity, based upon the common law, and is not subject to legislative restrictions as are corporations and other organizations created by legislative authority. Elliot v. Freeman, 220 U.S. 178 (1911).

• A Pure Trust is established by contract, and any law or procedure in its operation, denying or obstructing contract rights, impairs contract obligation and is therefore violative of the U.S. Constitution. Burnett v. Smith, 240 S.W. 1007 (1922).
• The creator of a Pure Trust may mold and give it any shape he chooses, and he or the trustees may provide for the appointment of a successor or successors to the trustee or trustees, upon such terms as he may choose to impose. "It is established by legal precedent that pure trusts are lawful, valid business organizations." Shaw v. Paine, 12 Allen (Mass) 293; and Harwood v. Tracy. 118 MO. 631, 24 SW 214.

• "It is established by legal precedent that pure trusts are lawful, valid business organizations." Baker v. Stern, 216 NW 147, 58 A.L.R. 462.
• A trust created and recorded in one state is valid in all states. Newhall v. McGill, 212 P 2d 764.
• The trust is not limited to any given state in conducting business. Shirk v. Lafayette, 52 F 957.
• The Pure Trust can engage in any kind of lawful business that individuals, partnerships, or corporations might engage in, as evident from the wide variety of business pursuits for which Pure Trusts have been organized: Operating and management of apartment houses - Helvering v. Coleman-Gilbert Assn., 296 U.S. 369; Oil well development - Helvering v. Cones, 296 U.S. 375; Real estate business - Crocker v. Malley, 249 U.S. 23; Purchasing, improving, holding and selling land and buildings and operating an office building - Elliot v. Freeman, 220 U.S. 178 (1911); Production of motion pictures - Goldwater v. Oltman, 210 Cal. 408; Building and equipping racing speedway - Chas. Nelson Co. v. Morton, 106 Cal. App. 144; Real estate business - Schumann-Heink v. Folsom, 328 Ill., 321.

• "A pure trust is not illegal if formed for the express purpose of avoiding taxation." Weeks v. Sibley, (D.C.) 269 F 155.
• "Dignity of contract cannot be set aside because a tax benefit results either by design or accident." Edwards v. Commissioner, 415 F 2d 578, 582, 10th Cir. (1969).
• "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible. He is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the Treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible, everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." Helvering v. Gregory, 60 Federal (2nd) 809. Judge Learned Hand.

• If property received in exchange has no fair market value, it does not represent taxable gain to the recipient. Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404.
• Subscription to stock in Common Law Trust was held not a gift but an investment. Palmer et. al. v. Taylor et. al., 269 S.W. 996 (1925).
• Gift tax applies only to transfers by gift with less than full and adequate consideration. Tyson v. Commissioner, 146 F 2d. 50 (1944).

• "The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a Constitutional as well as a Common Law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry." 48 Am. Jur. 2nd., Section 2 at Pg. 80.
• "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right secured by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsy, 319 U.S. 105.
• "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
• "The cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights. Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service Agents." U.S. v. Dickerson, 413 F 2d 1116.
• "In numerous cases where the IRS has sought enforcement of its summons pursuant to statute (26 U.S.C. 7402), courts have held that a taxpayer may refuse production of personal books, and records by assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination." Hill v. Philpott, 445 F 2d 144. 146; and Stuart v. U.S. 416 F 2d 459; and U.S. v. Kleckner, 273 F Supp 251.
• Treasury Department regulations, construing laws relating to taxation, are not conclusive. Doubts in taxation statutes are resolved in favor of taxpayer. Hellmich v. Hellman, 18 F 2d 239 (1927).

• A Trust, for probate avoidance, is a lawful, irrevocable, separate legal entity. Shaw v. Paine, 12 Allen (Mass.) 293; and Harwood v. Tracy, 118 Mo. 631, 24 S.W. 214.

• Succeeding trustees take title to the property subject to the same conditions as in the hands of the original trustees. Bisbee v. McKay, 102 N.E. 327.
• Federal estate tax is an excise on transfer of interests in property that occurs as a result of death. Old Kent Bank & Trust Co. v. U.S., 349 F Supp. 792 (1972).

• The Trustees of a Trust have all the powers necessary to carry out the obligations which they assume. Their books and records are not subject to review or subpoena. Smith v. Morse, 2 CA 524; Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 618; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385.

• The trustees of a trust have all the power necessary to carry out the obligations they assume. Their consulting services and records are not subject to review or subpoena. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 618; and Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385.
• The Court will support the trustees in carrying out the terms of their trust contract and agreement. Clew v. Jamison, 182 U.S. 461, 21 S. Ct. 645.
• Concerning privacy, a trust organization created under the U.S. Constitutional right of contract cannot be abridged. The agreement, when executed, creates a federal organization not under the laws passed by any of the several [State and Congress] legislatures. U.S. v. Carruthers, 219 F2s 21 (1925); and Waterman v. MacKenzie, 138 US 252 (1981).

• "There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905); and Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich. 573, 584.

• Trust property cannot be held under attachment nor sold upon execution, for the trustees' personal debts. Clew v. Jamison, 182 U.S. 461, 21 S. Ct. 645.
• Personal liability of a Trustee cannot be enforced against the trust property. Mayo v. Moritz, 24 N.E. 1083 (1980).
• Trustees and beneficiaries cannot be held liable for debts incurred by the trust. Hussey v. Arnold, 70 N.E. 87 (1904).