Trusts - MyEvilTwin.pdf

38 ANTISHYSTER Volume 8, No. 1 www.antishyster.com 1-800-477-5508 972-418-8993

We’ve heard so many stories ofclearly abusive behavior by our courts,that there is little doubt that our gov-ernment is operating in a capacity quitedifferent from that mandated by ourConstitution. Whatever this non-con-stitutional capacity is, it allows govern-ment to “legally” ignore the unalien-able rights our Constitution guaranteedto protect. However, the nature of thisnon-constitutional capacity is unclear.Some researchers believe the govern-ment is operating under martial law,others say admiralty, others say bank-ruptcy, still others argue the Constitu-tion has been effectively suspended un-der the Emergency War Powers Act of1917 and then 1933.

“Trust Fever” identifies an excit-ing new theory to explain how govern-ment may be bypassing the Constitu-tion to treat We The People as subjectsrather than Sovereigns. In short, I sus-pect that the government uses trusts tosecretly cause you and I to be trusteesor beneficiaries who are legally obli-gated to obey the rules of these govern-ment trusts, even though these trustsmay impose obligations contrary to theconstitutional principles.

At first, the “Trust Fever” theoryseems so complex and foreign to ourexpectations of law, that it is hard tograsp and easily dismissed as lunacy(which it may be). Nevertheless, sinceI published my first speculation on“Trust Fever” in Volume 7 No. 1 andagain in Volume 7 No. 4, my confidencein this theory has continued to grow. Imay be mistaken, but for the first time

in fourteen years of trying to make senseof the judicial system, I believe we arewithin months or having an accurateunderstanding of “how they’re doin’ itto us”.

Once you understand the funda-mentals of trusts, the logic of “TrustFever” is so easy to understand it’s al-most irresistible. These fundamentalsinclude:

* Title to trust property is alwaysdivided between trustees and beneficia-ries.

* Trustees retain legal title (con-trol) over trust property; beneficiariesretain equitable title (use). For ex-ample, the relationship of a father, son,and new car can figuratively illustratethe trust structure. The car is propertyof the trust; title to the car is dividedbetween the father/trustee who “owns”title to the car and controls it and theson/beneficiary owns nothing but equi-table title – the right to use the car. Al-though the son/beneficiary gets to usethe car, the father/trustee has the realpower since he alone can sell the carand determine when the son/beneficiarycan use it.

* Beneficiaries and trustees mustbe exclusive categories; beneficiariescan never be trustees in the same trust,and vice versa.

* Because beneficiaries have nolegal title, they also have no legal rights.If they have an issue concerning trustproperty they want heard in court, thecourt will administer their case in Eq-uity, not Law. (See “In Law or Equity”,this issue.)

* People can be designated as“beneficiaries” in a particular trustwithout their knowledge. As beneficia-ries, they may be subject to certain trustrequirement and obligations which arecontrary to constitutional principles.Because ignorance is no excuse in theeyes of the law, we are presumed to beable to tell if we are beneficiaries fromthe structures of our legal relationships.This means that any of us might be ben-eficiaries without our knowledge andtherefore obligated to obey trust rulesthat we have never heard of or imag-ined.

In sum, these fundamentals cre-ate an opportunity for governmenttrusts to impose non-constitutional ob-ligations on beneficiaries and unex-pected legal requirements on trustees.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible toadequately introduce and illustratetrust fundamentals in each “Trust Fe-ver” article. Each one hopefully buildson the last, so if you haven’t read theprevious “Trust Fever” articles, thisarticle (which is somewhat difficult tounderstand anyway) may seem almostincomprehensible.

Nevertheless, try to read and un-derstand this article since “Trust Fe-ver” may be the most important inves-tigatory path we’ve travelled in the lastseven years. I may be mistaken, but Iam extremely confident and optimisticthat by the end of 1998, “Trust Fever”will finally expose how our governmentreally works. I think we’re about tobreak the s.o.b.s.

My “Evil Twin”

by Alfrby Alfrby Alfrby Alfrby Alfred Adasked Adasked Adasked Adasked Adask

TTTTTrust Fever IVrust Fever IVrust Fever IVrust Fever IVrust Fever IV

ANTISHYSTER Volume 9, No. 2 www.antishyster.com 1-800-477-5508 972-418-8993 39

The “evil twin” is a fictional plotdevice that’s centuries old. The goodguy (in this case, me, Alfred) is living afairly normal, fairly happy life whenstrange things start to happen. Peoplestart reporting that they’ve seen mesomewhere – even though I know Iwasn’t in that location ever (or at leastnot when they say they saw me). Thenmy property starts to disappear. Some-one – who reportedly looks just like me– starts withdrawing money from mybank account. Suddenly I’m facingfines, taxes, and even jail sentences notonly for “crimes” I didn’t commit, andworse, for “crimes” that aren’t evenmentioned in the Constitution. Surely,there must be some mistake!

Although I’ve yet to actually seethe person who’s responsible for mybizarre problems – no matter how crazyit sounds – I grow increasingly un-nerved, suspicious, and finally con-vinced that somebody who looks justlike me is trying to take my place! Ishare my suspicions with my family, myneighbors . . .with the police who wantto arrest me for “his” crimes . . . evenwith IRS agents who demand I pay“his” taxes! I try explaining that theperpetrator is somebody who looks likeme and even uses my name – but it’snot me!

Of course, nobody believes me.You all think I’m nuts and, eventually,even I start to doubt my sanity.

My life becomes increasinglyconfusing until I find some clues in mybirth certificate and my Social Securityaccount that make me wonder if mymother had secretly given birth to anearly identical twin brother when I wasborn. But, if so, she must’ve given himaway because, even as an infant, he wasobviously unnatural, perhaps evil. Butnow, years later, he’s baaack! Andworse, it’s increasingly obvious that thiswill be a fight to finish – him or me!

OK – in truth, the confrontationwith my “evil twin” is not that obviousor dramatic. But this confrontationseems not only real, but far more com-plex than the usual “evil twin” storiesbecause maybe I’m not be the only onewho has an “evil twin” – maybe everycitizen of the United States also has hisown “evil twin”!

As usual, I haven’t found muchproof to support my suspicions, but Ihave seen some indirect evidence of“evil twins” in case law and IRS regu-lations.

Representative capacityFor example, in 1975, the Texas

Court of Civil Appeals decided the Grif-fin v. Ellinger case (530 S.W. 2d 329)and illustrated an underlying principlethat may offer an important clue to my“evil twin’s” modus operandi:

Mr. Percy Griffin was presidentof Greenway Building Co. Inc. (a cor-poration) and had every right to signGreenway corporate checks. About1974, he signed three checks in his rep-resentative capacity of “president” onGreenway’s corporate bank account toone of his suppliers, a drywall contrac-tor named O.B. Ellinger. All threechecks bounced.

Rather than sue the Greenwaycorporation (on whose bank account thechecks were drawn), Mr. Ellinger (thedrywall contractor) sued Greenway’spresident, Mr. Griffin, personally.

Mr. Griffin argued that since thechecks were lawfully written on hiscorporation’s bank account, the corpo-

ration was the principal and thereforeresponsible for the debt, while he, thecorporation president, was not. Mr.Ellinger responded that according toTexas Business and Commerce Code §3.403, anyone who signs an “instru-ment” (virtually any legal document,not just checks) as representative for an-other entity or principal – but fails toidentify his representative capacitywhen he signs the instrument– becomespersonally liable for whatever obliga-tion was established on that instrument.

As Greenway president, Mr. Grif-fin was a representative of theGreenway corporation (a separate le-gal entity). According to Texas law, toavoid personal responsibility when herepresented Greenway, Mr. Griffin hadto include the word “president” imme-diately before or after his signaturewhenever he signed corporation checksor “instruments”.

Since Mr. Griffin had signed allthree of the rubber checks without iden-tifying his representative capacity as the“president” of Greenway corporation,the court ruled that Mr. Griffin was per-sonally liable and ordered him to per-sonally pay the debts created on thosethree checks to Mr. Ellinger.

NEVER FEAR THE IRS AGAINBy Richard E. Clark

A 272 Page Defensive Handbook For DealingWith The Internal Revenue Service

��Learn how to stop a levy��Learn how to stop a lien��Learn how to remove a lien��Learn how to abate penalties��Learn how to abate Interest��LEARN THE IMPORTANCE OF REGULATIONS

Only $29.95 plus $4.00 shipping & handling.

We accept: M/C, VISA, American Express and Discover.Call our toll free No. 888-321-2979.

Visit our Home Page at: www.neverfearirs.comOr E Mail us at: [email protected]

Also available at amazon.com

T. JEFFERSON PRESS

10300 N. Central Expressway Suite # 530 Dallas, TX 75231


are corporation presidents liable for cor-poration debts?)

But then I talked to people inother parts of the country who told methis same principle also applied in theirstates. Therefore, I now suspect thatthe principle enunciated in Griffin (fail-ure to identify one’s representative ca-pacity creates personal liability) may beuniversal throughout the U.S.

More importantly, since the Grif-fin case repeatedly refers to “bills”,“notes”, “drafts” and “instruments”, itappears that the Griffin principle mightapply to any number of documents.Drivers licenses, for example. Traffictickets. Maybe even IRS 1040 forms.

UPPER-CASE namesI’ve seen one or two exceptions

but, generally, all legal documents, li-censes, and court cases identify the prin-cipal party(ies) with an all UPPER-CASE name. Look at your driver’s li-cense, your social security card, thesubpoena’s you received from trafficcourt, and label on the 1040 form the IRSsends you every year. Government seemsadamant that you will be identified in anall UPPER-CASE name. In my case, thatall upper-case name is “ALFRED N.ADASK”.

Government’s determination to

use upper-case names is peculiar sinceit violates a fundamental principle oftypography (the study of how differentfonts and text sizes can enhance or di-minish a document’s ability to commu-nicate). One of typography’s hard-and-fast rules is that “readability” is dimin-ished whenever text is printed in allupper-case letters (“ALFRED N.ADASK”) and increased when text isprinted in a mix of upper and lower caseletters - as in the “capitalized”, propername “Alfred Norman Adask”. So, ifupper-case text is hard to read (andtherefore increases the likelihood ofmisunderstanding or inaccurate dataentry) why does government insist onusing upper-case names?

Enter my “evil twin”Perhaps the all-upper case name

(“ALFRED N. ADASK”) identifies anartificial entity (corporation or trust)with a legal existence that is separateand independent from that of its fleshand blood namesake – me – “AlfredNorman Adask”. In fact, I suspect thatALFRED (the artificial entity) is the “eviltwin” for Alfred (the real, flesh and bloodperson). Similarly, if your real, Chris-tian name was “John Paul Doe”, your“evil twin’s” name might be JOHN P.DOE.

I can’t yet confirm whether theartificial entity “ALFRED N. ADASK”is a corporation, trust, or something elseI’ve yet to discover. However, my guttells me my “evil twin” ALFRED is atrust, and I, Alfred, am that trust’strustee. In any case, I am convincedthat I, Alfred Norman Adask, the flesh-and-blood man and spiritual being whowrites this article, am not ALFRED N.ADASK (my “evil twin” trust). Al-though “Alfred” and “ALFRED” maybe intimately related, I believe we aretwo separate legal entities with two en-tirely different sets of rights and duties.

Creator-creation relationshipsSo why did government “create”

my evil, artificial twin “ALFRED”when they already had me (Alfred)? AmI somehow inadequate? Or am I some-how superior? The answer can be foundin the ancient rules for the “creator-cre-ation” relationships which lie at the

Presumably, Mr. Griffin hadsigned hundreds of other Greenwaycorporation checks without identifyinghis representative capacity as “presi-dent” and never had any problem be-ing held personally liable for the debton the check. So long as the Greenwaychecks cleared the bank, there was noreason for any Greenway supplier tocare whether the checks were signed by“president” Griffin or Donald Duck.

The Griffin decision implies that,by identifying our “representative ca-pacity” on any instruments we sign, wenotify the world that we do not volun-tarily accept personal liability for thedebt or obligation agreed to on that in-strument. Conversely, if we sign instru-ments on behalf of another legal entity(perhaps a corporation, trust, or evenminor child) without identifying our“representative capacity”, we implicitlyaccept personal liability for theinstrument’s obligations.

Implications & applicationsHmph. Pretty strange. In fact, at

first, I assumed the principle underly-ing the Griffin v Ellinger case (failureto identify one’s representative capac-ity creates personal liability) was sostrange that it must be unique to weirdol’ Texas jurisprudence. (Where else

Law and the ConstitutionGovernmentRight to PrivacyNew World OrderMasonic ReligionTaxes & IRSProphecyVietnamUnited NationsAmerican HistoryTheocratic Money

Republic Video ClearinghouseMy people are destroyed for lack of knowledge – Hosea 4:6

Outcome Based EducationMedical

SovereigntyGun Control

SurvivalMoney

Y2KEnvironmentVaccination

2nd AmendmentTactical Training

Many Other Topics Available

New Topics: Y2K: “The Millennium Bug”

Videos as low as $12.00!! 6 hr. multi-topic tapes $25.00

See our catalog at www.republicvideo.com or send 3 dollar

bills to: P.O. 268, Shady Cove, OR 97539-268


heart of every faith and political sys-tem because they provide the ultimatefoundation for all personal rights andownership of property.

For example, if I were to chal-lenge your ownership of a piece of land,how can you prove you own it? You’dlook at the deed and it would showwhere the previous owner sold it to you.OK, but what if I argue the previousowner didn’t have legal title to the prop-erty and therefore couldn’t sell it to you,and therefore you couldn’t have legaltitle? Well, you’d conduct a deeper“title search” and show that the previ-ous owner bought legal title from anearlier owner. If I continued to chal-lenge the next previous owner’s title,and the one before him, and the onebefore him, sooner or later we get pastall the private owners and reach the titleclaimed by your state, then the title firstclaimed by the federal government,then the title first claimed by some for-eign government (like Great Britain,Spain, or France). But since these origi-nal governments were monarchies (usu-ally) legitimized by the CatholicChurch, at bottom, the legal title to vir-tually all land in the Western World isbased on a grant from God (the land’sCreator) as certified (usually) by theCatholic Church.

A similar chain of reasoning willprobably be found in virtually all tribes

and societies. They may claim a differ-ent god, but ultimately, they own legaland exclusive title to “their” land becausetheir god-creator gave it to them (or atleast to the guy they bought it from).

In the Western world, the Creatoris God, and therefore we and all theworld, belong to Him as property. Godcreated Adam and Eve, and let ‘em dopretty much as they pleased – excepteat from that apple tree. When Adamand Eve (the creations) broke theCreator’s laws, they were condemnedto leave the Garden of Eden and becomemortal (suffer death). That seems likea pretty stiff penalty for eating just oneitty-bitty apple (it’s not like thereweren’t plenty more). Besides, if Godreally didn’t want ‘em to eat the apples,why’d he plant that tree in the Garden?

In fact, Adam and Eve couldvoice hundreds of arguments and ratio-nalizations against God’s penalty foreating his apples, but they’d be wast-ing their time. Creations have abso-lutely no rights relative to their Creator,unless the Creator has specificallygranted them. And even then, the Cre-ator can take those rights back.

Like God, lots of us are “cre-ators”. Artists and writers create pic-tures or books and therefore own theircreations absolutely. I am the creatorof this article. I therefore own it andcan publish it, tear it up, or sell it to

someone else, as I alone see fit. His-torically, parents were viewed as theearthly creators of their children andtherefore owned their kids and could dowith them as they pleased.

In essence, the creator-creationrules boil down to this: The creator ab-solutely owns (has legal title to) his cre-ations and can do with them as he alonesees fit.

The reason creator-creationprinciples are especially important toAmericans is found in our Declara-tion of Independence (1776): “Wehold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal, that theyare endowed by their Creator with cer-tain unalienable Rights, that amongthese are Life, Liberty, and the pur-suit of Happiness.” Our entire politi-cal and legal system is based on theprinciples that: 1) each of us is cre-ated by God; 2) each of us is createdequal; and 3) each of us is endowedby our Creator with certain unalien-able Rights.

Although we recognize our sta-tus as creations of God, we tend toignore our primary duty to obey Hislaws. However, we can surely remem-ber God when it comes to claiming ourRights (His gift to us). First, since allmen are created equal, with an equalallotment of Rights, no other man canhave a superior claim to any of myGod-given Rights and therefore, noman can deprive me of those Rights.Second, since We The People created

PACIFIC RIM TRADING

Gold, Silver, Platinum,& Numismatic Coins· Low Prices, Always Competitive (Discounts for Volume)· Family Owned and Operated No Commissions· Complimentary Newsletter (Populist, Christian Perspective)· Published Price Sheet· Fast, Confidential Delivery (No Computer Records Kept)

Call (800) 225-31263930 Guide Meridian, Suite H

Bellingham, WA 98226

LargestMost Complete

PreparednessShowroom-Warehouses

in the NorthwestFood - Water - Electricity - Heating

Cooking - Health - Lightingand Much, Much More . . . .

American Family Network6750 SW 111th Ave., Beaverton, OR 97008 Phone:

(503) 672-7104 - Fax: (503) 672-7104


the Constitution and the subsequentfederal and state governments that arebased on the Constitution, those gov-ernments are our “creations” and sub-ject to our laws and requirements andshall serve us as we should serve God.We, however, as creators of the Con-stitution and resultant government (ourcreations) are not subject togovernment’s laws – unless, as “cre-ators” we volunteer to be so.

It’s important to note that whileGod (our Creator) can reclaim theRights he gave us (His creations) at anytime, no other man (our equal) or gov-ernment (our creation) can deprive usof our God-given Rights. However, wecan voluntarily and individually surren-der some or all of those Rights. Youcan’t take my Rights, but I (as owner)can voluntarily give ‘em away. In fact,I can even accidently, unknowingly give‘em away – a reality government ex-ploits heavily.

Have we ever given away any ofour God-given Rights? Sure. The Con-stitution is a collective agreement by WeThe People to surrender a limited num-ber of our Rights to government. ButWe The People retained all of our otherunenumerated rights in the 9th Amend-ment (as well all of our undelegatedpowers in the 10th Amendment).

Have any of us ever surrenderedany more of our Rights? Sure. I soldan article that I’d written/created. Basedon that sale, I transferred title to mywork to another party. By buying myarticle they became the article’s de facto“creator” and could publish it, destroyit, or resell it, as they saw fit. But ifthey published the article and someone

challenged their “ownership”, they’dhave to trace their “ownership” back tome, the article’s creator, to “prove”ownership.

In a similar sense, virtually allproperty is ultimately traceable(through a title search) back to its cre-ator. Look at the VIN number on yourcar – if your car is stolen and recov-ered, they can retrace the entire chainof owners from the car’s manufacturer/cre-ator, to the dealer, to the first buyer, to allsubsequent purchasers of the “used” car.

The creator-creation principle isfar more than a charming Biblical myth;it provides the bedrock on which virtu-ally all civilizations, societies, and le-gal systems are built.

A revolution of Biblical proportionsOK, that’s a series of semi-inter-

esting historical factoids, but what’vethey got to do with my “evil twin” hy-pothesis?

Simply this: If I, Alfred NormanAdask, am a creation of God and a cre-ator of government, then my govern-ment-creation has no power over meunless I consent to give it that power.But what if government were able tocreate an artificial entity called “AL-FRED N. ADASK”? As government’screation, (“ALFRED”) would be totallysubject to the rules, regulations andtaxes imposed by its creator, the gov-ernment.

Then, if government could foolor lure me (Alfred) into believing that Iwas ALFRED, government could re-verse the creator-creation relationshipand become Sovereign over We ThePeople rather than their servant.

By tricking Alfred into “becom-ing” ALFRED, my government-cre-ation would become master over me,its own creator. The servant wouldbecome the master. The creation wouldown the creator. The “evil twin” woulddominate the good. If this reversal has,in fact, taken place, it ranks right upthere with the Philosopher’s Stone(which allegedly turned lead into gold)as one of the most extraordinary actsof political and spiritual legerdemainthe world has ever imagined.

Reprinted by permission of Jim Ridings. There are six, 48-page issues of “The Cheese Weasel” available for $2.95 each, postpaid, from Side Show Comics, POB 464, Herscher, Ill. 60941.

��

��

��

��

�� !"��

#$�%&'%�� %�(()&�*

��

��

��

+��,��

-./�01�,��

,��)�2��34..-


How could it happen?If you have a computer, read the

licenses attached to virtually all the soft-ware you purchase. For example, if youread a Microsoft license, you’ll see that:

1) The license is an agreement (acontract) between you and Microsoft;

2) The software “is licensed, notsold.” You never own the software,Microsoft does – you merely get to useit;

3) You express your willingnessto accept and be bound by the license/agreement/ contract (without your sig-nature) by installing (using) the soft-ware on your computer.

4) Your status under this licenseis that of an “End-User”. As such, youcan use the software, but you can’t rent,lease, lend or resell it. You can, how-ever, “transfer” the software to anyonewho agrees to accept the terms of thelicense.

5) Microsoft can terminate the li-cense/ agreement anytime they find outyou (the End-User) have failed to per-form according to the license require-ments.

Since you get to use the software(you have equitable title) but Microsoftalways owns it (has legal title), it’s clearthat title to the software property is di-vided, and therefore the software licenseis a trust in which Microsoft is thetrustee, and you are the “end-user”(beneficiary).

If software “licenses” are trusts,it follows that other “licenses” (likedrivers licenses, fishing licenses or li-censes to practice law) are also trusts.If so, in these state-issued licenses(trusts), I suspect the state (or one of itsagencies) holds legal title to the privi-lege or property “licensed” while theperson named on the license (the “lic-ensee”) has equitable title (possessionand use) of the licensed property.

Wheels within wheelsAll trusts must divide title to trust

property into two forms: Legal and Eq-uitable. Legal title (control and legalrights) to the property goes to the trust-ees; Equitable title (possession and use)of the trust property goes to the benefi-ciaries. It’s crucial to understand thateven though beneficiaries may have un-limited use of trust property, their “own-ership” is illusory since they lack legaltitle to “their” property. As a result, itappears that disputes involving trustproperty are heard in courts of equity(not law) where beneficiaries have nolegal title and therefore no legal stand-ing or legal rights. As a “beneficiary”you have no unalienable rights, no con-stitutional rights, nothing. Since benefi-ciaries cannot own property (no legaltitle) and also have no legal rights, theyare the modern equivalent of “niggers”.

If all licenses are like software li-censes and therefore trusts, it follows

that the state owns (has legal title to)whatever property or privilege is “li-censed,” but the licensee (the personnamed on the License) only gets to“use” that property or privilege as a ben-eficiary. If so, as a beneficiary, a lic-ensee would have no legal title and nolegal rights relative to the trust prop-erty but would be legally subject to allthe requirements and regulations of thetrust that issued the license. In the caseof driver’s licences, those requirementsmight include insurance, lap straps,speed limits and all traffic “laws”.

So let’s suppose ALFRED N.ADASK is a trust created by the state(probably with the birth certificate and/or the fully-funded Social Security ac-count) and I, Alfred – whether I knowit or not – am trustee for the ALFREDN. ADASK trust.

And let’s suppose my driver’s li-cense was not really issued to me (Al-fred Norman Adask) but was insteadissued (just like it reads) to my “evil”,artificial twin ALFRED N. ADASK.As a “creature (creation) of the state,”ALFRED would be legally and consti-tutionally subject to every tax, regula-

OFFSHORE

PRIVACY LEARN THE SECRETS OF THE WEALTHY . . .

NO SOCIAL SECURITY NO. REQUIREMENTS

$ Offshore Bank Account $150 Set Up + Deposit

$ Second Citizenship & Passports by Mail

$ International Driving Credentials (IDP)

$ Eliminate Most Tax Obligations & IRS Problems

$ Make Major Profits Through Referral Programs

INFORMATION PACKAGE $5

P.M.S. * c/o 8175 S. Virginia St. Suite 850-402

Reno, Nevada [89511] * (702) 833-5232

Year 2000 computer problems(Y2K) are barreling toward us,. whilebankers assert “Peace and safety”.Clinton OK’s nuke missile technol-ogy for Red China (used to be calledtreason) while dancing on the edgeof WWIII in Middle East. Can youafford not to have some, food stored?You can afford our prices!

We offer the highest quality,longest storing, best tasting dehy-drated, freeze dried foods and MREsavailable. Unique food lines. Ad spe-cial. Basic, 11 case, 1 Year Food Sup-ply: $720.00 delivered 48 states! ($8for 6 food samples.) Official PocketSurvival Manual, $15.00 ppd.

Bruce Hopkins

Best Prices Storable Foods1737 Cascade Street

Mesquite (Dallas), Texas 75149(972) 288-0262

http://web2.airmail.net/foodstr2

��

��


tion, and license requirement its gov-ernment-creator cared to impose.

The creator-state would have ev-ery right to license and regulate it’s cre-ation ALFRED’s behavior on the high-ways. Although Alfred (the trustee)might still have his God-given rights toliberty and free travel on public prop-erty without license, insurance or seat-belt, ALFRED (creature of the state)could be subject to every state regula-tion, including license, insurance, seat-belt, and tickets/taxes imposed withoutdue process. (Life ain’t easy for a boynamed “ALFRED” . . . or “JAMES” or“WILLIAM” either, for that matter.)

And let’s suppose the principlesillustrated in Griffin v. Ellinger also ap-plied to “instruments” like applications(for benefits), drivers licenses and traf-fic tickets. If so, whenever I signed myname – but failed to identify my repre-sentative capacity as “trustee” – I mightbe inadvertently accepting personal re-sponsibility for all the obligations topurchase insurance, obey speed limits,and fasten seatbelts that could be legallyimposed on the state’s creation, AL-FRED, but not on the state’s creator, Al-fred.

For example, imagine how itmight work on traffic tickets:

I (Alfred) am accidently speed-ing down the highway at 70mph in a55mph zone. A cop pulls me over, asksto see my license, and I show him thelicense issued to ALFRED. The copmight even ask, “Are you ALFRED N.ADASK?” In either case, by showingALFRED’s license or answering to thename “ALFRED,” I’ve just claimed to

be ALFRED the artificial entity, crea-ture (creation) of the state who is law-fully subject to government regulation.

Obviously, Alfred is not AL-FRED. So how can the traffic cop rea-sonably proceed? First, he’s probablynot trained to understand the difference.Second, even if the officer understoodthe difference between ALFRED andAlfred, he might not be able to legallyrecognize that distinction or advise meof the same without making a “legaldetermination” that would constitute“unauthorized practice of law”. There-fore, if I say or imply that I’m “AL-FRED”, the cop must go along. Ifthere’s a problem, it’s up to a judge tomake the proper “legal determination”at a later date.

Therefore, believing the persondriving the car is subject to state regu-lation, the officer proceeds. “May I seeyour vehicle registration and proof ofinsurance?”

Oooh . . . darn.Next thing you know, the officer

issues several traffic tickets with a totalalleged obligation of $800 to the entity(“ALFRED”) identified on “my” driv-ers license. Then the officer assures methat my signature does not constitute anadmission of guilt, and asks me to signthe tickets. I sign but neglect to iden-tify my “representative capacity” as“trustee”.

Under the principles of Griffin v.Ellinger, have I (Alfred, the trustee) justassumed personal liability for the law-ful $800 debt charged on the tickets/instruments to my principal (ALFREDthe trust)?

Tell it to the judge!Suppose I believe the traffic laws

violate my constitutional right to traveland therefore decide to contest my $800tickets in traffic court. At the hearing,the Judge asks, “Is ALFRED N.ADASK present?” – and I (Alfred) mis-takenly raise my hand and say, “Here,yer honor!” Would the court proceedto try, convict, fine or imprison Alfredthe trustee for offences allegedly com-mitted by ALFRED the trust? They didin Griffin v. Ellinger.

By failing to know and identifymy representative capacity as “trustee”for the ALFRED N. ADASK trust, amI making the same ignorant mistake Mr.Griffin made when he neglected to write“president” after his name on Greenwaycorporation checks? And like Mr. Grif-fin, by failing to identify my represen-tative capacity, do I assume personalliability for the debts and obligationsthat the traffic laws lawfully imposedon my “evil twin,” ALFRED?

Maybe so.1

Drivers license signatures?If neglecting to sign “trustee” af-

ter your name on a traffic ticket createspersonal liabilities, what about yourprimary signature on the drivers licenseitself? In other words, if the license isissued to ALFRED, but I sign it “Al-fred” without identifying my represen-tative capacity as ALFRED’s “Trustee,”have I inadvertently assumed personalliability for all those unconstitutionaltraffic laws that can be legally appliedonly to my principal, ALFRED?

I don’t know. But if I were about


to get a new drivers license, I’d want toabsolutely know who or what ALFREDN. ADASK is and what representativecapacity – if any – I (Alfred) might haverelative to that entity.

As confusing and unlikely as allthis sounds, it’s worth investigatingsince trustees are virtually never heldpersonally accountable for the debts orobligations of their trusts. If ALFREDN. ADASK is in fact the name of a trustand I am its trustee, I have no problemwith getting a drivers license. It wouldnot entail any surrender of my God-given unalienable rights. If the licenseis issued to the artificial entity/ trust AL-FRED, so long as I continue to identifymy “representative capacity” wheneverI sign a ticket on behalf of ALFRED –I, Alfred, the Trustee, may not be liablefor anything more than the paperwork.

Does this sound crazy? Sure.Besides, this entire theory seems

impossible if only because it’s too easy.I mean, could it be that simple? Justdetermine your representative capacityrelative to the upper-case name that thegovernment always attacks in its indict-ments, tickets, and tax bills? Make sure

you always append your correct repre-sentative capacity to all your signatures,and Voila’! you are once again a freeman beyond the bureaucrats’ regulatoryreach?

Too hard to believe. Nah . . . it’sjust not possible. Ohh, I suppose thatif we had a little evidence . . . well,maybe then the conjecture might seema little more plausible. But as it stands,it’s just another charming patriot bunnytrail.

Except maybe there is a little evi-dence . . . .

April Fools(I forget . . . does April Fool fall

on the 1st - or the 15th?)Let’s suppose, again, that the all

upper-case name (to which the IRSsends its letters, levies and subpoenas)identifies an artificial entity (presum-ably a trust), and each of us, whetherwe know it or not, are the trustees foreach of our “evil twin” trusts. Let’s alsospeculate that each of our trusts are fur-ther identified by our Social Securitynumber, and are conveniently “located”at the place of their creation (Washing-

ton D.C.), where they are subject to theabsolute legislative and administrativecontrol of Congress. Our artificial en-tity, “evil-twin” trusts might qualify aslegal “persons” (like a corporation) andeven pass (under the 14th Amendment)as “citizens of the United States.” Whilethese trusts would “live” in Washing-ton D.C., you and I, as trustees, wouldbe “free” to “reside” anywhere else inthe geographic United States.

In my case, ALFRED N. ADASKwould be “my” evil-twin trust, and theFederal government would have everyright to tax that artificial so-and-so asmuch as they liked. As a creature/cre-ation of the government, ALFRED N.ADASK would have no God-given,constitutionally-protected unalienablerights, and virtually no government-given “rights” that were anything morethan transitory.

And let’s suppose (again) that I,Alfred Norman Adask, unknowinglyapplied to be the Trustee for the AL-FRED N. ADASK trust when I filed myapplication for a Social Security ac-count number (SSAN). While the gov-ernment had every right to tax the pooout of ALFRED the trust, they’d haveno right to impose the tax on me, Al-fred the Trustee.

However, as part of the terms ofapplication allowing me to become thetrustee for ALFRED, government couldimpose an obligation on me, Alfred(Trustee), to fill out and file certain pa-perwork on behalf of the ALFRED N.ADASK trust. In other words, Alfredcould not be legally taxed or requiredto pay the income tax legally imposedon ALFRED; but Alfred could be le-gally required to perform the fiduciaryduty of filing a 1040 on behalf of hisevil-twin trust.

Smooooth!This “evil twin” hypothesis may

sound fantastic, but look how slick an“evil-twin” trust system might work:

First, it would explain the IRS’scurious habit of indicting and some-times imprisoning people, not for fail-ure to pay their taxes, but for failure tofile their 1040 forms. (They’d ratherhave the paperwork than the money?)But if there is an evil-twin, trust-trustee

Aquaflex Water Storage ContainersApplications

• Y2K Preparedness

• Emergency Storage

• Contaminated Water

• Hurricanes

• Survivalists

• Agriculture

• and much more!Storing water can be a problem. Not all containers are intended for food

contact. In the event of an emergency, a natural disaster or for agricultural

use, Aquaflex water storage containers are an economical way to store and

transport water. Light weight, flexible, and easy to store when not in use.

No need to bother with 55-gallon drums, five gallon pails or one-gallon

milk jugs. This is not a vinyl product! To order call 1-888-353-9732.

Extra Packaging Corp Web site: www.aquaflex.net

24 Seneca Avenue E-mail: [email protected], NY 14621 Dealers call: 1-888-675-6722


relationship, the IRS tendency to pros-ecute for “willful failure to file” wouldmake perfect sense.

Since the IRS has no constitu-tional authority to make Alfred NormanAdask (the real person) pay the tax ob-ligations imposed on ALFRED N.ADASK (the trust), they couldn’t verywell prosecute Alfred for not voluntar-ily paying ALFRED’s tax obligations.However, as trustee for the ALFREDtrust, Alfred could be legally and con-stitutionally required to perform the ad-ministrative chore of filing his “eviltwin” trust’s 1040 form each year. And,if Alfred (trustee) failed to file the AL-FRED trust’s 1040, Alfred (trustee)could be legally and constitutionallyjailed. (Confused? Of course. Butdoesn’t confusion serve government’sinterest?)

OK, recognizing the IRS goesnuts when you don’t file, suppose I (Al-fred, trustee):

1) File a 1040 form on behalf ofALFRED (trust) as required by “law”(that “law” is probably the trust inden-ture that created ALFRED); and,

2) Sign the 1040; and,3) Send the 1040 to the IRS with-

out any money. See, I’m pretty smart; Iknow the IRS can’t jail Alfred (thetrustee) for refusing to pay trustALFRED’s debts.

So I calculated that ALFREDowes $250,000 (HA!) on the 1040 andfiled it. Sure, the $250,000 figure isabsurd, but who cares, since they’llnever collect a dime from that penni-less trust, and they can’t legally forceme, the trustee, to pay the trust’s debts?Besides, when I signed my name on the1040, I wrote “TDC” after it (Threat,Duress, and Coercion), “Without Preju-dice UCC 1-207” above it, and “non-assumpsit” across it. Plus, I modifiedthe jurat statement to indicate I wassigning “within the United States ofAmerica” rather than “within the UnitedStates”. Moreover, I had a four-leafclover, a rabbits foot, and my horoscopesaid this is my lucky day. So the IRScan’t touch me, right?

But, guess what happens? I’mnot jailed for failure to file – the IRSsimply seizes my house, car and bankaccount as partial payment for the

$250,000 debt I calculated on the evil-twin trust’s tax return. Why? Because,despite all my lucky charms and decla-rations attached to my signature on the1040 “instrument”, I forgot to identifymy representative capacity as“Trustee”. As a result, just like Mr. Grif-fin in the Griffin v. Ellinger case, I, Al-fred (the trustee), became personallyliable for paying the tax that was legallyimposed on my principal, the ALFREDN. ADASK trust. And although sneaky,it’s all legal and constitutional.

Do you see how smooth that hy-pothetical process could work? Theydon’t require you (the real person) topay the income tax – oh Heavens, no!– that would be unconstitutional. In-stead, a tax is legally imposed on yourgovernment-created, artificial-entity,“evil twin” trust. You, as trustee, aremerely (and quite legally) required toperform certain administrative tasks likefiling the required paperwork (the 1040or perhaps traffic tickets).

But, once you file on behalf ofyour “evil twin” trust, if you neglect toidentify your representative capacity as“trustee” when you sign the 1040, youbecome personally liable for the evil-twin’s debt – which you, yourself, tes-tified to when you signed the 1040 “un-der penalty of perjury”. The income

tax that you could not be constitution-ally imposed on you, the individual,would become suddenly mandatory sim-ply because you didn’t write “Trustee”after your signature on the 1040.

Look how smooth this couldwork. If you didn’t file, you’d be inbreach of your fiduciary responsibili-ties as a trustee and therefore subject toimprisonment. If you did file but didn’tidentify your representative capacity,you’d win – Ta-Da! – the coveted sta-tus of “taxpayer” and become person-ally liable for paying the trust’s tax ob-ligations.

If you tried to argue your “rights”in court, you’d be slam-dunked everytime because the court would have allthe information it needed to convictright there on the 1040: you swore tothe size of the debt owed, and you failedto identify your representative capac-ity as “trustee”. Since only trusteeshave legal rights in courts of equity, andyou haven’t identified yourself as one,you have no rights. That means you’reguilty, pay up, or pack your toothbrush.

26 USC 6212Could it be that simple? Prob-

ably not. Again – nice theory – butwithout some proof, who’d dare believethat the difference between a voluntary

Law and the ConstitutionGovernmentRight to PrivacyNew World OrderMasonic ReligionTaxes & IRSProphecyVietnamUnited NationsAmerican HistoryTheocratic Money

Republic Video ClearinghouseMy people are destroyed for lack of knowledge – Hosea 4:6

Outcome Based EducationMedical

SovereigntyGun Control

SurvivalMoney

Y2KEnvironmentVaccination

2nd AmendmentTactical Training

Many Other Topics Available

New Topics: Y2K: “The Millennium Bug”

Videos as low as $12.00!! 6 hr. multi-topic tapes $25.00

See our catalog at www.republicvideo.com or send 3 dollar

bills to: P.O. 268, Shady Cove, OR 97539-268


and mandatory income tax hinged onyour simple decision to identify yourrepresentative capacity when yousigned the 1040 form? Hey, I don’t be-lieve it. But on the other hand, thistheory “fits” so nicely that – no matterhow improbable it sounds – I can’t dis-miss it yet, either. Plus. There’s even abit of evidence in the IRS Code thatmight be interpreted as support for the“evil-twin trust” hypothesis.

In October, 1997 the MichiganCourt of Appeals remanded an IRS case( Ruff v. Isaac # 192615) for retrial.Although the case turned on a differentissue, I was surprised to read how anIRS agent, U.S. Attorney, and Michi-gan District Court Judge all seemed tooverreact to prevent any evidence con-cerning subsection (b)(1) of Section6212 of the Internal Revenue Code (26USC 6212) from being heard at trial.The case turned on a different issue, butoverreaction suggested that there mightbe something important in 26 USC6212, which only concerns proper pro-cedure for mailing notices of deficiencyto errant taxpayers:

“(b)(1) In the absence of noticeto the Secretary under section 6903 ofthe existence of a fiduciary relationship,notice of a deficiency in respect of atax imposed by subtitle A, chapter 12,chapter 41, chapter 42, chapter 43, orchapter 44, if mailed to the taxpayer athis last known address, shall be suffi-cient for purposes of subtitle A, chap-ter 12, chapter 41, chapter 42, chapter43, chapter 44, and this chapter even ifsuch taxpayer is deceased, or is undera legal disability, or, in the case of a cor-poration, has terminated its existence.”

Oooo. Grist for my mill. See it?Faint and flimsy, but nonetheless sup-

port for my notion that a trust relation-ship might exist between ALFRED N.ADASK (trust) and Alfred NormanAdask (trustee).

Right at the beginning of Sect.6212, it reads: “In the absence of no-tice to the Secretary under section6903 of the existence of a fiduciaryrelationship, . . . .”

What’s a “fiduciary relation-ship”? Broadly, the term signifies therelationship that exists between a trustand its trustee. So who would send thatnotice of a “fiduciary relationship” tothe Secretary of the Treasury? A trusteeon behalf of a trust.

Why would the trustee send a no-tice of his fiduciary relationship to atrust? Perhaps because the IRS was mis-takenly attempting to compel the trusteeto pay the trust’s tax obligations. Per-haps because the trust owed back taxesbut the government was mistakenly try-ing to seize the trustee’s property.Could this “mistake” take place if therewere a startling similarity between thename of the trust (“ALFRED N.ADASK”) and the name of its trustee,“Alfred Norman Adask”? I think so.

Although the meaning of 26 USC6212 subsection (b)(1) is uncertain, itseems to imply that if a trustee were tonotify the Secretary of the Treasury ofthe existence of a “fiduciary relation-ship”, the Secretary could not send hisnotice of deficiency. That’s an impor-tant implication since, according to theMichigan Court of Appeals, “By law,the IRS must mail a notice of deficiencyby certified or registered mail before itcan make an assessment for delinquenttaxes, which in turn is a prerequisite tothe seizing and selling of the taxpayer’sproperty. Wiley v United States, 20 F

3d 222, 224 (CA 6, 1994).”In other words, if the Secretary

of the Treasury were notified that a “fi-duciary relationship” (a trust) existedrelative to an entity that was beingthreatened with property seizure, thewhole collection process might beterminated.

Hmm. How could that work?Maybe something like this:

Let’s suppose I (Alfred NormanAdask) received a series of IRS noticesaddressed to ALFRED N. ADASK thatclaimed ALFRED owed $250,000 inback taxes and if I didn’t pay up in 30days, they’ll seize my house, car, boatand bank account. Ooo-eee! Looks likeI’m in deep poopy, hmm?

But wait! Suppose I sent a no-tice to the Secretary of Treasury thatwhile they have imposed a $250,000 onthe ALFRED N. ADASK trust — thehouse, car, boat, and bank accountthey’re threatening to seize belongs tome, Alfred N. Adask, the trustee (whocan’t be held legally liable for the trust’stax obligations). It’s kinda like notify-ing the IRS of a case of mistaken iden-tity (although our names sound alike,ALFRED and Alfred are two differentpersons).

Would my notice to the Secretarythat Alfred is not liable for evil-twinALFRED’s tax obligations constitute anotice of “fiduciary relationship”?Would the tax collection process mis-takenly directed against Alfred thereforecease? I wouldn’t want to bet my car onit (especially if it were running), but thisIRS tactic at least sounds plausible andalso offers indirect support for the “evil-twin” hypothesis.

Quack, quack!Everyone knows that if it looks

like a duck, etc. it’s gotta be a duck.Well, to me, this evil-twin trust

hypothesis looks like a duck, walks likea duck, quacks, eats and swims like aduck, prefers the company of ducks –and goes good with orange sauce. Ifthis ain’t a duck, it’s a very slick duckin drag, and we may have to get very“intimate” with this “duck” before wefind out what it really is.

For now, suffice to say I am in-creasingly persuaded that: 1) Each of

$100,000.00+ Oppor$100,000.00+ Oppor$100,000.00+ Oppor$100,000.00+ Oppor$100,000.00+ Opportunity!tunity!tunity!tunity!tunity!Product sold only through Doctors for 16 years. International

company sends out FREEFREEFREEFREEFREE sponsoring packet for you.

C.E.O. has taken two other companies to $1 Billion in sales.

For information call

888-888-888-888-888-493493493493493-802-802-802-802-80244444


us is associated with an “evil twin” ar-tificial entity that is identified by the allUPPER-CASE name; 2) Somehow, wenatural people have each been ap-pointed to be our “evil twin’s” repre-sentative; and 3) Failure to fully under-stand the natures of the hypothetical ar-tificial entity and our resultant represen-tative capacity may be central to our in-ability to successfully assert our God-given, inalienable rights in court.

Silver linings & caveatsEvery hypothetical cloud has a

hypothetical silver lining, and my “eviltwin” trust hypothesis is no different.If we are, in fact, trustees for “evil twin”trusts created by government and iden-tified with all UPPER-case names (and/or Social Security Numbers), we maybe able to bypass much governmentregulation simply by identifying ourcorrect representative capacity. If so,then we might not need to get rid ofour Social Security Numbers (hey, I’lltake a dozen of ‘em) and we could keepour Drivers Licenses (gimme a hand-ful). All we’d need to do is be abso-lutely certain that we understood ourcorrect representative capacity (if any)

every time we signed a document onbehalf of our principal (the “evil twin”),and make sure ink never left our pensunless it specifically appended that rep-resentative capacity to our signatures.

In other words, if an UPPER-casename identifies a government-createdtrust and you are its trustee, fine. Prop-erly understood, you might be able tolive pretty well with that status and stillretain your unalienable rights.

However, if “evil twin” trusts doexist – but we are government benefi-ciaries rather than trustees – we arewards of the state who can neither ownlegal title to property nor exercise anylegal rights. As government “benefi-ciaries” we are the modern equivalentof slaves on a Southern plantation priorto the Civil War. Regardless of whetheryou’re black, white, or brown, male, fe-male, child or adult – if you’re a gov-ernment beneficiary, you’re a 20th cen-tury “nigger”. As a government ben-eficiary/nigger, you’d be property of thestate, a “thing” that can’t own propertyand had no inalienable rights. If yougot “uppity”, de massa can slap yo’nappy head anytime he like.

Unless you like being a nigger,

you’d best start marchin’ to get free.Gentlemen – start your research

engines. I believe we are entering thefinal race to restore (or lose) constitu-tional government, unalienable rightsand individual freedom.

1 If ALFRED N. ADASK is a trust,I’m guessing I, Alfred, am that trust’strustee. But it’s possible that I’m thebeneficiary, or remotely, even the grantor.I might even be president of the ALFREDN. ADASK corporation – those questionsare unresolved. Therefore, even if Iappend the word “Trustee” after mysignature on various instruments (likechecks or traffic tickets), it won’tnecessarily do me any good if I guesswrong about my “representativecapacity” (if any). For example, if I wrote“Trustee” when I was, in fact, the“beneficiary”, “quasi-trustee” or “presi-dent”, it’s conceivable that I might becharged with fraud. My point is thatmuch research must be done to confirm,refute or refine the conjecture presented inthis article – so don’t start signing yourtraffic tickets “trustee” just yet, unlessyou’re prepared to take some risks.

Enter Darkness: Enter Light

Can We Changeour Predicted Doom?

The Year: 2000The Date: May 5th

The Event: A polar shift thatcould change Earth forever?

Is it really possible . . .

ENTER DARKNESS: ENTER LIGHTTHE VIDEO

When viewing Enter Darkness: Enter Light, you will see haunting graphicrepresentations of the unsuspected, the unknown and the totally unexpectedunfolding before your eyes. You may well find yourself startled, intrigued andfrightened by the chilling mass of evidence that has rapidly accumulated in thelast several years. From the mysterious teachings of Freemasonry to the harshrealization that Earth is in trouble, the evidence shown in this video is so pow-erful that it will capture your intellect, grab your emotions and knock at thethreshold of your soul.

A dynamic exception to most films dealing with Earth and humanchanges, these are not “sound bytes” but concise in-depth interviews withscientists, architects, futurists and scholars of different disciplines, includingRichard W. Noone. David Hatcher Childress, Dr. Jean Houston, Dr. Gay Luce,Dolores Cannon, Richard Kieninger, James Summers, Jim Hagan, Wilfred J.Gregso Annie Kirkwood and others. Many of those interviewed admit for thefirst time in public that our earth is truly in jeopardy, as we are all movedinexorably closer to 5/5/2000.

VHS Color, 110 min. Only $19.95 + $4.95 S&H

SEND A CHECK OR MONEY ORDER TO:ELROY NET * 209 Main St. * Elroy, WI. 53929

or call: 608-462-4209

Trusts - MyEvilTwin.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Trusts - MyEvilTwin.pdf