TRUSTS Where Fraud is seemingly permissible by the courts, government, and public servants:trustees.

Everything is a Trust: Birth Certificate, Drivers License, Deeds, Mortgages, Loans, Credit Cards

TRUSTS: Where Fraud is seemingly permissible by the courts, government, and public servants/trustees.

TRUST. In General 

A right of property, real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another. See Good- win v. McMinn, 193 Pa. 646, 44 A. 1094, 74 Am.St. Rep. 703; Boyce v. Mosely, 102 S.C. 361, 86 S.E. 771, 773; King v. Richardson, C.C.A.N.C., 136 F.2d 849, 856, 857. A confidence reposed in one person, who is termed trustee, for the benefit of another, who is called the cestui que trust, respecting property which is held by the trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trust. State ex rel. Wirt v. Superior Court for Spokane County, 10 Wash.2d 362, 116 P.2d 752, 755. Any arrangement whereby property is transferred with intention that it be administered by trustee for another’s benefit. Raffo v. Foltz, 106 Cal.App. 51, 288 P. 884, 886. 

Cestui que trust: The person for whose benefit a trust is created or who is to enjoy the income or the avails of it. 

Executory trust: One which requires the execution of some further instrument, or the doing of some further act, on the part of the creator of the trust or of the trustee, towards its complete creation or full effect. Martling v. Martling, 55 N.J.Eq. 771, 39 A. 203; Carradine v. Carradine, 33 Miss. 729; In re Fair’s Estate, 132 Cal. 523, 60 P. 442, 84 Am.St.Rep. 70; Pillot v. Landon, 46 N. J.Eq. 310, 19 A. 25. 

Constructive trust: A trust raised by construction of law, or arising by operation of law, as distinguished from an express trust. Wherever the circumstances of a transaction are such that the person who takes the legal estate in property cannot also enjoy the beneficial interest without necessarily violating some established principle of equity, the court will immediately raise a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to convert him into a trustee for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment. Hill, Trustees, 116; 1 Spence, Eq.Jur. 511; Nester v. Gross, 66 Minn. 371, 

Constructive trustsdo not arise by agreement or from intention, but by operation of law, and fraud, active or constructive, is their essential element. Actual fraud is not necessary, but such a trust will arise whenever circumstances under which property was acquired made it inequitable that it should be retained by him who holds the legal title. Constructive trusts have been said to arise through the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, or under the broad doctrine that equity regards and treats as done what in good conscience ought to be done, and such trusts are also known as “trusts ex maleficio” or “ex delicto” or “involuntary trustsand their forms and varieties are practically without limit, being raised by courts of equity whenever it becomes necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Emery, 292 Mich. 394, 290 N.W. 841, 845. 

Involuntary trust: “Involuntary trust” or “constructive trusts” embrace all those instances in which a trust is raised by the doctrines of equity, for the purpose of working out justice in the most efficient manner, when there is no intention of the parties to create a trust relation. This class of trusts may usually be referred to fraud, either actual or constructive, as an essential element. Bank v. Kimball Milling Co., 1 S.D. 388, 47 N.W. 402, 36 Am.St.Rep. 739. 

Resulting trust: One that arises by implication of law, or by the operation and construction of equity, and which is established as consonant to the presumed intention of the parties as gathered from the nature of the transaction. 

It arises where the legal estate in property is disposed of, conveyed, or transferred, but the intent appears or is inferred from the terms of the disposition, or from the accompanying facts and circumstances, that the beneficial interest is not to go or be enjoyed with the legal title. Lafkowitz v. Jackson, C.C.A.Mo., 13 F.2d 370, 372. See Sanders v. Steele, 124 Ala. 415, 26 So. 882. Farwell v. Wilcox, 73 Okl. 230, 175 P. 936, 938, 4 A.L.R. 156; Cummings v. Cummings, 55 Cal.App. 433, 203 P. 452, 455. 

Trust deposit: Where money or property is deposited to be kept intact and not commingled with other funds or property of bank and is to be returned in kind to depositor or devoted to particular purpose or requirement of depositor or payment of particular debts or obligations of depositor. Also called “special deposit”. Maurello v. Broadway Bank & Trust Co. of Paterson, 114 N.J.L. 167, 176 A. 391, 394. See, also “Deposit.” 

Voluntary trust: An obligation arising out of a personal confidence reposed in, and voluntarily accepted by, one for the benefit of another, as distinguished from an “involuntary” trust, which is created by operation of law. Civ.Code Cal. §§ 2216, 2217. According to another use of the term, “voluntary” trusts are such as are made in favor of a volunteer, that is, a person who gives nothing in exchange for the trust, but receives it as a pure gift; and in this use the term is distinguished from “trusts for value,” the latter being such as are in favor of purchasers, mortgagees, etc. A “voluntary trust” is an equitable gift, and in order to be enforceable by the beneficiaries must be complete. Cameron v. Cameron, 96 Okl. 98, 220 P. 889, 890; Logan v. Ryan, 68 Cal.App. 448, 229 P. 993, 996. 

The difference between a “gift inter vivos” and a “voluntary trust” is that, in a gift, the thing itself with title passes to the donee, while, in a voluntary trust, the actual title passes to a cestui que trust while the legal title is retained by the settlor, to be held by him for the purposes of the trust or is by the settlor transferred to another to hold for the purposes of the trust. Allen v. Hendrick, 104 Or. 202, 206 P. 733, 740. 

BIRTH, then TRUST on TRUST on TRUST.

When You are born, You are born into on the dry LAND of Your State. The moment You come into this world a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST aka INVOLUNTARY TRUST is created with the State you are born in, and then You are hypothecated and the CESTUI QUE TRUST is formed.

BIRTH CERTIFICATE = INVOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT= INVOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST

DRIVERS LICENSE or PASSPORT=  INVOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST

VEHICLE REGISTRATION=  TRUST DEPOSIT, INVOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

TAXES and IRS FORM 1040 (For government employees / 14th amendment citizen/slaves) = VOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST

ALL MORTGAGES = TRUST DEPOSIT, VOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

ALL LOANS = TRUST DEPOSIT, VOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

ALL CREDIT CARDS = TRUST DEPOSIT, VOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

ALL INSURANCE POLICIES = TRUST DEPOSIT, VOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

ALL UTILITIES /PUBLIC SERVICES (phone, gas, electricity, trash, water, internet) = TRUST DEPOSIT, VOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

ALL DEEDS (GRANT DEED, DEED OF TRUST, WARRANTY DEED, ETC.)  = TRUST DEPOSIT, VOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

HOSPITAL FORMS AND APPLICATIONS = INVOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, VOLUNTARY TRUST (when you pay with dollars/federal reserve notes) , EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

ALL PAYMENTS/EXCHANGE OF “NOTES”  = TRUST DEPOSIT, VOLUNTARY TRUST, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, EXECUTORY TRUST, RESULTING TRUST, CESTUI QUE TRUST

 

Everything is a Trust Birth Certificate, Drivers License, Deeds, Mortgages, Loans, Credit Cards

trust law

Trust - definitions from blacks law

Trust - definitions from blacks law

Trust - definitions from blacks law

Trust - definitions from blacks law

Leave your vote

3425 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Screen Shot 2025 02 19 at 1.22.22 PM

KEVIN WALKER Estate Demands Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Engages in Corruption, Record Tampering, and Obstruction of Justice

The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!