01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.

doc

1-25-10 CW Monday NTT Ambassador Conference call 712-432-0075 PIN 917030#

Reading from A Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts Vol. I by Frederick A. Lewin 1888

Last week we talked about the origins of the trust and the subpoena. I found that very interesting on the
subpoena. That was on page 1 [Introduction]. I got a better understanding of when you summon somebody
in by the original complaint that the summons would today be for the fiction, the corporation. Then the
subpoena would be for the real man. I never made that exact correlation. When they summons you in with
the original complaint and when you answer the complaint that would be the surety, or the pledge. Then
once the real man showed up they really wouldn't need a subpoena once they have identified who the real
man was in a case. By deduction then, we would be doing the same thing in reverse. When we come in with
our counter-claims we've got to make sure we put a summons in, summonsing in their corporation. Then
when they don't show up or if they do show up later on in the hearing in the future we would put in a
subpoena. We would do that subpoena for an in camera hearing where you would summons in the trustee to
compel him to answer upon oath the allegations of the Cestui Que trust.

JC - I'm looking at doing a subpoena for documents exclusively and after reading this it makes sense, too. I
can summons in an agency and bring in a particular agent I'm working with as an opposing party, and do
two things: 1. force them to bring in the documents that support their position, 2. put in that same motion for
the in camera review, so when they don't show up with the documents and you are standing there with your
SOI it's kind of a double whammy. CW Right, right.

The big part in the 1st page there was when they talked about the origins of trust, where the bingo was, at
the end of that section where they talked about "by the narrow policy of the common law". It prevented
from exercising the alienation and the settlement of their estates, or trusts. That's how they are looking at it.
I think that is the reason why they changed everything because if you look, the narrow policy of the
common law was too restrictive. To get their way, so they could transfer property, and do settlements of
trust estates, then they had to come up with a different form. I used to think that they got us to make a 90
degree turn off the path and form a parallel [corrected: perpendicular] path with them and they continued on.
I think that was wrong. I think they made a 90 degree turn and we didn't follow. We kept on going straight.
The definition of the wording, where they changed the definition or the meaning of the words, was one of
the ways where they are tricking us to get off the path. Then I thought just the opposite of that. It's not like
we take some common word that you and I know and now I'm going to redefine it to mean something else.
That's one way, but there is another way. I can take the meaning of that same word, take that word off and
now put a different word on there that now means the same thing. That's how they really derailed us. These
funny words that we no longer use, although the definitions are the same. They put new words on these
definitions. The fact is they have hidden them. I think that is what they did.

They are the ones that did the 90 degree turn and formed a parallel [corrected: perpendicular] path, but we
kept on going on. We went on with the new definition meanings and they are still using the old definitions.
So, the narrow policy of the common law - they changed that because it was preventing them from
exercising the transfer of the settlements of the trust estates, the trust. They used the subpoena to bring in
that trustee, who was liable to be summoned in because of his self-interest, he was self-dealing, probably
because there was nothing in writing that was spelling out a trust for the beneficiary. The trustee decided to
take advantage of that for himself and kept the property and probably said there was no trust. Then the
subpoena came about to bring out the truth and right the property within the right hands of the legal owner,
who was supposed to be the beneficiary. He was "… summoned into the Chancery [or into equity] and
compellable to answer upon the oath of the allegations of his cestui que trust (beneficiary). No sooner was
this protection excluded, than half of the land of the kingdom became vested in the feoffees in the uses [or
trustees], as trusts were called then. Thus the words of an old counsellor, the parents of the trust were Fraud
and Fear and a Court of Conscience was the nurse.", or the nanny, or the courts. That ties right in with the
Page 1 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

definition in Black's Law 8th Edition where it talks about the Cestui Que trust, the constructive trust, where
it says that the conscience of the court …

"A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such
circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee."
Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 122 N.E. 378, 380 (N.Y. 1919) (Cardozo, J.).

"It is sometimes said that when there are sufficient grounds for imposing a constructive trust, the court 'constructs a trust.' The expression is, of
course, absurd. The word 'constructive' is derived from the verb 'construe,' not from the verb 'construct.' ... The court construes the
circumstances in the sense that it explains or interprets them; it does not construct them." 5 Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher, The Law of
Trusts § 462.4 (4th ed. 1987).

I think if we use it in conjunction with this Treatise on the Law of Trusts by Lewin, and use the Autin
Wakeman Scott version from 1919 where it has a lot of case cites, that can also be tied in with this. That is
giving it a 1919, which is close to this 1888 version, giving you more case cites and supports. That was page
1 where I would say the bingo was. I found also in that subpoena where it was really talking about the
pledge, the only pledge, and that would be the undertaking or the security to the duty, which would really be
the bond or my bond is my word. That is what they were doing, giving their word or their pledge for the due
execution of the trust was the faith and integrity of the trustee. This was an extremely precarious security,
that pledge, and was only based on his word I would imagine. The pledge was the security interest in
property, in title, and the interest being created by bailment or other deposit. That would be the special
deposit or trust deposit for the purpose of securing the debt or obligation. Again, my bond is my word or my
pledge, or trust relationship.

page 2 - Trusts simple or special. The bingo here I would say is "In order rightly to understand what was
meant by this rather technical description, we shall briefly consider the principles that were recognized by
Courts of Equity (for these had the exclusive jurisdiction of trust)…" Even back then they knew that trust is
only operating in a Court of Equity. It still is today. That is the power of trust, equity. Equity is going to
compel or force the party to do what he is supposed to do, his duty, or to prevent him from doing something
like breaching the trust. That is exactly what we thought under Admiralty we were coming in under a breach
of contract we were sliding into equity and equity was compelling you when you didn't do it you were in
dishonor and you got thrown into prison because of the dishonor. You didn't do what equity said you were
supposed to do. Here it was all about trusts. It wasn't about Admiralty at all. It was really trusts.

"First, with reference to the terre-tenant or feoffee to uses, and Secondly, with reference to the beneficial
proprietor, or cestui que use.

Confidence in the person." con was living, and fida, which is faith - they were living by faith in the person
as trustee, which was the relationship with the person for him to do the duty, the pledge. "With respect to the
feoffee to uses, it was first held to be absolutely indispensable that there should be confidence in the person,
and privity of estate." That was the knowledge of the trust. "For want of the requisite of personal confidence
it was ruled that a corporation [a fiction] could not stand seised [put into possession] to a use; for how, it
was said, could a corporation be capable of confidence [living by faith] when it had not a soul? Nor was it
competent for the king to sustain the character of trustee;…" Today, isn't the king no more than the state, or
the United States? Why are they sustaining the character of the trustee? I guess that's why they look at us as
being the trustee because they think they are the kings. Isn't it the other way around? But that is only in the
private, not in the public. We are only kings in the private. In the public, they look at it as they are the king,
unless you express the trust and came into chambers and prove them wrong by the establishment of the
proof of the trust. "…for it was thought inconsistent with his high prerogative that he should be made
responsible to his own subject for the due administration of the estate." That is the reasoning why they look
at you as being the trustee. But, that is in their backwards realm. "And originally the subpoena lay against
the trustee himself only, and could not have been sued against either his heir or assign; for the confidence
was declared to be personal, and not to accompany the devolution of the property."
Page 2 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

That was under the old view, but under the new view they want it to be alienable. This old view ties exactly
in with the Declaration of Independence, confirmation that all the rights were unalienable or not
transferable. But, under the modern view, it's just the opposite. They want it to be transferable because that
was the narrow common law view and they wanted to take care of that. "But the doctrine of the Court in this
respect was subsequently put on a more liberal footing, and it came to be held that both heir and assign
should be liable to the execution of the use. An exception however was still made in favour of a purchaser
for valuable consideration not affected by notice." There it is, notice. Giving notice is going to put an
estoppel if the purchaser couldn't with valuable consideration take it free and clear he couldn't be a bona fide
purchaser if he has had notice.

"Privity of estate." This was a mutual or successive relationship to the same right and property between
grantor and grantee, or landlord and tenant. If you have a Warranty Deed and you looked up that Warranty
Deed … I happen to have one … where it says, "This indenture paid on such and such a date, made between
so and so, whose address is such and such, in the county of wherever, in the State of is Grantor and the
other party, their name and whose address is … as Grantee." So, your Warranty Deed is nothing more than a
privity of estate for a mutual or successive relationship to the same right and property between Grantor and
Grantee, or the landlord and tenant. We have never really left feudal times. All this is is a successive
relationship from feudal times. It says in this Warranty Deed, it goes on about the description of the property
and "the witness has said that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $10 and other good and
valuable consideration to said Grantor and hand paid by said Grantee the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged as granted, bargained and sold to the same Grantee…" You think this is a sale? This is a
trust! "… to the said Grantee and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever the following described lands situated,
lying, and being in … then the legal description."

The next paragraph continues on saying, "…and said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land
and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. Grantor and Grantee are used
for singular and plural as the context requires. Witnesses whereof Grantor hereunder has set Grantor's hand
and sealed … the first above writ." Here all along we thought we were purchasing a property. All you did
was put it into trust, in a successive trust, privity of estate. Privity really means knowledge, knowledge of
the estate. Estate means trust. So, you had knowledge of the trust. You signed the record and the formation
of the record was the proof of intent and the purpose that you never knew or understood, that's according to
sentier, which is not necessary in the fiction public realm. That is contrary to common law where you have
to have sentier in the private in order to complete even a trust.

22:55 "Privity of estate. The meaning of privity of estate…" meaning the knowledge of the trust "… is best
illustrated by an example. Had a feoffment…" a conveyance "… been made to A. for life to his own use,
with remainder to B. in fee to the use of C., and then A. had enfeoffed D. in fee,…" the interest "… in this
case, though D. had the land by the feoffment which then operated as a tortious conveyance,…" wrongful act
"…yet, as he did not take the identical estate in the land to which the use in favour of C. was attached,…" or
transferred "… he was not bound by C.'s equitable claim." We went over the bill, or the bill in equity under
§456 in Gilberts Law Summaries. It gave the listings of Black's Law when I read the bill, which is nothing
more today than the modern day counter-claim, or the complaint. "And, by the same rule, neither tenant by
the curtesy, nor tenant in dower, nor tenant by elegit,…" the judgement "…was liable to the execution of the
use, for their interests were new and original estates,…" where the first one or the derivative estate - that's
probably where they get the derivatives of a trust from, or the securitization, bearing to each other the
relation, or the trust, or the particular estate and their reversion. The definition of reversion was the interest
left after subtracting what the transferor had parted from, or what was the original estate. It could not have
been said to have been impressed with the use of the trust.

curtesy (kr-t -see). At common law, a husband's right, upon his wife's death, to a life estate in the land that his wife owned during their
marriage, assuming that a child was born alive to the couple. • This right has been largely abolished. Traditionally, the full phrase was estate by

Page 3 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

the curtesy of England (or Scotland). -- Also spelled (esp. in Scots law) courtesy. -- Also termed tenancy by the curtesy. Cf. DOWER. [Cases:
Dower and Curtesy 1. C.J.S. Dower §§ 2, 5-6, 136-138.]

dower (dow- r). At common law, a wife's right, upon her husband's death, to a life estate in one-third of the land that he owned in fee. • With
few exceptions, the wife could not be deprived of dower by any transfer made by her husband during his lifetime. Although most states have
abolished dower, many states retaining the concept have expanded the wife's share to a life estate in all the land that her husband owned in fee. -
- Also termed dowment; maritagium. Cf. CURTESY. [Cases: Dower and Curtesy 1-118. C.J.S. Dower §§ 2-170.]

elegit ( -lee-jit). [Latin "he has chosen"] Hist. A writ of execution (first given by 13 Edw., ch. 18) either upon a judgment for a debt or
damages or upon the forfeiture of a recognizance taken in the king's court. • Under it, the defendant's goods and chattels were appraised and,
except for plow beasts, delivered to the plaintiff to satisfy the debt. If the goods were not sufficient to pay the debt, then the moiety of the
defendant's freehold lands held at the time of judgment was also delivered to the plaintiff, to hold until the debt was satisfied out of rents and
profits or until the defendant's interest expired. During this period the plaintiff was called tenant by elegit, and the estate an estate by elegit. The
writ was abolished in England in 1956, and it is no longer used anywhere in the United States.

"So the lord who was in by escheat, a disseisor, abator, and intruder, were not amenable to the subpoena;
for the first claimed by title paramount to the creation of the use; and the three last were seised..." put in
possession "…of a tortious estate, and held adversely to the feoffee to uses."
in, prep. Under or based on the law of <to bring an action in contract>.

escheat (es-cheet), n. 1. Hist. The reversion of land ownership back to the lord when the immediate tenant dies without heirs. See WRIT OF
ESCHEAT. 2. Reversion of property (esp. real property) to the state upon the death of an owner who has neither a will nor any legal heirs.
[Cases: Escheat 1-8. C.J.S. Escheat §§ 2-23.] 3. Property that has so reverted. See heirless estate under ESTATE (3). -- escheat, vb.

"All escheats, under the English law, are declared to be strictly feudal, and to import the extinction of tenure.... The rule [was] that if lands were
held in trust and the cestui que trust without heirs, the lands did not escheat to the crown, but the trustee, being in esse and in the legal seisin of
the land, took the land discharged of the trust, and bound as owner for the feudal services. But as the feudal tenures do not exist in this country,
there are no private persons who succeed to the inheritance by escheat; and the state steps in the place of the feudal lord, by virtue of its
sovereignty, as the original and ultimate proprietor of all the lands within its jurisdiction." 4 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law *423-
24 (George Comstock ed., 11th ed. 1866).

disseisor (dis-see-z r or -zor). A person who wrongfully deprives another of the freehold possession of property. -- Also spelled disseizor.

abator ( -bay-t r or -tor). 1. A person who eliminates a nuisance. See ABATEMENT (1). [Cases: Nuisance 20, 74.] 2. Hist. A person who
tortiously intrudes on an heir's freehold before the heir takes possession. See ABATEMENT (5).

feoffee (fef-ee or feef-ee). The transferee of an estate in fee simple; the recipient of a fief.

fee. 1. A charge for labor or services, esp. professional services. 2. A heritable interest in land; esp., a fee simple absolute. -- Also termed fee
estate; feod; feodum; feud; feudum; fief. See FEE SIMPLE. Cf. FEU. [Cases: Estates in Property 5-7. C.J.S. Estates §§ 11-14, 20-21.]

"To enfeoff someone was to transfer to him an interest in land called a fief -- or, if you prefer, a feoff, feod, or feud. Our modern word fee, a
direct lineal descendant of fief, implies the characteristic of potentially infinite duration when used to describe an interest in land today; but in
the earliest part of the feudal period, a fief might have been as small as a life interest. We shall see later that feoffment was not used to transfer
interests 'smaller' than life interests -- e.g., so-called terms for years -- but for our purposes now we may simply note that transfers of interests
for life or 'larger' were accomplished by livery of seisin." Thomas F. Bergin & Paul G. Haskell, Preface to Estates in Land and Future Interests
11 (2d ed. 1984).

feoffee to uses. Hist. A person to whom land is conveyed for the use of a third party (called a cestui que use); one who holds legal title to land
for the benefit of another. See CESTUI QUE USE; GRANT TO USES. Cf. TRUSTEE (1).

feoffment (fef-m nt or feef-m nt). Hist. 1. The act of conveying a freehold estate; a grant of land in fee simple. -- Also termed feoffment with
livery of seisin. 2. The land so granted. 3. The charter that transfers the land. -- Also written enfeoffment. -- Also termed deed of feoffment.
[Cases: Deeds 21. C.J.S. Deeds §§ 12-13.]

fee simple. An interest in land that, being the broadest property interest allowed by law, endures until the current holder dies without heirs; esp.,
a fee simple absolute. -- Often shortened to fee. -- Also termed estate in fee simple; tenancy in fee; exclusive ownership; fee-simple title; feudum
simplex. [Cases: Estates in Property 5-7. C.J.S. Estates §§ 11-14, 20-21.]

Ok, so had a conveyance "been made to A. for life to his own" trust. That would be from the settlor to the A,
the beneficiary. This could be the trustee really. A. may be the trustee. "…for the life to his own use, with
remainder to B. in fee to the use of C.,…" After A. died the remainder would go to B. and the interest in the

Page 4 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

trust to C., and then A. had enfeoffed D. in fee,…" Who is C.? D. had been put into legal possession but the
interest in the case … so he must have sued…

29:30 Donna - A feoffment is a gift, right? CW It is a conveyance of property. Donna - So on the public side
they are seeing themselves as the king or the grantor, right? CW Right. Donna - So on the public side A.
would be the estate or trust? CW It could be because that was the conveyance made to A. It's a little hard to
understand this because they don't set off who... Donna - You wouldn't make a gift to the trustee, would
you? CW Yeah, I would have to because that is when the trust would form. A. has to be the trustee or the
beneficiary. Donna - In the public realm we are seen as the trustee so I guess you are right, A. would be the
trustee. CW I'm thinking it is more that A. is the trustee because that is who you want to make the
conveyance to.

33:30 JC In property law, think of property as a bundle of sticks. You can give away only so much of what
you have. Sometimes you would have all the bundle. In fee simple you would be giving away the entire
bundle. If what you have is a life estate you only have it for the remainder of your life, the use of that
property. The way I read this, somebody has given to A. a life estate … who probably has legal title to that
and maybe acting as trustee or beneficiary. Back in those days when you didn't have a recorder there was a
dearth of people who had life estates, or a stick of the bundle, that would then try and sell that land. Then
that person would come up and claim title and somebody else would swoop in and say no, this is actually
my land, and now you have a fight over the title, because somebody who didn't own the land fee simple
transferred it for some kind of fee or monies. Maybe A. is trying to transfer title that he doesn't have and
now they are trying to estop one of the parties from claiming the good title. I wouldn't get too wrapped up in
this kind of example. CW It's talking about privity of estate so it's the people who have knowledge.

The discussion continued for some time with no conclusive determination of what this example means
exactly.

1:19:13 Rhonda - Now it makes sense why you have to have confidence in the trustee. Confidence is what,
living by faith? No wonder they had to make us the trustee on the fiction side because the fake king
corporation is not living. If you are not living you can't be a trustee. CW Right, that's why they want to
make us the trustee. They can't stand … can't be put in possession. That could be the whole key right there.
If there was no trustee, because we didn't claim we were trustee, they can't be trustee and they can't even be
king or lord and then who does it revert back to? JC Did they not appoint the trustee at bankruptcy already
on all the assets? Is he not already appointed? Rhonda - Yeah, but is he living as a … did he separate
himself from the United States and have that dual position where he can be living? CW Maybe that is why
they have to do that, so he is not a fiction. He is a real man. JC Exactly. Then he is not a corporation. He
holding as a real man, as a trustee. CW Yeah, there you go. JC That's an aha moment right there! CW Yeah.
Now we understand why they have to have expatriation and be outside the United States to hold the
bankruptcy.

That comes down to who is the real trustee. It has to be a real man then. Rhonda - On the public side, the
Secretary of the Treasury is one trustee and then could we possibly make ourselves co-trustees? CW That is
where I was going next. Or just a declaration of or co-trustee period? That would tie in with the termination
of the trust, which would be a form of expatriation, by your action? Now you are not acting in the fiction
realm any longer and you have given a revocation of your allegiance? Very interesting stuff in just the first
two pages. Rhonda - Would we want to do that by notice? CW Probably by declaration. Rhonda - A
declaration is what I thought a grantor made when they was going to transfer a title they was already
holding? It wasn't going to nobody else, they was just declaring to the other parties they are in possession of
that title? CW There is a declaration of the formation of a trust, but a general declaration is made by a real
live man. A man or a woman is the only one who can make a declaration. That doesn't have to be really
notarized. If you are a corporation you have to swear or … under penalty of perjury. The fiction would
Page 5 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

explain why the real man is the bankruptcy trustee. It would have to be the real man. Expatriating out of the
United States Corporation he would be able to hold the property as trustee. The fictions would not be
competent and can't sustain the character of trustee. Even a fiction king - the same thing. Inconsistence
shouldn't be made responsible over the subjects, the administration of the estate. So the trustee would be
accessible by subpoena. "And originally the subpoena lay against the trustee himself only, and could not
have been sued against either his heir or assign; for the confidence was declared to be personal, and not to
accompany the devolution of the property. But the doctrine of the Court in this respect was subsequently put
on a more liberal footing, and it came to be held that both heir and assign should be liable to the execution
of the use. An exception however was still made in favour of a purchaser for valuable consideration not
affected by notice."

What were you saying about the notice again Rhonda? Rhonda - You was talking about expatriation and
declaring ourselves not to being a United States citizen and all of that. That's what I was saying, could that
be done by notice and you said declaration. You was talking about how the Secretary of the Treasury has
expatriated himself so he could hold those two positions; he could act as a living man and a fiction.
However they do it would probably be the way we do it? CW It says, "An exception however was still made
in favour of a purchaser for valuable consideration not affected by notice." under (a). Has anybody looked
up the Uses and Trusts under B., the footnote (a)? JC To me that just represents another effort for all the law
to protect a bona fide purchaser. They want to make sure that commerce is protected and that if a person
purchases for value without notice that feoffee bona fide purchaser maintains that title. Otherwise,
commerce shuts down and their kingdoms crumble. Money stop flowing. You talk about defenses, if the
corporation can not be trustee then again that is one more defense that we want to bring into chambers. If
they are claiming the you are trustee or even if you declared you are a trustee by signing a 1040 you could
nunc pro tunc that and say, "You know what, I woke up yesterday and realized I was not trustee and by the
way on that corporation on the living man … " you can do all of that in chambers and one of the defenses
you bring in is "because I'm not a corporation…" well, they are coming after your US corporation as a
trustee. That strawman is not the trustee. I never signed up for that. Rhonda - The strawman is not, but you
are as surety for him. CW Yeah, showing up as a real man. JC - That's why you show up on your paperwork
as the Grantor or Beneficiary or some other party. You are qualifying your signature. CW You set the record
straight. You are the only one who can, because are you showing up as the real man or are you showing up
as the trustee? You can only show up as a real man and be trustee.

Rhonda - That's why they get the real man in there as trustee and he doesn't pay the bill he goes to jail. CW
Right, he is in breach of equity. The thing is the trustee is assumed to be guilty because he didn't make the
payment. Rhonda - So like you were talking about cutting the tree down at the base instead of picking the
leaves off, shouldn't our priority be to set that IMF record straight? CW Yeah, because that is the one that
everything else has got to match up with. We are really in control of correcting it and since we don't correct
that it has been construed. In fact, we then voluntarily set ourselves up as trustees. Another question is, how
can we be duped into serving for the trustee, being a real man? Like you said, the real man is not the trustee.
Rhonda - In the meantime, do you think it would be better since there is a trustee for the fiction, the
Secretary of the Treasury, or co-trustee, would it be better to send the res property to him to let him do the
conversion and make the settlement? He is the co-trustee and we don't have the ability to make the
conversion, he does. Should we forward our res property to him and if he doesn't perform his duties we can
show we moved the property to him to make the settlement? CW Quite possibly, yeah. JC - Which res
property are you talking about Rhonda, a money order or the Declaration of Independence? Rhonda - Until
we get all of that straight any trust situation, whether it be a court case or whatever, those are all sub-trusts,
right Christian? CW Right. Rhonda - They are sending the trustee a bill for that sub-trust so why don't we
just … the bill is the res property. The beneficiaries are wanting payment so go ahead and assign that to the
co-trustee and submit it to him and let him do the conversion. He is the honcho, the main living trustee for
the corporation. We are just sub-trustees.

Page 6 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

1:33:50 JC - I think the second part of that, too, is you want to resign as co-trustee and put my notice
through some type of private agreement stating that you are not a co-trustee and you never intended to be. If
you were, you are giving back all that delegation of authority, or misappropriation on your part accidentally,
to the intended trustee. CW Yeah, if we had in 1933 given all the property into trust, added to the trustee
that knew what was going on. Rhonda - It had to be somebody acting as a living man. CW Right. The fact
that they expatriated was really proof that it had to be a real live man. I think we have opened up some cans
of worms here. Rhonda - It's time to go fishing!

1:35:50 Rhonda - Like we was talking on Saturday night, about the trustee and the judge and applying them
to be trustee - after that call I thought that's right. …once you've accepted part of the trust as trustee then
you've got to take it all. That really applies to us, not the judge, because we are the one's that is the trustee. It
might be better rather than trying to make the judge the trustee, something he has never accepted before to
be trustee on, is to go ahead and move it back to the Secretary of the Treasury because he has accepted it as
being trustee on the trust. CW The only way to get him into court would be to subpoena him then. I'm aware
of some types of actions against the S.O.T. where he wrote back and said that he was really outside the
realm, but if the United States fictions have some kind of actions against him he was probably right, he was
outside of the realm. But, if he is a real man and a real man hauls him into a court of equity he might not
have any immunity because he is on an equal level as trustee to subpoena him into a court of equity. Rhonda
- Right, and we got the record to prove we moved the property to him. He is really the only one who can
take care of it. He is the trustee for the Cestui Que trust, the US corporation. He won't be able to decline it
like a judge would because he has already accepted it. He already accepted being the trustee. CW It might
be better to do the Treasury Directive, since he is in the Treasury anyway, 25-06, call that DIB (Data
Integrity Board) hearing rather than try to haul him into court, say, because it was a fiction court.

Rhonda - Do we have anybody who has ever done a DIB hearing? CW Yeah, we've done DIB hearings
before, but the trouble is you never know by the Treasury because they are private. They don't inform you
what the outcome was or whether there was such a … you don't really show up. You are just calling a DIB
hearing, a formal notification that you are setting a hearing , and they take it from there. Rhonda - So they
never get back with you? CW It could be that we have not asked them properly to give us receipts back or
maybe they can't give us receipts back. We didn't do enough under the stand point of trusts that we had any
authority to ask for a receipt and then we couldn't get a receipt back so they never gave us receipts back.
Rhonda - We allowed them to construe that we was coming at them from the public side? CW Yeah,
because everything we have ever done we haven't done under trust. We've done it basically under debtor-
creditor and I don't think we have any standing to do anything. We called the DIB hearings and nothing was
probably done and they didn't generate any receipts because they didn't do a set-off or anything. It was done
under Treasury Directive 25-06.

Rhonda - Would that be a public document? CW You can pull that up on the internet, the Directive from the
Treasury. Rhonda - My question is: Is that a private Treasury document or a public document. Remember
how we talked about using their documents to write you back into the public side? CW I have to look at that
whether it is under the public debt side. Rhonda - If it is a public document maybe we wouldn't want to use
it, we would do our substitute document, the private side. Like you said, make declarations, orders, and
commands. CW Yeah, after we have established our standing under trust as Grantors. That is the first step
or otherwise you don't have any standing to make a claim to make an order or direct. We didn't have any
standing to order them to do a set-off or any standing to demand for a receipt back. If we call a Directive
hearing they found out in the record shortly after that probably, hey it wasn't done under a trust, they don't
have standing , we don't have to do anything do anything they say. Here, we will throw them a bone to keep
them off track.

1:42:20 Rhonda - Once we express the Declaration of Independence as our own then when we come over to
the Treasury side, depending on whether that is a public document or not, the 25-06, and it is, at that point
Page 7 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

we might not want to use that 25-06, but then make our own declaration, orders, and commands to the
Treasury. CW The 25-06 is just the ability to write a letter to the Treasury and claim under that 25-06
Directive you are calling a DIB hearing and this is what's wrong and I want you guys to straighten it out,
according to the US Attorney's Manual 6-4.010 these records are inconsistent and please correct all your
records and all the subsequent computer tracking and all the other agencies have got to comport to that. If I
put that in my Declaration of Independence that I am the Grantor on the whole thing, establish my standing,
now I've got the right to come in and ask for the set-offs and the discharges, or order the discharges and set-
offs on the public and private side, order the settlements, order the closures, order the moving of the title, do
the conversion of the funds.

1:44:15 Order the merger of the titles and the conversion of the property and merge the titles in the
strawman and the remainder of the funds on the private side, move that into a new trust, and form a new
LLC on the public side and start generating some interest on the trade and deposit the interest in the new
LLC. It's all foreign source. Rhonda - Would we have to establish a new LLC or is that a mirror image in a
LLC? CW I think you would have to establish a new LLC or at least a trust from your LLC because the
strawman is terminated, so that account is dead. Once we move all the total debt titles into the strawman and
we merge the corresponding assets out of the private side then the strawman will terminate. There is no
more debt and no more purpose for the trust. Then it is going to be the remainder, which is going to be
really all the assets that are held in trust for the private real man. Really only one penny of lawful money
will discharge all the debts. In order to merge the titles I was likening that to a Bill of Exchange. Bill of
Exchange is really under debtor-creditor, but likening that to a Bill of Exchange is merging the titles in
Gilbert Law Summaries - Trusts §159 Merger of title… on page 41. What we do like that, like the Accept
for Value, is the merger of the title, which is the Bill of Exchange. We are just exchanging one bill for
another, so we are exchanging the debt on the one side for the asset on the other and when you do that and
they touch then they discharge on the public and set-off on the private. The order to merge is likened to the
Bill of Exchange.

1:47:50 Lou - You talk about discharging the debts. When we are doing this how would you be able to keep
the accounts open, like say your electric bill or gas bill and things of that nature that you want to keep the
accounts open in good standing? How would this apply to this as well? CW I'm afraid you are not going to
be able to keep the accounts open because once the strawman terminates he is gone, that account doesn't
exist any more. Lou - So that is why you were saying basically establish the LLC and re-contract all over
again under that LLC? CW Right. Now the LLC funds is generated from the interest draw against the
foreign source held in private. As soon as the people at the DTC are going to release all of these debt titles,
all the treasuries, and maybe all these gold certificates they got, they are still certificates and they are still
fiction money. What they [people who close down their strawman accounts through the DTC] are going to
do is take the temptation of receiving, say this $35B+ of liabilities, which is debt really, they are going to be
tempted to go out there and use that as money again. As soon as they do that they are going to fall into the
trap. They are going to fall into the benefit trap and put into recirculation debt currency that they have been
trying to get away from and put themselves back under debt again right off the bat. In fact, they never got
out.

What we need to do is we need to merge that debt title in that strawman and set-off an equivalent in assets
and merge that title in that strawman. When we do that to the strawman account that terminates it. The
remainder on the private side, we want to put that into a new trust and the remainder would probably be one
penny less than what it is because one penny is going to discharge the whole shebang on the liability public
side. All that which was held in the public side we are going to put that into a trust on the private side. We
are going to connect that with the new LLC on the public side with the interest that is going to be generated
through the Treasury. That interest is foreign source. We are going to live off of the interest for the rest of
our lives, as our inheritance. If you fall into that trap with the DTC and grab those titles and start using them
again you just fell right back into the same thing and you didn't get anything really. That's going to be the
Page 8 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

temptation, when somebody lays that $35B in your laps, what are you going to do with it? You going to
merge the titles or are you going to go out there and spend it? Then you have go and set up your new
account on the public side under this LLC and then just write a check for it, just like you would do
normally, right out of your account drawn on the interest.

1:51:05 Lou - Would it be better if you set up a trust as well? CW You could set a trust up off of the LLC
and then put the interest in that also. That way it could be agent for the trust. The trick is you never want to
use that agency, that LLC or that trust, for doing business. All you want to do is consume, purchase goods
and services for the real man. If you buy a piece of property you can't ever sell it. You would have to wear it
out and then junk it I guess. I think we are being prescribed by prescription, which is since we have never
made the claims they are going to extinguish the claims and the rights that we've got. We have a limited
amount of time to ?? that, the debt in and under acknowledgment of the debt under Black's Law it says that
stops prescription. That is the estoppel. Really what we are doing here is we are agreeing with them because
we are acknowledging we owe the debt. Now there really is no controversy. So the key is we are going to
put our acknowledgment of debt in also with an order for settlement simultaneously. The acknowledgment
of the debt will be the estoppel and the agreement that there is no controversy. That will probably time out
within say 90 days on an international, so we have to put our paperwork together and we could make it self-
renewing for say another 30 days. We could make it self-renewing for 5 years. That should give us plenty of
time to put the paperwork together. Call the Treasury Directive with a DIB hearing, merge the titles, and
everything I said before, give the orders for the discharge and the set-offs, set up the new accounts, and then
also asking questions as kings. It is as-king, asking questions as king. The king always asks questions. The
question I want to ask them is: "Have I left anything out that will prevent you from doing what I ordered?"
If they say there is something that I left out then I would say, "Then give me the form that I need to finish
this up." As long as I'm asking the question I'm acting as the king, I'm as king. When these people go into
the DTC and the DTC is asking them the questions who is the king? Any questions so far?

Terry - With regard to doing trade or business with the US and you were talking about property after we
purchase it, couldn't we just donate it to someone or some entity at that point? CW That would be gifting
and gifting falls under Title 26 IRS Code taxing. If you gifted it into a private trust account you can
possibly. In order to business in the United States again I have to form another trust or another corporation
and do your business through that. Whatever business you did in association with that corporation that
corporation is taxable. Don't commingle with the new LLC and the new trust that you formed. Keep it
totally separate. Don't cross back in by doing any business. You just want to be a consumer for the real man.
Just purchase the products and services that the real man is going to consume. I could buy some pretty nice
cars and houses with that I could consume. If I want to gift somebody something that would probably be
effectively connecting me back in with a business or trade. Then I would be commingling and I would be
ruining the trust.

1:57:05 Rhonda - In the order for settlement and asking as king is there anything we would be leaving out?
Would that be done with the initial special deposit on the private side? CW What deposit are you talking
about? Rhonda - The declaration, or the expression of the declaration. Earlier we talked about depositing
that. CW I think we are going to do that simultaneously, everything at once. Really that acknowledgment of
the debt and the order for the settlement, that is going to be our NOI and in order for us to give that we are
going to have the SOI, which would be our claiming of that Declaration of Independence trust. As soon as
we put that acknowledgment of debt in that is going to put in an estoppel and time out this prescription.
Rhonda - That ought to be the first thing we work on, right? CW Yes, right. Once we've got that
acknowledgment in there for the settlement now there is no controversy and we are in agreement with them
and then we can come back in and prove the standing and then we can issue the orders and move the titles,
merge the accounts, and terminate the strawman. Rhonda - So the acknowledgment of the debt should be
done first to create an estoppel until we get the rest of the paperwork done? CW Right. Rhonda - Would that
go on the private side or both? CW Yeah, probably both sides. Give everybody notice. The public side is
Page 9 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

trying to foreclose by prescription. If I do the acknowledgment of the debt and put in an order for
settlement, prove my standing after I claim trust, then I can do the public side order for the discharge, the
private side order for the set-off, the order to merge the titles, the orders to convert the debt money, and
close and settle the account. Then I would have the LLC set up at least and do an order for setting up a new
trust on the private side under a different name, say. Rhonda - So this acknowledgment of the debt - that
should only be a simple one pager - hey, I acknowledge the debt and here is the order for settlement? CW
Yeah.

I think we have opened up some new opportunities here in just the first two pages. We have a little more
clarification on that example.

2:01:55 Rhonda - How long do you think it will be before we can start to write this acknowledgment of
debt? CW I think probably once we get the workshop started. Rhonda - That would be good if we could put
an estoppel on them from taking everything until we get things cleared up. CW If I had more time I would
work on it right now. If anybody wanted to do some research on that Acknowledgment of Debt in Black's
Law and see what it says and on Order of Settlement. Also look up prescribed and prescription because that
ties in with it.

2:02:55 Doug - What kind of ramifications will this have with the Federal Reserve and Democracy? Do we
realize what we are doing here? I don't think a lot of us realize what we are doing. If you do free the
Republic where are the people that are going to take the offices? CW It would have to be a total
reorganization, yeah. Doug - Isn't it already underway with all the stuff going on behind the scenes with the
Federal Reserve and the Treasury? CW I'm probably not going to be able to stop it for everybody, but at
least I'm going to be able to stop it for myself. I can't wake up everybody else, but those that are awake and
those that want to do something about it I think that is possible. I think we can save it for ourselves. Doug -
Yeah, if we have a small group I think we can at least raise the awareness, if we have the funds. CW Yeah,
funds we don't have on the public side. After we get this all done we may have all the funds we need then on
the public side, but by then it might be too late. Who knows? We are going as fast as we can.

Discussion went on with a caller until near the end of the audio about current events with not much
expounding on this process.

2:23:50 Lenore - Someone asked about, and I missed it, what is that asset? I don't understand what that asset
that we have is. CW The asset that is held in private in 1933 was all the gold that was put into trust and all
the interest that that generated. The real asset is not that tangible gold that you can put your hands on. The
real asset is the intangible signature that you have the right to credit as much credit as you want. It's a Bill of
Exchange. No other entity has the right to make Bills of Attainders other than the real man and woman.
Properly managed right, according to HJR you can create as much debt as you want to get you through an
emergency and once the emergency is gone then you could relieve the debt by reducing the pressure by
using the discharge and the set-off, which is the real way HJR-192 was meant to function. It was meant to
function to get you through an emergency. You had the ability to create as much money as you wanted in
this system to do anything that you wanted then get it back down to a more manageable level. We haven't
done that. We've allow the debt to compound upon debt, upon debt, upon debt, and finally the debt has
become so burdensome that none of We the People can hold it up any longer. That what happens when it
gets too far out of line. Lenore - Everyone I have called and tried to talk to about this is so frightened out of
their mind they don't even want to hear about it so I just don't talk about it any more. CW Yeah, you are
more apt to tell people who are between a rock and a hard spot, somebody who has got some problems or a
foreclosure. Those people are willing to listen. They are looking for an answer. Anybody else that doesn't
have a problem, forget about it. You are talking to a wall. Be choosey to who you are giving your pearls to
because if you give them to swine they are not going to appreciate it.

Page 10 of 11
01-25-10 - NTT Ambassadors transcript.doc

acknowledgment of debt. Louisiana law. Recognition by a debtor of the existence of a debt. • An acknowledgment of debt interrupts the
running of prescription.

debt. 1. Liability on a claim; a specific sum of money due by agreement or otherwise <the debt amounted to $2,500>. 2. The aggregate of all
existing claims against a person, entity, or state <the bank denied the loan application after analyzing the applicant's outstanding debt>. 3. A
nonmonetary thing that one person owes another, such as goods or services <her debt was to supply him with 20 international first-class tickets
on the airline of his choice>. 4. A common-law writ by which a court adjudicates claims involving fixed sums of money <he brought suit in
debt>. -- Also termed (in sense 4) writ of debt. [Cases: Debt, Action of 1. C.J.S. Debt, Action Of §§ 1-2, 7-11.]

"The action of debt lies where a party claims the recovery of a debt; that is, a liquidated or certain sum of money due him. The action is based
upon contract, but the contract may be implied, either in fact or in law, as well as express; and it may be either a simple contract or a specialty.
The most common instances of its use are for debts: (a) Upon unilateral contracts express or implied in fact. (b) Upon quasi-contractual
obligations having the force and effect of simple contracts. (c) Upon bonds and covenants under seal. (d) Upon judgments or obligations of
record. (e) Upon obligations imposed by statute." Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading § 52, at 132 (Henry Winthrop
Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923).

liability, n. 1. The quality or state of being legally obligated or accountable; legal responsibility to another or to society, enforceable by civil
remedy or criminal punishment <liability for injuries caused by negligence>. -- Also termed legal liability; responsibility; subjection. 2. (often
pl.) A financial or pecuniary obligation; DEBT <tax liability> <assets and liabilities>.

"The term 'liability' is one of at least double signification. In one sense it is the synonym of duty, the correlative of right; in this sense it is the
opposite of privilege or liberty. If a duty rests upon a party, society is now commanding performance by him and threatening penalties. In a
second sense, the term 'liability' is the correlative of power and the opposite of immunity. In this case society is not yet commanding
performance, but it will so command if the possessor of the power does some operative act. If one has a power, the other has a liability. It would
be wise to adopt the second sense exclusively. Accurate legal thinking is difficult when the fundamental terms have shifting senses." William R.
Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 9 (Arthur L. Corbin ed., 3d Am. ed. 1919).

prescribe, vb. 1. To dictate, ordain, or direct; to establish authoritatively (as a rule or guideline). 2. To claim ownership through prescription. 3.
To invalidate or otherwise make unenforceable through prescription. 4. To become invalid or otherwise unenforceable through prescription.

claim, n. 1. The aggregate of operative facts giving rise to a right enforceable by a court <the plaintiff's short, plain statement about the crash
established the claim>. -- Also termed claim for relief. 2. The assertion of an existing right; any right to payment or to an equitable remedy, even
if contingent or provisional <the spouse's claim to half the lottery winnings>. 3. A demand for money, property, or a legal remedy to which one
asserts a right; esp., the part of a complaint in a civil action specifying what relief the plaintiff asks for. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 680;
Pleading 72. C.J.S. Pleading §§ 110-115.] 4. An interest or remedy recognized at law; the means by which a person can obtain a privilege,
possession, or enjoyment of a right or thing; CAUSE OF ACTION (1) <claim against the employer for wrongful termination>.

prescription, n. 1. The act of establishing authoritative rules. Cf. PROSCRIPTION. 2. A rule so established. -- Also termed (archaically)
prescript. 3. The effect of the lapse of time in creating and destroying rights. [Cases: Limitation of Actions 1. C.J.S. Limitations of Actions
§§ 2-4.] 4. The extinction of a title or right by failure to claim or exercise it over a long period. -- Also termed negative prescription; extinctive
prescription. 5. The acquisition of title to a thing (esp. an intangible thing such as the use of real property) by open and continuous possession
over a statutory period. -- Also termed positive prescription; acquisitive prescription. Cf. ADVERSE POSSESSION. See (for senses 3-5)
PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION. [Cases: Adverse Possession 1-95. C.J.S. Adverse Possession §§ 2-225, 263-299, 327-338; Conflict of Laws §
76.] 6. Int'l law. The acquisition of a territory through a continuous and undisputed exercise of sovereignty over it. 7. Oil & gas. A Louisiana
doctrine that extinguishes unused mineral servitudes after ten years if there is no effort to discover or produce on the land or the land pooled
with it.

prescription in a que estate (ah kee). [Law French "prescription in whose estate"] A claim of prescription based on the immemorial enjoyment
of the right by the claimant and the former owners whose estate the claimant has succeeded to.

bill of exchange. See DRAFT (1).

draft, n. 1. An unconditional written order signed by one person (the drawer) directing another person (the drawee or payor) to pay a certain
sum of money on demand or at a definite time to a third person (the payee) or to bearer. • A check is the most common example of a draft. --
Also termed bill of exchange; letter of exchange. Cf. NOTE (1). [Cases: Banks and Banking 137, 189; Bills and Notes 1-27. C.J.S. Banks
and Banking §§ 328, 330, 452-458; Bills and Notes; Letters of Credit §§ 2-6, 8-10, 12-22, 203-204, 250.]

order, n. 1. A command, direction, or instruction. See MANDATE (1). 2. A written direction or command delivered by a court or judge. • The
word generally embraces final decrees as well as interlocutory directions or commands. -- Also termed court order; judicial order. See
MANDAMUS. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 928; Motions 46. C.J.S. Motions and Orders §§ 1-3, 13, 50, 59.]

Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 24 (8th ed. 2004)

Page 11 of 11