Trusts by Operation of Law

Example picTrusts by Operation of Law (43)

Resulting & Constructive Trusts:

I view the Fourteenth Amendment as a constructive spendthrift trust created by implication of law. In order for one to understand what I just said, a person has to understand what a constructive trust is, a spendthrift trust, and a trust created by operation of law.

A. A trust by operation of law may exist where an express trust does not exist and it may exist without being created or manifested in writing. It is based on rule, presumption, or inference of law, and not on expression of intention by the trustor. A trust by operation of law, whether it is a resulting or a constructive trust, is NOT within the statute of frauds NOR the statute of wills, and is not required by that statute to be created or proved in writing(44)

B. A trust of this kind arises from the fact of "consideration", and not from a written agreement, instrument, or will,..(45)

C. A trust by operation of law may exist without being created or manifested in writing(46)

D. A trust by operation of law is based on rule, presumption, or inference of law, and not on expression of intention by the trustor(47)

A through D are excellent descriptions of the Fourteenth amendment trust. We have never been able to bring Fraud into any suits upon the Government because the Statute of Frauds and Wills is excluded from the Fourteenth Amendment or vice versa. Everything about the amendment is by presumption or inference of law. However; there are rules that govern the trust created by it, and we will get to them shortly.

Resulting Trusts: 76 Am Jur 2d, Trusts

A. A resulting trust involves primarily the operation of the equitable doctrine of consideration -- the doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest resulting from a transaction.

B. A resulting trust involves a presumption, implication, or supposition of law of an intention to create a trust.

C. There is no element of fraud in a resulting trust.

D. The two most important groups of resulting

Trusts are:

1. Those arising on a failure of an express trust or purpose; and

2. Those arising on a conveyance to one person on a consideration from another.

What we need to contemplate here is; Is the Fourteenth Amendment a resulting Trust? Is United States citizenship the valuable consideration? Is the "Debt" the valuable consideration? Was the "consideration" separate and distinct from citizenship, such as a Banking agreement? Did the Express Trust Fail in 1868 in order to create a resulting trust? or did it fail in first years of this century? Did it fail at all or was it set up to look as if it did? Was there "no element of fraud" in its creation? The Government may consider the Fourteenth Amendment creating a resulting trust, but I don't personally see it fitting any of the above.

Constructive Trusts:

A. A constructive trust generally involves primarily a presence of fraud, in view of which equitable title or interest should be recognized in some person other than the taker or holder of the legal title.

B. A constructive trust is entirely independent of any actual or presumed intention of the parties and is frequently imposed against the intention of the trustee.

C. "Otherwise known as a trust ex maleficio, a trust ex delicto, a trust de son tort, an involuntary trust, or an implied trust is a trust by operation of law which arises contrary to the intention and in invitum against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive by duress or abuse of confidence by commission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment or questionable means, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy".(48)

D. "A constructive Trust arises only after an act of Fraud or Breach of Confidence or duty and as a relief against the same, it is in substance a state of secondary rights and liabilities growing out of a violation of a primary right and liability hence a constructive trust frequently is classified as a division of adjectival rather than SUBSTANTIVE LAW; and it is said that ground for relief is fraud and not trust.(49)

Accordingly the 14th Amendment having been created under fraud, established a system that allowed U.S. Citizens to acquire title to property that rightfully they should not hold, and a constructive trust literally turns Tom, Dick, Harry and you into trustees.

E. "A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression, and 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".(50)

You retain the "beneficial interest" in property Rightfully belonging the Posterity of the Express Trust; therefore you can be converted into a trustee. After all haven't you ever felt that you were the public servant not the IRS agent cornering you. All those government agencies are out to make sure that you, as a quasi trustee are not unjustly enriched. I think they are doing an excellent Job of that.


(43. : 76 Am Jur 2d, Trusts, ''190 and 191; Broadway Bldg. Co. v Salafia, 47 RI 263, 132 A 527, 45 ALR 847.)

(44. . Whitney v Hay, 181, US 45 L Ed 758, 21 S Ct 537; Smithsonian Institution v Meech 169 US 398, 42 L Ed 793, 18 S Ct 396; Levis v Kengla 169 US 234, 42 L Ed 728, 18 S Ct 309; Ducie v Ford, 138 US 587, 34 L Ed 1091, 11 S Ct 417. Restatement, Trusts 2d '406: "Neither the statute of wills nor the statute of frauds is violated by raising a constructive trust upon a mere promise to create a trust in property not then in existence, where thereafter such property comes into existence and vest in the one who made the promise to act as trustee. Voelkel v Tohulka, 236, Ind 588, 141 NE2d 344, 70 ALR2d 1349, cert den 355 US 891, 2 L Ed 2d 189, 78 S Ct 263. (Do you see why we can't prove fraud? This quote is real interesting, it looks just like the Government to me.) )

(45. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts, '194.)

(46. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts '190)

(47. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts '190)

(48. Am Jur 2d, Trusts '221; Loomis v Loomis 148 Cal 149, 82 P 679; Central Stock & Grain Exch. v Bendinger 109 F 926 cert den 183 US 699, 46 L Ed 396, 22 S Ct 935; Des Moines Terminal Co. v Des Moines U.R. Co. 52 F 2d 616, cert den 285 US 537, 76 L Ed 930, 52 S Ct 311; St Louis & S.F.R.Co. v Spiller 274 US 304, 71 L Ed 1060, 47 S Ct 635; Angel v Chicago, S.P.M & O. R. Co. 151 US 1, 38 L Ed 55, 14 S Ct 240; Monroe Cattle Co. v Becker 147 US 47, 37 L Ed 72, 13 S Ct 217; Felix v Patrick 145 US 317, 36 L Ed 719, 12 S Ct 862; and more.)

(49. " 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts, '222.)

(50. Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co. 225 NY 380, 122 NE 378.)

Points & Authorities :

Offerings :

If you have found the information presented of interest or use, please consider supporting this effort by reviewing our offerings.

Spread the word.

Thank You