0:02 All right. 0:02 Well, this is going to be a continuation of part three, I didn't want to call it part four. 0:06 So what I'm showing you here is all this talk, and this theory and this explanation comes down to what, how am I going to communicate in a court situation where there's not a po...

All right.
Well, this is going to be a continuation of part three, I didn't want to call it part four.
So what I'm showing you here is all this talk, and this theory and this explanation comes down to what, how am I going to communicate in a court situation where there's not a post an actual agreement.
There's just, there's a divorce going on. There's maybe a petition for separation, right?
Could be the result of a live in boyfriend, girlfriend, it could be marriage, Any relationship like that couples, like I was explaining.
So Any any of those matters can be covered with what I'm going to show you.
So look at the document here.
This is generic for all the states. Now, California's a little bit different. When it comes to a motion to dismiss, it has to be written as a demure dem.
You are R E R I think it is.
And sometimes the the formatting is little bit different, but you'll be fine with this understanding here.
This is what we want to do.
The: it's the, let's say I'm, I know I'm I'm using this as a typical example, so let's just say it's the, it's the wife or the girlfriend that goes to the some lawyer then goes to the core for some remedy, right? To overcome the man's authority, the father or the husband, as a as a, as it is in that case.
So you would simply use this document, you would start with this document, You can put the name of the type of court, Maybe here's the circuit court. In California, it's a superior court in New York. It'd be the Supreme Court.
And then the name of the county, and of course, the state, there's going to be a case number, right?
So if you're the one being served, I'm assuming that those of you watching this are probably dealing with this year, the responding party. So you can get all this information from the documents you were served with, of course.
And this document is written in a way where you can do a search and replace just to start out, and then you have to revise this, I'm going to show you what you can do to revise it as needed.
So we want to file an appearance, because you need to explain that you're not just the respondent, you have a special role, now you're not the trustee of an entity, this is we're gonna get to that.
But we want to show that you're appearing in your proper person, OK?
So you give notice of your appearance in your proper person propriety persona in the Latin phrase for that. That you're appearing specially.
You're only appearing for the special purpose of explaining to the court why it doesn't have jurisdiction, not generally, I'm not submitting to the Court's jurisdiction.
You're appearing, especially as the father, of the Petitioner, son and two daughters or whatever the case may be. Maybe you don't have children. So, you would have to appear as the husband, OK.
And I know maybe you, some of you are in a situation where it's the boyfriends, So, I wouldn't say boyfriend because that's not really a recognized role. It's going to be the husband.
I know, it sounds weird, but there's a role, they're social roll, So, we want to use these terms.
Um, and so I'm explaining that you're also the trustee by virtue of your role, OK? Not as just the respondent, but as the husband father, but you're the trustee of a trust, in which the Petitioner, the wife, the girlfriend, has been benefiting the and she's the beneficiary.
The same for the children. There are, right?
So this is, now, you're appearing in this, in this manner, in this capacity, it's important.
So that's all we have here, we just have a Notice of Appearance, and then you want to sign it.
We put the date and all this sort of thing, OK?
Now we have another document. By the way, this is like I explained earlier, here's your court title.
All right, this is your caption, your case number over here, and what I, what I do is I correct.
I make this caption perfect, and then I go and copy and paste the whole thing like this everywhere.
So that's another way to do it. So, what we're going to do is ask the Court to dismiss the case.
I really think you have more power if you dismiss the case, because you're gonna run into a situation where, if you participate in these proceedings, you're allowing some people to come in and tell you how to re-allocate your resources.
It's going to cost you a lot of money. It's gonna, it's gonna, it's gonna alter. It's going to prejudice, your ability to do what you were doing.
You spent a lot of time and thought into organizing, How are you going to pay and do things and manage your money? And then some other dude comes along and starts telling you how you're going to do it now.
And you're still gonna, what, acquire and earn those resources, and allow some other dude to tell you what to do.
Well, if you don't want to do that, this is how you work it. So you ask the court to dismiss, you want to get out of the court. You want to tell the court, this matter should be just dismissed, And the most powerful way to do that is to explain why the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Now, that can be raised at any time. It can even be raised.
If you've already been through this process and they took all your stuff, you got your **** kicked.
You can file this motion now.
It's powerful.
So, you're gonna move the court by special appearance to dismiss the complaint. For the reason that, and now here's how we say it, is, the technical language, the complaint fails to state a cause of action.
In other words, there's no good reason why the course should get involved.
The play, And we're going to say why.
But I like to put in there, fails to state a cause of action or a claim on which relief can be granted.
The court can't do anything for the petitioners what you're saying, therefore, the and because the court can't do anything because the Court doesn't have jurisdiction. And here's why. So I get to a little housekeeping matter here. I'm explaining about the how, the husband wife, Petitioner, father mother.
So I would not use the golf girlfriend boyfriend.
OK, don't use those terms.
Those were not legally recognized, um.
The court has the authority to hear and dismiss the motion.
So you can look up the rules of civil procedure and find out rules of RA. Find out what the rule is.
In generally the rules of civil procedure rule, the rule 12 typically is going to be rules 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Somewhere in there is going to be the motion to dismiss role for your state in the rules of civil procedure. You can find, in your state statutes to they're identical to the rules.
The Federal rules of Civil procedure is will offset real, 12, Rule, 12, 6 B in this case, but were not Fed.
This is always going to be in state court, OK, 99% of the time.
Now, if it's not a matter of rules, because sometimes when the petition is filed, there's already a pending request for Discovery or something like that. Because that's the whole point. Right? You'd go to the court and discover assets and income and then Start Re-allocating. That's what they're doing. So, there's an automatic, in many cases, effort to obtain your financial information. So, don't give your financial information.
No matter what, will explain that. There's a lot more here, but so, when you're asking for a dismissal, the reason why discovery, that collection of your financial information should be stopped is, because of the cases dismissed, then you waste all this money and time collecting all this. Right. So it's the court is no more than likely going to be inclined to hear the motion to dismiss and decide that first before, it's going to issue an order of participating and discovery.
So that's That's why, now, sometimes it's a matter of a rule, Sometimes it's not. I just put that in here like this, just, in case, and if you don't find the rule. So what? it's OK, you can still make the argument OK, because of the pending motion, To dismiss all, discovery must be state. You can say it like that.
So let's say the Petitioner lacks capacity to sue lacks capacity.
Here's an example of lacking capacity, a child, a child lacks capacity soon.
Or Sue or be sued.
The petitioner this is an interesting scenario, and this is probably true in many cases.
The petitioner, or the woman, typically would use the man's money to go out without consent and outside the trust, to go outside of the marriage and and pay another man Or woman to interfere with the marriage.
Meaning, hire an attorney to commence a divorce proceeding or legal separation proceeding.
Isn't that interesting? The Petitioner's attorney is liable to the respondent for the turn of the return of the property.
It's interesting, isn't it?
The petitioner, or the wife, goes takes the man's money, goes to hire an attorney, attorneys, Now, using that money is getting compensation.
Now, the man's paying for it, the woman, gets the attorney to sue the man.
He's fighting his own money, OK.
The petitioner have the same, the petitioner respond have the same interests as more fully expressed.
But the respondent did not agree to Retain the petitioner's attorney, with his own money.
I don't know how they're going to deal with that, But I think it's an important point, if that, that set of facts is true, in your case, just just consider it, or that his own money, or the money he had allocated for the benefit of his family, could be used in an adversarial manner against the respondent.
This money was intended to be used for the benefit and care and comfort of the plant plaintiff or petitioner, and yet that petitioner is now using it to the detriment of herself and the trust and their husband to attack it, OK?
So we're gonna say the court lacks jurisdiction. Over the subject matter.
We're basically saying that's just this case, we're just saying that it doesn't even have jurisdiction to have family court to hear these types of petitions. I just wanted to throw that in there. I mean we don't really care specifically. The court lacks the authority to intrude upon the fiduciary obligations.
And I put it, you know, as set forth herein.
So yeah, I mean, this comment here, this whole statement here has to do with the Court doesn't have jurisdiction in any of these cases.
But I'm going to explain why it doesn't have it in this case.
Additionally, the core of leks jurisdiction over the person of the property, of course, thereby, right?
As a consequence, the Court has no jurisdiction over the individual. And the above matter, and the Court has no jurisdiction over the private intangible property rights at the trustee as the father and husband.
The court cannot impose its own plan for the re-allocation of the father's assets and income.
It wants to do that. The woman wants to do that.
The wife wants to do that, But there is no authority for that. There's no jurisdiction for that.
You're going to find out that as we move on here, to answer the question of, well, why not? It's a divorce court, it's family court.
Well, if if you agree with some of this that I'm explaining here, makes sense.
The father is the final arbiter.
The father's the judge: the husband is the judge, not some other judge, and some other lawyer. The man is.
No officer. This court has the authority to copulate with the respondents wife.
That is the, that is the singlet identifying factor.
The thing that that led to the role of husband and father, OK, nor did any officer, this court consummate their marriage.
That includes the judge.
So, if you didn't do that, you'd like the authority.
Only the father did that.
Only the husband did that.
The court has no more authority to calculate the trustees wife, Then the defendant has the right to copulate with the wife of any other officer to this court.
It's a pretty bold example there, but this is making a legal argument.
This is how I do it, anyways, This can easily be demonstrated.
So we're going to demonstrate here with a hypothetical example as to why the Court doesn't have jurisdiction. If you think judge you have authority to re-allocate my resources, let me inform you of something here.
If the court orders a re-allocation of response, money, and assets, and the property, the respondent will simply cease from continuing to produce the resources.
I know this sounds crazy, disruptive, but it is true and it's something that you need to consider.
You're not going to have to, but still. The court is certainly without the authority to compel anyone to produce resources for another.
Just like in another case, I have, Judge said, it's part of the deal.
I got in there after the fact you got to refinance your house or sell your house to the husband.
So that you can split the equity with the ex-wife and you got somebody needs to do that.
Well, the court can't require someone to buy the house, nor can the court require someone.
Some, anyone, any lender, to lend them money to refinance out, So if the Court can't require those things, it can't require the husband to do those things, ultimately, OK, it's only on a best effort basis. How do you measure that? I don't know, there's no standard for that.
So even if the Court.
Yeah. So the court is certainly without the authority to compel anyone to produce resources for another. OK, so or do this things. If the court imposes contempt penalties, this will not result in the respondent producing money or other resources under any orders of the court not ever.
So this is almost like gambling or bluffing. I'm not saying that should be a bluff. I'm just saying, you should just tell them, Look, you want to do that to my resources. Well, then, I'm going to stop producing the resources.
If you think that you have a state compelling interest and the authority to re-allocate my resources for the benefit of this woman, this violated the marriage, then by all means, you go ahead and you provide the resources, but I won't.
That's my right to choose not to do that. Even if the Court imposes the penalties. Moreover, the officers evolve with this tort.
It is a tort to impose, uh, child support and alimony against the will and wishes of the father, it's a tort, and we've been accepting it for decades, OK?
Whoever does that is liable to the respondent for all the damages, If you've been in that situation for years or whatever, you ought to be really angry right now, and you ought to think to yourself, man, I gotta **** remedy, Possibly.
Maybe you don't care, maybe you overcame it, other ways you can do that too. I'm just saying I'm going to give you some words that describe what happened.
So, the petition fails to join necessary parties. This is where we get into that notice of appearance. And I just thought I'd explain it more.
I wanna, I wanna really get into the details as to the role of the respondent. He's not just the respondent.
The petition names only, the father husband, whoever that is, individually, John Smith, whoever that is, and failed to include him as father.
She didn't sue him as father. She sued him as a person individually.
He's the father of her children, and or the husband.
He's also the trustee.
The petition also fails to allege that the petitioner for all matters material is the beneficiary of a trust in which the respondent is the trustee.
So she's identified herself as an individual, but she's not in this capacity.
She is not in the capacity of the individual here, she's in the capacity of a beneficiary of the trust of the respondent.
Joined necessary parties is feasible. and the petitioners fail to join necessary parties may plausibly impede the person's ability to protect his interests. So these are like standard under people, lawyers understand, the course understand, these are the consequences of failing to join necessary parties. I don't need to say all this but I want to be thorough here, OK?
It may unfairly and inequitable leave one or more of the party said it to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed Interest.
All right.
So, you didn't name the proper parties. And you lack the capacity. First of all, the individual plaintiff lacks the capacity that individual is outside the marriage, even though it's the wife, OK.
She's only her relation to the respondent is that of beneficiary to the trust in which he is the trustee.
She's not an individual that capacity, and as beneficiary, let's say, she sees, as beneficiary, The you'll find out later the declaration of trust explains that she doesn't have the right to sue.
As beneficiary she's divested of the right to sue or be sued as beneficiary of this.
She doesn't have a recourse outside the marriage. She has to go to the final arbiter, which is the husband.
Sorry, ladies, I know you're probably thinking, this guy is crazy, and misogynist. Now, this is how it works, OK? This is how it is, It works.
And this relationship, this very old manner of living, has been destroyed or under attack for decades and we have to undo a lot of this.
So I thought it was important to underline the matter of custody and other marital arrangements and the allocation of resources has already been settled. So it's not enough to just say, Hey, I'm the man. You can't tell me how to spend my money.
No, here's why you can't, because the matter is already settled, even if you could, You can't, because it's already been settled, you don't get to resettle it.
It's been settled between the parties.
It's barred by the doctrine of rescue to call it. Now here's how they're going to argue it. They'll say, well rescued economy, right? It was settled by whom.
Oh, you, you're not a judge.
By the fact, you're a judge means you don't have the authority only. I do the husband, right.
And yeah, rescued Okada, He's the final arbiter.
Doesn't have to be a judge that court remember the family courts of business.
I don't need Ronald McDonald Macdonald's coming in here and told me what to do with my marriage.
It's the petitioner who has simply changed her mind, right?
And you can, you can word this, however is necessary, or appropriate the petitioner decided she wants to countermand the husband's authority, right? She wants to use the police power to overcome its authority.
So we have, we introduced now the declaration of the trust.
You don't put the trust in there. And by the way, your trust relationship as husband is not written, per se. It could be, it doesn't have to be, and you can never really write all the terms.
I mean, you really can't, it's infinite.
So the trust relationship is understood, and many trust relationships actually exist in our world that we encounter every day, that are not in writing, and we don't even realize it.
Remember, trust is a relationship. It's not necessarily a legal document. The legal document may describe the relationship in great detail, but it's not necessary.
So we have this supporting affidavit and declaration of trust, so the trust precludes, the Petitioner from suing the respond in any capacity. You're going to see that, in the end, precludes the Petitioner for proceeding against the father and of their children as more fully describe. The petition fails to allege any facts. Now, this is another way where the Court may have jurisdiction, but, interestingly, the family court would not have jurisdiction if there was actual abuse or neglect or some crime involved.
Then the police part of the state will be about like the District Attorney's office or the Attorney General's Office, OK.
Not family court.
Family court can only make a referral so the petition fails to allege any facts that would establish abuse or neglect or other any other crime or criminal conduct.
There's been no evidentiary hearing. We want to make an important point.
No evidentiary hearing or evidence obtained that would establish abuse or neglect.
So there's no grounds for that on that basis, for the court to proceed.
And I make the point here.
Even later on, that, even if there were such a thing, the Court would have to refer it back to another court, like the Criminal Court, right, to investigate. not the Court but it would have to get referred to the prosecutor's office for investigation. Alright. The petition is not found it enter upon any measure of the state's compelling interest in the petition fails to allege any State compelling interest. So what is the compelling interest? Well, let's see. Kidnapping. That would be a state compelling interest. Taking a shot across state lines, but it would have to qualify for kidnapping for real.
Um, you know, things of that crimes, crimes give the State compelling interest, not a private membership association, not the business between the relation between husband and wife and children and family. OK, That doesn't give the state of compelling interest on its own.
Even if someone asked the state to get involved in this petition, for example, it doesn't give, that doesn't create compelling interest.
There actually has to be a compelling interest.
Some people might argue, Well, we had a marriage license and therefore, our marriage is governed by the statute's.
If you let it, the marriage license and the payment of the tax to be married in a particular jurisdiction does not give the state compelling interest.
The state has compelling interests possibly, but it's gotta be where there's a crime is committed.
The court lacks jurisdiction to consider decide upon matters involving allegations of abuse or neglect. See, this is where I go to.
These are solely and exclusively within the purview of the state's police powers for the investigation and prosecution of a crime.
So I'm saying, even if there were such allegations, the court itself family court cannot proceed on that basis alone, especially.
So by the law the father and the law the husband, and his exclusive obligations, as trustee that trust cannot be revoked or dissolved and the property conveyed to the trust's cannot be revoked or be conveyed.
This is what the court is wanting to do or otherwise remove from the trust.
Now, when the let's say the wife took the money That she that came from the man, the husband.
She went hired an attorney outside of the marriage well, she's removed property from this trust.
This is known as pillaging the trust pillaging.
The benefits established for the beneficiaries. By the trustee.
Cannot likewise be revoked re conveyed or re-allocated by anyone except the trustee except upon the and accept upon the death of the trustee So yeah, if the trustee were to be, you know where to die, then there would be, unless there's some other I don't know if you can have a successor trustee, in that case, maybe you could.
But yeah, that the trust relationship ends on the death of the trustee.
The petition fails to allege that the trustee is now deceased are gay or was deceased at the time the petition was filed.
So, yeah. If if the trustee is a state survives, then maybe there needs to be some sort of petition there. But I don't, that's not, that's an unusual I don't know about that.
But, anyways, the Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the trustees' duties under the trust established by the husband and the father for the benefit of his wife and children.
The beneficiary petitioner use the respondent's resources and the resources of the trust of which she is a beneficiary to suit the trustee. So this is kind of redundant. I know I mentioned that earlier. Maybe I should probably, you know, move this paragraph around, but this is prohibited under the declaration of trust included with this motion. So this is leading it to the declaration of trust, which is coming next. And so we get into this, you know, document, and you guys can summarize it, rewrite it however you want. This is basically a remediating the Court, the next section here. All of this is to remediate the court, all these pages here.
All right?
You're familiar with this.
And I just you know, I put a little mark here.
The course actions, and those of other officers of the court to intrude upon the trustees duties as father and husband are actionable and tort for the interference with the trustees, fiduciary duties, and no officer, this quarter's immune. So here's what's interesting. If a judge, now you want a judge. If you, if you want to judge to be make a decision for over property dispute, that judge needs to have immunity, you want that judge to have immunity, because you don't want his authority to be interfered with by outside parties.
You don't want him to be sued or questioned if you're gonna rely upon his decision or you're in the middle of a proceeding, so that we have, we have qualified immunity for judges, OK?
So, if the judges, in his office doing his job, and it just so happens, that he's involved in the commission of a tort wrong while in office, at that moment, she doesn't have immunity.
So, he's not acting in the capacity of a judge. He's just some, dude. That's why I said it that way. Is just some guy.
That's not immune, therefore, He has no authority, so there's no jurisdiction.
for a judge while he's acting in tort That makes sense.
The moment he begins committing the tort, the immunity goes away, and there's no jurisdiction or authority.
It happens the same moment, OK?
And this is what I said, And that's why I said this down there.
That makes sense.
So then we get to our father and all that, You guys know you've seen this.
So, then I, it's particular case, you might find this, like in this one case, I was just working yesterday, it turns out to where they have the statute that deals with, uh, taking custody of the children, and interfering with a marriage right or parenting.
So the courts trying to do that, and the wife is trying to do that, and has done that, in this case, that I'm working, she actually took the child away from the father without his consent and won't tell them where they are.
So then, of course, we have that rule that I've mentioned earlier.
There's a rule, like it's real 12, something like that, in your rules of civil procedure that allows the court to dismiss the case.
And the other argument as to jurisdiction is the court. The court, the complaint seeks to adjudicate matters which had previously been settled, are adjudicated by final arbiter, right? Tortures interference with the trust and the Finnish obligation of the trustee. And so this is just a note to myself, Right?
There's torturous interference. I didn't make an argument here. The court's intrusion is explained including but not limited to the judge and any other officer that cost it constitutes a waiver of sovereign and judicial or other qualified immunity.
They know that the Court, the State and its officers intruding upon the Respondents fiduciary obligations are hereby noticed. So, we give them we put them on notice, that you're liable for damages that I may incur.
You're acting a tort.
And when we have this here, I like to put a verification statement.
It's just good practice.
And then, many times we do the wherefores statement, respond, respectfully, request an order, dismissing the petition with prejudice. Sometimes you put and for other relief as deemed appropriate by the court. I'm not going to do that here because I don't really care what the court thinks, I don't care what the court wants to give me. I just want out of the court, and I want them to leave it, leave me alone, stay away from my property.
Um, So then we get into the next document, this is your supporting affidavit.
Now what you have to do is, I got some things here that you can leave in there.
All right. So there's, you know, may have a name and all this stuff.
This goes on to describe. This would be different for everybody's case.
All this goes on to describe the custody arrangements, who's paying what money for what, OK?
All this here, you want to have this in your affidavits.
You're describing that the, the elements of the agreement that's already been reached, OK.
This is typically what, you know, what people do, right?
Many times the husband pays for everything. Now, what happens if the wife has, you know, her own income and things of that nature?
It, Yeah, I'm not gonna go into that, but you just have to think this through and how you're gonna present the argument, you're, You're going toward explaining why the court doesn't have jurisdiction. It's none of the courts business.
It doesn't matter if the wife even pays all the income, the husband has the authority just the way it works.
It just has to work that way.
Mean, it's more obvious if the husband's paying for everything in this case, that was that way. So.
So like, for example, the family uses the mom's insurance rates, just better insurance rates, right? But the husband pays for all the premiums.
But her insurance covers it, I guess, just better rates or whatever. So so, yeah. So he's saying, in the affidavit speaking, the first person, I allocated all my resources in a manner that best suits the needs of our children. My wife no one else is trusted with this obligation.
The affidavit followed by the Petitioners attorney always fall some affidavits. So they call it an affidavit, and there's facts on there that serve the interests of the petitioner. But none of those are written by the petitioner. People don't know how to write affidavits like that. The lawyers write them up, it's just a form is filed hundreds of times. Sales criticize that.
This is not her testimony, OK, and again, line for they're claiming that the cost is not settled.
We're saying it is OK, line, these lines, um, again, these are these are not the testimony of my wife, OK?
There, anyways, um, so the balance of the affidavit.
In this case, like you might, you might find this too, but sometimes in the affidavit, they start making demands.
This is not appropriate for an affidavit an affidavit is only statements like that, someone's going to testify to having personal firsthand knowledge of those.
And this is up.
This situation in this particular case, so we're going to put this in the affidavit. In this case, the wife left the household and abandoned the comfort protection and security that that he provided.
And also took her his son away from away with her but cannot provide the same, she can't provide the same protection of, you know, in fact, she's using his money. She's staying in a hotel.
She is seeking to abandon the marriage and she has no resources of her own that would allow her to do that and how our she's been using the father's resources to commence the preceding. Her intent is to involve strangers in our marriage, in the hopes of countermanding, my authority, yet, She has no standing per hour agreement.
It's kind of redundant, but that's what it looks like, OK, so he's going to have that notarized.
Then we get into, here's the declaration of the trust. And it describes the role of the trustee And what that what the trust is all about.
You don't end up producing an instrument, OK. This is the declaration of trust.
And your situation will be different, right?
Here's the nature of the trust. It's irrevocable.
Here's my role as the trustee.
And I'm supposed to do these things here.
I'm the final arbiter.
I'm responsible for this. My role is to do this, et cetera.
I alone, have e-gain exclusive right?
To calculate with my wife that gives me all the authority as part of the marriage.
No one else can do that.
No corporation can do that, right? Any rights excluded.
So, this is just technical stuff, if I forgot something many here, that doesn't mean I waived anything.
I'm the trustee.
you're lucky, I'm even explaining myself to you.
Furthermore, the resources of the trust may not be distributed.
It must be used for the sole benefit of the beneficiary. So like I said before, what that does is it just gets rid of any tax considerations. Say compelling interest, right?
Poof, gone.
No resource of the trust may be distributed or disbursed to any third party that has an adversarial relationship to either the trust or any of its beneficiaries or the trustee. Now. Let me just give you a crazy analogy.
You can't use property from the trust that would use be used against the trust, makes sense.
How about this?
Let's say I worked for a government, and I am exposed to secrets and then I go give those secrets to another country problem with that, OK, that's a more of an extreme example but you cannot betray a trust relationship without severe consequences penalties.
So what's going on here? So, no beneficiary, according to the declaration of trust.
No beneficiary has the right to sue or be sued, of course, when you get married.
You never say to the wife, You can serve me someday if you want to, if you don't like my decisions.
And if you don't, if you want to countermand my authority, go ahead and bring in some lawyers, OK, just zoom in now, you can't.
So I'm saying, in the declaration of trust, this is for sure, no beneficiary has the right to our prerogative to call upon request, or utilize any third party for the purpose of interfering with the duties, rights and obligations, or prerogatives of the trustee that is to be sued or use the trust property or resources for commencing any lawsuit.
This includes, but is not limited to suing the father or sewing or making a claim against the father or the trust in any court.
The mother, the mother, has beneficiary, as beneficiary does, not have the right, or prerogative to seek or obtain any resources beyond those provided by the trustee. For the Purpose of Interfering, so yeah, you can't just even go out and get someone else's money. I've seen cases where the other family members, you know, pay for this, this includes, but is not limited to Financial incentives, of course. So what we're, what we're saying is that the woman.
In this case, the petitioner, is not entitled to ask for public benefits.
Especially if they're going to assist her in interfering with the trust.
OK, now, I know that she could still probably qualify, because the state's application process doesn't consider any of these facts, but that's OK.
It's just that this is her obligation and limitation as beneficiary in this, in this situation. So, any disputes between the beneficiaries of the trustee shall be resolved exclusively by the trustee.
The trustees' final determinations shall be binding upon every beneficiary of the trust?
Yeah, of course.
I mean, we have to say that the ... shall continue in perpetuity until the death of the trustee or until the death of every beneficiary.
Those who interfere with the Trust Powers, and, no, we can say this.
But our or the trusts are liable to the trustee and the father and to the husband and have no immunity.
So as part of the trust, we can't really control outside parties, but you know, we can just put them on notice.
That's what we're doing here, OK?
It's very important, the affidavit and the declaration of trust overcome other ****.
You will see, I mean, if you go back, if you have this situation, and you go see what was filed, if you don't have a counter after David, you're gonna, you're gonna. Whatever they're doing is going to run over you with, OK?
So that's what we have. Then we get into a proposed order. I explained this before.
Then that's a technicality, a certificate of service.
New York and California have different means of perfecting service.
So what they want you to do is certify that you sent all these documents to the other parties and really what she needed to have here is the certification as to the other attorney.
OK, and we all understand that you're gonna file a copy of the clerk of the Court. I mean, you don't have to put that in here, but you could. It's understood that we don't put that in there, but you can put clerk of the court with the address. Sometimes I put the address in there, just so we don't forget, it's easier to look it up that way.
And when you can do first class mail, you don't have to do certify. You can, if you want. You can do proof of delivery, all these things. First class mail is just fine.
The reason for the certificate services, So that goes with first class mail, and it's accepted at Face value.
So your Postmark date can be within three days of the date you put here. So let's say your date here is for a Friday, and then you drop this in the mail on a Monday. The date is three days earlier. That's OK.
To say no.
Anyways, that's the document.
That is how you express the claim. The rights and liabilities, not so much a claim, but a defense to someone doing this, OK. Typically it's going to be the wife.
Um, this is how you, this is how you do it.
Of course, This language can be revised. I'm just sharing with you the different elements of how this, how this looks, and how it works. I think I covered everything.
So, this will be the last video, on this matter.
I could do some more videos, which likely I will, on.
that may involve discovery.
Because sometimes, sometimes you might not encounter the help.
Or the information that you could use too, defend yourself in a case like this until the middle of the case, and you might already be discovering.
So maybe I'll do some more videos on on that subject because there are some things we can do in Discovery that that will give you an advantage. And, again, we can challenge jurisdiction, which I would always do.
All right, Hope that helps you.

DS7 – Vol 4 Part III – Understanding the Foundations of Trust and Jurisdiction in Family Law: A Deep Dive into Relationships, Nature, and Legalities


John Jay dives into the third part of his series, touching on the profound concepts of relationships and their inherent nature as trusts. He speaks to the role of a husband, which he believes to be inherently tied to the role of a father, describing them as natural laws that have intrinsic duties and rights associated with them. Jay also addresses the jurisdictional issues surrounding family court interventions and disputes the idea that the court can redefine or interrupt what he views as natural agreements between parties. Using the “Parol evidence rule” as an analogy, he emphasizes that just because something isn’t written doesn’t mean it’s non-existent. He also touches upon the idea of jurisdiction and when a judge ceases to be a judge due to exceeding their duties.

Key Points:

1. Relationships are naturally formed as trusts with duties and rights inherent within them.
2. The role of a husband is closely tied to the role of a father, both carrying unique rights, responsibilities, and prerogatives.
3. Family courts often lack jurisdiction in family matters and cannot interfere in naturally formed agreements or trusts.
4. An agreement’s existence isn’t solely based on it being written; prior actions and behavior also matter.
5. Using the Parol evidence rule, Jay illustrates how prior conduct can establish an unbreakable agreement.
6. A judge is not a judge when he/she exceeds the duties of the office and loses immunity.
7. Subject matter jurisdiction is essential. Parties cannot just agree that a court has jurisdiction over a matter.
8. Observations can lead to the understanding of nature, like the inherent behavior and properties of trees.
9. The state cannot redefine marital relationships based on statutory benefits or definitions.
10. A trust in the context of a relationship is irrevocable and has both beneficiaries and trustees with established roles.