This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Who Is The Richest Person In Your State: The Full Breakdown
Everyone knows that New York and California have the largest concentration of uber-wealthy Americans, however what may be less known is who the richest people in the other 48 or so states are. So, without further ado, here is the full map of all the top BSDs in America, broken down by state of residence.
»
- 48814 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
FUCK THE WEALTHY PARASITES! TEPPER IN NJ is a subhuman trolll that adds no value to anything!
Let them eat the rich
Are all those Walton's related? Between the 3 of them that's about 106 Billion if they're from the same family.
Check out that sad ass Robert Gilliam in Alaska with only $700 million. Pfeh.
-Chumbz.
Know as "Chump Change Bobby" at the CFR meetings...
I blame the incest Crotch brothers.
-------------------------------
Somebody actually took that seriously?
Moving to Idaho, my fam's heritage State. No blowhards excepy when all the assholes collect in Sun Valley.
@ TD, thanks for the list, Just in time, right before the french revolution II
I'm too poor to give a shit. But at least my care and apartment are paid for. Bitchez.
isnt this bochetti's weather map?
i dunno....the queen? the pope? i dunno....please, tell me. the offf shore paraguaians? i'm dyin'to know....
Who is paying for your care? Why do you need care? Handicapped? Psychological difficulties?
Nice to know the Cock Brothers dominate the East. They own everything. Oil for your car and paper to wipe your ass, including your ass.
Now that's funny right there.
How many billion in 17 trillion? I'm not good at maff.
HELLO -- Sam Waltons kids they inherited the wallmart fortune.. Kock as well (brothers).
The Walton heirs alone (7 of them) are worth as much as the bottom 40% of ALL AMERICANS COMBINED. Food for thought...
But Alice Walton wants to 'give back' - what with her art museum in Bentonville... how about paying Walmart employees a living wage - or simply letting them work 40 hours a week?
Walton families and Koch Brothers - reason enough to limit inherited wealth.
>>>Are all those Walton's related? Between the 3 of them that's about 106 Billion if they're from the same family.
That's just one of those little coincidences in a free, market-based society.
Either you don't understand what a free market based society is (which the USA doesn't have), or you are being sarcastic.
What? No Trillionaires? What a bunch of lazy slackers! ;-)
They never list those...the Rothchilds & Rockefellers names would show up...
I was thinking the same thing actually. Where are the following families?
Just because grandpa was a robber baron type doesn't mean that the money has still been accumulating down the generations.
The kids turned gay and blew the family jewels.
More like there are so many of the cockroach descendents that none can scrape more a billion or five for themselves.
More like the assets are held in trust. So it's a series of corporations, shells, and charities which would be listed, if anyone could ever delineate the Rockefeller Plantation that We the People just slave on.
It's a bit dated, but worth the historical perspective: The Rockefeller File
http://educate-yourself.org/ga/RFcontents.shtml
The greatest trick the devil(s) ever played was...
And a disturbing number of those listed are in retail. Walton, Mejer, discount tire.... surely we can do better than retail...
At least Menard supports a NASCAR team. He's retail too.
You missed the Bush's. I understand HW Bush is worth 2.5 Trillion in drug $$$ since the Caribroc drug running project. The dude is still breathing too.
Dynastic wealth, even with trust funds, is (relatively) difficult to maintain through generations. In DE, I know a handful of duPonts with immense wealth, and the rest that have through the years blown through everything. This might be a bad example as the DuPont wealth is old old money (Revolutionary war era). With many more generations to dilute the wealth.
One spendthrift can do a ton of damage.
Years ago a business magazine claimed that out of those who go from rags to riches, two thirds of the time the kids blow the inheritance, and 99% of the time, if the kids don't blow it then the grand kids blow it.
That's the insidious genius of Rockefeller: not only did he transmute individual wealth into dynastic wealth, his heirs transmuted that dynastic wealth into Institutional Wealth. You literally cannot separate Rockefeller money/control from education, church, medicine, welfare, warfare, energy, banking, prisons, or any other institutional prerogatives of the 21st century USSA.
Since owning the USSA wasn't enough, they've been working on a World Government by which they could leverage their monopoly even further. David Rockefeller will even tell you so.
I’m_Rich!!!!
the above statement (venturen) is not a libertarian, free markets supporting statement, no matter how of much of an actual troll the rich dude actually is or is not.
i thought we were all supposed to be libertarians on this website? i would say revoke his username, but then that wouldn't be too libertarian of me now would it?
sure is a silly statement though.
Who said this was a libertarian web site?
I have...many times.
It is anarcho-capitalist and libertarian in philosophy.
It sure as shit is not a GOP or DNC rag.
I find libertarian too narrow for this posse. Too narrow for me, though if you put a gun to my head and forced a label on me, I would not feel suicidal settling on the libertarian label. But it is too narrow. I am not in favor of the free shit army at the macro (corporate) or micro (welfare) level. I do feel like there are folks who really cannot fend for themselves through no fault of their own that we should take care of. I have not worked out how to do that without coercion (taxation), I don't think coercion is right. So I am stuck with my compassion and a Darwinist streak. But this site is for lots of pissed off folks to come together and if anything drop the labels and just talk about what has us worried or angry.
Add up and confiscate the total wealth from each of the people on this list and you won't fund the Federal government and its band of parasites for a single day.
Do it again the next day , and the next, and you couldn't fund the government for a year. The government would hand out that money to its crony minions (and undoubtedly there is signifcant overlap with this list ) but the factories and enterprises owned by these people would close as they are liquidated by the Fed to provide citizen snacks for people WHO PROVIDE SO LITTLE VALUE TO OTHERS that they can't afford to feed themselves.
I am not saying any of the rich are good or virtuous, or even that they acquired thier fortures by voluntary trade of value with others. What I am saying is that they STILL provide more value to society with thier filthy corrupt little enterprises than the Government programs for the non-contributing zeros do. There be parasites aplenty..but as far as dollar value goes, the real parasites are the ones who RELY on a host to feed them.
I'm surprised our former governor here in NJ, Corzine, isn't #1. Why steal all that money if you can't make the chart?
This chart is a joke. If one is on this chart, they're not the wealthiest man in the state.
Where does George H.W. Bush live?
I am Chumbawamba.
Argentina...
Paraguay?
He's busy on the beach in Tahiti with Kenneth Lay aka Kenny Ley to the locals...
Harold ahamm in Ok a good guy what a shame the greedy will pat
Tyler, you're not speaking to amoebas here... We all feel your pain, as you do ours....
Soon we're all going to be Trillionaires! Yeah, winning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVnL4PJcqZg
HA HA. Not even a fucking Trillion between them. Health is wealth.
AH HA! Finally we can track which state you're visiting, Jamie 'richer than you' Dimon.
The Tylers are definitely slacking, break it down by county.
Still gotta love a target list though.
CAFTA lasy asshole. Sorry to break your balls.
hell...break it down to street address so the FSA will know where to go when the EBT cards stop working
But I can't read that small...
Put 2 Kochs together and what do you get
Incest?
A Koch-a-doodle-duo?
Swordfight?
Koch fight?
Half a Holme ???
A freaked out liberal.
Harbanger the liberal vs conservative bs is like some mental disease. GTFO
You wouldn't understand, for you guys from europe don't get it, you have your own set of problems. I spent too many posts just explaining that the term liberal in the US doesn't mean liberal.
Koch rot?
Why does this matter? If you own debt in the millions, broke ass politiacian.
If you are debt free, you're going to find life and watch the taxpayers money continue to hit the shit hole.
Real power isn't counted in money, which is only a tool to play the game. If we can count someone's wealth, then they aren't that important in the chain of command. The real power remains in the shadows until the game changes.
Real power resides with those who control the military/police???
anne cox sux any coc
“What gets me most about these people, Daddy, isn't how ignorant they are, or how much they drink. It's the way they have of thinking that everything nice in the world is a gift to the poor people from them or their ancestors. The first afternoon I was here, Mrs. Buntline made me come out on the back porch and look at the sunset. So I did, and I said I liked it very much, but she kept waiting for me to say something else. I couldn't think of what I was supposed to say, so I said what seemed like a dumb thing. "Thank you very much," I said. That is exactly what she was waiting for. "You're entirely welcome," she said. I have since thanked her for the ocean, the moon, the stars in the sky, and the United States Constitution.”
Vonnegut
Can't really read the graphic... I guess a S3 is pretty old tech these days.
I saw this in the MSM a few days back. The dude in AZ is the one of Discount Tire fame, while the dudes in MI are the ones behind Meijer thrifty acres, the poor mans wally world.
Surprisingly a good number of these people aren't complete asses.
Thank you, Zero Hedge. Reporting on a chart that I'm pretty sure I saw on Huffington Post like three days ago. That would make this an aggregation of an aggregation of content, twice removed I believe.
Bulgarian whispers...
Now we know where you came here from, so...
How's about you just slither you smelly ass right back?
Your mom doesn't want you and we don't need you.
Who cares. maybe you just want people to know you read that liberal blog.
Huffington Post?
That fucked up liberal ass bag den of .........liberal sissy slap-inducing cunts?
WHO THE FUCK WOULD ADMIT READING THAT SHIT????
..oh wait....
Now all we need is a compass and a .45.
Too much work, GPS and a drone.
American "Liberty" = Mass Surveillance
GPS is not a great idea when there are so many door that need a knock.
These are the rick folks put out there to mislead you. Their logic is that you can become one of them if you can be much *smarter* and *work* much harder.
At this stage of my life I can tell you that I don't know how to become a billionaire but I do know what doesn't work.
The alleged 'gay bashing' Vandersloots of Idaho get run over by the lib machine for managing the finances of Romney.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/frank-vandersloot-mother-jones_n_2592906.html
Michigan's missing a minus.
Wow bitch, really? Detroit represents the whole state? At least the Big Mitten's #1 billionaire was made on........groceries and feeding people. Not some bullshit software company, the rape of poor and middle-class humans or a superstore that thrives on selling the shittiest Chinese goods to obese americans.
How many tribe members? The one in Ohio for sure.
The summary goes like this:
50% Non-Jewish.
30% Jewish.
20% Rumored Jewish or Uncertain status.
Ha! Just this year I already printed more than all you sukahs got.
Janet
Which is why 30% of the richest are jewish, easy to get free money when you are close to the tap
Isn't it supposed to be 'without further adieu'? I know, I know, don't sweat the small shit, but I've seen 'without further ado' three times in as many days.
ado is correct. it means "fuss, especially about something that is unimportant."
Adieeuuuuu is how frogs croak auf wiedersehen.
Thanks, Smegley. Much has been written lately about the corruption of language. I'm rapidly becoming an old fart, and my memory may be failing me- Back in my day, distinguished writers did not regard the French 'adieu' simply with 'goodbye'. It was also associated with our word 'introduction'.
William Shakespeare used the word ado to describe a tempest in a teapot, but to say without further ado as an introductory remark seems coarse and dismissive to me.
It says; I don't really give a shit about this person, thing, subject- but I'm assigned to report on it, so here ya' go!
Am no Professor Higgins, but I learned to appreciate not corrupting English after learning German, a very structured language, fluently as a second language. One can translate a lot of the rules (that then become intuitive) to his mother tongue, and some of the crap that passes as language in this country then becomes not only painful to hear, but more painful to read when one sees it in articles coming from supposedly educated people whose job it is to communicate in writing (journalists).
Do they even teach English grammar in the schools anymore?
To do so would be racist.
Ebonics, however, will soon be a requirement.
"Billionaire" and "Beautiful," both begin with "B." Coincidence, or not?
So does bazillionaire! ( Come one, we both know that billionaires will not be rich for much longer.)
Limited hangout as usual. Not one member of the 13 familes is shown.
Obviously the powers that be are to remain unknown as they like it that way. This list is to distract the mobs of pitchforks while the real scum slip away quietly onto their jets. Perhaps those listed are the ones the powers that be are most afraid of having a shot to take them out?
Jesus said something about rich "folks" and the eye of needle...
...and a camel.
Mildly dirty joke removed.
interesting, Mr. Durden, you are about a week late on this one. This graph has been making the rounds for at least a week now.
Mr. Durden is usually among the first to catch on to various viralities, or at least the ones relevant to a site like Zero Hedge. but he was far from among the first for the movoto rich people graph.
not that it necessarily matters, just found it interesting that Zero Hedge was late on something.
No, you are just being petty for pettiness sake. Like your comment earlier on this thread about how this is supposed to be a libertarian site.
They are supposed to be first with everything? Really? And if they see this "too late" should they not post it at all if they know it would be fun and interesting to those of us who have not seen it?
I don't do the work they do bringing us stuff, I don't have the time, I don't know how they do it.
I do appreciate it.
Not all of it is perfect, but if you left me to be the one to do it, it would not be done 1/100th as well, though I would try very hard.
Are you stepping up?
Get us the better improved goods and I'll go to your blog instead.
Somebody touched a RAW Nerve with that one, necessitating a direct Tyler Durden Appearance, pooof and she is gone into the darkness from which she came, just like a miscreant hahahaha
So obviously this Tyler incarnation is a unicorn chick, and she was very much offended by negative commenting on her posted story, I mean after 5 long years on ZH how can one not expect some measure of senility.
Nice try. Interesting you dropped the other blonde avatar for this one.
clever
you made a gotcha
now go fuck yourself
Must say, I'd rather see it a week late on Mr Durden's site than go wading through some of them other sites. Hell, you could print this story a month late and it still wouldn't matter. Nice little curiosity piece but it's not the most important or time-dependent of stories. And that is the difference. The other sites were desperate for something to publish that wasn't total, complete crap. Tyler just needed a filler when he was ready.
;)
Obviously the map and data are wrong! David Koch in NY w/ $40 bil? Shouln't any of the direct descendents of Daddy Rockefeller have much more thank Koch's $40 Bil?
None of the children went on to produce anything, thus the wealth never grew and even shrank.
Same goes for the Carnegies. He had one child, Margaret. Carnegie gave away most of his money.
The companies they started were sold off.
The problem is not that these persons became wealthy. That is a free market. The problem is as oligarchs, they colluded with government to prevent others, such as you and I, of becoming wealthy. In other words they limited competition. And Government was a partner in that. That is not a free market.
As far as I can see, that guy from Wisconsin earned his. Good stores and good policies toward their customers.
I'm sure Weimar and Zimbabwe had their own maps of local billionaires and trillionaires.
No, they were just plain maps!!!
Perhaps Russian 1917 or France 1789?
It's hard to grow pumpkins. Im growing Jalapeno peppers/
It's brutal bitchez
Long gardening Bithchez/
Its much easier to print money though. That little Yellen turd wouldn't last one day in a vegetable patch before she would collapse amongst the greens lol.
'tis better fertilizer than central banker.
Or bankers: they make great fertilizer.
PA - Mary Alice Malone. That's Campbell Soup money.
Ummm, is this their net worth? Sounds like a dumb question but I have to ask. Many years ago, back when a billion dollars was a lot of money, there was a fellow called Alan Bond and one day the newspapers said he was a billionaire and the next day they said he was in debt by a billion dollars. I was only a young 'un at the time and I was mystified as to how someone who was "smart" enough to accumulate a billion could blow two billion so quickly. Eventually I figured it out. It was best explained to me by some accountant who said, "Yeah, that guy on the rich list who is listed as being worth 300 million dollars is probably in debt to the tune of 290 million dollars so he's only really net ten million ... on a good day."
If anyone out there is bored, I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly-more-detailed breakdown. How much of the wealth comes from dividend-less P/E=20+ share prices and negatively geared real-estate portfolios that are valued by assuming that someone earning 20 grand per year can afford to buy million dollar houses?
How many of those guys are really rich, and how many simply have a friendly banker that will continually give them more money no matter what?
I really don't know the answer. I mean it's very easy to imagine that the guy with the monopoly on the world's operating system is net rich - if he had any meaningful competition then Windows 8 would have sent him bankrupt, therefore he has a captive market.
And the guy that sells cheap stuff to poor people, he might be rich. On the one hand, he has poor customers but he does have volume, and I hear he sneaks in some competitive advantage through real estate deals and the like.
I guess I'd just like to see the assets, liabilities, income and expenditure numbers and decide for myself. Has anyone got the excess time on their hands? If so, then thanks in advance. If not, well yeah, I haven't got the time either, but it would be fun now, wouldn't it?
This is the 'red herring' listing for when the shit hits the fan.
Now I am the richest perthon in the world!
(Start at 2 min 40 sec if you're in a hurry, otherwise watch the whole movie)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbaqG0eWg-U
the meijers of Michigan own grocery/department stores. Their father began with one store back in the 30's if I recall. I grew up in Michigan and their sporting goods department always had a fine seclection of guns and ammo reasonably priced. Dad bought an M 1 Garand still in the cosmolene way back in 1967. 125 bucks as I recall. I read earlier in this thread a comment about limiting inherited wealth. Really? Limiting someone elses wealth ,,, what is next? You will decide for someone else how much of their own money they can keep.
I have never worked for a poor man. I have done work for the poor they were unable to do themselves but that is for another day. Without an ownership class we have no employent. Let me correct that,, do away with the government jobs and we would have no employment. The poor will always be here. That doesnt mean they aren't hard working. I am not a wealthy man but I am not poor. I am wealthy in family, friends, neighbors,,, community. In money? Nah,,, I pay my bills and have food,,, there are no tanks rolling down my street, my wife is safe when i leave for work. I am thankful.
As to those who would hate on the successful, be careful what you wish for. As to those who swindle,, steal,,, manipulate the interest rates,,, scam those least able to fend for themselves, you will pay ,, someday,, somehow,, until then enjoy the sunshine.
deerhunter Let me correct that,, do away with the government jobs and we would have no employment.
----
Is that really a correction. If so, I disagree with you 100%
haha. 10% are the women who outlived the man who made it. And yes I am a woman so don't down arrow me for being sexist. I'm not a feminist I'm a truthist.
hardmedicine haha. 10% are the women who outlived the man who made it. And yes I am a woman so don't down arrow me for being sexist. I'm not a feminist I'm a truthist.
---
I imagine some of them dumped their first wives and got younger ones. So of course the current wife out lived them. Haha.
The PROBLEM with such reports as above, besides the reliability of the sources of the information, is that a great many extremely wealthy people hide their assets in TRUSTS. If a person creates multi-layered trusts, one can hide the assets in those trusts from virtually everyone. For example, if create Trust #1 (into which I place most of my assets), then give legal title of Trust #1 to my Trust #2, then give legal title of Trust #2 to my Trust #3, the true owner of those assets (me) will be next to impossible to trace.
On a personal note, with some minor assistance of a lawyer-friend, I set up such a multi-layered trust to hide and protect some of my family's assets (inherited property, stocks and bonds) in the unlikely event of a medical malpractice award that exceeded the amount of coverage provided by the malpractice insurance of myself and my partners.
While extremely sophisticated trusts require an attorney specializing in such matters, setting up a simple trust is a rather simple matter. One then transfers ownership (legal title) of those assets into the trust. For multi-layered trusts, one simply repeats the process. A trust is a private contract between the Trustor, Trustee and the Beneficiaries - it need not be filed or registered with a legal body, nor even acknowledged as existing until a claim is made in court against that person, whereupon the court may order him to divulge the existence of the trust. Since that man (who Trustor) who created Trust #1 gave legal title of those assets (called the "res" or "body of the trust) to the Trustee, he is under no obligation to divulge the identity of the Trustee(s) of Trust #1. And since the Trustee of Trust #1 granted legal title of Trust #1 to the Trustee of Trust #2, it is Trustee #2 who then controls the "res". If legal title of Trust #2 is granted to the Trustee of Trust #3, the GOOD LUCK to anyone attempting to find the assets (much less the value of those assets) the man (the original Trustor) originally placed into Trust #1. And anyone trying to place a lien, much less a levy, on those assets will come up "empty-handed".
The amounts of money/assets owned by the various people in the above report are most likely based on publicly available documents, such as stock and bond ownership, property values, tax assessments, tax payments, and so on. However, if someone manages somehow to discover to existence of Trust ABC, Trust DEF, and Trust XYZ, discovering the identity of the Trustor(s), various Trustees and the beneficiaries is nearly impossible. Indeed, Trustee #1 may not even know the identities of Trustee #2 and Trustee #3; and vice versa.
That is how extremely rich people remain extremely rich, while simultaneously hiding and protecting their identities and the true amount of their wealth. Fortunately, one need NOT be rich or hire a high-priced attorney to do something quite similar.
No the problem of the thread is what is missing from just about every class warefare, jealousy post on here.
I care not that these people are wealthy. I do care about how they collude with government to prevent others from achieving wealth. They do that to limit competition and a make a non free market. That is the problem, not their wealth. The fact is everyone here wants such wealth because it is freedom in today's society.
ADDENDUM to above comment:
As an example, simply study the FIVE (5) CHARTS outlining the true owners of the Federal Reserve.
See: http://JohnHenryHill.Wordpress.com “The Federal Reserve: Who Really Owns It?” by John-Henry Hill, M.D.
OR
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
Then, given all the corporations and trusts involved, try explaining what person owns what and in what amounts! As the staff of the House Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing discovered in 1976, the word “impossible” would be a gross understatement.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Source: "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence." Staff Report, Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.
You have access to those same trusts. A trust done by a lawyer is a few thousand dollars or so. You can create trusts to your hearts content. But because you don't have wealth, you don't have the connections to government with lobbyist groups to create laws that hurt average citizens like you and me and only benefit the oligarchs.
I may be paraphrasing here but: "If you own the bank that pays the lawyers, lobbyists and government, then who cares who writes what laws."
-Some dude on the Internet.
Kobe Beef I may be paraphrasing here but: "If you own the bank that pays the lawyers, lobbyists and government, then who cares who writes what laws."
-Some dude on the Internet.
---
And that doesn't disgree with my point. Look on that chart. How many of those people own the banks? Almost none. And who is forcing you do be part of the banking system other then using their bad currency? No one. And those evil wealthy are using the same bad currency. If you are in the inflation camp, the wealthy's money is being inflated away too.
Oh, but you say I need the banks for a loan to buy a home. Oh I need banks for a loan for my business. No you don't. You just bought into the banking propaganda. Guess what, I don't own a home. I am just fine. It is beyond my financial means right now. I live within my financial means. I could get a loan and have that debt. But I CHOOSE not to.
Let me give you another saying. If you play with fire, you're gonna get burnt.
If you want to get some idea of how extensively intertwined into cartels most major companies, banks and super-wealthy individuals are, simply look over the FIVE (5) CHARTS illustrating the true owners of the Federal Reserve. The realtionships among the people and the companies are almost INCESTUOUS. Pleas see:
http://JohnHenryHill.Wordpress.com “The Federal Reserve: Who Really Owns It?” by John-Henry Hill, M.D.
OR
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
I wasn't clear, I made that post to bolster your argument, not detract from it. Cheers!
REPLY to sessinpo:
You are CORRECT that an attorney will probably charge you several thousand dollars even for a relatively simple trust. My attorney-friend wrote no part of my first trust agreement; he simply pointed me to some legal texts for research (and sample trust agreements).
However, after doing a small amount of research, writing up a trust agreement is a relatively simple task. There is NO need to use fancy legal terms; in fact, like any contract, the simpler, the better. The only caution I would give is to write out in great detail the duties and obligations (and limitations) of the Trustee(s), plus his annual fee, if any. After that, it is only a matter of you (the Trustor) and the Trustee signing the contract in the presence of two witnesses and a notary public (who will then affix his seal to the contract and then sign it). That's it. There is NO need to register or file the contract with any court, attorney or agency of the government. It rests as a private contract between the Trustor and the Trustee; and NO government agency, court or outside party can interfere in any way with this contract. In fact, if you are asked by any court about this trust contract, you do NOT even have to reveal its existence, since it is NOT within any court’s legal jurisdiction. ONLY should a controversy arise between the Trustor and the Trustee OR between the Trustee and the Beneficiaries, in the form of a formal CLAIM filed in a court, does the contract fall under the jurisdiction of the courts operating under Commercial Law (the law of contracts). At that point, the legal dispute becomes a PUBLIC matter, thereby giving the courts jurisdiction. (However, intervention by the courts can be avoided simply by including within the Trust contract a clause stating that any controversy among the parties must be resolved through a specified type of binding arbitration.)
Further, should the controversy end up in court, that court is bound by law to decide the matter in controversy according to the terms specified within the Trust contract itself - and NOT according to outside statutes, regulations, etc.. The applicable legal maxim is: "The contract is the Law.", meaning that the terms specified within the contract become the LAW on which the case is decided. Thus, if the Trustor had included in the trust contract (signed by the Trustee) a rather absurd provision such as “the Trustee will wear blue socks every Tuesday”, then the court would be required to accept that absurd requirement as the applicable law in this case. (However, the judge would most likely throw out the law suit if that was the ONLY provision of the trust which the Trustee had allegedly violated. (Maxim: "The law does not deal with trivial matters.")
My attorney-friend was a criminal defense lawyer and one of my golfing and white-water canoeing partners. I never needed his professional services (thank goodness!), but I always remembered his advice. "When stopped by the police or anyone else employed by the government, ALWAYS (1) assert your right to remain silent; (2) SHUT UP !!!! ; then (3) REPEAT steps 1 and 2.
Never answer any question. Never agree with anything said, either by word or by your actions. Never try to "explain away" your situation or circumstances. But most important was my friend's explanation of the so-called "Miranda warning" about the right to remain silent. First, you can exercise that right at ANY TIME - and NOT only AFTER you are arrested, as some police incorrectly may tell you. Second, the "Miranda warning" explicitly states that "anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you in a court of law." What the "Miranda warning" leaves out is that any information YOU give to them which might exonerate you or show you to be innocent can NOT be introduced as evidence in a court, since it is considered "hearsay" and therefore inadmissible in court. In short, whatever you tell the police can NEVER be used to help you in court; it can be admitted into evidence ONLY if it hurts your case!!!!
So, one more time: ALWAYS (1) assert your right to remain silent; (2) SHUT UP !!!! ; then (3) REPEAT steps 1 and 2.
Better to spend a night in jail than years in prison.
I won't copy your post because you tend to write to lengthy and most readers don't want to read that much. You might learn to shorten your posts a great deal for better effect.
Anyway. I replied to your post because you included the comment on trusts. Here it is in quotes;
"Then, given all the corporations and trusts involved, try explaining what person owns what and in what amounts! As the staff of the House Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing discovered in 1976, the word “impossible” would be a gross understatement."
My point is we all have access to those trusts. So thus trusts are not to blame. And who made those trusts legal by the way? Government. The wealthy are just using tools to protect themselves as any of us would. You can use trusts in the same way.
My issue is when the wealthy collude with government to make laws that aren't equal for all citizens but favor the wealthy.
For example. An established company with resources might lobby the government to put in very high EPA rules that would prevent new companies from trying. And we certainly can't be against the environment. But this puts the established company at an advantage and it basically becomes a monopoly. Quite frankly, the established company may not even care about the environment. They just don't want the competition.
Reply #2 to sessinpo:
Thank you for your reply. It clarified your position regarding trusts and government corruption by and for the very rich.
I TOTALLY AGREE with everything you said in your reply.
BTW: Trusts can be created under the Common Law OR under legislated acts (statutes). Trusts created under the Common Law are available to everyone who has the time and ambition to do some research.I n my prior post I was referring to trusts created under the Common Law. In the Common Law, once a contract (such as a trust) is made, Commercial Law takes over - but the trust remain as "private law" between the parties of the trust. Only when a controversy arises between the Trustor and Trustee OR between the Trustee and Beneficiary AND one of these parties files a formal CLAIM with a commercial court, does that court gain any jurisdiction. (As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeated affirmed even the the current day, the U.S. was and remains a Common Law nation in which the Common Law supersedes all statutes.) The TRICK played by the government upon most people it that the goverment courts make the PRESUMPTION that you have agreed to be under their jurisdiction using their statutes. Two maxims apply here: "An unrebutted presumption becomes a fact in law." and "Failure to object implies consent." In other words, if you do NOT object to their presumptions, then in law you have agreed to their jurisdiction under their statutes - thereby waiving your rights under the Common Law. Tricky bastards!!!! The super rich and the corrupt government officials have used this tactic to grant themselves "special advantages" through legislated statutes -- advantages which would NOT exist were the people more informed about their rights under the Common Law.
Wow, how disappointing all of these "bash-the-rich" posts...especially, when 99% of you don't know anything about these people. Why not aspire to be rich instead? My opinion of the ZH community has been lowered significantly. Sounds like an "Occupy Wall Street" reunion.
glock19 Wow, how disappointing all of these "bash-the-rich" posts...especially, when 99% of you don't know anything about these people. Why not aspire to be rich instead? My opinion of the ZH community has been lowered significantly. Sounds like an "Occupy Wall Street"
---
I agree with you very much. We have a bunch of leftist on this board lately or we have people so easily swayed by emotion and expose themselves as leftist and big government. And they will tell you they are not, but when you dig into their posts, that is what they really want. They use typical tactics sush as class warfare.
My bet is that even all the wealthy were killed tomorrow, these same posters lifes would be the same. It wouldn't improve. Then they would have to find someone else to blame for their own lives.
He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”
So, WHAT does that mean?????
That the "kingdom of heaven" will become like a large tree, from which the birds will SHIT all over you?