Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. Justice Luis BrandeisOlmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)
The type of law that justifies an aristocracy or royalty is known as a law of status. The law of status protects the privileged snobbery from the underclass, poor or illiterate. Under such law common people have no way to hold the privileged to account for the harms they commit.
Stoic Roman jurists were the first to formulate the legal propositions that became the modern law of contracts, by recognizing that informed consent to negotiated agreements is foundational to a sustainable civilization. Informed consent is the product of examination of one’s conscience in the awareness that the act has consequences and that every individual man and woman is presumed to intend the consequences of their acts.
Government by consent of the governed is one pillar of our law. And the doctrine that no one is above the law is the other. Compromise either and the Arch of modern civilization collapses into despotism and tyranny.
- To smuggle a privileged status class into our law is to welcome aristocracy and impugn our law in a fatal contradiction. A glaring example is ‘judicial immunity’, an exception now metastasized to other public institutions that begs the question of accountability and undermines the Equal Protection guaranty. And because institutional interests and their legal machinery have a protective support system, the balance of power can only be addressed if we the people create an effective countervailing response with a force that voting does not have.
- Inasmuch as these issues are so often seen where power and money are involved, let’s follow the money.
The wealthy have always run the operations of the country, and that’s acceptable until they systematically fail to protect the rights and lawful interests of the People, while also denying them remedy for their grievances. Protecting your own interests, of course, begins with you and the prospect of success is unlikely without information sufficient to the task.
This web site is published in the public interest as a contribution toward remedy that can better assure that the People’s pursuit of happiness remains as the primary rule of governance, not the wealth and power of the privileged among us. Remedy for grievances, however, need not require destruction of wealth.
A sustainable society is possible only if power is balanced by law protecting liberty. A fully informed and actively engaged public is essential for such purposes.
Failure to Communicate?
The Causes of Failed Wealth Transfer
Williams attributed only 3% of the failed wealth transitions to poor technical advice. There are plenty of moving parts in tax and estate law, and ambiguities abound as to their interpretation and implementation. And so the legal, insurance, accounting and investing professions spend a great deal of time and money on accreditation and continuing education in order to keep up with those changes and stay current on best practices. Although change is certain to remain a constant when it comes to the right trust structures and transition plans, the “how” of wealth transfer is a relatively settled science and one that advisors rarely get wrong.
Ninety-seven percent of the failures were attributable to the family itself: due to a lack of a family mission (12%), the inadequate preparation of heirs (25%) or a breakdown of family communication and trust (60%). According to the report: It is easy to attribute the failure of wealth transfers to today’s ever-changing legal landscape and the complexities that it poses to families with substantial wealth, whether in the form of financial assets, real estate or a family business. Unfortunately, the Williams “Report” appears heavily tainted by a predisposition to financial planner self-promotion, placing too much emphasis on poor family communication as causal when a lack of communication is generally symptomatic or worse, systemic. 
However, given that the Williams Report definition of “failure” is “involuntary loss of control of assets” and that the “how” of wealth transfer is a relatively settled science, it would follow that the legal and financial complexities of wealth transfers are not key elements in the “failure” and that other factors influence whether or not a family can preserve its wealth across multiple generations. What those other factors are and to whom 70% of generational assets go when control is “involuntarily lost” by the family is not addressed in the report but would seem to hold the answers to causation questions. One point the Report placed emphasis on as causal was conflict within the family.
If, 97% of the failures were attributable to the family itself, and if, as the report claims, wealth transfer is a relatively settled science, then the question of how animosity within the family plays into the 70% asset loss to non-family interests is properly raised. When I spoke with Roy Williams he didn’t have any data on how 70% of asset transfers were “involuntarily lost” nor to whom the generational asset transfers were “involuntarily lost”.
The first logistical problem for any 3rd party intending to intercept generational asset transfers would involve locating family wealth subject to transfer and a means for identification of which asset transfers may be vulnerable to interception. These salient points however, do not answer the question of how one would position oneself to reap the lion’s share of any particular generational asset transfer.
What is “involuntary loss of control of assets” if it does not mean theft? The answer is simple: “involuntary loss of control of assets” doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t mean theft. The featured case study presented in this site will lead to the same conclusion.
Our Courts allegedly exist to enforce obligations, protect rights and punish wrongs but the public record shows a completely different reality in far too many cases when wealth transfers are at issue.
 Silence, where there is a duty to speak is fraud.
Attorneys hold positions of public trust, making them fiduciaries. As for communication, insert an attorney and you have a break in the lines of communication between the stake holders as a matter of course. Now strangers with their own interests are inserted, (the only ones who are allowed to communicate directly with each other), and what can be expected as a result but deteriorating familial trust?
Public Officers of a Civil Character
*63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247*
“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government, or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.  That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.  And owes a fiduciary duty to the public.  It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. 
Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987).
“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …” – U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)
The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101, S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
The significance of these citations will become painfully clear as our featured story, “Grift of the Brunsting’s” is told.
My name is Rik Munson. The experience that compelled me to publish this public service web site is a color of law obscenity I describe as a Frankensuit. The people responsible for my motivation to create this web site have done everything they can to keep the facts of cases like this out of the public view. I believe that the American People have the right to know and I can assure you that a proper play book would have helped to avoid the spider and the fly problems that come with trying to find an honest attorney. Then there is the simple fact that an honest attorney can do nothing against the blatant corruption of our legal system by members of the COLOR OF LAW CABAL without being sanctioned and suspended from the bar for their efforts.