With all due respect, former state senator Kennedy’s comments that: “They are trying to create a system that works well and is safe” unfortunately legitimizes the overall system or reality here.
The real issue here is not that other’s could, or can take advantage of us with our current state trust laws, which frankly I think has already happened, rather the real issue is the moral question of whether getting rid of the rule against of perpetuities when it comes to the formation of trusts in our state is itself just and moral.
Prior to Janklow and the Republicans removing the rule against perpetuities from our state statutes in the early 1980s, South Dakota, as did every other state in the union, had on its books a rule which was centuries old with English common law heritage behind it which basically said that no trust could survive more than 21 years past the life and times of the original creator and owner of a given trust.
Now, why was this rule put it in place. It was put in place so that there could not be what the courts call “dead hand control” of a legal reality. It also prevented the growing and never ending perpetuity of a financial instrument which over time could become all encompassing and thus create a financial and eventually a political fiefdom which over takes other institutions which are more important, more democratic, and thus more just.
As we discuss this issue, let us not give the reality of this system of trusts – as we currently know them to be – any legitimacy on face value, because their mere presence is an assault upon democratic values, the formation of wealth that does not potentially impede democratic values and their institutions, and also robs society of the right to justly tax so that some financial instruments do not become so overwhelming that they own us, our freedoms, and our ability to act and govern in a free and fair manner that is not emboldened to the realities of a few whose economic fiefdoms enslave us all in the name of loosely used words like de-regulation, free market, and liberty.
Now with that said, we have a very good and liked Democrat in this state, who I also respect and his family, who promotes these trusts, which is unfortunate, and I hope he stops doing that soon. Because when the Democrats in this state want to truly start to fight for economic justice in this state and not spend all of their time trying to merely finesse a pragmatic kinder and gentler form of Republicanism in South Dakota is when the Democrats in this state will become leaders, and then be given the eventual opportunity to lead:
360 billion in trusts that can’t be evidence in court. If SD is another Cayman Islands, where’s our ocean and beaches. Sioux Falls is the center of this corruption. Here come the Feds. For the next pandemic we don’t need to hoard toilet paper. Use 100’s.
We were once: “The Land of Infinite Variety” and the “Sunshine State”. Now, we are the “Rushmore State”. But what about South Dakota: The Caymans of the tundra?
With all due respect, former state senator Kennedy’s comments that: “They are trying to create a system that works well and is safe” unfortunately legitimizes the overall system or reality here.
The real issue here is not that other’s could, or can take advantage of us with our current state trust laws, which frankly I think has already happened, rather the real issue is the moral question of whether getting rid of the rule against of perpetuities when it comes to the formation of trusts in our state is itself just and moral.
Prior to Janklow and the Republicans removing the rule against perpetuities from our state statutes in the early 1980s, South Dakota, as did every other state in the union, had on its books a rule which was centuries old with English common law heritage behind it which basically said that no trust could survive more than 21 years past the life and times of the original creator and owner of a given trust.
Now, why was this rule put it in place. It was put in place so that there could not be what the courts call “dead hand control” of a legal reality. It also prevented the growing and never ending perpetuity of a financial instrument which over time could become all encompassing and thus create a financial and eventually a political fiefdom which over takes other institutions which are more important, more democratic, and thus more just.
As we discuss this issue, let us not give the reality of this system of trusts – as we currently know them to be – any legitimacy on face value, because their mere presence is an assault upon democratic values, the formation of wealth that does not potentially impede democratic values and their institutions, and also robs society of the right to justly tax so that some financial instruments do not become so overwhelming that they own us, our freedoms, and our ability to act and govern in a free and fair manner that is not emboldened to the realities of a few whose economic fiefdoms enslave us all in the name of loosely used words like de-regulation, free market, and liberty.
Now with that said, we have a very good and liked Democrat in this state, who I also respect and his family, who promotes these trusts, which is unfortunate, and I hope he stops doing that soon. Because when the Democrats in this state want to truly start to fight for economic justice in this state and not spend all of their time trying to merely finesse a pragmatic kinder and gentler form of Republicanism in South Dakota is when the Democrats in this state will become leaders, and then be given the eventual opportunity to lead:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/south-dakota-dynasty-trusts-101-brendan-johnson?trk=portfolio_article-card_title
360 billion in trusts that can’t be evidence in court. If SD is another Cayman Islands, where’s our ocean and beaches. Sioux Falls is the center of this corruption. Here come the Feds. For the next pandemic we don’t need to hoard toilet paper. Use 100’s.
We were once: “The Land of Infinite Variety” and the “Sunshine State”. Now, we are the “Rushmore State”. But what about South Dakota: The Caymans of the tundra?
“What about: ‘The Caymans. We’re on it.’…..?”