DL was NOT provided or used as ID

[Rock Anthony]

DISCLAIMER: The following are just some ponderings in my mind:

I will make it clear that I will help them in any way my character and capacity will allow which may include paying out of pocket to settle the matter, via lawful money only of course.

I just can't help but wonder if an offer to help them by paying out of your pocket is really necessary. The end game is to help them settle their own intangible affairs with their own intangible money.

Now I'm thinking that the extent of your assistance to them is to help them realize that you're not the fiduciary. That's it. And to help them with that realization you can remind them that you are forever without the money that is used within their trust structure. 12 USC 411

That, however, will be against my will and intent since the magistrate/judge will have to force their obligation upon me.

I'm also thinking that any magistrate can only thrust obligations upon whatever constructive trusts they create - not you. It appears that you're doing well to not get mixed into their stuff.

My only reason to reinstate the DL is for their benefit only;

Be careful. I'm thinking that only the trustee can have the DL re-in-state-d. I agree that to do so is for their benefit. But, going back to the fundamentals of trusts, whenever there is only one beneficiary, then the office of beneficiary is mutually exclusive of the office of trustee. So if the State is the beneficiary, where does that leave you - and you are the one that is reinstating the DL? Hmm. That might just be what their waiting for from you - for you to execute the executory constructive trust by acting to reinstate the DL.

Thoughts from anyone?