Derren Joseph Was Told the Case Law Was Wrong. It Is Still Published.

Derren Joseph knows the offshore trust case law on his website is wrong. We told him privately, in writing, before we said a word publicly. He agreed to the extent of publishing our corrections in full.

And he left the misleading list sitting above them, where it still is today.

That is the whole of this. Not a disagreement about offshore trusts, not a refusal to engage — a tax practice that has been shown, entry by entry, that its published case law does not say what it claims, and has chosen to annotate it rather than take it down.

Put the billboard down, don't build a second one

He engaged, and we should say so: he published our corrections in full and did not edit them. Several other authors have done less.

But look at what a reader actually meets. The page opens with thirty decisions in date order under a heading telling you they defeat offshore trusts. The explanation that many of them do not is far below that.

Almost nobody reads to the bottom of a long page. They scan, take the impression, and leave — so the original claim is still the one being delivered, and the correction reaches only the reader who least needed it.

If a billboard has the wrong information on it, you take the billboard down. You don't build a second billboard next to it explaining that the first one is wrong.

What the list actually gets wrong

No trust in the case at all. Chadwick v. Green — offshore annuities and a Panamanian bank account he controlled personally. FTC v. Fortuna Alliance — corporate funds in an offshore account in the company's own name. U.S. v. Plath — offshore credit-card accounts. A list of trust defeats containing no trust is not evidence about trusts.

Cases the trust won. In re Colburn — the court found the trust's assets were not proven to be property of the estate. Riechers v. Riechers — the court accepted the trust as legitimate and disclaimed jurisdiction over its corpus. Those are the outcomes people buy these structures for.

Cases where the barrier was never tested. Eulich v. U.S. — he produced the documents; the assets stayed put. Barbee v. Goldstein — the trustee consented, so nothing was tested against a refusal. SEC v. Solow — the trust was his wife's and was never examined.

One entry nobody can check. The list includes "D.C. Docket No. 05-00770" — no parties, no court, nothing to search. We could not identify it, which is why it is one of only two entries on his list we have not analysed.

The full entry-by-entry review, with links to the decisions, is at 45FAPT.com.

Questions for Derren Joseph

1. Why is the incorrect case law still published?
2. Chadwick v. Green, FTC v. Fortuna Alliance and U.S. v. Plath involve no offshore asset protection trust. On what basis are they on the list?
3. In re Colburn and Riechers are decisions the trust survived. On what basis were they described as defeats?
4. What case is "D.C. Docket No. 05-00770"?
5. What was the process for checking each entry against the decision it cites before publication?
6. Where did the entries come from? The same characterisations, and the same errors, appear across lists that present as independent.
7. Was removing the list considered, and what decided against it?

The bottom line

Offshore trusts can fail. Our own case register publishes the decisions where they did, including the ones unhelpful to us — that is what a register is for and a list of thirty misdescribed cases is not.

What the record does not contain is a reported decision where a properly formed, timely funded foreign trust with an independent trustee, and a settlor not in control, was defeated on the merits. That is a bounded statement about the decisions our attorneys have read. It is not a guarantee and not a prediction about your case.

If you are weighing one of these structures, take nobody's count — including ours. Ask for the citations and read the decisions.

Corrections to this page are welcome and will be published at the top, not the bottom.

---

Blake Harris Law competes in the asset protection field and discloses Blake Harris's interest in Atlas Trust Company.

Sources, so this can be checked without relying on us. The article before our corrections: Internet Archive, 17 March 2026 — the full list, no correction section. The article as it stands: Internet Archive, 4 September 2026 — the same list with our corrections beneath it. Neither capture is ours.