sounds like a soup sandwich. :)
I understand what you are saying, however.
Printable View
sounds like a soup sandwich. :)
I understand what you are saying, however.
Exactly what it is Senate Resolution #62 needs not be Public Law because if you comprehend Trust Law you know that NOTHING ever leaves the State.
By the way what is in the State? Property, yes? What is Property? Rights of Use!
First came Statutes of Uses; then came Trust Law placing the Use into Trust.
I was talking about accurate predictions about the near future. One think interesting!
On the last page title Other Assets, 2nd paragraph footnote 17. That implies it’s already in progress. That spells A-China-Ca to me. If China already owns 1/4 of the national debt and the government defaults, they will be able to collect these mortgage-backed bonds for free basically. This is how they will house the influx of Chinese. There are already more Chinese speaking fluent English than there are Americans in America.
I'm also a bit concerned about the damage done to the island Japan sits on. Don't they own a significant number of the UST debt? Seems they may need some place to live soon if they can't get it together.
Could it be said that Britain spun off both United States and Canada (among other holdings) into their own trusts (CQVT)? Perhaps the Peace of Paris (1783) and the Treaty of Paris establishes a CQVT?
David, in your redeeming lawful money video you mention 5 countries involved in SDRs?
Britain and Commercial interests - Hudson Bay Company and East Indies Trading Company did exactly that. If you will check out the Flags of these companies you will notice the Red and White is for the Commercial interests and the Blue is for the King's Interest.
As for North Carolina see the attachment.
Attachment 351
Flags of East India Company
-----------------------------
But then 55+/- decided to exercise the then known "Right of Exile" in order for them to "assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate but equal Station" - this be called STANDING. All others still under Kings subjection. The U.S. was granted Domestic Sovereignty but the King of England kept International Sovereignty.
And, the U.S. being an Independent Trust over the Territory. And the States agreeing to waive their Independence becoming Dependents under the U.S. Trust. See Padelford Fay and Co. vs. The Mayors of the city of Savannah. Or you can just see the following link.
Attachment 353
Attachment 352
wow. MJ, I just got that. That finally put that piece together for me. Profound.
I mean, I knew because it has been discussed here and elsewhere for a long time, but
I had no idea it may be tired to Scripture that way.
That's certainly one way to interpret that. Chilling indeed.
Thank you!
Sorry, I was going through the thread for the first time, commenting as I went.
Didn't mean to detract from the way this thread has obviously evolved.
Ergo, my posts seem a little "detached" from what you guys are talking about now.
Now I'm all caught up.
I want to get his straight though.
LEGAL NAME = Trustee – someone who administers financial assets on behalf of another.
True Name = Beneficiary/cestui que trust
Government = Settlor
Do I have that right?
Getting in my two cents edgewise - it gets a bit subjective about parameters. The simplest that I can portray that is:
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/845...geonpeople.jpg
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/514...geofpeople.jpg
This is described once again, by endorsement in the new trust - held in trust.
That describes the parameters of Schedule A - Assets. Therefore the proposal that nothing ever leaves the state is a bonding into the monetizing of sin in Israel, so to speak.
If you have signed your signature bond by endorsement, that would make a lot of sense since the bankers are banking on that signature bond, that you are held to it. That is the contractual nexus for considering your estate within the state as a chattel mortgage. Being that I brought up Israel; "so to speak" we should consider it a tenet of Jewish Law that one cannot keep a man's blankets collateral past sunset - he needs them to sleep. One cannot even charge him interest on a loan, strictly speaking, unless he is outside the Camp, so to speak.
Save yourself some time with that Chattel Mortgages article and look for the word "recordation". That is typically the county clerk and recorder where you will find the Deeds of Trust and Warranty Deeds attached to certain property. Again the man or woman's signature bond is published agreeing effectively that, I will allow that my blankets can be held for collateral past sunset. - And so it will be. Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and 23:20 do not apply to the Noachide - the foreigner and the stranger.
I am simply describing the parameters of trust. If you endorse elastic currency then you endorse false balances. You become an abomination to the LORD by your hand and therefore fall into the parameters of FDR's Trust formed in 1933. Scream and shout about it, if you signed up for it your signature stands describing where you really stand on the issue. The constitutions honor as sacred the obligations of contract.
There are many mental models that can function but the one that will settle the matter is the one that is agreed upon by all parties, or adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction if there is a disagreement. Or maybe even settled by Trial by Fire.
Regards,
David Merrill.
No need to apologize. Ask away!!
That's why I created this thread: to aide in inquiry as well as build a basis.
Trustee = Administrator
Settlor = Creator of the trust
Beneficiary = the person or entities that receive benefits from the trust and are the true owners of the trust in equity.
To use a historical example, the King of England would have his sheriff collect dues from his subjects. The trust in this instance is:
Trustee= King/Sheriff
Settlor = King
Beneficiary = Subjects (in actuality, the true beneficiaries are the King, clergy, and nobility, but that is another story for another day ....)
The King created the system (supposedly for the benefit of his subjects) for their protection.
There is also a principal-agent relationship occurring here between the King and his man (Sheriff).
Both the King and the Sheriff derive compensation for administering the trust (in addition to the King's Courts regulating the rights and duties of all parties involved).
As another example, we have drivers licenses. The parties are:
Settlor = "the People"
Trustee = government
Beneficiary = "the general Public"
The trustee derives compensation from the arrangement. Persons are the subjects of licensing and licensing acts and statutes for the benefit of the general Public.
If there is anything I am missing or should be added, feel free!
English Trust Law
Wills are a class of trusts.Quote:
English trusts law is the original and foundational law of trusts in the world, and a unique contribution of English law to the legal system. Trusts are part of the law of property, and arise where one person (a "settlor") gives assets (e.g. some land) to another person (a "trustee") to keep safe or to manage on behalf of another person (a "beneficiary").
The law of trusts developed in the Middle Ages from the time of the crusades under the jurisdiction of the King of England. The "common law" regarded property as an indivisible entity, as it had been done through Roman law and the continental version of civil law. Where it seemed "inequitable" (i.e. unfair) to let someone with legal title hold onto it, the King's representative, the Lord Chancellor who established the Courts of Chancery, had the discretion to declare that the real owner "in equity" (i.e. in all fairness) was another person.
TrustGuy, an old friend of ours was really big on trusts.
Charitable Uses Act
Charitable Trusts in English LawQuote:
The Charitable Uses Act of 1601 (also known as "the Elizabeth Statute") is an Act (43 Eliz I, c.4) of the Parliament of England dealing with the definition of a charity. It was repealed by section 13(1) of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888 (c.42) (but see section 13(2) of that Act).
How about them apples :)??Quote:
Charitable trusts in English law are a form of express trust dedicated to charitable goals. There are a variety of advantages to charitable trust status, including exception from most forms of tax and freedom for the trustees not found in other types of English trust. To be a valid charitable trust, the organisation must demonstrate both a charitable purpose and a public benefit. Applicable charitable purposes are normally divided into four categories; trusts for the relief of poverty, trusts for the promotion of education, trusts for the promotion of religion and all other types of trust recognised by the law, which includes trusts for the benefit of animals and a locality. There is also a requirement that the trust's purposes benefit the public (or some section of the public), and not simply a group of private individuals.
Such trusts will be invalid in several circumstances; charitable trusts are not allowed to be run for profit, nor can they have purposes that are not charitable (unless these are ancillary to the charitable purpose). In addition, it is considered unacceptable for charitable trusts to campaign for political or legal change, although discussing political issues in a neutral manner is acceptable. Charitable trusts, as with other trusts, are administered by trustees, but there is no relationship between the trustees and the beneficiaries. This results in two things; firstly, the trustees of a charitable trust are far freer to act than other trustees and secondly, beneficiaries cannot bring a court case against the trustees. Rather, the beneficiaries are represented by the Attorney General for England and Wales as a parens patriae, who appears on the part of The Crown.
English Trust Law
Quote:
Content
Duties of trustees include:
1. a duty to consider the proper investment of the trust assets
2. a duty to prepare annual accounts except where the assets are held in specie
3. a duty to keep adult beneficiaries informed at least annually
Trustees must be unanimous in their decisions and are personally responsible to the beneficiaries for those decisions. In the event of dispute can apply to the Court of Chancery for directions as to the correct course of action.
Administration
* Appointment and removal of trustees
* Delegation
* Variation of the trust deed
* Power of maintenance
* Power of advancement
Duty of loyalty
See also: Fiduciary
Duty of care
See also: Duty of care
Breach and remedies
Breach of trust
See also: Liability of Trustees inter se in English law
Tracing
See also: Tracing in English law
Beneficiaries who feel the trustees are not (properly) fulfilling their obligations have the right to take the trustees to the Court of Chancery for a declaration concerning the proper actions of the trustees.
Constructive trusts
Main article: Constructive trusts in English law
Resulting trusts
See also: English unjust enrichment law and Resulting trusts in English law, and Resulting trust
Theory
Main article: Theory of trusts
* Unjust enrichment and restitution
* Consent and autonomy
* Law of obligations and property
Fudiciary
Continued on next thread ....Quote:
A fiduciary duty (from Latin fiduciarius, meaning "(holding) in trust"; from fides, meaning "faith", and fiducia, meaning "trust") is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties, most commonly a fiduciary and a principal. One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, holds a fiduciary relation or acts in a fiduciary capacity to another, such as one whose funds are entrusted to it for investment. In a fiduciary relation one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably reposes confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires one to act at all times for the sole benefit and interests of another, with loyalty to those interests.
“ A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.[1] ”
A fiduciary duty[2] is the highest standard of care at either equity or law. A fiduciary (abbreviation fid) is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal"): he must not put his personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from his position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.
In English common law the fiduciary relation is arguably the most important concept within the portion of the legal system known as equity. In the United Kingdom, the Judicature Acts merged the courts of equity (historically based in England's Court of Chancery) with the courts of common law, and as a result the concept of fiduciary duty also became usable in common law courts.
When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where his fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from his fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest. It has been said that fiduciaries must conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd"[3] and that "[t]he distinguishing or overriding duty of a fiduciary is the obligation of undivided loyalty."[4]
....
Duty in different jurisdictions
Different jurisdictions regard fiduciary duties in different lights. Canadian law, for example, has developed a more expansive view of fiduciary obligation, more so than American law[citation needed], while Australian law and British law have developed more conservative approaches than either the USA or Canada. The law expressed here follows the general body of elementary fiduciary law found in most common law jurisdictions; for in-depth analysis of particular jurisdictional idiosyncrasies please consult primary authorities within the relevant jurisdiction. This is especially true in the area of Labor and Employment law. In Canada a fiduciary has obligations to the employer even after the employment relationship is terminated, whereas in the U.S. the employment and fiduciary relationships terminate together.
In SEC v. Chenery Corporation 318 U.S. 80 (1943), Frankfurter J said,
“ To say that a man is a fiduciary only begins the analysis; it gives direction to further inquiry. To whom is he a fiduciary? What obligations does he owe as a fiduciary? In what respect has he failed to discharge these obligations? And what are the consequences of his deviation from his duty? ”
[edit] Relationships
The most common circumstance where a fiduciary duty will arise is between a trustee, whether real or juristic, and a beneficiary. The trustee to whom property is legally committed is the legal—i.e., common law—owner of all such property. The beneficiary, at law, has no legal title to the trust; however, the trustee is bound by equity to suppress his own interests and administer the property only for the benefit of the beneficiary. In this way, the beneficiary obtains the use of property without being its technical owner.
Others, such as corporate directors, may be held to a fiduciary duty similar in some respects to that of a trustee. This happens when, for example, the directors of a bank are trustees for the depositors, the directors of a corporation are trustees for the stockholders or a guardian is trustee of his ward's property. A person in a sensitive position sometimes protects himself from possible conflict of interest charges by setting up a blind trust, placing his financial affairs in the hands of a fiduciary and giving up all right to know about or intervene in their handling.
The fiduciary functions of trusts and agencies are commonly performed by a trust company, such as a commercial bank, organized for that purpose. In the United States, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury, is the primary regulator of the fiduciary activities of federal savings associations.
When a court desires to hold the offending party to a transaction responsible so as to prevent unjust enrichment, the judge can declare that a fiduciary relation exists between the parties, as though the offender were in fact a trustee for the partner.
Relationships which routinely attract by law a fiduciary duty between certain classes of persons include these:
* Trustee/beneficiary: Keech v Sandford[5]
* Conservators and legal guardians / wards
* Agents, brokers and factors / principals: McKenzie v McDonald[6]
* Buyer agent (real estate broker) / buyer client
* Confidential advisor including financial adviser and investment advisor / advisee or client
* Lawyer/client: Sims v Craig Bell & Bond[7]
* Executors and administrators / legatees and heirs
* Corporate partners, joint venturers, directors and officers / company and stockholders: Guth v. Loft Inc., In Plus Group Ltd v. Pyke, Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise, Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver
* Board of directors / company: Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc, Woolworths Ltd v Kelly[8]
* Partner/partner: Chan v Zacharia,[9] Fraser Edmiston Pty Ltd v AGT (Qld) Pty Ltd,[10] Meinhard v Salmon
* Stockbroker/client: Hodgkinson v Simms[11]
* Senior employee / company: Green & Clara Pty Ltd v Bestobell Industries Pty Ltd[12]
* Retirement plan administrators (including 401(k) plans) / retirees and workers: Vivien v. Worldcom
* Promoters / stock subscribers
* Liquidator/company: Re Pantmaenog[13]
* Mutual savings banks and investment corporations / their depositors and investors
* Receivers, trustees in bankruptcy and assignees in insolvency / creditors
* Governments / indigenous peoples: R. v. Sparrow, Seminole Nation v. United States
* Doctor/patient (Canada[14]: McInerney v. MacDonald,[15] Norberg v Wynrib)
* Guardian/ward: Paramasivam v Flynn[16]
* Teacher/student: Glover v Porter-Gaud[17]
* Priest / parishioner seeking counseling: Doe v Evans, 814 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2002)
Continued ...
Continued on subsequent post ....Quote:
Roman and civil law recognized a type of contract called fiducia (also contractus fiduciae or fiduciary contract), involving essentially a sale to a person coupled with an agreement that the purchaser should sell the property back upon the fulfillment of certain conditions.[18] Such contracts were used in the emancipation of children, in connection with testamentary gifts and in pledges. Under Roman law a woman could arrange a fictitious sale called a fiduciary coemption in order to change her guardian or gain legal capacity to make a will.[19]
In Roman Dutch law, a fiduciary heir may receive property subject to passing it to another on fulfillment of certain conditions; the gift is called a fideicommissum. The fiduciary of a fideicommissum is a fideicommissioner and one that receives property from a fiduciary heir is a fideicommissary heir.[20]
Fiduciary principles may be applied in a variety of legal contexts.[21]
[edit] Possible relationships
Joint ventures, as opposed to business partnerships, are not presumed to carry a fiduciary duty; however, this is a matter of degree.[22] If a joint venture is conducted at commercial arm's length and both parties are on an equal footing then the courts will be reluctant to find a fiduciary duty, but if the joint venture is carried out more in the manner of a partnership then fiduciary relationships can and often will arise. Arklow vs. MacLean Privy Council 1999
Husbands and wives are not presumed to be in a fiduciary relationship; however, this may be easily established. Similarly, ordinary commercial transactions in themselves are not presumed to but can give rise to fiduciary duties, should the appropriate circumstances arise. These are usually circumstances where the contract specifies a degree of trust and loyalty or it can be inferred by the court.[23]
Generally, the employment relationship is not regarded as fiduciary, but may be so if "within a particular contractual relationship there are specific contractual obligations which the employee has undertaken which have placed him in a situation where equity imposes these rigorous duties in addition to the contractual obligations. Although terminologies like duty of good faith, or loyalty, or the mutual duty of trust and confidence are frequently used to describe employment relationships, such concepts usually denote situations where "a party merely has to take into consideration the interests of another, but does not have to act in the interests of that other". If fiduciary relationships are to arise between employers and employees, it is necessary to ascertain that the employee has placed himself in a position where he must act solely in the interests of his employer.[24] In the Canadian case of Canadian Aero Service ltd v O'Malley,[25] it was held that a senior employee is much more likely to be found to owe fiduciary duties towards his employer.
A protector of a trust may owe fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries, although there is no case law establishing this to be the case.[26]
[edit] Example
For example, two members of a band currently under contract with one another (or with some other tangible, existing relationship that creates a legal duty), X and Y, record songs together. Let us imagine it is a serious, successful band and that a court would declare that the two members are equal partners in a business. One day, X takes some demos made cooperatively by the duo to a recording label, where an executive expresses interest. X pretends it is all his work and receives an exclusive contract and $50,000. Y is unaware of the encounter until reading it in the paper the next week.
This situation represents a conflict of interest and duty. Both X and Y hold fiduciary duties to each other, which means they must subdue their own interests in favor of the duo's collective interest. By signing an individual contract and taking all the money, X has put personal interest above the fiduciary duty. Therefore, a court will find that X has breached his fiduciary duty. The judicial remedy here will be that X holds both the contract and the money in a constructive trust for the duo. Note, X will not be punished or totally denied of the benefit; both X and Y will receive a half share in the contract and the money.
[edit] Elements of duty
A fiduciary, such as the administrator, executor or guardian of an estate, may be legally required to file with a probate court or judge a surety bond, called a fiduciary bond or probate bond, to guarantee faithful performance of his duties.[27] One of those duties may be to prepare, generally under oath, an inventory of the tangible or intangible property of the estate, describing the items or classes of property and usually placing a valuation on them.[28]
A bank or other fiduciary having legal title to a mortgage may sell fractional shares to investors, thereby creating a participating mortgage.
[edit] Accountability
A fiduciary will be liable to account if proven to have acquired a profit, benefit or gain from the relationship by one of three means:[2]
* In circumstances of conflict of duty and interest
* In circumstances of conflict of duty to one person and duty to another person
* By taking advantage of the fiduciary position.
Therefore, it is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where his fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and not to profit from his fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest.
[edit] Conflict of duties
A fiduciary's duty must not conflict with another fiduciary duty.[29]Stewart v Layton (1992) 111 ALR 687 Conflicts between one fiduciary duty and another fiduciary duty arise most often when a lawyer or an agent, such as a real estate agent, represent more than one client, and the interests of those clients conflict. This would occur when a lawyer attempts to represent both the plaintiff and the defendant in the same matter, for example. The rule comes from the logical conclusion that a fiduciary cannot make the principal's interests a top priority if he has two principals and their interests are diametrically opposed; he must balance the interests, which is not acceptable to equity. Therefore, the conflict of duty and duty rule is really an extension of the conflict of interest and duty rules.
[edit] No-profit rule
A fiduciary must not profit from the fiduciary position.[3] This includes any benefits or profits which, although unrelated to the fiduciary position, came about because of an opportunity that the fiduciary position afforded. It is unnecessary that the principal would have been unable to make the profit; if the fiduciary makes a profit, by virtue of his role as fiduciary for the principal, then the fiduciary must report the profit to the principal. If the principal consents then the fiduciary may keep the benefit. If this requirement is not met then the property is deemed by the court to be held by the fiduciary on constructive trust for the principal.
Secret commissions, or bribes, also come under the no profit rule. The bribe shall be held in constructive trust for the principal. The person who made the bribe cannot recover it, since he has committed a crime. Similarly, the fiduciary, who received the bribe, has committed a crime. Fiduciary duties are an aspect of equity and, in accordance with the equitable principles, or maxims, equity serves those with clean hands. Therefore, the bribe is held on constructive trust for the principal, the only innocent party.
Bribes were initially considered not to be held on constructive trust, but were considered to be held as a debt by the fiduciary to the principal.[30] This approach has been overruled; the bribe is now classified as a constructive trust.[31] The change is due to pragmatic reasons, especially in regard to a bankrupt fiduciary. If a fiduciary takes a bribe and that bribe is considered a debt then if the fiduciary goes bankrupt the debt will be left in his pool of assets to be paid to creditors and the principal may miss out on recovery because other creditors were more secured. If the bribe is treated as held on a constructive trust then it will remain in the possession of the fiduciary, despite bankruptcy, until such time as the principal recovers it.
Continued ....
David, Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Trustguy .... thank-you, thank-you, thank-you ....Quote:
[edit] Breaches of duty and remedies
Conduct by a fiduciary may be deemed constructive fraud when it is based on acts, omissions or concealments considered fraudulent and that gives one an advantage against the other because such conduct—though not actually fraudulent, dishonest or deceitful—demands redress for reasons of public policy.[32] Breach of fiduciary duty may occur in insider trading, when an insider or a related party makes trades in a corporation's securities based on material non-public information obtained during the performance of the insider's duties at the corporation. Breach of fiduciary duty by a lawyer with regard to a client, if negligent, may be a form of legal malpractice; if intentional, it may be remedied in equity. Clark v Rowe, 428 Mass. 339, 345 (1998) (dicta).
Where a principal can establish both a fiduciary duty and a breach of that duty, through violation of the above rules, the court will find that the benefit gained by the fiduciary should be returned to the principal because it would be unconscionable to allow the fiduciary to retain the benefit by employing his strict common law legal rights. This will be the case, unless the fiduciary can show there was full disclosure of the conflict of interest or profit and that the principal fully accepted and freely consented to the fiduciary's course of action.
Remedies will differ according to the type of damage or benefit. They are usually distinguished between proprietary remedies, dealing with property, and personal remedies, dealing with pecuniary (monetary) compensation.
[edit] Constructive trusts
Where the unconscionable gain by the fiduciary is in an easily identifiable form, such as the recording contract discussed above, the usual remedy will be the already discussed constructive trust.[33]
Constructive trusts pop up in many aspects of equity, not just in a remedial sense,[34] but, in this sense, what is meant by a constructive trust is that the court has created and imposed a duty on the fiduciary to hold the money in safekeeping until it can be rightfully transferred to the principal.
[edit] Account of profits
An account of profits is another potential remedy.[35] It is usually used where the breach of duty was ongoing or when the gain is hard to identify. The idea of an account of profits is that the fiduciary profited unconscionably by virtue of the fiduciary position, so any profit made should be transferred to the principal. It may sound like a constructive trust at first, but it is not.
An account for profits is the appropriate remedy when, for example, a senior employee has taken advantage of his fiduciary position by conducting his own company on the side and has run up quite a lot of profits over a period of time, profits which he wouldn't have been able to make without his fiduciary position in the original company. The calculation of profits in this sense can be extremely difficult, because profit due to fiduciary position must be separated from profit due to the fiduciary's own effort and ingenuity.
[edit] Compensatory damages
Compensatory damages are also available.[36] Accounts of profits can be hard remedies to establish, therefore, a plaintiff will often seek compensation (damages) instead. Courts of equity initially had no power to award compensatory damages, which traditionally were a remedy at common law, but legislation and case law has changed the situation so compensatory damages may now be awarded for a purely equitable action.
I can now connect more dots as to what you guys are saying.
This morning has been particularly fruitful rooting and hogging :D.
Speaking for anybody else who falls asleep reading trust law, could you please try to share your revelation?
(1) A fiduciary is an agent of the principal who has duty and obligation to the principal. A fiduciary must be loyal to the principal. The principal has trust, faith in the fiduciary.
(2) The fiduciary has legal title to property under common law. A trustee is a fiduciary. The beneficiary has no legal title to the property. The beneficiary obtains the use of the property.
(3) Courts of equity and common law were merged by way of the Judicature Acts in England. As a result, the concept of fiduciary duty became usable in common law courts. This could be one of the real reasons why equity and law were merged.
(4) Fiduciary duty imposes a higher duty of care and stricter standard than does comparable tortious duty of care at common law.
(5) If operating in an office of trust, a bond as well as an oath may be required.
(6) Fiduciary duties may be imposed by the courts by way of constructive trust.
As an aside, I am thinking a license may be fiduciary relationship. The government acts as principal with the driver as fiduciary.
Trustguy was the first person to stick in my head that the US Constitution is a trust.
I have heard this concept echo by a few others with the Paddleford case in support thereto.
The offices of trust will require oaths and maybe even performance bonds.
you know not to usurp this thread but i just took a good look at your avatar and it reminds me a lot of the Torroid that Randy Powell forms with Vortex Math. The fire in the belly of the two headed eagle is approximately right where the Vortex would go into itself and come out the other side.
Vortex Math
Think about the US Treasury being placed into Trust by the Principal - Lincoln - and the Trustee is US Military. This was done at the time of the Republics; I believe that in reality the US Military is holding the Property Rights of the Republics - stop to think of the value stored - 2011- 1863 +/- @ a minimal interest rate is staggering!
The trust being Lieber Code
Attachment 424
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8...ntegration.jpg
I load it Centered on my Desktop.
I got a question to propose to you from your analogy here, A Retired cabinet maker, lets call him man#1 gives you a gift man#2, half of his warehouse of wood, but you do not have the machines to make cabinets, another man comes along, man#3 and says he needs wood to make cabinets for his home, you could also use a couple cabinets so you strike a deal of consideration, you man#2 will "give" him wood if he man#3 makes you 2 cabinets out of the wood, the other man#3 agrees and a couple months later comes back with 2 cabinets. Who plaid what role position in this trust?
[ handshake with 2 or more witnesses - both agreed no paper was needed ]
It is my conscience that certain roles can be switched by re-negotiating how instruments are presented, not necessarily by face value. All Instruments are negotiable unless on it's face it says non-negotiable.
Oh, it's a Maria Theresa thaler! I wondered what that was. Can I inquire of it's origin?
Coin Shop. Hapsburg Dynasty - that's what it means to me. The pentagram-cut sherry topaz is unique cut by a fellow down the road who owns the mine up on the Tarryall. Shining a laser through it:
Michael Joesph ....
... I hope you consider writing a treatise on Trusts.
You present the information in a very high level manner which can be very difficult to grasp with much of the substance lost.
I have to go back and do my research until I can see EXACTLY what you are talking about.
I fear that I may lose access to your writings. Write a treatise .... pleeease? :D
Or at the very least, create a thread with your writings on trusts.
You may have to atomize good portions of it in order to bring the reader up to speed on the concepts.
If you go back through all his posts, that is all he been talking about lately. Put it all in a word document and verify it all, this will help you connect the dots to where you can basically write up your own treatise on it for yourself, that is where the real learning comes in.
Soon we will have a Downloads section. Recently MJ shared some antiquainted treatises. A lot of reading but something about MJ's writing I have noticed. I do not understand it well until I try writing about it; then it almost always snaps into place.
He speaks of his trust being in Yehoshuah and that persistently translates to original estate. We don't own anything but it appeals to the highest Grantor/Creator.
Possibly I can prompt him to open up about - Library of Congress. Plug in - Incun. 1454.B5
Quote:
Microfilm of the Library of Congress copy of the Gutenberg Bible purchased from Dr. Otto Vollbehr in 1930, one of three surviving perfect copies on vellum. Call number of original: Incun. 1454.B5. Microfilm. : Washington, D.C. : Library of Congress Photoduplication Service, 1952. 3 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.
I, primarily and generally, associate trusts with property whether tangible or intangible.
I would classify trusts as a branch of the law of property personally.
Trusts originate out of English Common Law. It has spread and been adopted into Roman Civil Law.
That's neat. And whenever you wear it you'll always have some real money. With Gresham's Law in effect we rarely see good money anymore.
Law of Trusts reboot :)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
Do note from the above: NEITHER Common Law nor Civil Law sysem allow people to split the ownership from the control of a given piece of property.Quote:
For instance, whereas neither the common law nor civil law systems allow people to split the ownership from the control of one piece of property, equity allows this through an arrangement known as a 'trust'. 'Trustees' control property, whereas the 'beneficial' (or 'equitable') ownership of trust property is held by people known as 'beneficiaries'. Trustees owe duties to their beneficiaries to take good care of the entrusted property.
Equity, from the aforementioned, deeply concerns itself with trusts.
Quote:
Of course, Lord King LC was worried that trustees might exploit opportunities to use trust property for themselves instead of looking after it. Business speculators using trusts had just recently caused a stock market crash. Strict duties for trustees made their way into company law and were applied to directors and chief executive officers. Another example of a trustee's duty might be to invest property wisely or sell it.[52] This is especially the case for pension funds, the most important form of trust, where investors are trustees for people's savings until retirement. But trusts can also be set up for charitable purposes, famous examples being the British Museum or the Rockefeller Foundation.
Reboot review:Quote:
Company law sprang from the law of trusts, on the principle of separating ownership of property and control.[54] The law of the modern company began with the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856, passed in the United Kingdom, which provided investors with a simple registration procedure to gain limited liability under the separate legal personality of the corporation.
Legal title is vested in one party. Equitable title in another.
Legal title has ownership and control. Equitable title has right to PROFITS and BENEFITS deriving from the property.
This is the quintessential property of a USE.
On top of this, trustee is a fiduciary and agent of the beneficiary, the principal. This is the legal relationship.
Yes, what side of the fence do you want to be on? One can either accept the beneficial liabilities of an Estate held in trust being held by another or they can go create one, name beneficiaries and be the one in control. Separate from the Estate side of things most other instruments are constructive trusts, some can be negotiated unless upon the face of the instrument it says " non-negotiable ", example a Drivers License, negotiations can be done right then an there on the side of the road, there is nothing on that instrument that says " non-negotiable ".
UCC
§ 3-201. NEGOTIATION.
(a) "Negotiation" means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.
§ 3-202. NEGOTIATION SUBJECT TO RESCISSION.
(a) Negotiation is effective even if obtained (i) from an infant, a corporation exceeding its powers, or a person without capacity, (ii) by fraud, duress, or mistake, or (iii) in breach of duty or as part of an illegal transaction.
Rights are benefits, if equity follows the law then liability will follow from what rights you are claiming. Just be careful where you claim your rights come from.
Maxims of Equity
Contents
1 Equity regards done what ought to be done
2 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
3 Equity delights in equality
4 One who seeks equity must do equity
5 Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights
6 Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation
7 Equity acts in personam.
8 Equity abhors a forfeiture
9 Equity does not require an idle gesture
10 One who comes into equity must come with clean hands
11 Equity delights to do justice and not by halves
12 Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits
* 13 Equity follows the law *
14 Equity will not aid a volunteer
15 Where equities are equal, the law will prevail
16 Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
17 Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
18 Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
19 Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee