Bank Account=Trust?

[Doskias]

So I was doing some reading trying to correlate the details in this section of the forum to get a better grasp. Correct me if I am misunderstanding.

Is a bank account a trust, the trustee is the bank, the bank account name/trust is FIRST M LAST, and the beneficiary is First Middle and the property is what is being deposited/withdrawn?

[hobgoblin]

Hello Doskias!
I will take a stab at this for you with apologies to Michael Joseph and David Merrill if I screw it up. The BANK AND TRUST is, as you indicated, just that. The bank acts as trustee or its agent, while the TRUST- FIRST MIDDLE LAST is the beneficiary.
So, we have:
Grantor - First Middle Last as trustee for FIRST MIDDLE LAST
Beneficiary - FIRST MIDDLE LAST
corpus - FRN or lawful money as appropriate
Trustee or agent of- Banker
First Middle - doing business as First Middle Last as appropriate (and no more)

Oh what tangled webs we weave...I'm quite certain there are posts within threads that speak to this subject.

[Brian]

I thought we were being treated as unsecured creditors to the banks...ala Cyprus?

[JohnnyCash]

Yes, unsecured creditors.

here and here

http://www.globalresearch.ca/it-can-...sitors/5328954

Australian & Canadian depositors are in the same boat: http://barnabyisright.com/2013/07/10...013-14-budget/

I don't keep much $ in the bank.

[shikamaru]

Perhaps it would behoove us to study the roots of banking which is bailment.

[shikamaru]

Yes, unsecured creditors.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/it-can-...sitors/5328954

Australian & Canadian depositors are in the same boat: http://barnabyisright.com/2013/07/10...013-14-budget/

I don't keep much $ in the bank.

You shouldn't! Private banking is the way to go .

[Goldi]

There is a discussion in title to the money of a depositor in the infamous Senate Document 43 / Contracts payable in gold found here http://www.mediafire.com/view/fe3s3d...LE_IN_GOLD.pdf and Dennis Kucinich brought a bill to reform banking to that of a bailor/bailee relation http://www.mediafire.com/?dks98hkdeaq3mie . Guess he knew what was coming {bail ns/theft} and that retaining title to your money on deposit was a good thing. I believe that the muni funds on deposit aka CAFR account funds are most definitely on deposit as either trust funds or bailed funds and are NOT your run of the mill debtor/creditor deposits.

[JohnnyCash]

Gold contract clause

You might get along fine without the bank account, transacting in lawful money outside the system of false balances (Federal Reserve).

Sample gold contract clause:

http://jesse2012.com/Vieira1.jpg

http://jesse2012.com/Vieira2.jpg

http://jesse2012.com/Vieira3.jpg

http://jesse2012.com/Vieira4.jpg

[walter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6JWIBh6IBU

The Cesti Que Trust - Howard Griswold

[Doskias]

Thanks for the link to the video, walter. That was a wonderful conversation.

[hobgoblin]

Thanks for the link. From the article, "deposit account" classified as a type of bailment:

"Although restrictions placed on access depend upon the terms and conditions of the account and the provider, the account holder retains rights to have their funds repaid on demand. The customer may or may not be able to pay the funds in the account by cheque, internet banking, EFTPOS or other channels depending on those provided by the bank and offered or activated in respect of the account.

The banking terms "deposit" and "withdrawal" tend to obscure the economic substance and legal essence of transactions in a deposit account. From a legal and financial accounting standpoint, the term "deposit" is used by the banking industry in financial statements to describe the liability owed by the bank to its depositor, and not the funds that the bank holds as a result of the deposit, which are shown as assets of the bank.

For example, a depositor opening a checking account at a bank in the United States with $100 in cash surrenders legal titlethe bank now owns the actual, physical funds deposited, and the bank shows those funds as an asset of the bank."

[Doskias]

Thanks for the link. From the article, "deposit account" classified as a type of bailment:

"Although restrictions placed on access depend upon the terms and conditions of the account and the provider, the account holder retains rights to have their funds repaid on demand. The customer may or may not be able to pay the funds in the account by cheque, internet banking, EFTPOS or other channels depending on those provided by the bank and offered or activated in respect of the account.

The banking terms "deposit" and "withdrawal" tend to obscure the economic substance and legal essence of transactions in a deposit account. From a legal and financial accounting standpoint, the term "deposit" is used by the banking industry in financial statements to describe the liability owed by the bank to its depositor, and not the funds that the bank holds as a result of the deposit, which are shown as assets of the bank.

For example, a depositor opening a checking account at a bank in the United States with $100 in cash surrenders legal titlethe bank now owns the actual, physical funds deposited, and the bank shows those funds as an asset of the bank."

Makes total sense. Thanks for the reply.