a reply to: Shiloh7
Were we to take our money out and choose to use cash more often they would have to change their attitude. Today keeping all your salary or money in the bank means its vulnerable to snatching and it opens up a means of more people spying on your finances and profiling your lifestyle.
originally posted by: bally001
a reply to: myselfaswell
Can't trust banks, can't trust the Government, can't trust superfunds, insurance companies and the list goes on slowly but surely leeching us.
This wouldn't surprise me at all no matter what party leads the nation.
i guess you have a point to make? The op banks in question claims the same. All 50 states are now doing this. Of course, they will be fair if caught taking other peoples accounts, right?
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: manna2
Ill raise your bet,
GEORGIA TO SEIZE DORMANT BANK ACTS AFTER 12 MONTHS
Of course you left out this bit....
Georgia Will Return the Property at NO CHARGE TO THE OWNER!
originally posted by: manna2
The supreme court has allready ruled on this.
Text I will now quote the relevant portion of the judgment of the House of Lords handed down by Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He stated thus:
“Money when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.
The money paid into the banker’s, is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains himself,…
The money placed in the custody of the banker is, to all intent and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable TO THE PRINCIPAL IF HE PUTS IT INTO JEOPARDY, IF HE ENGAGES IN A HAZARDOUS SPECULATION; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of the principal, but he is of course answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.” (quoted in UK Law Essays, Relationship Between A Banker And Customer,That Of A Creditor/Debtor, emphasis added,)
Holding that the relationship between a banker and his customer was one of debtor and creditor and not one of trusteeship, Lord Brougham said:
“This trade of a banker is to receive money, and use it as if it were his own, he becoming debtor to the person who has lent or deposited with him the money to use as his own, and for which money he is accountable as a debtor. I cannot at all confound the situation of a banker with that of a trustee, and conclude that the banker is a debtor with a fiduciary character.”
In plain simple English – bankers cannot be prosecuted for breach of trust, because it owes no fiduciary duty to the depositor / customer, as he is deemed to be using his own money to speculate etc. There is absolutely no criminal liability.
originally posted by: mazzroth
Our Government ( Like all Western ones ) is totally and utterly stone motherless broke, they have borrowed up massively after a previous Party paid off all its debt by selling off the local Telecommunications Company to its private interest mates and now has raked up the national debt to record levels again.
It has nothing left to sell, so its new business model is based on theft, steal its revenue by way of enacting laws to benefit its coffers by increasing and making new..rates, fee's, taxes, fines, levy's, excises, duty's and the introduction of new revenues bases like "Inheritance taxes".
Its going to get worse as Mining pulls back and with increasing job losses this Government looses its Bounty,will only be able to increase the above thieving practices to continue its "spending like a drunken sailor" habits.