Thank you Michael, however it is worth pointing out straight away that Christian delivers his education completely FREE!! That is everything. However, he offers those that are interested, a more one 2 one experience of the learning which he is charging very little for in view of the support he offers. Having said that, I am not doing the class, I do not need to, the education is all there for Free and you can attend his 3/4 times a week calls and get your questions answered as well, ALL FOR FREE!!!! The call is on Skype and he is open to all questions no matter how long you hold him in the call. I personally think that is a breath of fresh air.
May I ask if you have attended any one of his calls to have your questions/concerns answered directly or have you dismissed this possibility out of hand? I would not put you down as being so closed minded. It makes me wonder why you haven't spoken to him directly with these questions/concerns (or e-mailed your questions to him via his website) and then come forward and made these remarks.
It is very unfair to imply he is charging money for the education. Yes, it is unproven in the UK to date, I accept that, however, having listened to the theory and why everything is a Trust, I myself am happy to accept that as being true. It is Brand New Technology and it makes sense to me.
Why Micheal do you offer an argument balanced in favour of aggression? Why do you choose friction over debate? Let's look at the success everyone is having overall with D/C, it is not good, and I am talking overall. Check the success page here and other forums, they are not bursting with success. That may be due to incorrect procedures/paperwork etc and that is something we will never know but what we do know is that success is small. There are many 'guru's' out there offering the Debtor/Creditor approach and I have seen them all I think in the last 12mnths +. They all ofer a different approach, different paperwork, different forms, different way to do A4V etc etc etc. We have all seen it, it causes confusion to those that are looking for remedy. Trusts on the other hand offers a much more straight forward way of doing things.
What are you referring to with all my last year remarks as well? I have only ever offered information I have come across as that, information that one should take as such. People take their own responsibility like I do in the end. We are all learning as I am sure you are too.
Christian covers quite extensively his success with the mortgages and why, may I enquire if you have listened at-all to his Audio's? You may have dismissed them with a closed mind or if you have listened and have argument to offer to his comments then please contribute in a more friendly manner. We are all wanting remedy here as well as other aspects to living more freely.
So, before you cast assertions of Christian only charging money then I would suggest you research your comments before posting such and diverting people away from another aspect of education that is completely Free to obtain. People can listen/ ask questions and then dismiss once they have been informed. All for Free as well. You only had to ask after all to discover this rather than point the finger and make assumptions.
You have however said you are not up for debate in the matter which to me is a closed mind. You have judged quite incorrectly and I think a public apology or retraction for your comments are required once you have seen that all the education including calls and questions is in fact totally Free.
Please people if you are interested, do not let Michaels comments put you off. Find out first and speak to me about the FREE education and support.
Peace
HS :)
Highspirit wrote:My point Micheal is that you accused Christian of charging money and used overtones of that being him offering disinfo at cost. You were wrong, now at least have the decency to apologise for your remarks of him charging money (the basis and quality of his info is your personal opinion you are entitled to).
You have dismissed the info, thats fine, but many others have not and are finding it useful so at least let others who are looking for other sources of information investigate it without being distracted with your false allegations. I have seen many from the D/C route now turning to this education. They too are turning away from D/C and you may be surprised at the amount of people that are. Just another fad? well maybe but they must have a reason for turning their back on D/C.
If you had listened to CW then you would of course know all about his success to date especially with mortgages but you fail to mention that.
I have seen the information you have posted on your aspect of Trusts but where you stop others have carried on and seem to be unravelling information that may benefit over and above D/C. Time will only tell.
I am not out there all over the threads telling people to stop the D/C route, but I am telling people there may be more to look at and at least don't dismiss Trusts. It is my decsion to follow Trusts and dismiss D/C, others may dabble in both and some may reject Trusts completely. That's called choice but people must be given that choice in the first place. CW offers a Free platform to investigate that choice so people can decide for themselves.
It does not need people like you coming along making the allegations that you have made no matter how much success you may have had on a personal level, that success for whatever reason does not appear to be being duplicated by others (success in the D/C approach overall that is). That does not mean it is not viable but the same can be said about Trusts which is, as I have already said, absolutely brand new in its current format and approach and not been around for over 20yrs++ like D/C. You would think after all that time that D/C would be a walk in the park by now, but it isn't.
Thank you
HS
TRUST, contracts, devises. An equitable right, title or interest in property, real or personal, distinct from its legal ownership; or it is a personal obligation for paying, delivering or performing anything, where the person trusting has no real. right or security, for by, that act he confides altogether to the faithfulness of those intrusted. This is its most general meaning, and includes deposits, bailments, and the like. In its more technical sense, it may be defined to be an obligation upon a person, arising out of a confidence reposed in him, to apply property faithfully, and according to such confidence. Willis on Trustees, 1; 4 Kent, Com. 295; 2 Fonb. Eq. 1; 1 Saund. Uses and Tr. 6; Coop. Eq. Pl. Introd. 27; 3 Bl. Com. 431.
2. Trusts were probably derived from the civil law. The fidei commissum, (q. v.) is not dissimilar to a trust.
3. Trusts are either express or implied. 1st. Express trusts are those which are created in express terms in the deed, writing or will. The terms to create an express trust will be sufficient, if it can be fairly collected upon the face of the instrument that a trust was intended. Express trusts are usually found in preliminary sealed agreements, such as marriage articles, or articles for the purchase of land; in formal conveyances, such as marriage settlements, terms for years, mortgages, assignments for the payment of debts, raising portions or other purposes; and in wills and testaments, when the bequests involve fiduciary interests for private benefit or public charity,, they may be created even by parol. 6 Watts & Serg. 97.
4. - 2d. Implied trusts are those which without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction, as matters of intent; or which are superinduced upon the transaction by operation of law, as matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties.
5. The most common form of an implied trust is where property or money is delivered by one person to another, to be by the latter delivered to a third person. These implied trusts greatly extend over the business and pursuits of men: a few examples will be given.
6. When land is purchased by one man in the name of another, and the former pays the consideration money, the land will in general be held by the grantee in Trust for the person who so paid the consideration money. Com. Dig. Chancery, 3 W 3; 2 Fonbl. Eq. book 2, c. 5, §1, note a. Story, Eq. Jur. §1201.
7. When real property is purchased out of partnership funds, and the title is taken in the name of one of the partners, he will hold it in trust for all the partners. 7 Ves. jr. 453; Montague on Partn. 97, n.; Colly. Partn. 68.
8. When a contract is made for the sale of land, in equity the vendor is immediately deemed a trustee for the vendee of the estate; and the vendee, a trustee for the vendor of the purchase money; and by this means there is an equitable conversion of the property. 1 Fonbl. Eq. book 1, ch. 6, §9, note t; Story, Eq. Jur. SSSS 789, 790, 1212. See Conversion. For the origin of trusts in the civil law, see 5 Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. liv. 3, t. 2, c. 1, n. 18; 1 Brown's Civ. Law, 190. Vide Resulting Trusts. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.
TRUSTEE, estates. A trustee is one to whom an estate has been conveyed in trust.
2. The trust estate is not subject to the specialty or judgment debts of the trustee, to the dower of his wife, or the curtesy of the hushand of a female trustee.
3. With respect to the duties of trustees, it is held, in conformity to the old law of uses, that pernancy of the profits, execution of estates, and defence of the land, are the three great properties of a trust, so that the courts of chancery will compel trustees, 1. To permit the cestui que trust to receive the rents and profits of the land. 2. To execute such conveyances, in accordance with the provisions of the trust, as the cestui que trust shall direct. 3. To defend the title of the land in any court of law or equity. Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4.
4. It has been judiciously remarked by Mr. Justice Story, 2 Eq. Jur. §1267, that in a great variety of cases, it is not easy to say what the duty of a trustee is; and that therefore, it often becomes indispensable for him, before he acts, to seek, the aid and direction of a court of equity. Fonbl. Eq. book 2, c. 7, §2, and note c. Vide Vin. Ab. tit. Trusts, O, P, Q, R, S, T; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.
What is a Trust?
In broad terms, a trust is simply a way of gifting property. Any type of property -shares, buildings,cash, etc. can be placed under a trust. You can use a trust to make a gift of a life policy on the terms set out in the trust document.
The person who creates a trust (the settlor) chooses the people who can benefit (the beneficiaries) and defines how and when they are able to enjoy the gifted property. Once the trust is up and running it can then only be dealt with according to those terms. You could contrast the position with that under your will, which you can change as many times as you like whilst you are alive. On the other hand, gifting a life policy under a will may not secure the benefits obtained from writing the policy under an appropriate trust.
Why can't a sole trustee be a sole beneficiary?
The sole trustee cannot be the sole beneficiary because a trust is a legal relationship between a trustee and the beneficiary or beneficiaries.
If a sole trustee were also the sole beneficiary, then this would be an agreement that a person had with themselves. The law says that no trust can exist in these circumstances.
However, a trustee can be a beneficiary of the trust as long as there is at least one other beneficiary as well.
Can the Settlor be a trustee?
The simple answer is 'yes' but it is usually advisable to have at least one other trustee. In addition, HMRC may look at the substance of the structure and exceptionally argue that the trust arrangement is simply a sham. If the sole trustee is the settlor practical difficulties might arise in contesting the position and two or more Trustees are recommended.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest