Monday, February 22, 2016

The Trustees and the Tenth Duke and Duchess of Manchester NELL VERE STEAD AND MANDY who were married 50 years. Each trustee after each Duke and duchess of Manchester passes away, TRUSTEES Starts to play even more GAMES. Today ALL trustees REFUSE ALL ACCOUNTING, THEY REFUSE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THEY REFUSE TO GIVE US OR TELL US WHERE THE TRUST INSTRUMENT IS? THEY REFUSE TO TELL US WHERE MONEYS MISSING WENT 60,000 IN ONE ACCOUNT AND 160,000 WE PAID OUT OF OUR PERSONAL-TAX REFUND. WE ARE ALSO PAYING THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER'S X WIFES TAXES AS THEN SHE RECEIVES OUR TAX REFUND!!!! THEY REFUSE TO TELL US WHAT THEY PAY OUT. THEY REFUSE ANY COPYS OF WILLS OR UPDATED TRUST INFORMATION. They Refuse to meet us we have never met them but one trustee once. When we ask to meet they refuse or trustee in NYC never showed up.

The Tenth Duke and Duchess were married  on May, 5th 1927 they stayed married until, The Duchess Nell Vere Steads Death on September 2nd, 1966 they had Many property's. We have thousands of them now in several folders being uploaded to a website. Many in U.S.A, Italy, London, Kenya, Jamaica, Australia, West Indies. 
Google earth!  

In December 1923, the future tenth Duke of Manchester assigned his trustees, under clause 14, ‘all articles of furniture plate pictures and other chattels’ that he would be entitled to after the ninth Duke’s death, and under clause 14(B) the trustees should make an inventory of the chattels, which would be included in the settlement, and hold the residue for the future tenth duty absolutely. When the ninth Duke died in February 1947 the trustees did not make the inventory, and released them to the tenth Duke. His solicitor knew that this was not following clause 14(B), but said in a letter on 15 November 1948 that he was free to sell the items. The Duke sold some. He died in 1977. The eleventh Duke brought a claim for breach of trust by failing to make any selection or an inventory of the chattels, and release them all to the tenth Duke, who was a constructive trustee when he received them.
This IS A DISGRACE TO ALL OF THE DUKES AND DUCHESS OF MANCHESTER FAMILY!   IT'S A FULL OUR LIE THEY DID NOT FORGET THE PROPERTY'S THEY WANTED THE PROPERTY'S!   TIME IS OVER! 


OMG A MUDDLE???  A HONEST MUDDLE??    THATS A BILLION DOLLAR MUDDLE!!!!  

There is no suggestion that anyone concerned in the matter was dishonest. There was a muddle, but however careless it was, it was an honest muddle. Further, I do not think that the Duke was at any relevant time conscious of the fact that he was not entitled to receive the chattels and deal with them as beneficial owner…
... the doctrines of purchaser without notice and constructive trusts are concerned with matters which differ in important respects. The former is concerned with the question whether a person takes property subject to or free from some equity. The latter is concerned with whether or not a person is to have imposed upon him the personal burdens and obligations of trusteeship. I do not see why one of the touchstones for determining the burdens on property should be the same as that for deciding whether to impose a personal obligation on a man. The cold calculus of constructive and imputed notice does not seem to me to be an appropriate instrument for deciding whether a man’s conscience is sufficiently affected for it to be right to bind him by the obligations of a constructive trustee...

(5) Whether knowledge of the Baden types (iv) and (v) suffices for this purpose [ie circumstances that would indicate facts to honest and reasonable person, or put him on inquiry] is at best doubtful; in my view, it does not, for I cannot see that the carelessness involved will normally amount to a want of probity