Binding Death Benefit Nomination: Fill & Download for Free

Nomination is a facility that enables a deposit account holder(s) (individual or sole proprietor) or safe deposit locker holder(s) to nominate an individual, who can claim the proceeds of the deposit account(s) or contents of the safe deposit locker(s), post death of the original depositor(s) or locker holder(s).The benefit of nomination is that in the event of death of an account holder(s) or locker holder(s), the Bank can release the account proceeds or contents of the locker to the nominee(s) without insisting upon a Succession Certificate, Letter of Administration or Court Order. The nominee holds the monies in the capacity of a Trustee on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased account holder(s) or locker holder(s) and the Bank's liability is duly discharged on payment to the Nominee.The nominee can approach the Bank with the complete set of documents required. The basic documentation requirements include – Claim Form, Death certificate, Proof of Address & Photo ID of the Legal heirs / Survivor / Nominee (as required by the Bank), Customer Copy of Nomination, if any.If the nomination is not contested and subject to complete submission of documents as per the Bank's requirements, the nominee can claim the funds in the deposit accounts that he has been nominated on. However, in case of any contest or dispute, or another claimant approaching the Bank with any legal documentation, the court decision will be binding on the Bank.Thus it is clear that 1. During the life of original depositor, nominee has no role. 2. Nominee is eligible to receive funds only after demise of the original depositor 3. After the demise of original depositor, as per legal provisions, either the deposit amount is transferred to nominee or the name of the account changed to that of nominee. However, many banks prefer to close the account and open new one so to say to start on clean slate.

Senator Schumer says that Brett Kavanaugh is not entitle[d] to a presumption of innocence because the hearing is not a court of law.As a matter of legal fact, he is correct. It’s not a court of law, no such legal standard obtains. This is a political proceeding, not a legal one- and its contents are pure politics, not law. To assert that in this case (not a courtroom, not a trial) that a political appointee whose confirmation would advance a partisan outcome deserves the protection of an in-applicable legal standard is Special pleading to tilt the playing field in his favor.Do you agree that this long held American belief no longer applies outside the courtroom?First, “innocent until proven guilty” is not some sacred generalized American belief or value being trashed by the other side in these proceedings, it is a principle from which we derive a legal standard that applies to courtrooms, not to political proceedings.Second, yes. I do agree that Kavanaugh is not entitled to a presumption of innocence, unless he is actually defending himself against criminal charges in a court of law.The presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings serves to shift the burden of proof, in that context, upon the prosecution. Until that measure is met beyond a reasonable doubt, via a process that establishes evidence and findings of fact (which can be reviewed later), it means that the accused should be considered not guilty of the crime in question. This is a good protection to have, when being held guilty of the crime could cost you your liberty. But it is the wrong standard to have when selecting a candidate in his job interview. [1]Is the bar for a prospective employee, one to be entrusted with a lot of power and influence, so low that he merely has to exceed the standard of not being a convict? No, it has to be much, much higher. He must be exemplary, with no appearance of impropriety.[2] [3]The manner in which Senate Republicans and Brett Kavanaugh’s supposed allies are championing the judge’s innocence should sting as the ultimate humiliation. They apparently don’t have sufficient confidence in the nominee to let a routine investigation take place before holding a hearing. They apparently don’t believe in him enough to make minor accommodations on the date of a hearing to a woman who is receiving death threats. They are publicly floating theories naming an alternative perpetrator—and then removing them and apologizing after those theories are picked up by Fox & Friends. Having held up Merrick Garland’s nomination for the better part of a year to get past one election, they are apparently so fearful of further erosion of support for their nominee that they feel the need to rush this matter to a vote just weeks before another one. In the era of #MeToo, their actions bespeak the fear of et tu. Their solution is haste—and not the sort of haste that suggests faith. It is the sort of haste that that has one eye on the midterms and the other eye cast downward.~[Kavanaugh Bears the Burden of Proof]It is helpful to appreciate that in the current context of Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings, this argument (should he be considered innocent until proven guilty?) becomes moot, given that there’s no process underway by which to determine that, and no sign that there will be under the current administration. It is essentially a claim that there should be no investigation, no findings of fact, to let this revert to being a political question, one that will follow a party-line vote.It’s also important to understand that the real bar for confirmation, in the current political context, is purely a political one. They could confirm anyone qualified to be a justice, criminal or not, so long as the optics are acceptable, if they so vote. The GOP leadership badly wants to confirm Kavanaugh, and seems to be maneuvering to limit the amount of political damage it will take in the process. Meanwhile, the Democrats understand that as more damaging information surfaces about Kavanaugh, it is possible it will cause 2 or more GOP senators to defect, or if they do confirm him, that it could cost them seats in the coming election.Thus, the plea to afford Kavanaugh the protection of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ serves to render all the accusations and forthcoming information about his record into non-binding chatter, mere optics. By contrast, if they agreed to open a professional investigation (which would subject his accusers to legal liability if their claims are found to be false) they would likely have their nominee under the cloud of an ongoing criminal investigation, which could possibly look too bad to confirm him through.Remember, the clock is ticking on November’s election- and the tea leaves strongly suggest that the Democrats could take control of the house, possibly (but not likely) the senate. If these things would come to pass, the democrats would then control the confirmation process, and could very possibly do to Brett Kavanaugh what the GOP did to Merrick Garland (that is, decline to hold confirmation proceedings).Meanwhile, other clocks are ticking for other timelines- will the Mueller investigation conclude? Will it be shut down? Will the president face impeachment proceedings in the likely scenario in which the Democrats take control of the house and use their subpoena powers to investigate him? How much does a friendly SCOTUS matter in these scenarios? (hint: these matters would be adjudicated there.)It seems very likely that the push to minimize discovery and speed through Kavanaugh’s confirmation is driven out of a desire to secure his seat before the elections can be taken. This talk about ‘but he’s innocent until proven guilty’ looks like it is just a deflection do serve that aim. The fact that those pushing for Kavanaugh to receive the benefit of the doubt are also against an inquiry that could exonerate him suggests to me that there are doubts about that, ones they don’t want to be looked into.Footnotes[1] The Democrats' "Flight 93" Nomination[2] Kavanaugh Bears the Burden of Proof[3] Opinion | The Burden of Proof for Kavanaugh

Of course, the natural objection is, but… they’re slaves! Won’t they revolt? Don’t they want to be free? Why would you give them weapons?!The answer is pretty complicated, but the TLDR is that slave soldiers were not really much different than regular soldiers in an ancient context. However, before getting there, it’s a good idea to look at this from the perspective of the owners/masters/rulers first to see why such a non-intuitive idea would even be tried. I hope readers will excuse me if I postpone the moral commentary to the end.Looked at across long stretches of time, slavery is best understood as the intersection of three main social functions: labor mobilization (what we in the modern world do by salaried employment); social control (getting people in general — not just slaves to do what you want); and value exchange (treating people like commodities). The nastiness of the last part often makes it hard for us moderns to focus on the other two, but all of these are important aspects of the institution — and from the standpoint of a ruler trying to build an army, the first two elements are really the important parts.In most ancient contexts the army is the largest organized body in society: the Roman empire kept about a quarter million men under arms, where the “permanent civil service,” such as it was, only numbered in the tens of thousands. The tricky bit, from the perspective of the ruler, is how to keep those soldiers housed, fed, trained and loyal. So to understand why slave soldiers might be an option, you should consider the alternatives.Militias are cheap — effectively you get your military in the form of compulsory service from some part of the populace. In a city state, that’s probably the wealthier citizen classes that can afford to provide their own armor and equipment; in a big multinational empire like Persia, you can demand levies from your subject rulers (“you Phoenicians have to show up with 100 fully equipped warships and 3000 marines”). This is a great way to expand your military on the cheap — unfortunately it’s usually going to produce poorly trained, poorly motivated troops. Plus, citizen militias are usually unhappy about campaigning abroad — they make stubborn defenders but rarely work well as expeditionary forces.Conventional pay works pretty well, if you have the silver, though you may run into the Roman problem of running out of money: if the bond that ties the soldiery to the throne is primarily monetary, you have to keep paying the soldiers no matter what. It’s also a very easy connection to sever: a contender for the throne who can offer better pay is a serious problem, as many Roman emperors and Hellenistic kings found out the hard way.Another common solution is to give the soldiers land (or, more precisely, the revenues from land — the soldiers have tenant farmers and collect their income from them directly). This has the advantage of immediacy — it works well in a cash-poor economy, like medieval Europe, ancient Egypt, or Sparta. It has the important downside, however, or rendering the soldiers pretty independent of the ruler, particularly if you’re using the same system to compensate your higher officers: feudal armies have an alarming tendency to become rivals rather than supporters.The economic appeal of a slave-soldier caste is that — within limits — it offers a way of avoiding the downsides of all three systems.There is still an ongoing revenue problem — your slave soldiers still need to be housed and fed — but they don’t need to be paid. In this context slaves have a high upfront cost in cash, but they don’t necessarily represent an ongoing cash outlay. Depending on the way the rest of your economy works, reducing the role of cash can be a huge boon to sustainability. The slave-soldiers can still be fed and housed with the revenues of a feudal land grant, but — and this is a big advantage — as slaves, they cannot own the underlying land. Also, as slaves (and almost certainly foreigners and outsiders) they cannot easily co-opt the loyalties of the people who work it.The other thing about slaves, as distinguished from either feudal retainers or salaried soldiers, is that — as Emmanuel-Francis points out in this interesting answer a slave is like a form of capital: a piece of valuable infrastructure (moral objections, as I said at the outset, aside). The money you’ve paid to your free soldiers is gone forever; the money you’ve invested in slaves can, if necessary, be recovered.Of course, if you’re serious about relying on a slave army you probably want to be careful about letting your trained — and hopefully, loyal — men go. Unlike a militia, the slave soldiers have the leisure time to train for their profession. In the hands-on world of ancient combat that’s a significant determinant of effectiveness. But from a purely cold-blooded perspective it also enhances their resale value. If you’re operating in an economy where human capital is a non-controversial resource, slave solders are both literally and figuratively valuable assets.Finally, there’s a non-economic but extremely important advantage to slave-soldiers. They are outsiders. They are probably linguistically and ethnically distinct from the local population under your rule (and don’t forget, there’s no guarantee that a given government has any close tie to the people it’s governing!) Slaves are almost certainly not connected to the kinship groups or traditional hierarchies that might pose a threat to your rule: unlike a local warrior elite with a proud history who might look at you as an foreign interloper or an upstart with no right to the throne. Slaves are dependent on you; they are less likely to make common cause with your enemies if your enemies are domestic. They may not fight for you out of love or idealism but their well-being and yours are intimately connected.So, from a purely economic point of view slave soldiers represent a capital intensive form of defense spending with high upfront costs but a lower ongoing maintenance burden, along with some important advantages in political terms.So, now we return to the obvious modern question: what kind of slave would fight for his master? Isn’t it dangerous to put weapons in the hands of slaves?In the unimaginably poorer world before the Industrial Revolution (as in plenty of poorer parts of the world today) limited options were the norm. Voting and politicking — if they existed at all — were reserved for a small, usually hereditary elite. Many rural laborers were tied in various ways to the land they worked — they may not have been shackled at night, but they were not free to move away, or to give up farming. Craft apprenticeships often lasted decades and were frequently binding: if you had been bought into an apprenticeship you probably could not just change your mind if the trade did not suit you. Inherited ideas about caste or class could also dictate economic and social mobility: everyone in this village is a fisherman, everyone in that tribe is a cowherd, and so on.In short, ancient freedom and ancient slavery were the poles of a continuum, rather than a binary opposites. Almost everyone lived under constraints that seem incredible to us today; slavery was one of many different kinds. This meant that the boundary between free and slave was vastly less absolute and more porous than it was in later times. There certainly were differences between the status of a Mamluk slave soldier and, say, a Roman legionary. However the latter (who could not marry, could not resign his commission, could not retire for 25 years, and was subject to brutal physical discipline) would recognize important commonalities as well.This shades-of-gray approach to freedom also had an economic component. In addition to being repugnant, the harshest forms of slavery are tremendously inefficient. In a slave system which offers no prospect of manumission or personal privilege — the Euro-American plantation economies, the gulag, the worst years of the Roman latifundia — the slave has nothing to hope for. Working at the end of a whip means working no more than you must; it means playing dumb, investing nothing of your own intelligence or skill. It means completely adversarial relationship with your masters — precisely the kind of setting where handing slaves weapons is, in fact, a suicidal idea.Like the worst forms of capitalism, though, slavery founded entirely on violence rarely lasts long: it’s self-defeating as well as evil. Historically, long-lasting forms of bondage tend to evolve escape hatches: roads to enhanced status, to economic privilege, or even to freedom. These positive incentives — freedom is only one, and not always the most important — mitigate the fundamental weakness of the harsher forms of slavery, because they align the interest of the slave and the master: both of them benefit if the slave works with energy and skill. These allow an individual to hope that cooperation will allow them more benefits than simply avoiding a beating.Where positive incentives worked, ancient societies could use slavery as a primitive form of labor market. The market for free labor was weak, because so many nominally free people were not free to choose their own occupations. The less grinding forms of slavery provided a predictable method for recruiting labor and a more or less rational system of incentives which were indispensable for big, complex organizations. Ptolemaic Egypt and Rome, for example, both staffed their bureaucracies primarily with slaves. Most large businesses were either primarily run by slaves or were networks of slave-staffed subcontracting groups. In this connection it’s worth noting that businesses and governments had the same problems paying for civilian employees that states had paying soldiers. Slavery provided the same solution, substituting ‘capital’ for paid labor. It was, quite simply, how almost everything got done.Ancient slavery, therefore, included huge range of actual conditions — from a miner being literally worked to death to a powerful bureaucrat living in luxury and presiding over the lives and property of many free citizens. The ubiquity and complexity of slave status meant that “slave soldier” was not as crazy as it seems to us. A slave with a weapon in his hand was dangerous, of course: but the master’s doctor was also a slave. So was the barber who ran a razor over his throat each day. So were the bodyguards who attended him in the streets. An cadre of slave-soldiers in that context would hardly stand out as uniquely threatening — except, of course, for the few slave soldiers who were so highly placed and so powerful that they ended up as rulers in their own right.Two very different grave markers illustrating the complexity of ancient slavery. The humble one on top commemorates Julius Vitalis, a Belgian working as an armorer for a Roman legion in Britain. The lavish one below is for the wife of a different Vitalis, a slave who was a high-ranking imperial secretary and retired wealthy.In that kind of world, plenty of slaves would not see their own interests through the rhetoric of “live free or die.” Economic security and, eventually, freedom were easier to find by cooperation than by subversion and resistance. There were always runaways and resisters too, of course, but with the extremely rare exception of large scale slave revolts (such as Spartacus’) these were individual acts rather than the reflection of a conscious class struggle.