Can anyone answer the questions below on USA

[Jsn123]

To Team Law questions regards U.S. History:

Happy Fourth of July!
This is one of my favorite holidays. Historically we get together with family and have a reunion centered around a picnic, watermelon, and fireworks.

Obviously, the author sounds quite knowledgeable.
I am sure we could add something to each other’s databases.
I would like to talk to the Author(s) who wrote that article for the Team Law web site; to have him/them answer some questions, please:

1. Does he know that the Bill of Rights has been stricken from FEDERAL JUDGES training books in the West (maybe there as well).
2. Does he know that the 9th Amendment has never been entertained by the Supreme Court – in practice, rendering it a legal nullity (all-be-it not a lawful nullity).
3. Why does the man use the small “g” government when talking about the real government?
4. He must be aware of the CAPITALIZATION, Capitalization, and capitalization schemes – right?
5. Did the new Amendments limit the original Bill of Rights Amendments, and if so, is it the COURTS, Courts, courts - that have done so?
6. Which has precedent, i.e. if there was a Tenth Amendment and someone passes a 13 Amendment, does it obviate, in areas of conflict, the prior Amendment – and is this how the COURTS have invaded the Constitution with the RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS (on top of the Marberry v Madison outrage)?
7. Is he aware of the CORPORATE CONSTITUTION?
8. Who owns, or has controlling interest in the private CORPORATION a.k.a. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC?
9. Who are its OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.
10. Do I have stock or can I buy some stock?

Some snippets from the man’s article with questions attached.

… they simply added the Bill of Rights so the Republic would forever remain of, by, and for the people.

Question: Why then have they been discarded or is obviated the word because the Banking syndicate/OR CORPORATE can always bring suit in the private CORPORATE FEDERAL COURTS?

Fifth: The individual States were given the original Constitution with the attached “Bill of Rights” under the name “Constitution of the United States of America” and all of the States accepted and ratified the documents”.

Woops, as I remember the original document said: “The Constitution for the uNited States of America, Incorporated.

Question? Isn’t it important to know whether the Constitution is “for” one or “of” one?

…individually first swore an Oath of Office stating they would uphold the, Constitution of the United States of America. Again it is very important to notice the name used in the Bill or Rights and now used for this “contract” with the officers and agencies serving under Oath to obey and uphold the: Constitution of the United States of America, not, “for”, but 'of”.

Note: It’s important to note here that we are indeed talking about two different documents. The First, the, Constitution for the United States of America, is a Trust and the Second, the, Constitution of the United States of America, is a contract between the officers of government and the beneficiaries of the Trust.

Question? Where does the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES come in? Is it the same as the Constitution of the United States of America, as stated above and is this, yet another, “jurisdiction”?

[Vzeng1]

Jsn123,
Welcome to Team Law. It appears from your questions that you could benefit from being refocused away from some of the opinions you are speaking about. You've come to the right place. Team law can help but we are all about self-education and we will not do the work for you but we will help you learn yourself.

Here's a suggested post that will help jump start direct your course of study: Myth 22

The author you are requesting for is the man that lends physical capacity and consciousness to the office of the Trustee of Team Law, Mr. Eric Madsen. Your questions are specific and therefore I encourage you to first seek out what has already been posted on this website countless times. Use the search utility at the top of the forum because chances there is a post related to your questions. If after you have searched for your answers and you still have questions, then you can contact our Trustee via sending him a Private Message. It will serve you tremendously if you do (like I did) the prerequisite workout study from the resources on Team Law first.

Vzeng1

[Admin]

Jsn123:
Admin held off in responding to your inquiry because we wanted to give others a chance to respond. We expected responses similar to the response Vzeng1 wrote pointing you to the information we have already posted on both our websites and on our forum. In fact, most of the questions you asked are answered on our Patriot Mythology page and, as Vzeng1 suggested, most of those answers can be found in the Prerequisite Knowledge section of Myth 22.

Vzeng1 is also correct to refocus you to do your own study regarding such matters; however, we have found that all too often, due to misinformation and the omission from studying the actual history and law from its source, people get some misconceptions that justify showing the correct path. That is exactly what Team Law does in the process of helping people learn how to learn the truth from their own personal firsthand experience of studying the law.

Accordingly, we hope to share with you our responses to your questions in the hope that it will inspire you and others to refresh their interest and study of our history and law; therefore, our point-by-point responses to your questions are as follows:

1. No. And, such information (accurate or not) seems irrelevant to the actual purpose of federal judicial training manuals; therefore the presupposition raises no cause for concern. Though new judicial training manuals can be produced leaving instruments such as the Bill of Rights out of them, we are unaware of any law or other compelling factor would require publishers of such training manuals to include the same. However, we also do not believe it is even possible for the Bill of Rights to be “stricken” from such training manuals. For that to happen the Bill of Rights would have to have already been published in the manuals and then it would have to have been removed from those publications. We are certain that did not happen. However, the language pattern you used is certainly representative of marketing language of those that would present specious information to incite unwarranted action from a passionate people. We also expect an investigation into the facts of the matter would prove the allegation is not accurate. Again, we would not be surprised that such training manuals would be published without having either a copy of the Constitution or its amendments in them. Thos historical documents are available to federal judges (and to anyone else that wants to review them) from many sources all within reach of them. Thus, there would be no point in publishing the same in such a training manual. Thus, if they had published the same in such manuals in the past we see no cause for alarm if the same is not included in newer publications of such manuals.
2. Though we are fully aware that neither the nation’s ninth nor the tenth amendments have ever been reviewed by the Supreme Court, your conclusion implying nullity is totally without merit. The Constitution needs no judicial review to affect its mandates upon government. The reason the effect of those amendments have not been reviewed is their application has never been challenged. Still, that does not negate the effect of the same. Accordingly, you may want to reconsider your impression of the alleged “legal nullity” idea. We certainly find no support for the allegation and consider the same as a ridiculous concept that has no support in reality.
3. We use a small “g” when we spell government because we the word is grammatically used as a common noun. English language usage defines the spelling of common nouns with all lower case letters unless the word is the first word in a sentence. Accordingly, if we are not using the word “government” as part of a proper noun, we do not capitalize it. Though we certainly make mistakes from time to time, we do our best to follow English language grammar rules in our writing. That practice certainly includes capitalization rules and all other such rules to the best of our ability. We always appreciate corrections whenever anyone finds errors in such usage and we always make the appropriate corrections when they are discovered.
4. When you refer to “CAPITALIZATION, Capitalization, and capitalization schemes”, we expect you are not referring to English language grammatical rules; rather, we expect you are referring to patterns any given author may follow as part of their “author’s license” in creatively crafting their work. Accordingly, we recognize such things as well as the respective elements of English language grammar. However, we have no idea what that has to do with Team Law, our Open Forum system or anything else related to the purpose of our Open Forum system (see Forum Rule 3). Accordingly, we hope you will review those rules for your future posts so we better can keep our forum focused on-point with its purpose. Those rules also ask our users to refrain from using capitalization as a form of shouting with the written word. The practice only makes posts more difficult to read. Your usage of the pattern: “CAPITALIZATION, Capitalization, and capitalization schemes”, followed by, “COURTS, Courts, courts” seems to indicate that you are intending some form of such a scheme in your post; however, because you did not further define that scheme we can only imagine what your intended meaning is.
5. No. We are not aware of any constitutional amendments that limit other such amendments; though, that is not impossible. Accordingly, if you imagine such a situation we expect that as a result of a misapplication of the Constitution as is common among those that refer to things like “constitutional rights” when there are no such things. The Constitution for the United States of America created the government. The Constitution of the United States of America binds the officers of that government to the limitations of their authority. Neither of them affects the rights of the people in any way.
6. A later amendment could revise a former amendment but we are not aware of any such conflicts currently in place. Certainly a study of the matter would prove itself in any given set of actual circumstances. However, our Forum Rules negate the use of our forum for the review of hypothetical situations; so, we will not embark on the path of hypothecating such a circumstance.
7. We assume the things you are referring to as “RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS” are the Amendments formed under what has been called the “Reconstruction Era”, that being the period shortly after the Civil War, when the original jurisdiction Congress was working on bringing the country back together after the war. Today, those amendments are called the 13th, 14th and 15th articles of amendment; however, when they were initially resolved they were the 14th, 15th and 16th articles of amendment. When Corp. U.S. was formed in 1871 it adopted its “United States Constitution”, which did not include the nation’s 13th Article of amendment; thus they renumbered the latter three starting with the 13th amendment. We reviewed those matters on our Audio CDs that bear the names of those amendments respectively and so refer you to those CDs for your further education on that matter. That topic would require far too long a response that we are willing to write on the forum.
8. Yes, in fact Team Law has likely done more to make others aware of the Corp. U.S. Constitution than any other person. Most others that talk about it today discovered it from Team Law’s work.
9. Corp. U.S. is not that kind of corporation. Its formation did not provide for stock shares because it was formed by and respectively wholly owned by the original jurisdiction government (see: District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871). However, under the conditions of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the newly formed International Monetary Fund (hereinafter “IMF”) acquired direct access and control of the resources of Corp. U.S.’ treasury in exchange for the Corp. U.S. President having control over the governors and general managers of the fund. Thus, though the IMF effectively gained control over Corp. U.S., the President of Corp. U.S. gained control over the IMF.
10. Corp. U.S.’ officers and directors are its President and Congress and those they may respectively appoint or assign.
11. No. Again, Corp. U.S. is not that kind of corporation (stock born).

Responding to your “snippet questions”:

1. Your first question incorrectly presupposes the Bill of Rights was discarded or otherwise obviated; which thing has not happened. What has happened is the people have forgotten the law and have no idea how the Bill of Rights works or upon whom it is applied; therefore, they do not know how to use it. In reality, the Constitution and its amendments are alive and well (howbeit hanging by the thread of the people’s ignorance). The solution is: learn the law and apply it.
2. Responding to our publication of the wording of the Bill of Rights regarding the name of the Constitution, you recalled the same from your memory as “The Constitution for the uNited States of America, Incorporated”; however, that memory was clearly affected by Patriot Mythology the likes of which we debunked in Myth 13. Accordingly, we suggest you may want to correct that memory with a look at the transcripts and high resolution photographs available at the National Archive’s website. You will find the name of the Constitution is presented exactly as we provided.
   
   After making that error you asked the question: “Isn’t it important to know whether the Constitution is "for" one or "of" one?” Though we question you usage of “one” in that inquiry, we also again point out the fact that the two constitutions are significantly different one from the other and thus, they have two different names. The constitution that formed the government (Constitution for the United States of America) has no amendments. It is simply the trust indenture that formed the government. The second constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) is the one that contractually limits the applicable authority of the officers of that government; which is why all such officers are required to take an oath to uphold the same.
3. Your final question was made regarding the Corp. U.S. constitution; which is titled, United States Constitution; however, you spelled it with all capital letters. Again, it is Corp. U.S.’ constitution. It is not the same as either of the nation’s constitutions. The linguistic differences between them are as follows:
   1. The Constitution for the United States of America is the original constitution (trust indenture) that formed our Constitutional Republic form of government by entrusting in that government the limited authority from the people necessary to function in accord with its terms. It has seven articles and no amendments.
   2. The Constitution of the United States of America first includes the constitution listed in paragraph “a.” (above) followed by the 10 articles of amendment commonly known as the Bill of Rights plus the six articles of amendment that were added to it by 1871. It is the constitution all officers of our Constitutional Republic’s government must take an oath to uphold; accordingly, it is the contract that limits said officers to the proper application of the people’s authority when acting in any such office.
   3. Then there is the United States Constitution; which was adopted by Corp. U.S. when it was formed. It uses the exact same words as the constitution listed in paragraph “b” (above) except:
      1. It does not include that constitution’s 13th article of amendment;
      2. It renumbers the nation’s 14th, 15th and 16th articles of amendment as its 13th, 14th and 15th articles of amendment; and,
      3. It has an additional 16th through 27th articles of amendment that are not included in the nation’s constitution. In fact, its 27th article is the original Bill of Rights proposed second article of amendment that was not ratified by the original jurisdiction Union states and is therefore not included in the traditional Bill of Rights (as ratified).
   You asked a final question regarding whether the Corp. U.S.’ constitution was made regarding another jurisdiction. If by that you mean separate from the original jurisdiction constitutions then the answer is: “Yes, it certainly does.” Though, we expect that response should be obvious. Further, that other jurisdiction is one that can only be entered contractually; in spite of the fact that Corp. U.S. was charged with the responsibility of carrying out the business needs of the actual original jurisdiction government as well. For the most part, due to The Seduction most people don’t act in their natural capacities too much; not that they cannot, merely because they have no idea how to.
   Which, is the natural result of living their entire lives ignorant of the law, its history and their own God given inherent responsibilities to know and apply the same. Accordingly, they were seduced.

Of course, that is why Team Law exists—to help the people awaken to the elemental necessity that they repent of their ignorance by learning the law its history and application from their own firsthand experience. Team Law can help you learn how to easily learn the law and learn how to lawfully apply it to win our nation back.

We can save our Constitution from hanging by the thread.
The only reason it is so hanging is the peoples’ ignorance.
That ignorance is eliminated by learning the law and applying it.
We can help.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law!