The biggest problem with the situation you described is people (even governors) all too often go into court believing they understand a thing when in fact they do not. The cases you provided as examples upon which you based your inquiry contain perfect examples of our point. So, let’s look at some of the presuppositions you made in your inquiry and at some of the errors made by the party that participated in those court cases to discover what went wrong.
First of all, the quote from Admin with which you began your inquiry made it quite clear that if you do not “provide a reasonable and articulate challenge of the court’s jurisdiction or your mere “challenge” will not stand.”
Immediately after presenting that quote your inquiry made the following presupposition: “…the current original jurisdiction Governor of this state has mounted two such challenges in court…”.
However, as we review each of the cases you provided we find that the subject matter of those cases (one dealing with a suspended driver’s license and the other being a property tax matter) have nothing whatsoever to do with the original jurisdiction Governor’s Office; thus, it cannot possibly be the Governor that was so participating in either of those cases; as you suggested.
More to the point, we expect the actual party charged with the violations (that so charged those court cases with jurisdictional authority to proceed) was someone that had, at one time, filed for such a driver’s license and/or contracted for the obligation to pay the respective property taxes. Accordingly, if the party that stood to defend (in those cases) claimed he was an original jurisdiction Governor, such a claim would have no merit in either a traffic court case or in a property tax court case. Accordingly, we agree with each of those respective courts.
Regarding the original jurisdiction Governor’s office in your State:
Though many of the original jurisdiction governor’s offices around the country are filled with people that have been granted Team Law Beneficiary endowments, the man serving in that office, in your State, is not a Team Law beneficiary. Thus, he did not contact Team Law regarding his intentions defend himself in those cases. Had he done so, we would have informed him that such a defense would be foolhardy. Appealing such a matter even adds insult to injury; especially when he alleged that because he serves as the original jurisdiction Governor, he should not be obligated to pay the property taxes he already agreed to. Such an argument is simply ludicrous!
Though we are not aware of the specifics of the cases you referred to, a simple review of the nature of such charges in general will show the errors in such defenses.
- Driving under a suspended license:
The most common error defendants of such charges make is the supposition that they are no longer bound by the terms of such a license. Such suspensions limit the ongoing privilege so licensed. Thus, the only questions germane to the court are:
If the answer to each of those questions is: “Yes.” Then, the charge stands.
- Is the Defendant a party that had the licensed privilege suspended?
- Does the evidence presented in trial indicate that the Defendant continued to exercise that privilege during the time of said suspension?
- Failed to pay Property Tax:
Similarly to the suspended driving charge, the only questions germane to the court trying this charge are:
If the answer to each of those questions is: “Yes.” Then, the charge stands.
- Is the Defendant a party that has a liability to pay a property tax?
- Does the evidence presented in trial indicate that the Defendant failed to pay the property taxes so owed?
Respectively, the office of Governor does not obviate such obligations; thus, any argument raising such an issue is both frivolous and off-point.
Having presented those cases, you then wondered how we can use the law to win our country back. The answer to such pondering is given by first learning the law. In the cases in point, it should be quite obvious that attempting to use the office of Governor to obviate your own private obligations will not work. Then again, one should not expect it would. That is neither the purpose nor the function of the Governor’s Office.
However, if you were to read the article published on our Governor’s Corner
page, that does describe why we need to seat the original jurisdiction governors. And, that purpose goes a long way to helping us to take our government back. On the other hand, it should be obvious that in order to take our government back we first have to learn what it is and how it works. Then, we have to seat the officials in the seats of our original jurisdiction government; first, the governors, then the national Senate, then the Electoral College, followed by the President of the United States of America. At that point, if we exclusively follow the law to accomplish those tasks, our government will be sufficiently reseated such that it can once again begin to function and lawfully exercise its natural controls of law on Corp. U.S.
At that point in time, we will have accomplished our original intent. Of course, such a process is impossible if the people (you) do not honor their responsibility to learn and apply the law.
You presented your inquiry in the face of someone that had been elected as an original jurisdiction governor that then seems to have attempted to use that office to remove his obligations to unrelated responsibilities. Should that have worked for him, we would call that: graft, political favoritism and/or the effect of a title of nobility. Such offices of government cannot lawfully be used in such a manner.
Had your governor been a Team Law beneficiary and properly used Team Law’s support he could have easily learned how to prevail in both of those situations; however, better still, he would have most likely avoided both of those situations in the first instance. Considering the costs he had to face in those situations, had he instead put the expenses he had to face in those cases into a Way of Kings™
asset protection system, he would have been nominated as a Team Law beneficiary in the process and he would have had that support. Of course, the old adage also remains true: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink!”
Your inquiry then followed an accurate path recognizing the necessity for reseating the original jurisdiction judicial system as well. That is one of the functions of the President of the United States of America and once that office is reseated the respective governors of the original jurisdiction States will also need to reseat their respective court judges; in accord with, the provisions of the existent laws as they are provided in the original jurisdiction. The clarification of that process is quite obvious in our laws.
Team Law can help people learn how to learn the law and learn how to lawfully apply it. In fact, that is exactly what we do. Accordingly, we welcome your support.
It is about time that we all stop responding to Corp. U.S. and to the corporate states with foolhardy responses like the ones exemplified in the two actions you referred to in your inquiry. We cannot go halfway and simply learn that we need to reseat our original jurisdiction government. That is not enough. We also must stop acting like the taxpayer (Social Security Administration created trust [see: Myth 22
]) is one in the same person as our natural selves.
The bottom line: we must follow the Standard for Review
- Learn who we are;
- Learn God’s laws;
- Honor our covenants with God (and that which follows);
- Learn our history and our laws (paying particular attention to the chain of authority man recieved from God and used to form governments, bind contracts and build an inheritance);
- Apply the same (authority, laws, etc.) in all we do;
- Continue through the end.
Team Law can help
We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law!