:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

Please be aware that: The Way of Kings™ Forum is back online; however, they were not able to salvage their old database for that forum. Wherefore, all of the registrations and content that was on that forum is gone; which means that you will need to re-register on that forum to communicate with them and to receive their forum based services.

Though we usually hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time); excluding emergencies and national holidays; such as, this coming Friday (November 10, 2017), Veteran's Day; therefore, there will be no Conference Call on Friday; because, the office will be closed for the national holiday.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call: Wednesday (November 8, 2017).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

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

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Quit claim of Corp US to IMF

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Rosco1733
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Saturday February 3rd, 2007 3:46 am MST

Quit claim of Corp US to IMF

Postby Rosco1733 » Wednesday April 18th, 2007 12:00 pm MDT

In order for Corp US to have been quit claimed to the IMF in 1944, wouldn't it have been necessary for orginial jurisdiction delegates of the government of the United States of America to perform the quit claim deed? Can a corporation quit claim itself to another owner (in this case, the IMF) or does this need to be performed by the owner of the corporation (in this case, the government of the United States of America ) ? If the latter, then how was this possible if no orginial jurisdiction Senators were seated in Congress in 1944?

Ross

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Quit claim of Corp US to IMF

Postby Admin » Thursday April 19th, 2007 12:09 am MDT

:h: Ross:
Corporations change hands by having their principle stockholders convey the control over their stock shares.
Of course, in this case, we are not dealing with a conventional corporation that bears stock; accordingly, there are no actual stock shares to convey; thus, we look to both the property controlled by Corp. U.S. and the the controls used within the corporate body to see where the actual control lies. Where the control of the corporation lies, so goes the corporation. Further, consider the question: "If control over the corporation's property is granted to another party, what effect does that have on the corporation itself?"

Corp. U.S. was chartered to take care of the business needs of the actual government (original jurisdiction); therefore, much like an attorney, it had the power to execute matters for the original jurisdiction government.

Thus, when the seats of government were vacated and Corp. U.S. retained the authority to act for them, they possessed the authority to execute the Bretton Woods Agreement (both for itself and for the actual government) due to its Charter; which was granted by its Creator (the original jurisdiction government). Because there were no original jurisdiction government officials in place to contest the action, the matter stands settled as an international Treaty between its participants; which included both governments and businesses.

You are correct in assuming businesses do not generally have authority to act outside of their owners; however, governments often set up trusts, corporations and other business relationships that way (to retain control) and they have the authority to do so by design; so it is that Corp. U.S. was created by design.

Business entities have the power to act in control over the property so possessed by them, even in trust. Likewise, Corp. U.S. acts over the property entrusted to it by the original jurisdiction government. Thus, when we refer to the Corp. U.S. "quit claim", we are not refering a quit claim over Corp. U.S. itself; rather, we refer to the direct access to, and control over, things like the Corp. U.S. Treasury; and or to irreconcilable debts that pass control over the debtor to a foriegn principle (like the IMF).

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

User avatar
CloseTheBoxQuick
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 12
Joined: Tuesday October 26th, 2010 10:49 am MDT

Re: Quit claim of Corp US to IMF

Postby CloseTheBoxQuick » Tuesday January 18th, 2011 11:30 pm MST

A related question ... does corp.US have the authority to enter the USA into an international treaty?
Or are ratified treaties only binding on corp.US and its citizens?
I'm not Chaotic Good after all -- TEAMLAW.NET is teaching me I am Lawful Good!! :-D

User avatar
SimplyThinkDreams
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 110
Joined: Thursday February 5th, 2009 4:45 pm MST

Re: Quit claim of Corp US to IMF

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Wednesday January 19th, 2011 12:12 am MST

The Bretton Woods Agreement fulfills all the necessary elements of a treaty and is therefore a treaty by definition. A treaty also falls under the purpose of Corp. U.S.' creation; which is to carry out the business needs of the original jurisdiction government.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Quit claim of Corp US to IMF

Postby Admin » Wednesday January 19th, 2011 10:02 am MST

:h: Closetheboxquick:
SimplyThinkDreams was absolutely correct with that response.

To that we add a reminder that well before Corp. U.S. was formed our nation was involved in a civil war wherein the President of the United States of America was granted war and emergency powers. That grant of emergency powers started our nation on a long history of control under such powers. Those powers include the authority for the President of the United States of America to do anything allowed by the Constitution of the United States of America. Some call such a power, “Martial Law”. Under such power, at least all such administrative controls come under the business needs of the office of said President in his capacity as the Commander in Chief of the military. The nation remained under those powers through the 1870s; when Corp. U.S. was formed; and, from that time through the present. Thus, as the original jurisdiction seats of government were vacated, Corp. U.S. continued to legally and lawfully operate in accord with its original Charter. We expect that is what SimplyThinkDreams was referring to when he wrote about “the purpose of Corp. U.S.’ creation; which is, to carry out the business needs of the original jurisdiction government.” (emphasis added.) Accordingly, the office of Commander in Chief passed to the Corp. U.S. President; where it remains to this day.

Our concern is, quite often it seems when people hear of such matters they think our situation today automatically implies that the “government” is operating unlawfully. Though there may be incidences where that may be true in the strictest sense, as a people we must always remember that Corp. U.S. came into its powers of governance both legally and lawfully. Therefore, if we have a belief that any of its (or its agents) acts, statutes and or controls are unlawful, the remedy for the such unlawfulness is always only properly executed through proper application of the laws of our land through the courts and or through proper legislative actions. Of course, such proper actions can only be taken if the people, hoping to apply the remedy, know the law. Thus, we must consistently learn the law from our own personal hands-on research and study of the law itself. That is where Team Law can help. We help people learn how to learn the law in exactly that way.
    We recently saw a judge rule that a man was to be incarcerated because that man was a Gulf War veteran and he read a book titled “Cracking the Code”. The judge concluded that the combination of those two effects made the man a danger to himself and/or to society. Such a verdict would not have been made had the man’s history been one of learning and applying the law directly from its source (the Legislature) confirmed by his reliance on firsthand legal opinions from Presidents and the Secretary of the Treasury combined with his following the respective advice of counsel instead of third party books, the internet and other such third-party references. Nonetheless, the man in that case was a law abiding Citizen that had done nothing wrong (in accord with the law); in fact he was properly following the law and the ruling was made against him in an arbitrary and capricious manner purely to punish the man for standing up with a different point of view than the judges imposition.

    Regardless of whether we have studied or learned the law, we are required to know the law if either of the two following conditions apply:
    1. The law in question applies to us or to any entity we control.
    2. The authority providing for the law’s existence or application comes from us.
    Thus, in most cases, we are required to know the law. If we do not, the problem is our own because we will be held accountable for the fact that we knew or should have known the law.
Accordingly, as we learn and apply the law we may learn that some Act of Congress was passed and then signed into law by the President. On review of that law, we may learn that it is authoritarian in nature (meaning it imposes some authority not granted to Congress through the Constitution). So what must we do? The answer is simple: “Follow the law as passed; and, contest its application through the proper legal and lawful channels of administrative, legislative and judicial contest. Again, such actions cannot be accomplished unless we first learn the law; so, we can lawfully apply the law. To do otherwise would be contrary to our obligations to ourselves, our families and most importantly our Creator. Again, Team Law can help people learn how to learn the law from their own firsthand study and application.[hr][/hr]From Team Law’s origin we have been limited from providing Team Law beneficiary support to anyone that is not a Team Law beneficiary (see: Rule 31).
Accordingly, on January 20, 2011, to comply with our Forum Rules, Admin had to redirect the remainder of this topical thread to the Beneficiary Private Forum because the complexity of the inquiries that followed this response.

Respectively you will notice that this Open Forum topical thread has been locked here; however, it is continued on the Beneficiary’s Private Forum at the following link: Re: Quit claim of Corp US to IMF.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest