:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

With the return of our Trustee, we restarted our morning conference calls on: June 12, 2017.
Our new Free Conference Call schedule is every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

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

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

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^:

1873 - 1874 Statutes At Large

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Dogwise
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Sunday June 12th, 2005 8:31 pm MDT

1873 - 1874 Statutes At Large

Postby Dogwise » Friday August 31st, 2007 8:05 am MDT

When researching the Statutes at Large for the United States of America I discovered that from 1873 to 1874 congress created the Revised Statutes of the United States, published the organic laws of the United States of America and created the Revised Stautes of the United States relating to the District of Columbia. During this time they created the U.S. Code for the United States, not the United States of America.

The U.S. Code is thus for those areas controlled by the Federal Gov't, not the original 50 states that today have no representation?

Am I on my way to learning why the teachings of Team Law would benefit me and others?
Enjoy everything you can, cause brother when your dead, life just ain't worth living!

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: 1873 - 1874 Statutes At Large

Postby Admin » Friday August 31st, 2007 4:25 pm MDT

:h: Dogwise:
We rarely cover all of the details because there are battles yet to win in this war; still, you have disclosed one of the many evidences related to the facts. Bravo.

Our principle training is focused merely on inspiring people to learn the law, which is an elemental necessity with or without Team Law. Getting that study right is easily better done with us.

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.

Dogwise
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Sunday June 12th, 2005 8:31 pm MDT

Postby Dogwise » Monday September 3rd, 2007 6:42 am MDT

Admin wrote:We rarely cover all of the details because there are battles yet to win in this war;

I would suspect one battle is finding the truth based in fact, and another finding agreement amongst people for many learned Americans discount the US corp. creation and it's significance.

What are some other battles?
Enjoy everything you can, cause brother when your dead, life just ain't worth living!

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Monday September 3rd, 2007 2:43 pm MDT

:h: Dogwise:
Though we appreciate the battles of the nature you suggested, they are the battles the people face, which battles are not the nature of the battles we were referring to. On that front (the battles the people face), our work is performed by helping them educate themselves with their own discoveries through their own research. Thus, we do not give up all of the answers or they would lose their curiosity.

The battles we were referring to are those that may take place once the people are fully ready to reseat our original jurisdiction government by forming the Electoral College and electing the President of the United States of America once more in accord with our Constitutional Republic’s Constitution. There may be those from Corp. U.S. or from the ignorant body politic or from the media that will raise such contests as we have only alluded to. We do not raise such issues now because their ignorance provides a substantial advantage for those that truly know our history and our Law. The response you provided, to which we made the statement you quote, addressed your inkling to such evidences Team Law researchers have already perfected but we have no intention to disclose until we are in such yet to be fought potential battles.

Meanwhile, our disclosure of such things will not aid our work now at all; even though your discovery is elemental to your experience. Such is the nature of personal discoveries. If we were to disclose all such things there would be no real reward to those that truly study to prove our presentments for themselves

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.

Dogwise
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Sunday June 12th, 2005 8:31 pm MDT

Postby Dogwise » Tuesday September 4th, 2007 7:22 am MDT

Got it. Thanks.<hr>A prominent attorney has alleged the issue of Corp. U.S.’ formation as a result of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, is “a baseless contention”, which allegation has been freely passed out via many sources and e-mails and since it purports an opposing view, I often find myself somewhat confused. Though a reality view of life today seems to follow what I've read within this site, sometimes I am steered away because of S.Ct. decisions that would tend to support the original intent. Any comment by Admin is appreciated.
Sincerely, Dogwise
Enjoy everything you can, cause brother when your dead, life just ain't worth living!

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Wednesday September 5th, 2007 12:36 am MDT

:h: Dogwise:
So Team Law does not become one of the sites publishing the learned attorney’s opinion, we have edited your last post by both removing the quoted allegation and by adjusting your inquiry (where it referred to said quoted opinion) with language that maintained the intent of your inquiry. Our edited content is (as usual) in red.

As we have noted in our rules and in various posts, we do not want our forum to be used as a source where people go out into the internet and bring whatever others are doing or saying to our review. We believe the errant understandings others have are based not on their presenter’s intent to deceive; rather, we believe most people err because they start their study with misconceptions caused by following other’s incorrect opinions. When you start wrong, it is hard to get right; but if you get a proper start, it is a simple matter to stay the right course. Because of this belief, we expect anyone can follow the process we have shown in our Standard for Review and stay a proper course. Thus, what are we to do with the learned man? The learned man is one whose learning is past tense. He “already learned” what he knows and is so bound to it that he cannot see the truth because he already knows something different. Such people are usually good people and if they can be awakened and if we were the best source for helping them learn the truth, it would be a shame if we had treated their errant comments in such a way so as to totally put them off with a bruised ego from our critical review. Thus, we do not want to become such a clearinghouse for such reviews, especially when all people are capable of learning the truth on their own. Most such reviews come off with quite a negative air about them and we prefer to remain a positive uplifting ray of hope for people as they learn the truth and learn of the necessity of their learning the law.

An underlying problem also limits such reviews; they tend to be used as a means of people justifying their failure to study the law so they can know the truth for themselves. If they can turn to our reviews of what others have done wrong then they can justify not studying the actual sources of our law and its history and they can simply rely on what sources like Team Law says. Though Team Law is an excellent source for assistance with self-education, no resource exists that eliminates the necessity of your learning the truth from your own study.

Mr. Becraft’s allegation, which you anonymously quoted, is an excellent example of all of these problems rolled up in one. Because of it, and other such sources, you make the comment:
Dogwise wrote:I often find myself somewhat confused. Though a reality view of life today seems to follow what I've read within this site, sometimes I am steered away because of …third party opinions.
Such confusion is almost always the result of ignorance of the law and or of our history; thus, the solution is eliminate the ignorance through your own study of the law and of our history. Such confusion usually comes from a person hearing or seeing two or more third party sources in contest. Both may sound rational or correct; but the truth is found in the law itself and in our history, which must be understood to understand the law.

We recently responded to the very Becraft quote you inquired about in another post; though we do not now recall the exact topical thread wherein the response was made. We thought it may have been in the Beneficiary Forum, but a quick search of the topics stored there did not reveal the response. As we recall the detail of the response was such that it would require Team Law beneficiary status to review it; so we cannot provide that response in this forum. However, we can address the matter here as we have thus far done in this response; by showing how you can for you discover Becraft’s allegation is incorrect. Becraft also alleges land patents have no merit today, even though they are the foundation of virtually every private owner’s interest in Land in this country. Virtually every Title to Land in the United States of America starts with a Land Patent and follows with a chain of title (conveyed by Deeds, etc.) where each landowner in the chain grants either their assigns or their heir subsequent right to that land patent secured Land. His allegation stands in the face of the fact that to this day, the only document the federal courts entertain as proof of title to land is the Land Patent; all other documents regarding landownership, are regarded as “mere color of title”. Thus, the facts, the law, the actual words of the land patents, history and the rules of the courts all prove Mr. Becraft’s opinion is false. We say to people, don’t trust our relation of these matters; rather, do your own research and discover the truth for yourself.

The same goes for Mr. Becraft’s opinion (or anyone else’s, for that matter) regarding Corp. U.S., its existence or lack of the same. The actual documents speak for themselves; but if you do not know the history of the documents and of the parties related to them, you will not likely understand what you read. You have to go back to the history; ultimately, when you do, you will discover governments are always created by the people. They take their sovereignty, which they get from God, and they grant a portion of it to people they place in offices of government so those officers can watch over and protect the life, liberty and property of those that granted the government its existence. Regardless of the form of government so created, the creators of the government cannot grant any authority to the government that the people individually did not already have. Remember, this is a foundational limitation to all else that may come thereafter. In the face of the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress wanted (if not needed) to do things they had no authority to do and they needed to find a way to make such acts legal and lawful. The only thing that would make their subsequent acts both legal and lawful was if they could get the people to participate with them under contracts that provided for their necessities. Forming a private corporation would allow them to do that very thing.

At this point you must remember, we have not here shown how they accomplished that necessity. We have shown the history of the events that followed on our website. To discover what really happened, you must:
  1. Know the history;
  2. Read the actual law regarding the events; and,
  3. Let the documents and the history speak for themselves (not some third party review).
Mr. Becraft starts off his allegation by alleging the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 was “repealed” four years later; however, that is not what the code says or does; rather the code demonstrates one of the reasons such allegations are constantly made incorrectly (Becraft’s review looks at the past trying to understand it from the future—that’s like parent claiming virginity because they took a vow of chastity). The fact that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 exists and did what it did speaks for itself. The fact that it was amended three years later did not “repeal” it from existence. Congress finalized the District of Columbia Organic Act in 1808 and though the thing had changed because of those revisions, the nature of the beast had not changed—Corp. U.S. was formed, that fact is defined in the words of the Acts.

It is just like the Bretton Woods Agreement, it was formed by a treaty between nations and financiers; from it, the World Bank was formed, as was the International Monetary Fund. Then a few years ago, Congress “repealed” the Bretton Woods Agreement. Did that change the treaty or the agreement? No. Did it remove the international banking system created by the Agreement? No. It only changed the way they refer to the Bretton Woods Agreement in writing and in the United States Code.

Mr. Becraft alleges:
Larry Becraft wrote:This was the form of government for the District until February 21, 1871. On this date, Congress adopted a new act for the government of the District; see 16 Stat. 419-429. As seen by a simple review of this act, it did not create a government for anything but the District of Columbia.
We agree, right up to the point of understanding of what that means. A simple review will not reveal the whole truth. The only thing that reveals the whole truth is a review using the Standard for Review, which review reveals what happened and what was formed. We cannot go into that kind of detail with non-beneficiaries on this Open Forum, but we can say, the documents and the history speak for themselves and they tell the whole story; yet that will not be revealed to those that do not study historical facts from the past in their own light. You will not discover the truth about such things reading opinions from any third party reviewer. You will only discover them from your own experience studying the actual records and the law. That is where Team Law comes in; we help our beneficiaries educate themselves from their own experiences so they don’t need to trust anyone with the truth—they learn it for themselves. We help them find their way through history and the law.

The bottom line on this topic, the nature of the United States Government, “Is it a private foreign corporation or is it actually the constitutionally set government of the United States of America?” So far as we are concerned today, it really makes no difference; because:
  1. Either, it is the private foreign corporation (we call Corp. U.S.), legally and lawfully controlling the people through its contractual constructs formed by Social Security Administration; in which case we must:
    1. Discover the true nature of those relationships;
    2. Secure those relationships in their nature as they were created; and,
    3. Use those relationships to control Corp. U. S.;
    4. In our natural capacities secure our original jurisdiction government by holding lawful elections and reseating our Constitutional Republic’s actual government; and,
    5. Thus, bring Corp. U.S. back under the control of the people and our Constitutional Republic form of government.
    Or,
  2. The United States Government is the result of the actual government originally created by our Constitution but over time running amuck, to the point that today it is not recognizable, is acting way beyond its lawful limitations and through its Social Security Administration has created an administrative mechanism whereby it has divested its obligation to protect the people’s lives, liberty, property and right to pursue happiness in exchange for contractually binding virtually all of the people as agents of the government, eliminating virtually all private property and any rights thereto related—the net result, it unlawfully exchanged our Constitutional Republic for contractually controlled Communism; in which case we must:
    1. Discover the true nature of those relationships;
    2. Secure those relationships in their nature as they were created; and,
    3. Use those relationships to control the running amuck corrupted government;
    4. In our natural capacities secure our original jurisdiction government by holding lawful elections and reseating our Constitutional Republic’s actual government; and,
    5. Thus, bring Corp. U.S. back under the control of the people and our Constitutional Republic form of government.
Our point is, regardless of what anyone believes regarding Corp. U.S. or the United States Government, the necessity of our times remains the same.

The bottom line regarding the issue of the choice to support Team Law in our work or not is not a function of what we believe about the nature of Corp. U.S. Rather, it is a function of the best way to win our country back. We say that will only be done by a body of people that have awakened to the fact that they must know the law and our history for themselves. They have awakened to the fact that they must repent of their ignorance and stop trusting in others to preserve their lives, their Liberty and their property. They know they must be self aware of their relationships from their own understanding and they must righteously stand up with the law in their hands and apply it to save our nation.

Though we recognize people like Mr. Becraft and others in the patriot, law and tax honesty movements can be a big help in this process, their mantras of, “If this doesn’t work then the only avenue left to us is revolt” or “Follow me I know the way”, will not work. In our world today, taking up arms against Corp. U.S. is stupid! Only Corp. U.S. agents could have come up with such a stupid plan. Ignorantly following the learned guru, is almost as insane as said stupid plan.

The bottom line regarding our standing and what we must do: regardless of anything else, we the people are required to know the law. We are responsible for the creature ‘government’ because we are the source of all of its authority. Thus, the only way for us to control it is to know the law and hold it accountable to the law. The task is a large one but it is also a simple enough task. It is so elemental that it only works if the people educate themselves; that is exactly why Team Law exists and it is why we work the way we do.

You can look to other sources but you will never find anything like Team Law anywhere but here. We are the only source that helps you learn the truth from your own experience guiding you on the way through your discovery of law, history and the language necessary to understand it. We are the only source focusing on reseating our nation’s original jurisdiction government. And, your learning the law and doing all you can to help reseat our government is the only way you can legally and lawfully secure the existence of our government (and in turn your own survival). Again, that is what Team Law is all about—wherefore, we welcome your support.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Wednesday September 5th, 2007 12:57 am MDT, edited 1 time in total.
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.

Jus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 12
Joined: Friday June 10th, 2005 2:27 am MDT

Postby Jus » Wednesday September 5th, 2007 12:38 am MDT

Inserted by Admin.
:h: Readers:
Between the time of our edit of Dogwise’s last post (which requested our review of the Becraft allegation referenced above) and Admin’s posting Team Law’s response to the same, ZandarKoad, noticed Admin edited the content of Dogwise’s post by removing said allegation from the post and respectfully made a reasonable plea for a review of said allegation; however, when Admin submitted Team Law’s response to Dogwise’s request and discovered ZandarKoad’s plea; said plea was moot because Team Law had already responded making said plea off-point and irrelevant; therefore, Admin deleted the same from the topical thread and sent ZandarKoad a private message alerting him to the cause for the deletion.

That would have been the end of it, but at the same time Admin posted it’s response to Dogwise and deleted said plea, Jus was composing a response to said plea, submitting it moments after Admin deleted said plea. Normally, we would simply delete Jus’ response as well; but because that response was also exactly on point with the content of this topical thread, we left it as posted with this leading insert to explain why such a response was made to ZandarKoad.
:t^:
<div align="center">_____________________________________________
</div><hr>
ZandarKoad,
The purpose of Team Law is to help people educate themselves. Although I have in the past felt the same way about the disclosure of complete bodies of evidence and point by point proofs of such things as the creation of Corp US, I have come to the realization that Admin’s intention to not disclose such things in that way is wise for a number of reasons; one of which is, such compilations presented in the media and reposted to hundreds of other forums is easily lost in the information overload of the times in which we live and left to be misquoted, distorted and twisted by those who would have this information lost to the people.

What would be more valuable is a court case that was won on the merits of such disclosures as above, or other such evidences relating to the elements described in Team Law’s Standard for Review. Team Law has helped Beneficiaries learn how to do just that for themselves.

The great irony is, the historical facts you speak of that might be “best left hidden to the world” are not hidden at all. The rule of law has a traceable history in our nation, but the people generally have lost track of it. It is up to us to learn our history, which is what Team Law is here to help us do, and in fact does so very well, especially for its Beneficiaries.

If you would like to be nominated as a Team Law Beneficiary immediately I think the best way to do it is to have The Way of Kings™ nominate you. There is a community of people right here looking forward to sharing the knowledge necessary to learn how to get our nation back on track.

User avatar
ZandarKoad
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 35
Joined: Thursday August 23rd, 2007 7:40 pm MDT

Postby ZandarKoad » Wednesday September 5th, 2007 8:43 pm MDT

Thanks for the thorough replies! Only 3 posts and I'm already creating editing headaches for Admin... :lol:

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Wednesday September 5th, 2007 11:13 pm MDT

:h: ZandarKoad:
Actually, we appreciate your input and find it a pleasure to serve. Your quick response was admirable and got caught in the mix only because our response turned out to take longer than we had hoped. Keep up the good work and enjoy the journey of enlightenment through your study.

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.

Dogwise
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Sunday June 12th, 2005 8:31 pm MDT

Postby Dogwise » Thursday September 6th, 2007 7:32 am MDT

Dear Team Law,
It was never my intent to have you do my work for me, rather it was my intent to understand the discrepancy between the two opinions of like subject. I brought a genuine discrepancy not for review but for rebuttal as to why the act may or may not have been abolished.
Dogwise wrote:I often find myself somewhat confused. Though a reality view of life today seems to follow what I've read within this site, sometimes I am steered away because of …third party opinions.
Admin wrote:Such confusion is almost always the result of ignorance of the law and or of our history; thus, the solution is eliminate the ignorance through your own study of the law and of our history. Such confusion usually comes from a person hearing or seeing two or more third party sources in contest. Both may sound rational or correct; but the truth is found in the law itself and in our history, which must be understood to understand the law.

What can I say about the four S.Ct. Justices who would disagree with the five S. Ct. Justices? Are they ignorant, or is their perspective different, or is the law often times outside black and white reasoning so to speak? Isn’t the tax code stated to be “Incomprehensible?”

I must be the “judge” for myself when viewing issues and making decisions in life and given that circuit courts often disagree as well as judges, to included the aforementioned dissenting opinions, I simply must acquire evidence so to be that judge. In court the judge hears from both sides, I simply sought to hear from both sides.

As stated, any comment has been appreciated.
Sincerely, Dogwise
Enjoy everything you can, cause brother when your dead, life just ain't worth living!

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Thursday September 6th, 2007 3:31 pm MDT

:h: Dogwise:
We agree with you: the tax code is incomprehensible; Judicial opinions do vary and change over time as conditions change; and, you “must be the “judge” for myself when viewing issues and making decisions in life”; which is exactly why we responded as we did to your request for rebut.

Though we appreciate the opportunity to rebut conflicting opinions when necessary, that is neither our responsibility nor our desire in this case. Considering the fact that our primary function is to inspire people to learn the law through self-education (which we do quite well, as Jus noted above), it should be apparent that if we were to rebut every opposing opinion expressed we would defeat the very purpose of our work—people would not be compelled to do their own research and prove the truth for themselves.

When you made your request regarding the learned attorney’s opinion, we responded with the elemental keys that show you how to discover the truth regarding the same for yourself. That response also included elements that showed errors in said learned opinion making it easier for you to prove the truth for yourself. That should have been enough exposure for anyone willing to do his or her own research to prove the matter. Thus, we hoped our response was plain enough to inspire anyone with further interest to do their own research; and thus, discover the truth themselves by their own work.

Though Mr. Becraft became famous in the tax protester arena with the Lloyd Long case (which fame was recently bolstered with the Tommy Cryer case), his track record and other opinions (like the one we showed re: land patents) do not raise his opinions to the level of something anyone (other than his clients) needs to be concerned over, we neither value said opinions, nor do we feel any necessity to further address them here.

Again, we already (elsewhere) addressed that very opinion with an in depth review and we referenced in our above response; still, that issue is moot when one considers what we need to do to save our country (which is the very reason Team Law helps people educate themselves—so they can help us save our Constitutional Republic). We are limited here from going into too much detail regarding such matters with those that are not Team Law beneficiaries.

Finally, though this matter has absolutely no bearing on the fact that we must reseat our original jurisdiction government (as was shown in our response), Corp. U.S.’ nature is a critical element in a potential battle that may arise with Corp. U.S. when the original jurisdiction government is reseated and moves to bring Corp. U.S. back under our original jurisdiction government’s constitutionally secured control. That was the very issue we attempted to show in our next most previous response on this topical thread; to which response, you replied, “Got it.”

Thus, we appreciate the fact that learned attorneys have opinions like Mr. Becraft’s. Opinions, like the one you shared, will not stand the light of day in such a potential battle when that light is shown by our actual history, law and the facts. Thus, we pointed you to your own discovery path should the issue be one you want to pursue. Either way, whether you pursue that path on your own or not, we need not rebut the matter further here or now, we will save that issue for such a battle (if it ever comes—and our lack of disclosure here will aid our win there).

When you refer to Supreme Court rulings and the disagreement of opinions between the various justices that may sit in bank on the panels that make such rules referring to the potential: differences of opinion, learned ignorance or awareness of the facts or perspective differences that cause such justices to have differing opinions, you again make our point for us. It is not our responsibility to rebut such opinions; still, in mock trials in moot courts held in law schools all over the world, famous cases are tried and retried by law students, the cases outcomes vary; but their results remain moot.

So it goes with opinions that will not change the environment we all find ourselves in today; which environment is:
  1. The rented transaction instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) used by the United States Government since 1913 are not money but were used to generally vacate the country’s constitutionally set monetary system;
  2. The United States Government (regardless of its nature) went bankrupt in 1933;
  3. At that time the United States Government by legislation declared the people of the United States of America to be their enemies;
  4. For the declared purpose, “to raise revenue; and for other purposes”, under the necessity of operating in bankruptcy with transaction instruments instead of money; the United States Government formed the Social Security Administration;
  5. The Social Security Administration creates agency trusts (Beneficiary=United States Government) people can lend their consciousness and physical capacity to;
  6. Said trusts are subsequently used in virtually all transactions where assets and or property are exchanged making the United States Government the equitable owner of virtually all property in the United States today.
  7. The people are so ignorant of the facts, our history and our law that they sometimes think their actions and operations using the Taxpayer Identification Numbers assigned to said Social Security Administration created trust are their own actions; some even loose their identities to such trusts, thinking they are them.
Thus, the nature of the United States Government (Corp. U.S.) is irrelevant; either it is:
  1. the actual government run amuck acting through contracts to control this country as a Communistic Regime (through said Social Security Administration created agency trusts they own virtually all of the private property in the country—communism is defined by the government’s ownership of the businesses and the private property in the country), totally in contradiction to the Constitution of the United States of America; or,
  2. It is the private foreign corporation we call Corp. U.S. doing the same thing by the same means.
We do not care which it is, though the facts, the history and the law all say it is the latter and that will be much easier to repair.

Thus, our point, the rebut you requested is unnecessary—it is moot. Let Mr. Becraft and all those that like his opinion have that opinion; who cares! And, let us have our opinion that Corp. U.S. is a private foreign corporation. And, let those concerned over the matter, that do not know what to think, go and do the necessary research (like we did and suggest you do) and develop their own opinions; the results will not change the factual situation we all find ourselves in today. The remedy to that situation is clear:
  1. Learn our history;
  2. Learn the law;
  3. Secure your actual nature, which is where The Way of Kings™ comes in;
  4. secure the relationship with Social Security Administration (Team Law can dramatically help);
  5. Secure your Land ownership (if you have any such rights of your own, your parents or your ancestry);
  6. Elect original jurisdiction State governors;
  7. Reseat the original jurisdiction Senate of the United States of America;
  8. Reform the original jurisdiction Electoral College;
  9. Elect an original jurisdiction President of the United States of America.
The only other way for this to happen is the Corp. U.S. legislature and President discover the truth and legally legislate their way back into original jurisdiction, which is more unlikely to happen than it is for us to accomplish the nine steps listed above.

The bottom line: you ask us to do something contradictory to our purpose, asking us to rebut such an opinion is like asking us to do your work for you. Though you are probably right, if we were to rebut such opinions every time one comes up, people would likely be more driven to come to Team Law because it would be like ever other site out there saying “Come and do what we do, here are the forms to file, go and file them and all will be well!”
Balderdash! The only way all will be well is if you are inspired to do your own research to learn the law its history and the language necessary to understand and apply it; and, that goes for each and every one of us. You will not be so inspired if we do the rebut. People are only truly inspired when they stop limiting their study to third party opinions and they start going to the source to learn the truth. We cannot do it for you; however, we can inspire you to educate yourself and to get it right; that is what Team Law is all about.

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.

Geibes
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 116
Joined: Friday July 8th, 2005 12:34 pm MDT

Postby Geibes » Tuesday September 11th, 2007 4:22 pm MDT

Admin-
Admin wrote:We recently responded to the very Becraft quote you inquired about in another post; though we do not now recall the exact topical thread wherein the response was made. We thought it may have been in the Beneficiary Forum, but a quick search of the topics stored there did not reveal the response. As we recall the detail of the response was such that it would require Team Law beneficiary status to review it; so we cannot provide that response in this forum.

I have a printout of the post. The post was in the Benficiary Forum and was titled Larry Becraft quote on Act of 1871. It was written by Iman Inhabitant on July 20, 2007. The post no longer shows up in the list and Iman Inhabitant's name does not show up in the Memberlist either. :?
Geibes
Education is bliss!

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Tuesday September 11th, 2007 4:54 pm MDT

:h: Geibes:
We have no idea what happened to Iman Inhabitant, we went looking for that post and did not find it. You may feel free to open up a topic on the Beneficiary Forum and post it there. We then could link your reference to it to this message. As we recall, the level of that response goes beyond non-beneficiary support so feel free to post that to the Beneficiary Forum so the work we did is restored. Thanks, again Geibes!

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