: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^:

The Key.

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

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

The Key.

Postby Admin » Monday December 31st, 2007 8:23 pm MST

:h: Everyone:
Sometimes people tell us they have a difficult time relating what they learned from Team Law to others to help them awaken spouses, friends or people they meet at large. We have never had that experience, so we find it difficult to relate to their difficulty. In fact, we usually have the exact opposite experience—we find virtually everyone is interested in learning the truth about what’s going on all around them. Accordingly, we thought we might share an experience from this last weekend where we had just such an opportunity of talking with some people about Team Law and what is happening all around us all.

We were snow skiing at a local resort and I sat down on a ski lift between a ski patrolman and a father (with his young son), once we all sat down and our journey to the top began, I grabbed the safety bar and asked if the others were ready to lower it.

The patrolman said, “You can if you want to but you don’t have to if you would rather not.”

Though I had heard that sentiment from other people, I was a bit surprised that he, a member of the resort’s ski patrol, would say that because before we purchased our season passes we read the resort’s rules; where we learned not only do the rules require use of the safety bars (where available), but compliance with such rules is required by state statute—in other words, failure to so comply is a crime. Therefore, I pointed out that in spite of what some people think, apparently the resort rules actually require the safety bar to be used if present.

The ski patrolman respectively made a comment about how amazingly ignorant we all are of the laws and rules around us all of the time.

I commented, “Boy that is for sure; it’s likely you don’t know the half of it.”
He inquired, “Oh?”

I gave him the example of the out-of-bounds signs that surround the resort; most people see them but not many have actually read the law that makes going out of bounds a crime in Colorado. Then I pointed out the fact that the resort is also a starting point for many open cross-country ski trails that are not part of the resort and that anyone can use the entire area for such exploration and remain unfettered by the out-of-bounds criminal statutes.

He asked if I was a lawyer. I said, “No. I am just someone that recognizes the necessity of studying the law, as I expect you are. You see most people recognize it is impossible to obey, honor, sustain or even comply with the Law if they don’t know what the law is; don’t you agree?” He did.

We continued, “However, most of us have never done anything to learn what the law is; we simply do what we were told. I was no different until I found myself in the middle of a lawsuit, ignorant and ill prepared. I had to begin to study the law. That suit dealt with a real property issue and in it I discovered the Colorado Enabling Act, which allowed the Territory of Colorado and the people within the Territory to form a State provided that the State was forever limited from passing any law repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America or to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Now the number one principle of those two documents is the individual right of the people to take their property and come and go as they please without interference from the government. So, how could the State ever pass a law that says you have to license your car to drive it or that you have to get a license to drive it?”

They could not comprehend such a thing; neither can I or anyone else.

At that point, it began to be apparent that the conversation between the father and the son began to have a lull, apparently because the father had gained interest in our conversation, which continued, “Discovering that and the State’s Administrative Procedures Act, I went to the State’s Department of Revenue and in a formal administrative review asked the head of the department to show cause wherein the State had any authority to so limit my God given inherent rights. They could not show any such cause. Therefore, the matter was resolved by that hearing, I needed no such license for either my property or myself.

But that raises an interesting question. If the State has no authority to require a man to license his car or have a license to drive the same, what is it that they are doing when they appear to require driver’s licenses?” My companions on the ski lift did not know.

I asked, “Would you like to know?”
The patrolman answered, “Well sure!”

“The popular world of patriot mythology, conspiracy theories, tax protestors and the like, all attempt to answer such questions regarding what is going on in America today but they typically fail to study the law or its history from their origin; however, we again pose the question, “How can anyone obey, honor, sustain or comply with the Law if they don’t know what it is?” And, we answer, “They cannot.” Thus, they usually get it all wrong. Thus, for you to understand the truth, we will follow our study of the law through a Standard for Review, which requires us to first know who we are and then we will study the history of Law and government from the beginning as it relates to this matter; and that history shows, the national government’s creation of a private corporation under the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. On first review of that Act, it looks like the government was simply incorporating the municipality; but we knew, from our study of history, that Municipal Corporation was formed in 1801 and it had not been substantially changed since then. Thus, this “Organic Act” (that means first Act) cannot be the formation of that which already existed; so we had to look to other meanings for the phrase, “municipal corporation”. The only other realistic meaning of the phrase is a corporation that was owned, or otherwise controlled, by the municipality. From now on, we’ll call it, “Corp. U.S.”, to distinguish it from the actual or “original jurisdiction” government. Corp. U.S. gave the original jurisdiction Government of the United States of America the ability to do things they could not otherwise lawfully do; and, that let Congress resolve a myriad of problems they had in restoring the South into the Union of States after the Civil War.”

Both men on the ski lift seemed genuinely interested and we were about half way up the mountain—so time was short.

We continued, “From that point in time, Corp. U.S. began borrowing money as it managed the business affairs for the actual government; and by 1912, those debts came due; but, Corp. U.S. could not pay. They would have been bankrupt but the seven families that bought up the debt settled for payment of all of the assets of both the government’s and Corp. U.S.’ treasuries. When Congress came back into session in 1913, they had no money and little hope for borrowing any outside of those seven families recent formation of a thing they called the Federal Reserve Bank. Senators went to the families and asked to borrow money but they were told they could not because they had already proven they would not pay their debts. Corp. U.S. asked, “Why did you form the ‘Federal Reserve Bank’ if it was not to loan the government money?” The answer was, “Well if you want to find out how the Federal Reserve Bank works come on out to Jekyll Island and we’ll show you.” It is important at this point to understand where Jekyll Island is. When the United States of America was formed as a Union, its southern border was the bottom of Georgia; Florida was a territory of Spain; thus, that was an international boundary line; and, Jekyll Island sits about 50 yards off of the Southeast coast Georgia. In other words, Jekyll Island was a private island unto itself, foreign to the United States of America (that is to say, a private foreign country).”

The others on the ski lift adjusted their positions showing continued interest as we began discussing the operations of the Federal Reserve Bank, “On Jekyll Island, what the Senator’s learned was the Federal Reserve Bank would not loan them money; rather, if Corp. U.S. could get the people to exchange instruments the bank generated (Federal Reserve Notes) as if they were money, the bank would allow Corp. U.S. to use the exchange instruments at a rate of 3% per annum, plus 3% interest on any unpaid debt. Now at this point, let’s look at this same transaction as if it were done between us. What would you call it if we made a deal, where I would allow you to use my skis for a year for 3% of their cost?”

He said, “That would be rent.”

“That’s right; and that was the nature of the Federal Reserve Bank’s offer as well—rent. The only reason people perceived the exchange instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) as if they were money was the people could exchange them for actual gold or silver coin money at any branch of the Federal Reserve Bank. But, notice the nature of the bank’s guarantee to redeem the notes from people who had accepted them has nothing to do with the reality of the nature of the relationship between Corp. U.S. and the Federal Reserve Bank; their deal was one of a rented transaction instrument. At no time did they ever have to return anything more or less than the instruments themselves and the rental fee plus any interest that may have compounded on that rental fee debt.

“Well, after 20 years went by, Corp. U.S. had not paid any of the rent or the years of compounding interest they owed; so in 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank called the debt and this time they did not settle—Corp. U.S. was bankrupt and they had no means whereby they could resolve the bankruptcy. In fact, they remain under the control of that bankruptcy to this very day.”

“The Federal Reserve Bank offered to rent new transaction instruments to Corp. U.S. to assist Corp. U.S.’ developing a program that would allow them to continue to function under the bankruptcy if Corp. U.S. would develop a plan for payment of their debts; the new instruments would no longer bear a redemption guarantee; instead they would bear the statement: “Legal tender for all debts public and private”. The bankruptcy even ended the exchange of older notes, which on return to a Federal Reserve Bank were exchanged for new notes. The program Corp. U.S. came up with to generate assets was the Social Security Act of 1935; which expresses in its opening paragraph that its purpose is to “to raise revenue; and for other purposes.”

“A quick review of what the Social Security Administration does to accomplish this task will show what the States are doing when it seems like they are compelling people to get driver’s licenses. You see, people send in applications for relationships with Corp. U.S. in the form of an SS-5 form. The Social Security Administration registers the data from those forms into a database and they create a name and number for each record so registered. Then they print that name and number on a pre-printed Social Security card and send the card with its attachments to a person named on a respective SS-5 application. The envelope arrives in the mail and the person that receives it reads the Social Security Administration asks the person to hold the card [by the way, that is the only thing they ask the recipient to do with the card]. However, they first reserve, ‘This card does not belong to you. It belongs to the United States Government.’

“Now notice, in law, this is a very important reservation; because, anytime anyone gives anyone else something to hold that does not belong to them a trust is formed. It is important to notice what a trust is. In law, a trust is a completely different and unique person unto itself. Though a Trust has a Creator (the one that forms the trust), a Trustee (the one that loans the trust the consciousness and physical capacity necessary to function), and a Beneficiary (the actual owner of the thing held in trust), the trust is not any of the persons involved with it. Again, the Trust is a completely separate and unique individual separate from those that may be related to it. That means that if you decide to accept the responsibility of holding something that does not belong to you, the thing is held not by you but in trust through you and so the trust (a separate person in law) uses your physical body and your consciousness to hold the thing separate from you and separate from any other person until the thing so held is returned (or distributed) to its actual (equitable) owner. The trust (not you) is therefore the legal owner of the thing so held in trust. People sometimes misunderstand this point a bit so let’s compare it to you as a ski patrolman working for the resort. When you perform acts in a rescue, who is responsible for those acts, you or the resort?”

The ski patrolman responded, “The Resort.”

“That is correct. As a resort patrolman, you merely act as an agent for the resort and not in your own personal capacity. It is the same with this Social Security Administration created Trust; it is merely an agent for its Beneficiary, Corp. U.S. Now, let’s look closer into that relationship; who got the job, you or the Social Security Administration created trust?”

The ski patrolman responded, “The Social Security Administration created trust.”

“That’s right; the employee used the name and account number. The Social Security Administration says, ‘the Social Security Administration created that name and number combination to uniquely distinguish that person (the trust) from any other person of the same or of a similar name.’ Therefore, the use of that Taxpayer Identification Number verifies any action using that number constitutes the Trust’s action and not the man’s. Accordingly, when that employee gets paid; who gets the check, you or the trust?”

He answered, “The Trust.”

“Again, that’s correct. So who buys the house or the car or anything else funded from that bank account with its related checks, credit cards or other such funds?”

He correctly answered, “The Trust.”

The ski lift was now approaching the top of the mountain and our story was nearly complete, so we quickly continued, “So as we look back to the Corp. State requesting a license on the car, who’s car is it they are requesting that license for?”

He answered, “The Trust’s.”

“And who applies for the driver’s license?”

Again, he answered, “The Trust.”

“And even though the State’s Enabling Act limits the State from passing any law that would limit the man’s God given right to exercise his Liberty, do you see any limitation from the State requiring the incompetent Trust from having a driver’s license?”

He correctly answered, “No.”

As we approached the ski lift’s jump-off point we continued, “Of course all of this conversation came because of your innocent comment regarding rules we are not aware of, but imagine we are following because we were told to.”

He chuckled.

“Now, to really take a leap into law and the power of its application, let’s consider the world of taxes as they may apply to either that trust or you; if the Taxpayer Identification Number is not your number, rather it is that Trust’s, who is the one that owes taxes, if any are owed?”

Both the father and the ski patrolman in unison correctly answered, “The Trust’s.”

“Correct. So, as per our original premise with the law, that being the necessity for obeying, honoring, sustaining and complying with the Law, is it not a mandatory requirement for the taxpayer to know the law if the law requires obedience?”

They answered, “It is.”

“Then if we are required, either for ourselves or so serving such trusts, to pay taxes, are we not required to first know the laws that require tax payments?”

They correctly answered, “Yes.”

“We agree. And, to know such tax laws we must study them. But, to our dismay, we have never found anyone that understands the tax laws. From all accounts, the tax law is incomprehensible.
  • Five out of the last seven presidents of the United States have claimed the tax codes are incomprehensible.
  • Congress has repeatedly attested the tax codes are incomprehensible.
  • The Secretary of the Treasury has stated the tax codes are incomprehensible.
  • The United States Attorney General’s office has testified for IRS in its courts that the tax codes are incomprehensible.
  • IRS agents regularly attest the tax codes are incomprehensible to them and they refuse to answer their own Procedure One process for discovering what forms are required by law and what laws require them.
  • When separately asked the Secretary of the Treasury and Congress to help us resolve the apparent incomprehensibility of the tax code both responded with the reservation, “We cannot provide any legal aid and recommend you find a competent tax attorney or tax account for that help”; but,
  • On such inquiries with both attorneys and accountants we find the same response; “I cannot.”
Thus, it is impossible to comply with the Tax code or even to know what the proper form to so comply if there was one.

If we had such employment as we discussed earlier we would simply compose a missive that contained all of the appropriate information (such as one might find at the top of an IRS provided form) and we would then write a paragraph that disclosed the facts of our study and pursuit to resolve the apparently incomprehensible tax code at the end of which we would give an accounting of all of he funds that had been paid to such a trust as a result of its employment to its employer and we would attach such information returns as any W-2 forms the trust might have received from its employer, then we would show any prepaid taxes that had been sent to IRS and we would subtract any applicable tax (of which we could find none) and we would do the math showing the prepaid funds were overpaid. We would sign the missive as a tax return under a lawful affirmation of truth and send the same to IRS. Accordingly if they did not return the overpaid funds within the lawfully required time (6 months) we would take them to court to compel the payment of the return.”

At that point, the ride was over. We all hopped off of the ski lift each with a different direction to go, the patrolman back to work, the father back to teaching his son and me on a race to the bottom of the mountain; however, as we slid off the unloading ramp there was a feeling in the air from both of the men of a passionate desire to know more, yet we all knew we had no more time; so, I simply pointed them both to Team Law’s website. I said, “The name is easy to remember; it’s, “Team” like baseball team or we are all a team in this together, and “Law” like we all are required to know the Law “dot org” like organization. They got it; and, we all parted ways having had a very enjoyable and informative ride to the top.[hr][/hr]We are regularly involved in such situations where conversations go like the one here portrayed. That conversation took less than 18 minutes. It was way more involved than most. Most such chance meeting conversations take only five minutes or so and happen in places like sporting events, restaurants, stores, checkout lines, etc. Though the conversation shared here was quite involved, sometimes they consist of nothing more than some comment someone makes about the corruption of government and we refer to the picture of the Pentagon after it was hit by the “airliner” (missile?) on Team Law’s website. We actually carry a printed copy of that picture (in our car) and when people make such comments we show them the picture and ask how an airliner could possibly have made that hole and not broken the windows on the building where the tail and wings would have had to have hit. The answer is. “It is impossible.” They then know no airliner could possibly have done that regardless of the “official story”. That image alone turns on their curiosity—and, that is what we want them to have when we part, a driving curiosity that compels them to start learning the truth. Most people that see that picture then ask, “So where is the missing airliner and all of those people that were in it?” To that, we respond, “Now there’s the sixty-four billion dollar question. We got the picture from Team Law’s website, that’s where we would go to find your answer.” The rest is up to them. If you sparked their driving curiosity, they will take the next step and learn the truth for themselves. At that point, it is far better that they do their own research through Team Law’s website than for you to answer any more questions. Let curiosity drive your learning experience and you will discover how easy it is to learn the law and share it with others.<hr>Some people, having discovered Team Law is worthy of their support, want to get started working with us and ask where they should start. We have responded with the ten steps most commonly taken once these discoveries are made and having a desire to protect their rights, their families and our country. We share the Key to unraveling the whole mess as it relates to our lives. That Key is the Standard for Review. We have found some people do not understand how to use that Key to resolve this matter without additional assistance; thus, we generated the ten-step process that easily helps people learn how to apply “The Remedy”. We would reveal The Ten-Step Remedy here but we must reserve that revelation to Team Law beneficiaries; thus, we have inserted a companion topic to this one on the Team Law Beneficiary Forum, which is accessible through this link: Ten-Steps to Secure Permanent Liberty

For those of you that have not yet been nominated for a Team Law beneficiary relationship, we point you the Myth 22 article on Team Law’s website. If you have not yet read it, that should help you discover who you are and where you are in both time and urgency.

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 January 8th, 2008 11:17 am MST

Great article Admin. Like you, I have better success when I answer their question with a question or if I make a statement and say "don't you agree?" like you do rather than trying to force an idea down their throat.

I have a question or two on your story.
Admin wrote:...before we purchased our season passes we read the resort’s rules; where we learned not only do the rules require use of the safety bars (where available), but compliance with such rules is required by state statute—in other words, failure to so comply is a crime.
If a Man who is not otherwise bound to Corp State uses the ski facility, is it still a crime if he does not comply with the Corp State statute to use the safety bars? The Standard for Review says that the Man and the ski resort have a contract together and therefore the Man would have to follow the rule and use the safety bar anyway, but is it actually a crime not to use it?
Geibes
Education is bliss!

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

The Key.

Postby Admin » Friday January 11th, 2008 10:00 am MST

:h: Geibes:
Not to indicate this is your situation or that there is something inherently wrong with the movement (other than, people constantly looking for third parties to tell them what to do instead of learning the law for themselves from their own study), sometimes people within the so called, “Patriot Movement”, fall prey to the type of logic you presented here. Again, if you follow the Standard for Review you will notice the three parties in question in the situation you present are the man, the resort and the Corp. State. We already reviewed the man and his origin but (for the limited purpose of review in presenting the scenario) we did not review the background and history of the resort. In doing that, you would find that the Resort exists from its creation as a corporation; and, all corporations are creatures of the Corp. State; accordingly they are each bound by such Corp. State’s commercial laws. Thus, in order to contract with the Resort, you have an implied contract with the Corp. State; further, when you purchase the pass to the resort, you agree to comply with the Corp. State’s laws; and finally, imbedded in the purchase price is the Corp. State sales tax, which is also a contract with the Corp. State. Thus, contracting with the Resort definitely obligates the participant to comply with the Corp. State’s statutory controls.

Of course, this level of review is more like the level of review we would do with a Team Law beneficiary than what we might present in a situation like the one expressed. The simplistic description provided the people on the lift did not go into that kind of detail because its intent was to inspire curiosity at a level the listener might find drives them forward to discover more on their own, which is more to the point of this topical thread. Delving into such matter here would require moving this topic to the Beneficiary Forum. We responded to Geibes’ inquiry here merely to show, that the further use of the Standard for Review does answer such questions with a bit more follow through. Having Team Law’s help in learning to apply the standard and in learning how to learn the law for yourself is also an invaluable tool in the process. Thus, we welcome everyone to come and enjoy the learning 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.

Cowboy70x7
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Saturday January 5th, 2008 10:06 pm MST

Re: The Key.

Postby Cowboy70x7 » Wednesday January 23rd, 2008 10:07 am MST

Hopefully somebody can answer my questions. Where can I go and read how come this feller don't have to obey the rules of the folks he works for? And what's the law that lets you go past the boundry sign without gettin put in the clink?

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

Re: The Key.

Postby Admin » Thursday January 24th, 2008 6:25 pm MST

:h: Cowboy70x7:
First, we apologize for accidentally deleting the post you originally posted in response to this topical thread. We would have liked to respond to it.

However, we imagine, your inquiry here is reduced to your primary questions from the original. We are not certain who the “feller” you were referring to was. We imagine you are relating to the Ski patrolman in the story. If that is correct, we do not understand how he failed to obey any of the rules. He did indicate that he thought it was OK to ride the lift without using the safety bar, but that was most likely the effect of the fact that like most people, he did not read the rules for the resort. He was not hired for those skills, rather he was hired for his skiing abilities and his desire to help other skiers enjoy the mountain, which is the attitude of most ski patrolmen we have met.

We expect, after the conversation we related, he will go and read the rules and that from then on he might just continue to comply with the same.

So far as the boundary line matter, there are conflicts with that rule that would supersede it in many cases. We feel no need to go over all of those possibilities here. The scenario was presented as an example of a conversation where we all had fun and learned something while the curiosity of the participants in the conversation increased and likely inspired them to take a look at the Team Law’s website.

Most ski resorts have boundary lines posted to mitigate their own liabilities (in case of out of bounds injuries), not to limit the abilities of skiers with ski passes. Most skiers have no desire to go outside of the areas served by the ski lifts; mostly because it can be quite difficult to get back out of those areas and into the service area for the resort; and finally; there is usually no crime committed by going out of ski area boundaries unless the area outside is privately owned—in most such areas the out of bounds land is BLM or Forestry Service managed land and it is OK to be there. It remains the skiers responsibility to know where they are and to comply with the terms and limitation of their agreement with the ski area.

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