:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

On Sunday (September 10, 2017, at: 5:00 pm Mountain Time) Pastor Butch Paugh, (of: GCN Radio Network’s: “Call to Decision” radio show) interviewed Team Law’s Trustee. We will publish that interview on our Online Audio page once it goes through editing to remove the commercial breaks.

We hold a Free Conference Call 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^:

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

Disloving the trust

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Mountain Goat
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Saturday August 29th, 2009 10:49 pm MDT

Disloving the trust

Postby Mountain Goat » Saturday November 14th, 2009 5:30 am MST

If a person's relationship with the SSA is a trust and the SSA is the beneficiary. Then how does one stop being the trustee? I have read Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole. I understand there is an agreement but there has to be a way to end the agreement. Were do I need to look to gain the knowledge.

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

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Sunday November 15th, 2009 9:39 am MST

Mountain Goat,
The terms of the Social Security Administrated created trust agreement are written on the back of the Social Security Card. These terms clearly ask you to hold onto the card until the Social Security Administration asks for the card back. Therefore, as part of the agreement you must hold the card until they ask for it back. This means you cannot get out of being the trustee until they ask for the card back and you have fulfilled your obligation by giving it back.

Even if you could, I am not so sure why you would want to get out of the agreement anyways. Chances are most of the property you have worked hard for over the years is owned by the trust. As the trustee of the trust, you are the only one who can lend consciousness and physical capacity to it in order to transfer the ownership of the trusts assets into your private ownership. The trust is also a useful tool that can be used to control Corp. U.S.

-SimplyThinkDreams-

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Disolving the trust

Postby Admin » Monday November 16th, 2009 10:14 am MST

:h: Mountain Goat:
SimplyThinkDreams nailed it with his response. We will therefore provide a bit more detail to that response. Whenever a contractual relationship internally (within the terms of the agreement) provides the details for terms of the relationship, those details dictate the terms of the agreement as it is agreed. The terms of the agreement to hold the social security card included, but are not limited to, the resolution of when and how the relationship will end. Thus, that is your answer, just as SimplyThinkDreams noted.

However, whether those terms are printed on the back of the card is not relevant to the matter. Those terms were definitely published for your agreement in the documentation that came with the card. Thus, it is not even important whether you ever saw those terms (if the card was held for you by parents/guardians until you came of age or contracted (using the card’s name and or number) for employment, bank accounts, etc. Those published terms remain controlling because SSA exercised due diligence to make you aware of them as primary conditions for holding the card. Those primary conditions included:
  1. The card does not belong to you.
  2. While you hold the card its actual owner (Corp. U.S.) will remain the owner; thus, the card will be held in trust for that owner.
  3. The holder will hold the card until Corp. U.S. wants the card back.
  4. The card cannot be transferred to or used by any other party.
  5. Any signature act made by the holder will constitute acceptance of the agreement.
  6. The number on the card distinguishes the holder (trust) from people of the same or of a similar name.
  7. The name, number and or card cannot be used in any unlawful way.
We realize the first instinct many people feel regarding the card (when they discover the nature of the relationship they entered into to hold it) is they want to get rid of it. However, as SimplyThinkDreams indicated that instinct is not necessarily one born of wisdom or reason. The reality is the relationship can only be eliminated in accord with its terms; which only include:
  1. SSA asks for the return of the card;
  2. Both parties agree to end the relationship; or,
  3. The death of the party that lends consciousness and physical capacity to the trust so created.
There is no other way. Therefore, considering your inquiry indicates the relationship was likely entered into without much on-point thought or understanding, doesn’t it make sense that you would want to now understand the nature of the relationship before you try to jump free from it?

It should. Your discovery of the nature of that agency and its distinction from you should have already clued you in on the fact that it is not you and it does not control you; rather, you, and only you, control it.

The bottom line: as you would learn from reading our Myth 22 article; everything that was acquired through the use of that trust is actually held in trust for its equitable owner (the trusts beneficiary) as a agency of that beneficiary—Corp. U.S. As such, you are the only party that has the ability to control that agency and accordingly you are the only party that can control that agencies control over Corp. U.S. in accord with law. You are also the only one that can control the property so held in trust. Thus, you sit in quite a powerful situation if you were to understand the magnitude of it and what can be done with its control.

Team Law can help you learn how. In fact, that is exactly our purpose—we help people learn how to self-educate, so they can make the wisest of choices; no longer tossed to and fro by the whims of their lack of understanding.

You asked:
Mountain Goat wrote:Were do I need to look to gain the knowledge.
Accordingly, it seems like you have already found the best place to look—Team Law. It’s what we do.

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.

Mountain Goat
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Saturday August 29th, 2009 10:49 pm MDT

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Mountain Goat » Wednesday November 18th, 2009 4:29 am MST

I see that I don't want to end the trust.
So how do I take control of the trust and use it for my purposes.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Admin » Thursday November 19th, 2009 2:00 pm MST

:h: Mountain Goat:
Delving into that matter directly would require Team Law Beneficiary support.

However, again, whether you want to end the trust, or not, has no bearing on the matter; you cannot; you simply do not have the authority to end the relationship except by their agreement and for years they have clearly stated they will not agree to terminate such relationships.

Accordingly, any attempt to rescind the signature from the agreement simply further proves you acknowledge the agreement exists (see Myth 14). Therefore, it is good that you acknowledge that you do not want to end the trust.

Accordingly, you asked how you can take control of it and that is a subject we can only cover with Team Law beneficiaries; so, that topic on our Open Forum is reserved to our Beneficiary Forum.

We can tell you what we have already presented on that matter; which is, we would follow the Standard for Review to discover and identify all of the parties of the relevant relationships. We would secure our natural nature using The Way of Kings™ Foundational Instruments. That process will also secure for you a nomination for a Team Law Beneficiary Family Endowment. Having that done, we would get the SSA to lawfully secure the true nature of the relationship as a part of their record. Then we would use that record to secure the nature of any relationship that is or has ever been formed in relation to that agency trust (the taxpayer).

From that point forward, we would privately secure all assets that had been the property of said Corp. U.S. agency trust and start using that trust to properly control Corp. U.S. instead of allowing it to control us through our ignorance. Again, the key is we all must learn the law and then apply it—Team Law is the only path we are aware of that helps people learn how to self-educate and accomplish these things. Further the learning process is actually quite simple.

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.

Kingrollo
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Thursday February 4th, 2010 10:52 am MST

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Kingrollo » Tuesday October 12th, 2010 4:27 pm MDT

In that the CAPITALIZED name is the title of trust,
    :h: All red comments (like this one) were inserted by Admin:
    You are correct in recognizing that in most cases the Social Security Administration did give such trusts names spelled with all capital letters; however, is some cases they used proper noun format when spelling such names. Therefore, we are not sure what you mean by your reference to the name of the trust as a “title”; however, it is the name of the trust. Therefore, if by your usage of the word “title” you simply mean “name of the trust/business entity” then we agree with that usage.
[hr][/hr]And in that by signature the 'applicant' is actually the grantor of the res (assets of labour and security interest),
    the “applicant is not the grantor of the “res”; the Creator is the grantor of the “res” (thing placed in trust).
[hr][/hr]And in that trust has not been expressed and remains yet implied,
    your last conclusion was based upon your previous presumption, which our last comment should have resolved; accordingly, said conclusion is incorrect. The trust was properly created when the Social Security Administration offered the card to be so held after reserving its ownership to the beneficiary. Thus, the trust was properly expressed in that offer and it is so formed on acceptance of that offer.
[hr][/hr]And in that by expressing the trust the grantor appoints the receiver of funds as trustee and nominates grantor as beneficiary.
    By creating the Trust, the Creator appoints the Trust as the holder of the thing (the social security card) they placed in trust. The Trustee of a trust does not have the capacity to act in and of itself external to the operations of the trust itself; accordingly, the maxim “When a Trustee acts it is the Trust that is acting”. On creation the Creator reserved ownership of the “res” to the Beneficiary (the United States Government through its agent the Social Security Administration [a.k.a. herein: Creator]).
[hr][/hr]And whereby grantor instructs trustee to deposit funds appropriately,
    When referring to trusts, some people ignorantly use the term “Grantor” indiscriminately as an equivalent term to “Creator”; however, in proper trust language, a “Grantor” is a special type of trust Creator that is the Grantor not only creates the trust but becomes the Trustee in the trust so created. Accordingly, that term does not properly apply to trusts of the nature of the one created by the Social Security Administration. They create the Trust and appoint a specific party to the Trustee capacity when they deliver the card and propose the creation of the trust. Thus, “Grantor” is not a proper term when referring to the type of trust so created; it is not a “Grantor Trust”. Therefore, there is not Grantor involved in such trusts. Also, there are not fund transfers related to the creation of such trusts.
[hr][/hr]Does not trustee have obligation to comply?
    Your question is apparently based upon a misunderstanding, which should have been resolved by our comments inserted above.
[hr][/hr]And should nominated trustee act in anyway as trustee, would not be able to claim grantor and beneficiary status otherwise the trust would disolve?
    Your question is apparently based upon a misunderstanding, which should have been resolved by our comments inserted above. :t^:
[hr][/hr]I ask myself. And you expert folk.
In peace and harmony
Rollo

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

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Tuesday October 12th, 2010 4:37 pm MDT

Kingrollow,
In the case of the formation of Social Security Administration created trusts, the trust res is the Social Security card. They offer the card (which is a piece of real and tangible property) until they request it back.

Kingrollo
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Thursday February 4th, 2010 10:52 am MST

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Kingrollo » Tuesday October 12th, 2010 4:47 pm MDT

Thank you,
How is this expressed?
Is this the ONLY trust res?
rollo

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Admin » Tuesday October 12th, 2010 10:30 pm MDT

:h: Kingrollo:
Though we expect it should be made obvious by a simple review of the creation process, the only thing the Creator offered when they created the trust is the social security card. Thus, that was the only res in the trust when it was created.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that such a trust could generate massive assets once it is created; or , it could simply sit idle and never generate another asset to be so held in trust. Accordingly, we suggest that you may want to review The Seduction page on our website.

This topical thread has stretched the level of support we can provide outside of our Beneficiary’s Private Forum by quite a bit. Accordingly, if the responses we have heretofore provided have not resolved you questions so that you understand the nature of the situation sufficiently, we suggest that you go back and read the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article as well as Myth 22 and The Seduction pages from our website. If that is not sufficient for now then you will need to become a Team Law beneficiary to obtain further support on this matter.

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.

Kingrollo
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Thursday February 4th, 2010 10:52 am MST

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Kingrollo » Wednesday October 13th, 2010 5:11 am MDT

Many thanks SimplyThinkDreams and Admin for your patience!

Regarding the card as the "only res". Cards are a recent introduction in UK. What would the res have been before cards?

Alternatively, is it not feasible that whole system is The Trust? with the People as grantors and beneficiaries in common, all existent property and assets as res and corporate state as trustees?

I shall tax you no further after this enquiry! I am obliged.

I am endeavouring to identify similarities and differences between US and UK situations. I am in UK and am working on refining concepts with other 'lawful resistance' groups. I have contributed information to posts to your forum last night on other queries (see 'hunting on private land' and 'the strawman' threads.

In peace and harmony, rollo

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Admin » Wednesday October 13th, 2010 12:29 pm MDT

:h: Rollo:
Before such cards were placed in trust in the UK, the nature of all monarchial systems is such that the king/queen exclusively owns all of the land in the kingdom. Thus, you can only maintain your existence in such a place as a subject tenant; therefore, all of your personal property (private or not) remains with you as a security

The cards in the UK (United Kingdom) came about in concert with the EU (European Union). As such, they are new because that Union is new. If we follow the social security system back to its origin, history shows its origin related to the relationship between the United States and Great Britain; but, we are not going to go any further into that on this forum. Still, it is worthy of mentioning because the system used here to control Americans by such contractual relationships has proven a worthy model for global control. Thus, forming a EU with a similar pattern of control only makes sense as a direction for uniting the world’s commercial, political and judicial control systems. Though, such is the argument of many theorists, again those topics are off-point from Team Law’s purpose in helping people learn the law. Though we are not concerned here with the exercises of the “global elites” we are concerned with the only source for a remedy to whatever any government may do contrary to the propriety of rights and law. That remedy is: the people must learn the law and its history so that they can apply it and maintain lawful control over themselves and over government.

The alternative position you proposed (that being that of the whole system being a trust) is more applicable to the forms of government rather than to a party asking another party to hold some “thing” in trust.

For example: in the United States of America, our Constitution is actually a trust indenture wherein the people formed the government and so entrust it with sufficient authority (and limited control over specific property) to carry out the functions of government granted to them for the people. Thus you can call our form of government a trust.

However, a monarchy is totally different. In the Monarchy the king owns all of the land; thus, instead of the government working for the people (as in the U.S.A.) the people work for the government. Thus, the people are therein allowed to have private property only in accord with their tenancy, which is subject to the king. Such a government is not a trust.

However, the new cardholding relationship may be that of a trust if the ownership of the card is retained by some other party than the party to whom it is entrusted.

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

Thunder
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 63
Joined: Saturday December 10th, 2005 7:18 am MST

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Thunder » Saturday November 13th, 2010 9:09 am MST

Isn't the Declaration of Independence a trust? That is if we express that trust. Since the the courts have construed the trust to their advantage, "We The People", being the Creator of the trust, have the ability to re-establish the trust as it was intended. Would that not establish that the government has also miscontrued the SS Trust and allow The People to actually show that the SS Trust was also misconstrued and allow The People to re-establish the SS Trust. A trust in which the true res is our signature, as it is that which actually gives everything value. There is no money and therefore no true contracts, for their is no value to the paper we are brainwashed into believing is money. On credit cards, it isn't our signature on the application that has the value, and through that process if we establish that fact , we are the Creator/Grantor, and can the name the Trustee and the beneficiary as we intended it to be. :cheers:
Freedom for all people

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Disloving the trust

Postby Admin » Monday November 15th, 2010 10:46 am MST

:h: Thunder:
No; the Declaration of Independence is not a Trust.

It was merely a Declaration. We say was because it was made as a declaration by the 13 colonial states, under the “Authority of the good People” of those colonial states as “United Colonies” to announce their independence and pledge their unity in its defense.

To be a trust it would have to have had all of the elements of a trust (see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole); however, it has none of those elements; therefore, it is not a Trust. Contrary to popular opinion, it has no form or effect of law [exception, in places where it is specifically referenced as a foundation for law (like in Colorado’s Enabling Act)].

A signature is an act; therefore, it is not a thing (res) that can be held in trust (see: Myth 22).

Contracts do not require “money” to be “true contracts”/valid (see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole).

We could not understand the last sentence of your inquiry; however, the answer to the question it poses is definitely: “No.” Again, the pen and ink (etc.) signature on the credit card contract is the evidence of your signature act; which was your acceptance of the terms of that contract. Accordingly, such a signature act is not a thing that can be a thing placed in a Trust. However, the Act behind such a signature Act does prove your binding agreement to hold yourself accountable to the terms of the agreement as designated in the contract. Thus, the only value that can be attributed to such signatures is their binding effect on your agreement. Accordingly, no trust is created in a standard credit card agreement. Consequently, such agreements do not provide the signer with any trust related ability.

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.

Jumonjii
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Tuesday August 10th, 2010 4:18 pm MDT

Re: Disolving the trust

Postby Jumonjii » Wednesday February 23rd, 2011 8:55 pm MST

I know this is an old thread, but I have a question regarding the SSA.

Now I've been reading and rereading the information here and am still unclear on a lot of what is being said, versus what I have reviewed. Either I"m thick headed or blind.... I haven't decided yet.

Still trying to put together the Organic Act information.... but that's for another discussion.

Anyway, here's one thing I'm not understanding:

Whether we are trustees or not for the SSA....why do they refer to retirees as beneficiaries? I had come to the conclusion (albeit incorrectly I guess) that what we are paying into "The System", pays the benefits (beneficiaries?) of those who have retired before us. Because of this, the trust elements listed here seem (to me) to get shuffled around.

The best way I can explain what I am understanding (might be the wrong word to use here) is this:

I am a trustee (in general). All the "benefits" I am paying are feeding into the SSA.
Upon retirement I become a beneficiary of whatever funds are currently available and I get a portion of it.

What am I not comprehending?

The whole SSN not to be used for identification (by law?) has been tossed out the window and it's near impossible to do anything without it being used as an identification number.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Disolving the trust

Postby Admin » Friday February 25th, 2011 3:06 am MST

:h: Jumonjii:
It seems like you are trying to connect two totally separate things together as if they were one.
Those two distinctively separate things are:
  1. The SSA created card-carrying trusts; and,
  2. Distributions from the SSA to those that qualify for Social Security benefits.
Respectively, there is very little in common between those two distinct matters.

Though we would like to give you a more complete answer to your inquiry, the facts that this is your fifth inquiry (see Forum Rule 31) and that delving into a complete response would require Team Law beneficiary support, limit us from doing so. However, we did make a complete response; which we posted in our Beneficiary’s Private Forum at this link: Disolving the trust.

Thus, the balance of this response is simplistic by comparison to the response so provided on the Beneficiary’s Private Forum.
Jumonjii wrote:Why do they refer to retirees as beneficiaries?
The Supreme Court has ruled the Social Security system is neither an insurance nor a retirement program. Thus, if distributions from the SSA coincide with a party’s retirement from work, so be it. Nonetheless, the SSA properly refers to those that qualify for the distribution of Social Security “benefits” as “beneficiaries” not because those benefits are not derived from a Trust; rather, those benefits are Corp. U.S. government grants paid directly out of the United States Treasury to qualifying taxpayers. As such, those grants are not related to FICA (the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) distributions previously paid by such qualifying taxpayers.
Jumonjii wrote:I am a trustee (in general).
We do not know what you mean by the parenthetical comment “(in general)”. Before one can resolve the nature of such capacities they must first understand the nature of trusts. Team Law provided a syllabus for that very purpose in our Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article, which article begins with our Standard for Review as an elemental requirement for understanding relationships.

In business, when a party responds to the question: “Who is the Trustee?” with the answer: “I am the Trustee”, the only party that can rightfully (lawfully) give that answer is the Trust itself. That is because the Trustee has no capacity to act for itself; rather, when the Trustee acts it is the Trust that is acting and not the man that lends the Trust consciousness and physical capacity.
Jumonjii wrote:All the "benefits" I am paying are feeding into the SSA.
Benefits are not something you can pay; rather, benefits are something you receive.
Taxpayers make distributions to their Beneficiary (Corp. U.S.) in accord with FICA and the Social Security Act of 1935.
Jumonjii wrote:Upon retirement I become a beneficiary of whatever funds are currently available and I get a portion of it.
According to the Supreme Court you can never become the beneficiary of such a fund, because no such fund exists. It simply does not work that way. Further, you could never qualify for SSA distributed benefits; because only SSA created trusts (taxpayers) can so qualify for “Social Security benefits”; and, the distribution of such “benefits” come as grants made directly from the United States Treasury and not from some (nonexistent) Social Security trust fund.

Again, we made a far more complete response to your inquiry on the Beneficiary’s Private Forum, which you can access once you are a Team Law beneficiary. Meanwhile, because this was your fifth inquiry on our Open Forum system, our Charter limits us from hereafter providing you with further support until you are a Team Law beneficiary (see Forum Rule 31). Thus, we were limited in this response from providing more information than we did because to do so would have taken us into the realm of support limited to Team Law beneficiaries. However, the components we provided in this response are sufficient to guide you to verify this response with your own review of the facts, laws and Supreme Court cases related to the matter—they will confirm our response.

Discovering the facts about the inherent relationships between the SSA and the card-carrying trusts (taxpayers) it creates along with gaining a correct understanding of the facts related to the SSA’s distribution of Social Security benefits to qualifying taxpayers can, in no way, inhibit such distributions. In fact, making such discoveries and gaining such an understanding can enhance such relationships and the distributions that may come from them. Thus, the only real concern related to such matters for those that are receiving such distributions would be their ignorance of the actual nature of the relationships and the laws related to the same. Though ignorance may seem like bliss, such a seemingly blissful state cannot be maintained by ignorance and is usually followed by destruction.

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: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest