:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

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.

total withdrawl from the system

Contracts, Trusts & the corporation sole; what they are & how they relate with one another.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Thee Ancient
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday December 13th, 2010 5:13 am MST

total withdrawl from the system

Postby Thee Ancient » Tuesday August 23rd, 2011 9:03 pm MDT

Maybe I have an overly simplistic view of all this. But simplicity is the nature of truth. I don't understand why, if all these documents (drivers license, social security card, voter card, passport) are the property of the issuing parties, and it is these papers that are used to enslave me; and I am not required to give animation to this fictitious entity, I cannot simply return their property to them and be rid of them once and for all.

Basically our founding fathers did that with the declaration of independence. I have found in my studies of other subjects that lies are complex and truth is simple. I don't understand why this is presented as such a mountain.

Could you please give your view on this?

And one more small point, just as the IRS admits they do not have a specific definition of church, which they cannot because the church is the bride of Christ and is solely owned by him, I am not a "person" of any kind by definition. By definition I and we are "living souls" created in the image of God, a product of God, the state does not and cannot have a definition for living soul. My authority level is sovereign, not my being.

Thank you and God bless you all with freedom

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

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Wednesday August 24th, 2011 11:25 am MDT

Thee Ancient,
If you are a sovereign and enter into a contract, your sovereignty requires you to carry the obligations of the contract. If you agreed to hold the Social Security Administration's (SSA) card until they request it back, then you are bound by that agreement. If the SSA asked you for the card back and you gave it back, then the agreement would be over. On the other hand, you cannot just give it back to them whenever you want if you already agreed to hold it until the time when they request its return. That being the case, your sovereign word requires you to honor your contract with them.

If you understood the power of the office of Trustee a little better, chances are you would like to keep the relationship in place as the trust is a very powerful entity with which to control Corp. U.S.

Thee Ancient
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday December 13th, 2010 5:13 am MST

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Thee Ancient » Wednesday August 24th, 2011 3:51 pm MDT

Thanks for your reply.
So then you are saying that there is no escape clause now that I know what they/I have done? And also, Where do I find the contract that binds me to this? Is it the act that created the social security administration or is it all the things I would find on their web site? I guess I need to know where the rules of the game are. I will be getting some more of your cd's when I get some more money but knowing where this contract is would sure help me till then. Thanks.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Admin » Thursday August 25th, 2011 3:50 pm MDT

:h: The Ancient
According to law, the card and the documents provided with the social security card on delivery, the ownership of the social security card is definitely reserved to Corp. U.S. However, we are not certain that all driver’s licenses, voter cards and passports are reserved as property owned by their issuers. In fact, we are certain that does not apply to all passports, though it may apply to others. The nature of such ownership is designated by the terms and conditions of the agreements that caused those instruments to come into being and possession of the holder.

However, we cannot agree with your presupposition that any on those instruments enslave anyone. That is certainly neither the purpose nor the function of such instruments. Even so, the lawful possession of any such instrument is evidence of participation in the contractual relationships thereto related.

SimplyThinkDreams was exactly on point with his response; however, we would not have used the language he did to relate to the nature of the agreement. Respective to that, we would not have referred to you making the agreement to so hold such card; rather, we would acknowledge your agreement was more likely one of accepting their offer wherein they entrusted their card to you. Of course, the only way that can be lawfully done is through a trust. Thus, we expect your agreement was to lend consciousness and physical capacity to such a trust, which, in turn, so holds the card. Thus, the trust agrees to so hold the card and you provide the trust the consciousness and physical capacity necessary for it to make such decisions.

When the founding fathers delivered the Declaration of Independence to Great Britain; their cause was a significantly different one. Great Britain was usurping governmental styled authority over the people in America where they had no lawful right to execute such authority. Thus, when Great Britain started the War of Independence by attacking the people in Lexington and Concorde; that act and those that followed caused the people to say, that such acts of war and usurpation were causes of action that required a complete separation from Great Britain. Thus, that situation is nothing like to situation we face today. Today our problem is the people do not know the law; thus, due to that level of ignorance, they have lost the ability to control either the government or the corporations the government has created. Thus, the exclusive remedy is: “The people must awaken to the necessity of learning the law and applying it.”

We would also disagree with you presuppositions regarding ‘churches’. In your inquiry you presumed “the church is the bride of Christ” and though we recognize the metaphor, we also recognize that there are over 650,000 different so called “Christian” churches alone (each of them presenting contradictory doctrines) and many other churches that do not profess a relationship with Christ; thus, though some of the followers of some of those churches relate to their own church as (the bride of Christ) it is certainly not a principal of law any agency of governance can rely upon. In fact, any attempt to legislate such a thing would run afoul with the Constitution of the United States of America. Beyond that comment and this reference to review the The Cardinal Rule of Definitions, we know of no reason the legislature would even attempt to define churches for publication in any statute controlling the IRS.

You asked if SimplyThinkDreams was saying: “there is no escape clause”. However, we though what he presented had nothing to do with any cause or interest in such a clause; rather, he informed you that if you actually understood the power vested in the relationships you referred to (by referring to those cards), you would not want out, rather you would use the law to control those card issuing organizations and so preserve your rights and our country as well. He was certainly correct in that comment.

The problem you (and many others) face is, you do not know the law and so you are not so empowered. Instead of firsthand studying the law itself (with its history and language) you are getting your information from sources that are also ignorant of the law. Thus, until you actually start studying the law itself, you will remain absent that power.

Accordingly, it seems to us that SimplyThinkDreams gave you a hint towards, not an escape clause, but something far better—the control clause that will preserve for you your freedom. That control clause is, “You must learn the law firsthand from you own hands on study.” To that end Team Law can help. However, to do that beyond what you see on our websites, you will have to have Team Law beneficiary status.

You asked:
Thee Ancient wrote:Where do I find the contract that binds me to this?
To discover the answer, read: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole. Then follow the Standard for Review to review any of the relationships you referred to. That should provide you with the answer to your question.

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.

Thee Ancient
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday December 13th, 2010 5:13 am MST

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Thee Ancient » Thursday August 25th, 2011 7:45 pm MDT

Thank you for your reply,
First in thinking about the response of simplythinkdreams, I can't agree about my so called agreement. This card I have been burdened with was signed for by my parents when I was a minor. The social security Administration never saw to it that I had a copy of the "contract." So I don't feel obligated to carry on a burden I didn't knowingly agree to. I will rid myself of that number. But I see the advantage of using it to keep them in check till I do get rid of it. You might think this strange but I have no desire to control them, just to be be rid of them. As I understand it Americans lived quite well without it for almost two centuries. I do appreciate your advice, and I am considering it.

Admin, thanks for your reply, there is a lot to go through. But I still don't have an answer to my main question, which is, What is the name of the legal documents that bind me to this contract? I wrote to the SSA online to try to get an answer but that was pointless, so I called my local office, they told me that section 7 of the privacy act of 1974 is the document that defines the relationship between me and them, Which I am not buying. Oh yes, they also told me that I am the beneficiary in that relationship! what a croc. The only other two options are to get them to send me the documentation they send when you get a card, or it is general under trust law. I am not asking you to do my homework for me just point me to the starting point, I will do everything else from there.

Thanks guys for your help, I will get this if it kills me. God bless.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Admin » Friday August 26th, 2011 5:00 pm MDT

:h: The Ancient
Though your idea of not being a party to the agreement due to the allegation that you parents signed something but you did not. We expect neither part of that allegation is accurate for the following reasons:
    We expect the facts will show:
    1. Someone filed an SS-5 form with the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) [no signature necessary];
    2. SSA used the information from that SS-5 to create an account and register a social security name and number, which they also printed on one of their social security cards;
    3. Then they mailed the card to the address listed on the card for the proposed cardholder; the card came with instructions for the cards proper activation and timely delivery to the proposed cardholder when they either turn 18 years of age or start contracting for employment under the care of their guardians;
    4. The activation of the card is accomplished by any signature act; which includes: moving a pen over the card so as to leave an ink signature on the card; use the name and/or number printed on the card for: employment, to open a bank account or to apply for or receive any other form of benefit (no written contract necessary—acceptance of the obligation to so hold the card is sufficient to permanently bind the agreement];
    5. You are now over eighteen and have so used the name, number and/or card for any number of signature acts that confirm your ascension to the terms of the agreement.
Thus, if you have so used the card or its provided name and number for any such acts, since you became 18 years of age, then you are a party to the agreement and you have accepted its terms.

As to the allegation that you did not knowingly accept those terms, in law, that argument will never work if you knew or should have known the conditions of the relationship; which is the case here. The Social Security relationship is no secret. The nature of the agreement becomes quite clear with only a slight amount of due diligent research; which you were required to do, whether you did it or not. Thus, the relationship is what it is.

Accordingly, the key to the relationship is to learn what it is and has been from the beginning and use it accordingly to so hold the card in trust and to use that trust to control Corp. U.S. in accord with its agreements and lawful obligations.

The bottom line: it does not matter whether you feel obligated to carry on the relationship—you accepted it and its terms require the card to be so held until they want it back. Of course, that is all they required of its holder. Again, the number is not your number. Their own laws and regulations forbid that—the card, and the number are theirs, not yours. That is the whole point. That is the very reason that, in accord with their own terms, the card can only be held in trust. Thus, what you have to do is learn what that means, the relevant law and how to take advantage of that fact. That is where Team Law comes in, we help people learn how to learn the law so they can learn how to apply it.

The Ancient wrote:You might think this strange but I have no desire to control them, just to be be rid of them.
Not strange at all; however, the only way to be lawfully rid of them is to learn and apply the law. No other way has the potential of keeping life as we know it intact (that is to say: keep food on the table, flushing toilets, public utilities and a functioning commerce system).

Again, Team Law’s whole point is:
  1. Each and every one of us people are already required to know the law;
      First, because all authority in government comes from the people; thus, where they are using your authority, you are responsible to hold them accountable for their lawful and proper use of that authority; and,
      Second, because if any law applies to your you have to know what it is in order to obey, honor, sustain or comply with it.
  2. The only viable remedy to our nation’s current situation is the people must learn the law and apply it;
  3. Therefore, the only things that stop us from doing that very thing are the false and limiting beliefs that there is too much to learn and/or too little time to have any effect.
However, those limiting beliefs are just that; beliefs that limit you from doing what you need to do. The reality is, you have always been required to know the law; and, the only thing you have to do to star knowing the law is start actually reading it—firsthand from the source. Again, Team Law can help; that is what we do.

The Ancient wrote:What is the name of the legal documents that bind me to this contract?
As noted above, no written contract is needed. The contract that bound you to the relationship was the combination between their offer and your acceptance (see Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole).

The Ancient wrote:(M)y local office…told me that I am the beneficiary in that relationship!
They were most likely referring to the potential relationship wherein a cardholder might make a claim for benefits against the social security system; in which case, that cardholder would certainly be a beneficiary to that system; however, that is an entirely different thing from the nature of the relationship that created the cardholder.

The Ancient wrote:I will get this if it kills me.
No point in that; however, “getting it” is quite a simple matter for people that become Team Law beneficiaries. The responses to your points of inquiry have taken us way too close to the complexity of questions that require Team Law beneficiary support; thus, for further information beyond what we have already published on these points, you will have to be a Team Law beneficiary for us to provide that level of support. Of course, that means that if you need further clarification regarding the nature of your relationships with them you will have to either have Team Law beneficiary support or ferret it out on your own—however, if you chose that course, just make sure that you follow the Standard for Review or you will almost certainly fail to achieve your expressed intent. Of course, that is the advantage of Team Law beneficiary support—we can help you make sure you learn how to learn the law correctly from its own source law, history and language.

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.

Thee Ancient
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday December 13th, 2010 5:13 am MST

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Thee Ancient » Friday August 26th, 2011 7:48 pm MDT

Thanks for your reply,
I know I have probably have been a pain in the rear. Sorry. As much as I hate it I guess you are right about my acceptance of that SS card and the terms thereof, so I guess I will chalk one up for them. I think I am starting to get it, let me know if I am correct; the social security card, the name in all caps on the card and the number on the card all belong to the SSA, and the only thing I agreed to do is to hold the card until they request it back? And also that there is no written document defining my relationship with them except the documentation of the application and whatever came with the card originally? Excluding all the "benefits" I see on their website.

One more question, do you know where I can get or read a full copy of the social security act of 1935? I have been looking but have not found one yet.

As soon as I can I will become a beneficiary, money is very short and the economy sucks what can I say.

All of you have been a great help, thank you and God bless you with freedom.

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

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Friday August 26th, 2011 10:23 pm MDT

Thee Ancient,
If you go to Team Law's Online Resources page and scroll down towards the bottom there is a link to the Social Security Act of 1935. Also, if you were to do a search on Google you would be able to find it pretty easily.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Admin » Saturday August 27th, 2011 7:30 am MDT

:h: The Ancient
Though you are correct in your acknowledgment that the card and the name & number on the card all belonging to the SSA. The all capital letters is not too significant of an issue; many parties can have the same name; their idea is the name and number combination uniquely distinguishes that trust from any people of the same or of a similar name; nonetheless, as a matter of law, the name, number and card all belonging to the SSA. And, from all available evidence and law, the only thing they initially ask cardholders to do in that agency relationship is hold the card until they want it back. However, that does not mean that you have not subsequently managed that relationship is such a way so as to have otherwise encumbered that trust into subsequent obligations.

Also, just because the relationship was created absent a written contract, that is no reason to assume there is no documentation that proves the nature of the relationship; there are plenty of written documents, statutes and laws that easily prove the nature of the relationship. However, the benefits available to such cardholders have virtually nothing to do with either the nature of that relationship or your participation in the relationship. (The difference between those two aspects of the relationship is like the difference between the Federal Reserve Bank offering to rent Federal Reserve Notes to Corp. U.S. for 3% of the face value on the notes if they can get the people to use such instruments as if they were money (see: Myth 22; Prerequisite Knowledge point 3) and the side incentive they offered to the people that use the notes wherein they would exchange those instruments for their face value in gold or silver coin. The offer to the people to so exchange the instruments has nothing to do with the contract that obligates Corp. U.S. to pay the rent and any interest that may accrue on that rent.)

Again, at that point, we run headlong into our Charter’s requirement that to provide any further information on that topic, you would have to have Team Law beneficiary support. So, again: 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.

Sdcarlee
Registered
Posts: 1
Joined: Tuesday November 1st, 2011 5:48 am MDT

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Sdcarlee » Monday November 14th, 2011 6:25 pm MST

It has been explained above that the SSA will ask for the card back if they don't want you to have it. Is your compliance with SSA the so called contract? If you want the benefit then pay if not, no benefit. A reciprocal contract would then make sense.
SSA wanting a number back will never happen, it is just a number and one you could never return, I don't see how an impossibility could ever make a contract binding unless it begins and ends with consensual reciprocation. Would it be any different than the charge and discharge we use everyday during a purchase, except that our good or benefit would come far down the road.
Just a thought.

Thee Ancient
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday December 13th, 2010 5:13 am MST

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Thee Ancient » Tuesday November 15th, 2011 4:59 am MST

Thanks for your comment. everyone keeps telling me I am permanently attached to this number. The truth is when the spring gets here and I am mobile again I am sending them their card and number back. The same for drivers license, voter registration and passport. My position is this, I am a living soul created in the image of God not a person created in the image of the state. I am subject to the laws of God and only to the law of man as long as I claim the status of "person" within that system. Because the Holy Word tells me to come out of this system, I can do this in any way I see fit. Just like our founding fathers broke away from the authority of the British Crown. The scripture tells me that no man can serve two masters, I have chosen my master and it is not man. This world wide system of corporate control is described in revelation 13, it is the beast out of the sea. The beast that comes out of the earth is in it's adolescence but it too is here.

I agree we need to understand law and it's application but my as to what realm of authority I will be subject to is strictly up to me. That choice is given to all men by their creator and cannot be hindered by the beast no matter what anyone says. If I choose to separate myself from the beast God will support me. I know admin will argue with me on this, but the Holy Spirit will not.

God bless you all.

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

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Tuesday November 15th, 2011 4:24 pm MST

Sdcarlee and Thee Ancient,
Sdcarlee: I suggest you go back and review the elements of a contract found in Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole in order to discover what a contract is. Just because it is highly unlikely that the SSA will ever request its card back doesn't mean that it is an impossibility.

Thee Ancient: Returning the card to the SSA without their request for its return would be a breach of trust. God's law requires us to uphold the agreements we have made. That being the case, you would be violating God's law if you were to return the card without the SSA requesting it back. The fact is that holding a card in trust for the SSA is not a violation of God's law. I think you are having trouble distinguishing between yourself and the business entity that is created by accepting the responsibility for holding the card in trust. The number does not identify you; rather, it identifies a business entity known as a trust.

The problem of serving Mammon comes about when we fail to understand that the number is not our own and act as if the property held in that trust is our own. Actions taken with such an understanding form a general partnership with the business entity in which we become equally and severally liable for its actions, debts, etc. It is when this happens that we are seduced into serving Mammon rather than God. If we learn the applicable law and operate the trust with serving God in mind, then we are serving God and not mammon. In fact, the trust is an extremely powerful tool that can be used to control government when you know the law and properly apply it.

Consider the following biblical example of a trust: Abraham controlled all of his assets through a Stewardship (a Stewardship is another word for a trust). Everything he had was entrusted to his Steward, Eleazar. Eleazer was bound by contract with Abraham to take care of his entire estate. He even made a covenant with Abraham to find Isaac a wife. Was Eleazer in violation of a God's law for entering into a contract with Abraham and overseeing a Stewardship? No. In fact, he used the authority of that Stewardship to serve and glorify God. Certainly, the SSA is not righteous like Abraham was; yet, the same can be done with the trust created by the SSA. You merely have to learn to operate in such a manner. Of course, that requires learning the law from your own firsthand study and applying what you so learn to that end.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Admin » Thursday November 17th, 2011 4:56 am MST

:h: Sdcarlee
SimplyThinkDreams responded to your inquiry by referring you back to our Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article to have you discover/recall the component elements that define, and are required in, every contract. It is also important to note that contracts are not all necessarily reduced to writing; and, the terms of a contract can be reduced to writing even if the written components of the contract are merely the offer and respective formal signature acts. Thus, when a party receives a social security card in the mail and reads the written offer presented with the card, that offer is made in accord with the conditions so offered. Thus, considering the SSA’s request (so offered to the prospective cardholder) contains the following elements:
  1. A giver (Creator): the SSA;
  2. A thing (res) of value to be held: the social security card;
  3. Ownership of that thing (the social security card) is reserved to Corp. U.S. through the SSA;
  4. A request for the cardholder to accept the responsibility to hold the card;
  5. A limitation on time: from the time of the offer until the SSA (or its principle, Corp. U.S.) wants the card returned;
  6. With the reservation that neither the card nor the name and number on the card can be used for any unlawful purpose;
  7. The provision in the controlling law: “Federal Insurance Contributions Act” (FICA); that reserve the right to Corp. U.S. to control/change the required distribution practices/policies/procedures for the relationship created by acceptance of said offer; and,
  8. The requirement for a signature act acknowledging the acceptance of said responsibility to so hold the social security card.
If you will compare those elements of that written offer, you will see that they certainly fulfill all of the necessary elements of a contract. Wherefore, whenever any party receives such an offer, the terms and conditions of the same prove agreement to the terms of said offer when any signature act related to either the acceptance or use of either the card or the name and number on the card. Also, the law provides that cardholder’s acceptance of the terms of the relationship are bound upon the cardholder because the cardholder knew or should have known said terms given the fact that said terms of said offer are so well documented:
  1. On the documentation that comes with the card;
  2. In the source law, the United States Code derived from the source law and in the Code of Federal Regulations;
  3. In the publications published both by the SSA and by Corp. U.S.
It should also be noted that those terms of that agreement have virtually nothing to do with any potential the cardholder may ever have to (at some time in the future) qualify for any benefit from the SSA. Thus, it is important to realize that distributions from the SSA are neither required nor relevant to the nature of the agreement to hold a social security card. Accordingly, there is no “reciprocal contract”; which thing has been well ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact that the SSA may never want the cards returned does not change the fact that they could easily, at any time, terminate the program by making such a request (either individually or in mass). Thus, SimplyThinkDreams is correct: though the SSA may never exercise their prerogative to terminate such relationships, the fact that they can do so at any time eliminates any allegation of impossibility. The bottom line: the Social Security program, as it was offered (prior to the advent of Homeland Security and its perversions of the system) is both legal and lawful. Still, participation in that program is voluntary; and, voluntary participation in that program does require certain mandatory actions; like distributions to the cardholder’s Beneficiary must be made in accord with FICA.

The following elements of the relationship are also mandated by the nature of the agreement as offered and accepted:
  1. Because the actual ownership of the card is reserved to Corp. U.S., the cardholding relationship defines a Trust;
  2. Because the SSA reserved the right to terminate the relationship at any time, the Trust is an agency of its Creator; and,
  3. Because the Creator reserved the right of the Beneficiary to control required distributions to the Beneficiary (at least by changing FICA), the Trust is an agency of its Beneficiary.
Thus, you need to reconsider the actual nature of the relationship, and its actual terms, to understand it.

For us to review such relationships further would require Team Law beneficiary support; so, we will let that response serve the purposes of this Open Forum.

With that we will now respond to Thee Ancient’s reply; as follows:
Your reply to this topical thread marks your fifth post to our Open Forum system. Thus, in accord with Forum Rule 31 this response from Admin will be the last time we will be able to provide you with this level of support until you are a Team Law beneficiary (see: Rule 31). Accordingly, we expect you have had sufficient an opportunity to discover that Team Law is worthy of your support and we hope you will soon be a Team Law beneficiary so we do not have to limit our service to you for long.

Now, let’s review your reply:
You implied that you intend to simply return the card to the SSA as if so returning said card would terminate the relationship; however, nothing could be further from the truth. The nature of the agreement to hold the social security card requires the cardholder so hold the card until the Creator (or the Beneficiary) want the card returned. Thus, the agency relationship. In other words, the cardholder as an agency of the trust’s Creator is limited to the actions controlled by the terms of the agreement; and, within those terms the right to terminate the relationship was reserved from the cardholder by its Creator. Accordingly, if you return the card you will violate the agreement; but, that violation will have no effect either on the relationship or on its obligations.

Thus, SimplyThinkDreams correctly noted that returning the card absent a request from either the Creator or the Beneficiary would be a breach of the trust agreement (law). Because you referenced some of your comment to a scriptural source we expect SimplyThinkDreams’ reference to the respective breach of God’s law is also something of a concern to you.

However, though the nature of that agreement is binding in accord with its terms, that does not mean that you are “permanently attached to the number” as you suggested. In fact, we doubt that the number has anything to do with you at all. Again, the cardholder is, by definition, a trust; and, though you may lend such an entity your consciousness and physical capacity so that it can have function, that service cannot make you into that trust. It remains distinctively separate from you in your natural capacity. Again, a that point we can refer you to the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article to help you gain an understanding of the relationship; but, to delve further into that topic would require Team Law beneficiary support; so, we are limited from doing that here. In fact, the sister article to the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article already provides that level of support and it is found in the Beneficiary’s Private Forum; and, a link to that sister article is found at the end of the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article.

The bottom line: unless you have formed a general partnership with that trust, you are not attached to that number. Even if you have formed such a partnership with said trust that relationship could not reasonably be called permanent. Again, SimplyThinkDreams nailed it when he wrote the remedy: “If we learn the applicable law and operate the trust” accordingly, we can use the social security system to our advantage and through it control Corp. U.S. (in accord with the law).

Such a proper usage of that system can even enhance your freedom when you learn how to use such relationships as they relate to driver’s licenses, etc. Again, Team Law can help its beneficiaries learn how to effectively learn how to so utilize such relationships while remaining completely free to act in your own natural capacity with all of your God given inherent rights intact.

Returning such things to their sources does have a distinctively different effect than you might imagine. In fact, it can have the exact opposite effect of what you might desire; that being a limitation from your being able to exercise your natural freedoms. We regularly have people calling us trying to figure out how they can remedy the problems they created by so attempting to step out of “the system”.

We believe that is exactly what SimplyThinkDreams was trying to direct you towards when he said: “If we learn the applicable law and operate the trust…”. Of course, that is exactly the purpose of Team Law; to help people learn how to learn the law firsthand from the source; so they can learn how to apply it properly; and, thus preserve their rights and our lawful government.

We believe we owe it to our children.
By allegation, Thee Ancient wrote:Because the Holy Word tells me to come out of this system, I can do this in any way I see fit.
However, we believe that very comment was what sparked SimplyThinkDreams’ response and focused that response almost purely on God’s law basis. We expect you would recognize that if someone ‘saw fit to’ “come out of the system” by harming others, that would not qualify as following the “Holy Word” to which you referred. Neither would any other violation of law. We think that was SimplyThinkDreams’ point. Christ taught the people to comply with the Roman law even though they did not agree with it. We can do the same. When we learn how to learn the law and then apply it our natural freedom is enhanced. Not only that but the fact that all authority in government comes from the people requires us to learn the law so we can know how to assure that the government does not go beyond the bounds of the authority we gave them. Again, in concert with what SimplyThinkDreams wrote, the source for all of the authority the people have is our Creator; thus, His law requires us to subdue that which we create and control (see: Genesis 1:28).

The beast revealed in John’s Revelation [with its seven heads and seven horns (seven family heads of the Federal Reserve Bank) that turn into ten head with seven horns (the IMF’s ten member nations when it was formed with access to the funds of the Corp. U.S. Treasury and respectively with the FRB) and then the harlot (the Corp. U.S. President) gets on the back of the beast, rides for a whine then rips out one of the horns and blows to unite all of the heads and all of the horns into one head and one horn (the new Federal Reserve System)] is currently fully developed as far as that revelation takes it and we are now in the time when the angels are calling upon the Lord to destroy the world for its wickedness and yet the Lord says His hand is stretched out still. The reason His hand is so stretched out is for the people to repent and return unto him and to His laws (even as He gave them to Adam). Even John noted that all of the destruction that followed is not necessary if the people will but repent, become obedient and return to God and to His laws. To do that, we must honor our lawful commitments. And, to do that, we must know the law; which is where Team Law comes in. We help people learn how to so learn.

We ask people why God has “His hand stretched out still”? The answer: He is waiting for us to repent, learn the law, comply with the law and apply the law. To that we must start with the Law He gave Adam and follow forward from that to the present. The first law He gave Adam requires us to subdue that which we create (Genesis 1:28). Thus we must learn our law and through it control the government we formed through our authority from our Creator. That also means, we must honor our lawful contracts and the relationship with the Social Security Administration is just such a lawful contract.

In your last paragraph you alleged that the realm of authority you are subject to is up to you. However, though you may have some choice in such matters, for most people we are born within realms that we have to contend with to establish our rights; and, those rights start out quite limited. Then, as we grow in intelligence and ability, we can arrive at an age of maturity, at which point our rights may expand. Of course, our environment can compel the exact opposite effect. For example: Sovereignty is defined by three elements: dominion, agency and possession. Thus, if at the age of maturity, we do not own and possess a dominion of our own then our natural God given sovereignty is limited to the confines of our own bodies and we become mere tenants on some other party’s land (dominion). Thus, though we do continue to possess our own sovereign realm (within the confines of our own bodies) and yet our liberty to exercise will remain limited by the physical space of the Domain (Land) we occupy. Such occupation is respectively limited either to the terms of a contract that allow us to remain in tenancy on some other party’s Land (in accord with their terms) or we are trespassing on some other party’s Land [which trespass constitutes an Act of War].

Thus, we must temper your allegation regarding that topic with the recognition that the realm you occupy is most definitely related to, and limited by, the specific terms and conditions of at least Contract Law; which, also gives rise to governments, to which we may also be obligated (even at times as a direct result of the location of our respective births). To that end the scripture is quite clear on our respective obligation to honor the laws of the land; to be free.

Thus, though God will support people as they follow His admonition to separate ourselves from the Beast; He reserves that He cannot rob justice with His mercy. Thus, we must learn and comply with both his law and with man’s law to resolve the situations we have worked ourselves into.

Again, Team Law can help; 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.

Thee Ancient
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday December 13th, 2010 5:13 am MST

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Thee Ancient » Saturday November 19th, 2011 3:14 am MST

I keep hearing that you all think I don't understand the difference between a living soul and an artificial person made by the SSA. The "person" on the paper is an idea created by the state, That was issued to me without my consent ( and by the way they hid the truth of the true nature of what it is and continue to hide it to this day.) When I use that "id" I am animating that idea on that paper and everything I do because of that is considered that "person." Anything I acquire under this "id" is really property of the state and subject to it. in essence, the number "id" is a costume, when I wear the costume I am giving life to an idea and artificial entity. All the things I work for belong to the entity and ultimately to the state because the entity is created in the image of the state. There is no provision in this current world system to simply be a living soul and live life. This "id" system enslaves everyone in it. You cannot buy or sell in this western world without that number, it is a precursor to the global mark of the beast, it has the same function.

I have a letter from the SSA telling me that I am not required to have a number simply to have one but then it explains why I need it to do anything at all.

I will be rid of that number, you say that I agreed to hold that number for life, and there is no way to reverse that. I disagree, If i give up citizenship to this "country" they cannot force that number on me any longer. Or I can simply not use that number any longer, but to me that is not good enough, I will not willingly be tricked into slavery. Anything that forces me to do something against my will makes me a slave. I am a slave to Christ Jesus and no one else. I do not have to serve Satan in order to please God.

I know you think I am crazy but you will get over it.

God bless you all.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Admin » Sunday November 20th, 2011 11:31 pm MST

:h: Thee Ancient:
In your last post both in its beginning and in your next to the last sentence, you indicated that you imagined “you all think” (something about your sanity or your understanding). However, the forum users’ responses are made in response to what others present, not to the thoughts behind those presentations—Admin, for one, avoids making such judgments and/or presumptions.

With the intention of helping people learn how to learn the law firsthand from their own study of the law itself (with its history and language) we simply do our best to respond to what people express in their written posts. Rather than passing judgment on their opinions, our effort is to help the people discover the necessity for learning the law. We also hope to awaken them to the necessity of forgetting what they thought they learned from third party sources (like the many exposés found on the internet) that have no actual basis in the law.

In other words, we avoid judging why people have the opinions they have, we merely strive to help them understand the necessity for learning the law so they can learn how to apply it; for our modern circumstances can only be resolved by the people learning the law and righteously applying the same.

Thus, as we see it, whether you understand the difference between your potential to serve in varying capacities, or not, the thing most important to understand is the legal and lawful effect of the actions taken, regardless of the capacity through which you serve.

Of course, understanding the difference between each such capacity, and how those capacities may interrelate, will ultimately lead you to understanding how you can actually experience the freedom you seem to desire.

On the other hand, failing to honor the nature of either those capacities or the respective obligations inherent to them and/or to the relationships respectively formed with other parties will undoubtedly leave you absent the ability to distinguish your actions and or obligations from those of the other capacities through which you may function; and, that would leave you without the capacity to know how to apply your rights, privileges or respective immunities.

Accordingly, at the onset of this topical thread, it seems quite clear that you did not understand the nature of the relationships through which you have had the opportunity to serve; and, respectively, it seemed like you began to distinguish the events that caused the effects you believe in now. Great!

However, it still seems like you believe you were duped into the cardholding relationship with the SSA. Regardless of that belief, it is also clear that (up until the time of Corp. U.S.’ application of the Homeland Security Act, et seq.) that cardholding relationship was well noted both in law and in the publications that came with the card when it was delivered. Thus, though people can claim ignorance because they failed to exercise the due diligence necessary for understanding the nature of the relationship before they accepted it, they have no logical or lawful basis to effectively claim they did not know, or should not have known, of the nature of that relationship. It also remains all too clear that: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” In law, the “due diligence principle” requires that before a party accepts the responsibilities involved in a relationship, they are responsible for learning the nature of the relationship from its published terms; thus, once the relationship is accepted, it is expected that all parties knew or should have known the published terms of the same. Thus, again: “Ignorance is no excuse.”

Though you implied an understanding of the distinction between the “living soul and an artificial person made by the SSA”, your explanation of your understanding of the relationship then helped us understand why you still have some misgivings regarding the relationship and its proper management. To help you resolve those misgivings we provide the following numbered quotes with our comments:
1. Thee Ancient wrote:The "person" on the paper is an idea created by the state…
    Let’s be more specific and recognize the fact that the cardholder relationship created by the SSA is not merely an “idea”; rather, by definition, it is a trust. And, though trusts are business entities, they are very real entities having the capacity to do anything any other person can do—limited in that regard only to the limitations of the terms of the contract under which they were created. Thus, they are certainly more than a merely an “idea”.
2. Thee Ancient wrote:That was issued to me without my consent…
    You should notice two things here; the nature of the relationship provides the following facts:
    1. The card was not issued to you; rather, it was issued to the cardholder ; and, whereas, Corp. U.S. reserved ownership of the card, the card can only be held in trust; and,
    2. Consent has absolutely nothing to do with the SSA’s issuance of the card.
      1. The SSA issues such cards in response to someone (never the cardholder) filing a SS-5 form with them; and,
      2. The respective cardholder trust is not created until that Trust signs the card (through its Trustee) proving the cardholder ‘s knowing willing acceptance of the relationship.
    Thus, again, your consent has nothing to do with either the issuance of the card or with the nature of the relationship. Though, if you are the one that lends actual consciousness and physical capacity to such a Trust through its Trustee capacity (see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole) then, you knew or should have known both the nature of the agreement and the affect of the Trust’s signature before that action was taken.
3. Thee Ancient wrote:…they hid the truth of the true nature of what it is…
    Again, though that allegation is popular among those that have not truly studied the nature of the relationship firsthand (by actually studying the law itself), the truth is quite clear and proves Corp. U.S. well published the nature of the actual relationship in the law, the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations and in the documents that the SSA published in the letter through which the social security card was delivered; thus, no one can legitimately rest on the obviously false allegation that, ‘they hid the true nature of the relationship.’
4. Thee Ancient wrote:…When I use that "id" I am animating that idea…
    We do not understand your use of the word “id”. At first, we expected your placing quotes around the word meant you were referring to the “id” as it was popularized by Freud. But, Freud used the word to describe his psychoanalytical theory of personality, where the “id” is the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs, and desires. In Freudian theory, the id is the division of the psyche that is totally unconscious and serves as the source of instinctual impulses based on the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification and satisfaction of primitive needs. Respectively, that usage of the term would be wholly inaccurate for describing any proper use of the relationship created by the SSA.

    On the other hand, perhaps you were referring to the term “id” as in the abbreviation for the word “identification”. However, that abbreviation is usually capitalized; so, that was not likely what you intended. If it was, then again, the word does not apply; due to the fact that from the first issuance of the social security card it was reserved from being used for identification (both in law and in practice).

    If you used the term to imply an ‘alter ego’; then, the term is misplaced in that the ‘ego’ and the ‘alter ego’ are separate components of the Freudian theory that distinguishes the ‘id’ from the ‘ego’ and the ‘alter ego’. Yet, if that was your intended usage, it too fails on application; because, again, the SSA created trust is a separate distinct entity having virtually nothing to do either with you or with the components of that make up who you are (id, ego, alter ego, etc.).

    Thus, we do not understand you usage of the term.
5. Thee Ancient wrote:…in essence, the number "id" is a costume, when I wear the costume I am giving life to an idea and artificial entity. All the things I work for belong to the entity and ultimately to the state because the entity is created in the image of the state.
    Again we do not understand the usage of the term “id”; but, again, your usage of the term “when I wear the costume” implies that you can use the trust the SSA created for your own interest; but, finally, after all of that you do get the part right when you acknowledge that whenever that SSA created trust (or its name & number) is used the party that is acting, acquiring assets, etc. is that trust and not you.
6. Thee Ancient wrote:…There is no provision in this current world system to simply be a living soul and live life. This "id" system enslaves everyone in it.
    This is clearly an inaccurate assumption. The only thing that enslaves anyone in that system is the ignorance of those that are so enslaved; if they were to know the respective law and they applied it to preserve their freedom they would remain free.

    To this day, no law requires anyone to acquire or use a social security number unless they are doing something that would require a social security benefit. Our Trustee has no such number; and, we know quite a few people that have never had any relationship with such a number; yet, they function fine without the same even in today’s society. Though, since the advent of the Corp. U.S. Homeland Security Act, and that which has followed, it is getting more difficult for people to figure such things out on their own.

    Still, SimplyThinkDreams was correct when he responded that the key to such matters (for those that have already acquired such relationships) is to learn how they work; so, you can learn how to use them without jeopardizing yourself (in any way) and effectively control Corp. U.S.

    Team Law can respectively help people learn how to learn the law; and, so learning the law is the key to understanding and applying those possibilities.
Now, because you are not yet a Team Law beneficiary (as we replied in our last response to you) and you have posted six posts to our forum, we have crossed a point here where we cannot provide you any further support until you are a Team Law beneficiary. Also, the nature of this response is already at a level where we can delve further into the support this topic in the Beneficiary’s Private Forum. Therefore, we hope to have responded sufficiently well such that you can understand the path necessary for further understanding.

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.

Williamwilliamovich
Registered
Posts: 1
Joined: Sunday January 6th, 2013 8:11 am MST

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Williamwilliamovich » Wednesday January 9th, 2013 8:27 pm MST

I started reading the first post and the first few responses and decided to throw out this reply without having yet read all of the responses because I just finished reading the introductory newsletter wherein it was stated in regards to the Marriage License: "A signature can only be made knowingly and willingly. Therefore your signature isn't on the Marriage License request and it is therefore null and void." Does not the same apply to the SS card/number?

If this has already been covered please forgive, ignore and or delete this post. If not, I'd like to know how this applies to one situation but not another very similar one.

Thank you,
William

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: total withdrawl from the system

Postby Admin » Saturday January 12th, 2013 6:10 pm MST

:h: William:
Your post related both to the nature of what constitutes a “signature” and to two distinctively different types of relationships; that is:
  1. Licenses; and,
  2. Contracts
Respectively, though separate points of law control each of those two types of relationships; it is important to first remember what constitutes a “signature”. The thing that constitutes a “signature” is a “signature act”; and, a signature act can be anything that demonstrates agreement with the thing to be so signed (even if that thing is an unwritten agreement). Therefore, either a mark or a finger or thumbprint made in accord with an agreement is well recognized as a signature. Respectively, it is not the mark made by the writing instrument that leaves a trail of ink on a paper that makes a signature valid—it is, instead the intent of the mark’s maker that causes the movement of the writing instrument to leave such a trail of ink on the paper that proves the signature. Any other act that evidences such an agreement is just as valid a “signature act”. Thus, many contracts, agreements, etc. are made by such affirming acts.

So, with that elemental nature established let’s briefly review the two relationships you referenced.
  1. A license is permission to do a thing that would otherwise be illegal and or unlawful.
  2. Contracts are agreements between parties (for more information regarding what constitutes a contract, see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole).
Though marriage licenses are not contracts and thus would need no specific signature on the part of the parties being so licensed, they would need to be officially authorized by one having such authority within any jurisdiction bearing authority to require such a license.

Nonetheless, in the case of most marriage licenses, before a State will issue such a license, they require an application must be filed; which application must be signed by the applicants. However, even without such applicants’ signatures the thing being applied for is a license and when the parties (to be accordingly married) affirm that they agree to be so bound together, that binding process definitely begins a contracted relationship between those parties that are so joined in accord with said license. In contract law such an agreement certainly demonstrates the acceptance of the respective license as well.

Accordingly, though a marriage my be bound in accord with such a license without any written contract, the married parties saying “Yes” or “I do” is definitely as signature act; as are any and all of their following acts living together in accord with that union.

The relationship created by the Social Security Administration definitely, by definition, qualifies as a contract (again, see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole). From that article you will note that specific nature of the agreement so formed is a Trust Agreement. To delve into that relationship more fully would require Team Law beneficiary support and the Beneficiary’s Private Forum companion article to the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article is already waiting those that have Team Law beneficiary support. That article is titled Social Security Administration created trusts.

Here your primary concern seems rest on an allegation that there was no signature made with regard to that relationship. However, we disagree. When the social security card (hereinafter “SSC”) was originally offered to the cardholder and the cardholder started to commit signature acts using the name and number printed on the SSC. Whereas, that name and number uniquely distinguish that cardholder from any other people or persons of the same or similar name, all such acts prove the intent behind the signature acts even though there may be no written agreement with a mark made as a trail of ink signifying the signature of the cardholder. Nonetheless, as a matter of law, any and all signatures/signature acts made by the cardholder prove the agreement from the first instance.

Respectively, we hope you can see the resolve of your presuppositions as follows:
  1. There is no direct relationship similarity between a licenses and contractual relationship of a Social Security cardholder; and,
  2. Most SSA created trust relationships are fraught with both signature acts and signatures that prove the contractual agreement between the parties thereto related.
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 “Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest