Treason?

[Psholtz]

Ed Griffin’s book, Creature From Jekyll Island presented the allegation that the United States Government is involved in the treasonous act of passing its authority to coin money and set the value thereof off to a private corporation, which might be treasonous if it had happened; however, Corp. U.S. is not our government; rather, it is a private corporation; thus, whatever it did with the Federal Reserve Bank was accomplished by a contractual agreement between two separate private corporations.

So contracts between two corporations (Corp US and Fed Reserve) are all well and good, but if an official of the government places his right hand on a Bible and swears an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and then he proceeds to do precisely the opposite, isn't he still committing treason? Or at least some type of fraud?

[Gabo]

The officials of Corp US are no longer serving in the original jurisdiction seats.
The original jurisdiction government is vacated, so nobody is responsible for holding up the oath.

[Psholtz]

Gabo:
Yes, that's fine.. there are no original jurisdiction seats..

So therefore there's no obligation or compulsion on the part of these "elected" officials to take any oaths or voluntarily contract themselves into abiding by these oaths to serve the original jurisdiction seats..

And yet, that's precisely what they do.

They voluntarily take an oath to uphold, protect, defend the original jurisdiction seat, and then they proceed to break that oath/contract the moment they take office (in the corp).

Surely there must be some penalty for this kind of fraud / deception/ breach of contract?

[Gabo]

There is no breach of contract, because their actions all take place in the Corp US seat.
Nothing at all is happening with the original jurisdiction government, so there can't be any violation of the oath.

If I swear an oath to protect and preserve my computer, and then I buy a new computer and smash it, have I breached the oath?

[Psholtz]

Gabo:
What if by smashing your new computer, you end up harming or destroying the original one in some way (flying shrapnel, etc)?..

If you take an oath to "uphold + protect the Constitution, and protect it against all enemies foreign and domestic", then it would seem to me your first order of business would be to a) quiesce and wind-down the Corp US; and b) restore and reseat the original Constitutional government.

None of our "elected" officials have the slightest interest in doing this.

Instead, they go on and about their business of serving the Corp US, the same Corp US that *is* an enemy (foreign *and* domestic) to the original Constitution.

You can't serve two masters at once (Matthew 6:24)

You will love one, and hate the other, or vice versa.

It seems our "elected" Corp US officials are doing just that..

Loving the Corp US, and hating the original US.

I still see what these "elected" Corp US officials as treason. By their support of the Corp US, they are working a real and clear and present damage against the land and its people, in ways prohibited by the very Constitution they swore to uphold.

At the very least, it's fraud and deception, if not treason.

[Admin]

Psholtz & Gabo:
In this topical thread we notice a common exchange we have witnessed around the country. It typically comes from the habitual experience most people have when they serve in more than one capacity and yet see all of their actions, whether served in other capacities or not, as their own. This is a common error people experience and in business it causes them significant risks. Wise service in business capacities requires a separation from the lender and the worker. We described the nature of the contractually created consciousness (corporation sole) in our Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article. What must be understood and securely implanted in our awareness is the difference between the man (with his natural consciousness) and the business entity with its contractually created capacity to make decisions and function (corporation sole). The example we gave regarding the corporation sole is the Trust, with its Trustee capacity (a corporation sole). The Trustee being a capacity created in contract, has no natural (created in nature) capacity to function and in its construct it has no capacity to act for itself; the only capacity it has is to act for the Trust; thus, when the Trustee acts it is the Trust that is acting, not the Trustee itself (for its self) and not the person that lends it consciousness and physical capacity. This is the most important concept that must be understood before one can effectively understand how to resolve the controversy expressed in this topical thread.

That said, let’s look at the first comment in the thread:

So contracts between two corporations (Corp US and Fed Reserve) are all well and good, but if an official of the government places his right hand on a Bible and swears an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and then he proceeds to do precisely the opposite, isn't he still committing treason? Or at least some type of fraud?

The answer to the question is obvious, if an officer of the government did that, such an action would at least be a violation of that oath and would disqualify that officer from the office; whether tact was fraudulent or treasonous would depend on the specific nature of the unspecified act; but that is not the actual point of the question or the situation at hand. The problem with the question is in its presuppositions. The question presupposes “an official of the government” has done or could do that, when in fact we are aware of no such thing happening. There have been virtually no officials of government acting in that capacity since 1917. And between 1871 (Corp. U.S. creation) and 1917 (President Wilson accepting office in Corp. U.S. with no Senate confirmation of his reelection as the original jurisdiction President of the United States of America), the officers of our original jurisdiction government that sat in their seats sat also in the seats of the private corporate Corp. U.S. At that time there was no conflict of interest between Corp. U.S. and the original jurisdiction government of the United States of America. Thus, there was no need for those actual officers of the original jurisdiction government to act contrary to their oaths of office in either their original jurisdiction capacity or in their official capacity with Corp. U.S. In other words, at that time there was no appearance of a conflict of interest. Since that time, Corp. U.S. officers have held no office in the original jurisdiction government. They have their own constitution, which they take their oaths in relation to. Though, the words of their constitution are almost identical to our nation’s Constitution of the United States of America, their constitution has little or no relation to the Constitution of our original jurisdiction government. We must also understand the purpose behind the creation of Corp. U.S. was to carry out the business needs of the original jurisdiction government, which business needs have become convoluted into the necessity of Corp. U.S. covering its own obligations to do the same under their bankruptcy. To do that they resolved to settle WWII with the Bretton Woods Agreement, which effectively transferred their ownership, thus requiring them to both serve their original function and their new owner, the International Monetary Fund. That, among other things gave them a gigantic conflict of interest between their original function and their present situation of necessity. Of course the problem is gigantically enhanced by time and the ignorance of the people serving in those offices; who in all likelihood, have no idea that they are not actually original jurisdiction government officials.

We expect that is what Gabo meant with his response. Then,

So therefore there's no obligation or compulsion on the part of these "elected" officials to take any oaths or voluntarily contract themselves into abiding by these oaths to serve the original jurisdiction seats. And yet, that's precisely what they do.

However, that is not what they do at all. The take no oaths to the original jurisdiction government. They have no relation to the original jurisdiction government. In all likelihood, today, they are not even people serving in those capacities; rather they are agencies of Corp. U.S. who were originally created by the Social Security Administration with their respective names and Taxpayer Identification Numbers.

One could argue the point that they were not actually aware of their Corp. U.S. capacities or even of the existence of Corp. U.S. for that matter and thus go back to the original argument presented in the first question presented in this topical thread. The problems with that argument is it first ignores the facts and second it ignores the nature of what happens when people are elected or appointed either to original jurisdiction government offices or into Corp. U.S. official offices. What happens when such officers fist come into their respective offices is they are overwhelmed by the gigantic necessities of the office. There is no “school” or place where they can go to learn what the office entails. They simple come to grips with the office from the personnel already in place to serve them there. And, where did those people learn the job? From those that came before them. Thus is the environment of the dilemma. To fail to recognize this is to ignore the intent of the ones the question focuses its allegation of treason or fraud. If we look to the crime of Treason, it cannot be accomplished without intent, and there is no intent is such people swamped into their official capacities. If we look to fraud, though a person can be responsible for fraud even in their ignorance, they are not responsible for the situation that put them involved in the fraud and can have no criminal intent in such when they are ignorant of it. Thus, there is no fraud, deception or breach of contract taking place that anyone can prove any criminal intent regarding these matters (that obviously does not include willful acts of the nature involved in causing or covering up events like those that made September 11, 2001 infamous)

We are left with the facts alone that well describe the situation we find ourselves in and the remedy that restores our original jurisdiction government. We expect that is exactly why Gabo responded as he did. Psholtz’s response focused on the accidental damage or destruction of the original thing protected by oath and the responsibilities to that destruction that are obviously implied by that original oath, bringing it back to the Constitutional question:

If you take an oath to "uphold + protect the Constitution, and protect it against all enemies foreign and domestic", then it would seem to me your first order of business would be to a) quiesce and wind-down the Corp US; and b) restore and reseat the original Constitutional government.

The obvious response is, “Which constitution?” Corp. U.S. has its own constitution and its purpose has significantly changed. Actions that would be directly against the Constitution of the United States of America and would obviously make their perpetrators enemies are innocent acts of Corp. U.S. officers carrying out their duties and responsibilities. Further, if such officers are ignorant of the facts and believe they are officers of the original jurisdiction government, it is impossible for them to either quiet and wind down Corp. U.S. or restore and reseat the original jurisdiction government.

So far as the so called, “our "elected" officials” go, we have no such officials today other than the original jurisdiction governors Team Law has helped the people elect and reseat. The Corp. U.S. official certainly do not qualify as “our” officials. We do not even participate in such shams as the “Vote Scam” system of elections for governance officials in practice in Corp. U.S. Those elections are the result of preprogrammed computer generations. We have no idea who the “our” refers to in the “our officials” today but we are certain that they are more akin to the controllers of the election computers than to the people of our country. We are simply amazed that the people tolerate computer controlled voting systems at all.

Generally, we expect officials elected in that system have their loyalties to that system and to little else. Isn’t that what is expected? We would not expect them to “serve two masters”. They seem to be serving their own master and that is not treason, it is doing their job, under the circumstances. It is prohibited neither by their constitution nor by ours.

It is more like the people of our country chose to manage the affairs by contractual relations with the private foreign corporation that has taken control over the responsibilities to govern our country. That was done because of the combined ignorance of our people and of our officials in government. Today we find ourselves being so governed instead of governing our selves. This took place over generations of time and at the cause of no individual’s fault, fraud or treason. Thus, no witch-hunt is necessary. We must simply learn what is going on and get the job of reseating our original jurisdiction government done.

The bottom line: that means we need to learn our history and our law and we must put our officials back into our original jurisdiction government. Forget about who did what to whom, and get the work done of spreading the word. Perhaps by something so simple as sending people to Team Law’s website. Then secure your rights to your Land and participate in the election of your original jurisdiction State governor.

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

[Cowboy70x7]

I'm new here, and I just spent an hour reading though this one tread and I'm more confused now than when I started, so maybe there are 44 myths in my seat.
The thing that confuses me the most is if we Originally had a Constitutional Government given to us by GOD Almighty \JHVH/ through our founding fathers and everyone that leaves office is simply replaced by another person who has been elected to do the job, then we still have our original seated government, regardless of what their office staff teaches them. Criminal intent entered in when the first person committed treason and allowed the "Liberty and Justice for all" to take a back-seat to some Corporation, even if it did call itself U.S. !!! Every person who createth or causeth a lie is guilty of a lie!!!

[Admin]

Cowboy70x7:
Though the founding fathers that provided the Constitution of the United States of America were no doubt inspired by God, to say

we Originally had a Constitutional Government given to us by GOD

Is stretching the situation a bit beyond the facts. It is true our individual sovereign nature is a gift from God and it is that nature that allows us to be the source of all power in government; the agency that goes along with that authority is something we must take responsibility for; certainly we are accountable for what we do with that agency—thus, we question the allegation that our original jurisdiction Constitutional Republic is God given, even though we fully acknowledge that it would not exist if the founding fathers had not been so inspired.

On the other hand, our rights are God given and inherent; which is exactly why we needed to form something like our Constitutional Republic to secure those rights.

The next element of necessity thereto related is we must know both what those rights are and the law related to them such that we can control the government we formed to secure those rights and to control its (the government’s) creations that have followed it.

Your next presupposition was:

everyone that leaves office is simply replaced by another person who has been elected to do the job, then we still have our original seated government

But that did not happen. If you will study the history of the matter, you will discover the offices of government were vacated (in 1914) in favor of Corp. U.S. and its controls. Today, except for the original jurisdiction offices we have reseated, our government is vacant. The thing most people call government (we call it Corp. U.S.) is nothing more than a mere corporation. It governs purely by contract and most people are oblivious to the fact that they personally interrelate with it through the taxpayer agency that was created by Social Security Administration as a resolve of Corp. U.S.’ bankruptcy. (see Myth 22)

Finally, though it would be true:

Criminal intent entered in when the first person committed treason and allowed the "Liberty and Justice for all" to take a back-seat to some Corporation

Those that were first involved in taking the corporate only seats were not likely at all aware of the omission. The events that set them up took place over 40 years before those seats were vacated and they likely had no idea that their actions vacated the original jurisdiction seats of government. Thus, without that intent they committed no crime other than their ignorance, which is only accountable to God.

That takes us back to the elemental necessity of knowing the law. It is impossible to obey, honor or sustain the law if we do not know what it is.

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

[Tnias]

Hello Cowboy70x7, though Admin already piped in on this one, we would like to add our view:
We also believe the founding fathers of the United States of America were guided by God in forming the Constitutional Republic, we would not necessarily say it was originally given to us by God. Doing so implies a limitation on our agency and on the acts of those founding fathers as if they had no choice. They were inspired men and in forming the Constitution for the United States of America they followed at least some of what God provided. The question always remains as quoted by Benjamin Franklin,

“If you can keep it.”

However, the presupposition prefacing your inquiry, that being:

“everyone that leaves office is simply replaced by another person who has been elected to do the job”

does not apply. Though the system is set up for that possibility, no requirement can be made to compel people to participate in any election.

If an election was held and no one showed up, who would be elected? The answer is obviously, “No one.”

And, that is exactly what happened.
Due to the changes in Corp. U.S.’ constitution (the 17th Article of Amendment), Senators in the Corp. U.S. Senate began to be elected by the popular vote of the Corp. U.S. voters while the original jurisdiction Senators continued to be placed in accord with their original Constitution. Thus, when those original jurisdiction Senators received no appointment from their respective States their seats were eventually vacated. And, as the matters brought before review of the Senate began to be voted on by Corp. U.S. Senators alone, the matters so passed were matters regarding Corp. U.S. only.

One such critical matter is the Senate’s confirming vote acknowledging the propriety of the Electoral College election, which is required to seat the President of the United States of America in his original jurisdiction seat. When that did not happen, that seat was also vacated. Thus, only Corp. U.S.’ president was so confirmed into office when Wilson returned for his second term of office. He thereafter seated Judges in the Corp. U.S. Supreme Court but had no capacity to do so fro the original jurisdiction Supreme Court; thus, the original jurisdiction Supreme Court seats remained vacant. And, so goes the government and its political neighborhood.

So far as the allegation of “criminal intent”, one must have it to commit a crime. It is doubtful that those so involved with the after affects of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 were even remotely aware of what was happening as a result of the Corp. U.S. 17th Article of Amendment (42 years after Corp. U.S. was formed); therefore, we see no evidence of their criminal intent.

We expect the same goes for those finding themselves in the same situation today. It is unlikely they ever considered the idea of what is actually going on today. Thus, no criminal intent likely exists in such matters today.

However, as you noted the first person that actually had criminal intent in setting this system up, was a criminal — the thing is, they were not caught and treason does not pass to those that followed innocently or ignorantly.

Thus though that point is well taken it has no effect on the dead. And, we remain in the situation we have. Thus, the solution is education. We must first educate ourselves; and as we do, we must spread the word so others will educate them selves — and, continue in that pattern until we restore our original jurisdiction government and so preserve our country and our Liberty.

That is exactly why Team Law was formed.
It is also why we should all tell everybody about Team Law!

[Yashua1970]

This is just a question regarding the Original Jurisdiction seats.

If these seats were to be filled and someone be elected president wouldn't that still cause a "reply" from the current government (Corp US) in place.
Wouldn't they "defend" their place of business?

[Admin]

Yashua1970:
A review of the parties involved (Standard for Review) shows that Corp. U.S. is simply a private foreign corporation; it is not government. Accordingly, it controls all of its operations through contractual controls. Thus, as with any corporation, they are also controlled by their contractual controls. And thus, the key to controlling Corp. U.S. is learning how it is controlled and assuming those controls.

On first glance of the matter of reseating the original jurisdiction government, many people think there would be a conflict between the original jurisdiction government and Corp. U.S.; in fact, that first thought comes from imagination with no factual basis. A review of the facts shows:

1. Corp. U.S. is a private foreign corporation.
2. Corporations are property, not government.
3. Corp. U.S. is controlled by its contracts.
4. As a property, Corp. U.S. is a slave to its debts.
5. Control of such a property is easily acquired by becoming the creditor of the debtor.

The real problem is, the business and industry infrastructure in the United States of America today is largely owned (about 70%) by corporate governance entities like Corp. U.S.; thus the problem is if you remove those owners you could destroy the business and industry infrastructure. Thus, Corp. U.S. and the Corp. States cannot simply be removed from the picture without drastic consequences to the economy and our lifestyles. That will not do. What must then happen is we must take the control of Corp. U.S. by means of lawful process, without interfering with it corporate contractual relations. That is done by:

1. Reseating the original jurisdiction government.
2. Calling the debt owed by Corp. U.S. to the original jurisdiction government. (We will not address the details of that debt here; but, be aware that debt amounts to more money than there is available.)
3. Because Corp. U.S. cannot pay that debt, contract law will require them to fall into the receivership control of their creditor, the original jurisdiction government.

At that point, their expenses for operations would drop dramatically; we would then have the ability to place Corp. U.S. under the control of Law and its debts and credits would automatically balance (again we will not address the details of this here) allowing us to almost instantly replace their ‘transaction instrument’ (FRNs, see Myth 22) system with real money on a one for one exchange. This interface would leave the economic and industrial infrastructure of both our country and the private peoples’ intact as they are today; however, due to the highly inflated nature of their bankruptcy and debt based system, the people and businesses would quickly realize the difference and as prices dropped to their actual real money values, there would be a natural increase in wealth that would take place causing an incredible growth in the economy. Unlike such periods of growth that have been experienced in their debt based economy, this increase would be real and enduring and it would favor everyone from the aristocracy of wealth and power to the lowest people in our society.

The real money system would ultimately cause the economy to stabilize. The ability for government and its agencies to borrow money would be removed, except for a provision for short-term necessities (whose payment systems could be proven up front and controlled by law). Corp. U.S. would then simply be a profitable business the proceeds of which would fund the original jurisdiction government; which would eliminate any need for taxes. Run as a private business controlled by law, Corp. U.S. would never again threaten the take over of our government. And, our government would be returned to its proper roll defined in our Constitution for the United States of America.

Thus, the answer to your question is, “No, they would have no need to “"defend" their place of business”; because, their place of business would finally not only be free from debt but it would properly serve our government and the people by providing the funding resource power of about 70% of the stock markets’ proceeds. In other words, their place of business would be legitimate, lawful and it would continue (without the ability to imply itself as if it were government) so long as it was needed or desired.

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

[Jonsonroc]

Teamlaw,
Can this be done at the State level as well? Once the original jurisdiction at the State level has been reseated, cannot the OJ government of the State call in the debt of the Corp. State and take receivership control of the Corp. State? ( Disclaimer: I'm probably unwittingly making some presuppositions, lol).

[Admin]

Jonsonroc:
You are correct in your guess that you are making gigantic, yet inapplicable, presuppositions. Accordingly, instead of just giving you the answer in our tradition of helping people learn how to learn the law we suggest that you may want to use the Standard for Review to discover the source of the debt at the base of your inquiry and then perhaps compare that to the debt we referred to in our previous response. We expect such a review will prove the answer to your question. We can give you a hint by relating that the answer will not be the same as the relationships that allow for the calling of the debt we referred to in our previous response.

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